Firing someone

D.P. · 1 Oct 2014 at 14:57

Energize said:
I guess some people actually have morals.

It is immoral to tell me that someone of them will be laid off without telling which ones so everyone gets scared and desperately seeks new employment.

The moral thing to do is to quickly decide who must go, inform them, and pay them a stipend of say 3 months severance to look for new employment. you tell the rest of the team what had happened AND WHY and get them to relax that their job is now much safer.

ak22 · 1 Oct 2014 at 16:05

Mr^B said:
Any tips or hints? It's my first time...

Just don't do what my ex boss did, he got me to fire people while he took the rest of the day off.... I don't think he handled confrontations well...

daz · 1 Oct 2014 at 16:31

dowie said:
I believe there might be a rule that applies above a certain number but it happened to a friend of mine a few years ago. Basically a few people in fixed income sales at her bank got sent home at once - she apparently got an heads up from her manager the day before and that was it. The day it happened she went in in the morning, called into a meeting and basically offered the relevant notice(s) + statutory pay + an additional amount to leave without any fuss... and that was it, sent home with a decent-ish pay off. (While I'm sure there was more official detail to it, a token offer to find another role within the organisation or whatever other measures they need to take in order to be compliant I'm pretty sure they can, if they want to, simply pay people to go home and not come back in...).

edit - I believe it is greater than 20 employees when they have to give advanced warning/have a consultation period.

Sometimes rather than being made redundant, employees will be offered what's called a "compromise agreement" where there's essentially a decent pay off and a clean break for both parties essentially. When you sign a compromise agreement, generally speaking you're also agreeing that you won't sue the company for anything that happened previously etc.

I can imagine that it's possible under some circumstances, that an employer might offer a compromise agreement without the employee really knowing what they're signing or agreeing to...

Energize · 2 Oct 2014 at 00:39

dowie said:
What is so moral about leaving a bunch of people in limo while dithering about trying to make a decision?

Gives people an opportunity to find a new job, rather than being made redundant and having no money coming in.

D.P. · 2 Oct 2014 at 00:51

Energize said:
Gives people an opportunity to find a new job, rather than being made redundant and having no money coming in.

But most of the people won't be made redundant, so what actually happens is people get stressed, depressed, sick, angry and unproductive. Furthermore many top people will try to leave and if enough talent leaves then the future of the rest of the employees is even less certain.

Nevakonaza · 2 Oct 2014 at 00:57

Mr^B said:
Yes.

Software Dev (ASP.Net MVC / C# / SQL Server).

Some knowledge of credit risk would be useful.

Hang on,So forgive me if ive skipped something but you have got rid of an employee but are hiring for the same position?

If so that's pretty crappy,I was actually in a similar position with my job..they made 2 of us redundant but i found out they were actually intending to give my hours (after id been made redundant) to another employee and make him a supervisor..I took legal advice on his arse and got to keep my job.

Was his performance low as in...he doesn't do anything?..or just not hitting stupid numbers with targets?
This is what i hate about managers these days,think they can walk all over employees.

Energize · 2 Oct 2014 at 01:08

D.P. said:
But most of the people won't be made redundant, so what actually happens is people get stressed, depressed, sick, angry and unproductive. Furthermore many top people will try to leave and if enough talent leaves then the future of the rest of the employees is even less certain.

So you are putting the interest of the business ahead of the employees, that is what I would consider immoral.

[FnG]magnolia · 2 Oct 2014 at 01:18

And you would be wrong.

D.P. · 2 Oct 2014 at 01:46

Energize said:
So you are putting the interest of the business ahead of the employees, that is what I would consider immoral.

Not is is minimizing the stress of employees, which is the most moral thing to do.

Amleto · 2 Oct 2014 at 01:54

Nevakonaza said:
Hang on,So forgive me if ive skipped something ...

yeah, maybe the thread?

Amleto · 2 Oct 2014 at 01:56

Mr^B said:
Yes.

Software Dev (ASP.Net MVC / C# / SQL Server).

Some knowledge of credit risk would be useful.

guessing this is London-based?

dowie · 2 Oct 2014 at 03:06

Energize said:
Gives people an opportunity to find a new job, rather than being made redundant and having no money coming in.

Money coming in? That is what the big lump sum is for.

I'm really not seeing a good argument for dithering about and delaying a decision when people are left in limbo and worrying about whether they're going to go... some of the people who'd find it easiest to jump ship in that scenario are the sort of people who you'd probably want to keep too.

dowie · 2 Oct 2014 at 03:13

Nevakonaza said:
Hang on,So forgive me if ive skipped something but you have got rid of an employee but are hiring for the same position?

Presumably they still need someone to do the role, if the previous guy couldn't cope with it then it doesn't seem unreasonable that they'd let him go. Sounds like the role pays rather well, if you're earning a decent amount and not in a management position or directly bringing in revenue then there is always going to be some pressure to demonstrate the value you're adding.

[FnG]magnolia · 2 Oct 2014 at 03:15

I thought everyone just buried the employees they fired ~~like I do, boy, what a rush, with the sirens and the what not~~

Energize · 2 Oct 2014 at 04:56

D.P. said:
Not is is minimizing the stress of employees, which is the most moral thing to do.

Employees are gonna be way less stressed if they get a job opportunity before they are made redundant.

dowie said:
Money coming in? That is what the big lump sum is for.

I'm really not seeing a good argument for dithering about and delaying a decision when people are left in limbo and worrying about whether they're going to go... some of the people who'd find it easiest to jump ship in that scenario are the sort of people who you'd probably want to keep too.

Of course no one should be delaying a decision, I just think that employees should be told at the earliest opportunity to give them a contingency plan so they aren't left jobless.

Mr^B · 2 Oct 2014 at 06:42

Amleto said:
guessing this is London-based?

Yes, it is.

Mr^B · 2 Oct 2014 at 06:53

Nevakonaza said:
Hang on,So forgive me if ive skipped something but you have got rid of an employee but are hiring for the same position?

If so that's pretty crappy,I was actually in a similar position with my job..they made 2 of us redundant but i found out they were actually intending to give my hours (after id been made redundant) to another employee and make him a supervisor..I took legal advice on his arse and got to keep my job.

Was his performance low as in...he doesn't do anything?..or just not hitting stupid numbers with targets?
This is what i hate about managers these days,think they can walk all over employees.

How is that crappy? This isn't a sales role with some arbitrary targets they failed to meet. This is a technical role, where I expect a high level of technical ability, people who don't need micro managing, people who take ownership of their work and can work to a consistent high standard and attention to detail. This person started off well, but after 6 months or so it all started to go downhill.

I tried to help them improve for about 12 months, with more support, ideas to help them get more organised, training and mentoring in technical areas and they were either unwilling or unable to change. So, for both our sakes, it was time to part ways.

It was not a redundancy, I have work to do and need someone competent to do it.

This is what I hate about being a manager, employees sometimes think that they are owed a living. This is a great role at a great company, working on interesting projects a using the latest technologies and on a reasonably large salary/package. And I'd rather have someone who appreciates and relishes in such a role, rather than someone who thinks they're owed it.

atpbx · 2 Oct 2014 at 07:10

In a similar vein I have to tell a "self employed service contractor" (owner driver) today that his contract is being cancelled with immediate effect due to non compliance.

The MD has tried to cajole him and reason with him and tried the softly softly approach as he has been there years, but it really hasn't got him anywhere so he has asked me to resolve the problem.

So I'm just going to **** him off and make him somebody else's proplem.

Haircut · 2 Oct 2014 at 07:18

Hopefully it wasn't the guy I know at your place that got fired! :eek:

ci_newman · 2 Oct 2014 at 09:32

Nevakonaza said:
Hang on,So forgive me if ive skipped something but you have got rid of an employee but are hiring for the same position?

If so that's pretty crappy,I was actually in a similar position with my job..they made 2 of us redundant but i found out they were actually intending to give my hours (after id been made redundant) to another employee and make him a supervisor..I took legal advice on his arse and got to keep my job.

Was his performance low as in...he doesn't do anything?..or just not hitting stupid numbers with targets?
This is what i hate about managers these days,think they can walk all over employees.

He's being fired because he couldn't do his job, not because the role has been made redundant.