Talk:Layoffs and Hours Reduction - Revision history

Ideath: response to kathie's comment

2005-02-18T02:35:53Z

response to kathie's comment

Rfs: /* Three thoughts from Kathie */

2005-02-11T21:47:50Z

Three thoughts from Kathie

Rfs: /* Three thoughts from Kathie */

2005-02-11T21:47:24Z

Three thoughts from Kathie

Rfs: /* Three thoughts from Kathie */

2005-02-11T17:01:14Z

Three thoughts from Kathie

Rfs: /* Three thoughts from Kathie */

2005-02-11T16:59:58Z

Three thoughts from Kathie

Rfs: /* Notice, final payments, and hire back clause */

2005-02-11T16:59:01Z

Notice, final payments, and hire back clause

Rfs: /* Personal merit */

2005-02-11T16:57:31Z

Personal merit

Rfs: /* Job function / Departmental merit */

2005-02-11T16:57:08Z

Job function / Departmental merit

Rfs: /* Notice, final payments, and hire back clause */

2005-02-11T16:50:55Z

Notice, final payments, and hire back clause

Rfs: /* Three thoughts from Kathie */

2005-02-11T16:48:59Z

Three thoughts from Kathie

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:35, 18 February 2005
Line 56:		Line 56:

	: First, the use of the word Merit concerns me. Merit is defined as reward or punishment, which refers to people or even animals. Yet the items list before have nothing to do with either. I believe that people merit should be considered first. i.e. if a staff member hasn't been performing his/her job they should be number one on the list of layoff. Secondly, Voluntary reduction of hours is good, but what protection does it provide. If a staff members chooses to cut her/his hours and still gets laid off, why choose a reduction and lose that wage, only to be laid off anyway. (Kathie)		: First, the use of the word Merit concerns me. Merit is defined as reward or punishment, which refers to people or even animals. Yet the items list before have nothing to do with either. I believe that people merit should be considered first. i.e. if a staff member hasn't been performing his/her job they should be number one on the list of layoff. Secondly, Voluntary reduction of hours is good, but what protection does it provide. If a staff members chooses to cut her/his hours and still gets laid off, why choose a reduction and lose that wage, only to be laid off anyway. (Kathie)
		+
		+	:: Actually, merit doesn't mean reward or punishment; it means [[http://www.answers.com/merit&r=67 "Superior quality or worth; excellence; A quality deserving praise or approval; virtue; or Demonstrated ability or achievement"]]. Deciding things based on merit would be more like our little thought-experiment with Nathan: is this person just so darn good at what they do and their talents & accomplishments so important to the survival of the organization that we'd be sunk wihtout them? However, i think this has been changed to (or subsumed in) "Job Performance Based Cuts," which i think is less objectionable and clearer in its purpose. --[[User:Ideath\|Ideath]]

	==Notice, final payments, and hire back clause==		==Notice, final payments, and hire back clause==

@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 ::kathie here - I agree the "founders" term is out of place, but the concept of at least 2 people of long standing in FG, should be included.
-:::In determining the makeup of the committee staff members should prioritize including people with a long standing history with Free Geek and people with a working knowledge of the finances. There may be other considerations as well.[[User:Rfs|rfs]]
+:::It now says "In determining the makeup of the committee staff members should prioritize including people with a long standing history with Free Geek and people with a working knowledge of the finances. There may be other considerations as well." [[User:Rfs|rfs]]
 Secondly, I'm concerned about a staff reduction of hours, if it means that medical/dental insurance shall be lost.  What are the minimum hours needed for each staff member to maintain their insurance?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:47, 11 February 2005
Line 80:		Line 80:

	::kathie here - I agree the "founders" term is out of place, but the concept of at least 2 people of long standing in FG, should be included.		::kathie here - I agree the "founders" term is out of place, but the concept of at least 2 people of long standing in FG, should be included.
		+
		+	:::In determining the makeup of the committee staff members should prioritize including people with a long standing history with Free Geek and people with a working knowledge of the finances. There may be other considerations as well.[[User:Rfs\|rfs]]

	Secondly, I'm concerned about a staff reduction of hours, if it means that medical/dental insurance shall be lost. What are the minimum hours needed for each staff member to maintain their insurance?		Secondly, I'm concerned about a staff reduction of hours, if it means that medical/dental insurance shall be lost. What are the minimum hours needed for each staff member to maintain their insurance?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:01, 11 February 2005
Line 87:		Line 87:
	Lastly,we need a "hire back" policy statement. Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions.		Lastly,we need a "hire back" policy statement. Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions.

−	:I think the hireback statement actually belongs in the hiring policy, but we should probably state that a temporary layoff or hours cut is an option. I put a clause in the ''Recommendations'' section to address that. [[User:Rfs\|rfs]]	+	:I think the hireback statement actually belongs in the hiring policy, but we should probably state that a temporary layoff or hours cut is an option. I put a clause in the ''Report of Options and Recommendations'' section to address that. [[User:Rfs\|rfs]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:59, 11 February 2005
Line 87:		Line 87:
	Lastly,we need a "hire back" policy statement. Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions.		Lastly,we need a "hire back" policy statement. Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions.

−	:I think the hireback statement actually belongs in the hiring policy, but we should probably state that a temporary layoff or hours cut is an option. [[User:Rfs\|rfs]]	+	:I think the hireback statement actually belongs in the hiring policy, but we should probably state that a temporary layoff or hours cut is an option. I put a clause in the ''Recommendations'' section to address that. [[User:Rfs\|rfs]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:59, 11 February 2005
Line 68:		Line 68:

	: Free Geek already has a policy regarding final payments. We can take up to 12 weeks to pay for accrued vacation hours. I think that handles item 3.		: Free Geek already has a policy regarding final payments. We can take up to 12 weeks to pay for accrued vacation hours. I think that handles item 3.
		+	: I put a notice clause in the ''Staff Action on the Report'' section.

	== Three thoughts from Kathie ==		== Three thoughts from Kathie ==

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 ::: and I agree with that (what Rick said), but I also don't want to start kicking people out into the streets just because they're unable to do the same amount of work as they once could -- that is not until we have a decent retirement plan that can take care of Free Geekers after retirement (but that's a long ways away). -- Richard
-==Personal merit==
+==Merit==
 For merit-based, we must have some fair, hard and fast criteria; in long run, best for organization as a whole, but can cause lots of interpersonal harm (Minutes)
 : First, the use of the word Merit concerns me.  Merit is defined as reward or punishment, which refers to people or even animals.  Yet the items list before have nothing to do with either.  I believe that people merit should be considered first.  i.e. if a staff member hasn't been performing his/her job they should be number one on the list of layoff. Secondly, Voluntary reduction of hours is good, but what protection does it provide.  If a staff members chooses to cut her/his hours and still gets laid off, why choose a reduction and lose that wage, only to be laid off anyway. (Kathie)
 ==Notice, final payments, and hire back clause==

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:50, 11 February 2005
Line 68:		Line 68:

	Item 3 above, could accomplish two tasks, provide Free Geek with a financial cushion and give the person being laid off financial custion and thus more time to look for a job.		Item 3 above, could accomplish two tasks, provide Free Geek with a financial cushion and give the person being laid off financial custion and thus more time to look for a job.
		+
		+	: Free Geek already has a policy regarding final payments. We can take up to 12 weeks to pay for accrued vacation hours. I think that handles item 3.

	== Three thoughts from Kathie ==		== Three thoughts from Kathie ==

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 First, the committee should consist of no less than two of the founders of Free Geek.  Why, simply these people understand FG and it's goals more than anyone else and can give the most constructive feedback on needs of FG.
 Secondly, I'm concerned about a staff reduction of hours, if it means that medical/dental insurance shall be lost.  What are the minimum hours needed for each staff member to maintain their insurance?
 Lastly,we need a "hire back" policy statement. Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions.