Talk:Layoffs and Hours Reduction
From the HR meeting:
Possible ways to reduce hours: seniority, merit, voluntary, eliminate overlapping job functionality hours (where there's cocoordinators)
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
Seniority: easy to determine
HR could make report to staff that kind of pre-digests the issues involved Wage reduction should be considered first, and if untenable, then move on to other options
If we sense there'll be a problem, we could nominate or call for an ad hoc committee to present the options. Staff would decide.
-- rfs 18:01, 14 Jan 2005 (PST)
This is Richard posting comments from Staff email list:
kathie here - the layoff policy is will written and thought out, as usual.
I do have some thoughts for people to be thinking about. 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. Thirdly, the use of "seniority" in this police greatly concerns me. Seniority should not be a possible tie breaker, it should be first or at least, the element that keeps people off the final list of cuts. If a person has remained on the job from day one and still performs average or above, they have EARNED the right to be last on the list of layoffs. When or at what point does a person earn the right to stay with an organization? Placing seniority so low on the list sends a negative message to potential new hires. Why would I want to work for an organization for ten years, pass all my reviews with flying colors, but know that I'm still in jeopardy of losing my job should layoffs be necessary. Why? Seniority usually denotes two main ingredients, particularly in a non profit environment, dedication to the organization and experience. Do we really want to say to our collective members that we don't care about your dedication or we don't care about your experience. Placing such a low value on seniority sends, in short, a very negative message to all old and new hires. Keep in mind placing such a low value on seniority, in cooperate American, is how they get ride of older members just before they are eligible for a pension. Do we want to follow Cooperate American or do we want to rise above them?
What is the over all answer? This people, let's get our behinds in gear and implement ways to bring enough funds into FG so that WE ALL have a job this time next year. Let's make this an ongoing process, not just one we use when things get tough. i.e. take action before we get financially in trouble.
-- Kathie
> Cooperate American or do we want to rise above them?
I think you mean Corporate America. Corporations seldom Cooperate :-)
> What is the over all answer? This people, let's get our behinds in gear > and implement ways to bring enough funds into FG so that WE ALL have a job > this time next year. Let's make this an ongoing process, not just one we > use when things get tough. i.e. take action before we get financially in > trouble.
If Layoffs are needed, we have to examine the structure of Free Geek first, and decide what Jobs must be filled to keep Free Geek functioning, and how many hours they require.
With that in mind, we can look at keeping, shifting, reducing hours, and possible layoffs.
The seniority system was a protection method to prevent companies from laying off older employees as they approached retirement, to avoid paying the retirement benefits. With new laws providing vested pensions, that is no longer necessary. The problem now is that Corporations have found new legal loopholes to dump retirement plans.
The drawback to the seniority system was that it created a lot of deadwood in the company. Employees with a lot of seniority only had to do the minimum to remain employed. While loyalty should be considered, many senior employees only remain for the pay and security, not necessarily for their love of the company. It would not be right to place too much emphasis on seniority alone. Using it only as a tie breaker seems about right.
You never "earn the right" to remain by virtue of seniority. You "earn the right" to remain by continuing to make a valuable contribution to Free Geek, the longer the better. In my own case, as I become older and less able to contribute 100% to my job, I will consider stepping aside to let a more able person replace me. I would not expect Free Geek to pay me for a level of productivity that does not earn that pay, reguardless of my seniority.
-- Rick
Well said Rick and thank you. I would still put seniority higher than just a tie breaker, but do fully recognize that it alone can't be considered. The org needs and each person personal performance should be concidered first. i.e. if a persons performance has visible declined, they should not be kept due to their seniority. I agree with you Rick, 100%, about stepping aside. If my performance drops below the productive level for which I'm being paid, I too will step aside.
-- Kathie
rfs 08:49, 18 Jan 2005 (PST)