Just Cause and Progressive Discipline (jobs, companies, salary, 50k)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many of us who have been around the block know that a firing can happen as easily as saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.
There is a better way. It's called just cause. Just cause requires that the employee really does something wrong. Progressive discipline is the punishment of an employee for doing something wrong in a non vindictive manner. If an employee does something that warrants punishment, they first get a warning. If it happens a second time, suspension may be in order. Firing of a trained employee should only take place when the relationship is irretrievable.
All of this sounds strange to me in an "at will" environment. Sure, I think that employees should be given reasonable chances to improve before being let go. However, the types of employers that graced my experience were the "fire quick and fire often" kind who had no compunction in keeping around employees who couldn't keep up with their workload or who they judged weren't a good fit. Those companies didn't seem to be concerned about having any repercussions about firing anyone or any worries about being sued by anyone.
The best thing to do is to pay someone with a good amount of severance rather than play the setup to fail game. I always advise companies against using creative ways to make someone want to leave. It's unethical.
I know throughout the years that I've seen ugly and good ways of getting rid of someone and all they have to do is be upfront and pay the person off and have a written agreement the person will get unemployment as a voluntary layoff.
Companies that use extreme ways to give workers a hard time or set them up for fail will usually end up in lawsuit one day or have a higher turnover rate of productive workers too.
Good workers who sees management abuse even bad workers are likely to leave because they're worried one day that will happen to them.
All of this sounds strange to me in an "at will" environment. Sure, I think that employees should be given reasonable chances to improve before being let go. However, the types of employers that graced my experience were the "fire quick and fire often" kind who had no compunction in keeping around employees who couldn't keep up with their workload or who they judged weren't a good fit. Those companies didn't seem to be concerned about having any repercussions about firing anyone or any worries about being sued by anyone.
Agreed. "Just cause" should simply mean the employer is able to find someone that can do a better job. I've never seen a problem with firing a decent employee with no behavior problems if the employer has the opportunity to pick up an excellent worker instead.
In an at-will environment, people can be fired at any time for any reason unless it's for a protected reason or for no reason at all. It's very easy to do.
From a legal standpoint you are correct. Many larger corporate HR departments have a defined process. If as the firing manager you don’t follow the process then YOU are breaking rules and subject to disciplinary action.
Especially today with (1) millennial workers who are more sensitive to their needs in the work environment and (2) a strong job market, you don’t want to just terminate people at any time for any reason.
But I am far removed from hospitality and food service types of industries where the skill requirements are very low.
The best thing to do is to pay someone with a good amount of severance rather than play the setup to fail game. I always advise companies against using creative ways to make someone want to leave. It's unethical.
I know throughout the years that I've seen ugly and good ways of getting rid of someone and all they have to do is be upfront and pay the person off and have a written agreement the person will get unemployment as a voluntary layoff.
Companies that use extreme ways to give workers a hard time or set them up for fail will usually end up in lawsuit one day or have a higher turnover rate of productive workers too.
Good workers who sees management abuse even bad workers are likely to leave because they're worried one day that will happen to them.
It all sounds good until you realize the budget hit you take. If you have say 10 people and you want to get rid of two by paying severance (especially if geared to tenure), that could equal one FTE that you don’t get to hire back for a year, which increases the workload on the other 8 plus a new hire.
The company also gets dinged with UI costs as well.
I don’t believe in “extreme ways” but if employers and employees both took responsibility then things like just cause and progressive discipline happen as a part of the process. Unfortunately many managers never document anything, or follow a process.
It all sounds good until you realize the budget hit you take. If you have say 10 people and you want to get rid of two by paying severance (especially if geared to tenure), that could equal one FTE that you don’t get to hire back for a year, which increases the workload on the other 8 plus a new hire.
The company also gets dinged with UI costs as well.
I don’t believe in “extreme ways” but if employers and employees both took responsibility then things like just cause and progressive discipline happen as a part of the process. Unfortunately many managers never document anything, or follow a process.
In what kind of mom-and-pop shop do all of these expenses come out of the same budget? I understand not being able to advertise an opening while a leaving employee is still working his or her notice. But it's never "we have to pay this guy severance, so you don't get to back-fill so long as the separated employee is collecting severance/UI" ???
Not a problem. Nearly all companies have processes like this anyway. Having a formal law around it won't change anything. (other than add to more government red tape that really isn't needed, but that we pay for). The people who preach doom and gloom about at-will employment are typically fearmongering, or are people who are out of touch with how expensive and painful it is to hire/fire people. Companies don't want to get rid of good employees.
The simple fact is the owner(s) of the business should be able to set the rules. They should obviously be able to let anyone go who isn't part of a protected class. It's odd how much some people fight to take control away from a business owner, instead of working to start a business themselves. If someone is doing a decent job, but the owner finds someone who is cheaper, or can do better for the same salary, what right does anyone have to tell the owner they can't get rid of an employee from their own business?
That being said, if the employer violates a formal contract, it's reasonable for them to have to have a valid reason to do so. It's also very reasonable for employers to write contracts saying they can fire someone for any reason, any time. That's between the employer and employee when negotiating the job.
In what kind of mom-and-pop shop do all of these expenses come out of the same budget? I understand not being able to advertise an opening while a leaving employee is still working his or her notice. But it's never "we have to pay this guy severance, so you don't get to back-fill so long as the separated employee is collecting severance/UI" ???
I don’t know about UI but I do know that unless it was a planned company-wide downsizing severance costs came out of my budget which I was still held to. This has been the case for multiple $1B+ revenue companies in my experience so not exactly mom and pop.
A lot depends on how much severance is paid as well. If it’s 2 weeks per year, if you let go a 25 year person that’s nearly a year or severance. And in Europe it can also get very expensive in countries like Italy and France (and Germany for tenured/older workers). I had a guy in Germany that I was told to let go but it would have cost me close to 500K Euro in severance. Luckily I was able to find him a spot in another group so it worked out well.
Terminating someone is not easy at all. Many orgs make people jump through crazy hoops - it is frustrating and time consuming.
It can be such depending on the issue. If they are caught in criminal enterprise, that's easy. The "Questionable" are those who are verbally abrasive, but not to the point of crossing a line. The "Just in time" worker who also is "First out the door" and/or leaves a mess for others to clean up. Or there's all talk little action....some are just hard to get rid of.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
