10
The real reason you got laid off
A man looks at his pink slip
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: With all that we've learned in the past year or two about enormous bonuses and corporate greed, Ponzi schemes and just generally depressing truths, it's easy to be cynical. But this next story might take the cake. The recession is giving cover to companies that are looking to get rid of some of their employees... just because. Sally Herships reports.
SADIE NARDINI: Sadie Nardini managed a New York City yoga studio for the last two years. While there she had to layoff 15 employees. That was half of the workforce. She was told to say it was due to the recession. Except that wasn't the real explanation. Her boss had other reasons. Too many men at the front desk.
SADIE NARDINI: And she wanted some goddess energy up there, which means some women, apparently.
Or someone looked unhealthy
NARDINI: Or this person talks too loudly.
Whatever the real reasons, Sadie's boss said to use the economy as an excuse. No one was given any notice. Even Sadie's mom. She worked for the Yoga Studio too.
HERSHIPS: Did they fire your mother?
NARDINI: They fired my mother last week, due to the economy. The economy is a scapegoat right now. It's dangerous a little bit.
David Lewis is a human resources consultant in Connecticut. He says on a scale of one to 10 for good excuses -- recession is an 11.
DAVID LEWIS: It is that ripe and that rich for the opportunity to be able to let that individual go who you just haven't been able to figure out a way to let go before.
Lewis says there are many employers who have a worker they should have fired long ago. One example:
LEWIS: Where that person is older, does not have the skills necessary to do the job today, they may have had those skills when they joined the company some 20 years ago, but the job's passed them by.
Dan O'Meara is a lawyer in Philadelphia. He represents employers. He says for employers honesty is the best policy.
DAN O'MEARA: I think it's better that employers tell employees an uncomfortable truth than a flattering lie. Sometimes employers want to say, "Oh, this had nothing to do with your job performance, oh, etc., etc.," -- when in fact it did.
But what about lawsuits? O'Meara says use release agreements to soften the blow. That's a severance package in exchange for an agreement not to sue. But HR consultant David Lewis says that can be expensive.
LEWIS: Even there you have no guarantee that the person is going to accept it.
Instead of a severance package, Lewis says employers may want to use the economy as an excuse.
LEWIS: Put 'em into a group of five people, you're laying off a lot easier.
SUZANNE GOLDBERG: When an employer is engaged in massive layoffs, proving that the reason for the layoff was discrimination rather then just financial distress will be more difficult.
That's Columbia University law professor Suzanne Goldberg. She says you obviously can't fire someone for race, gender or religion. But both lawyers agree there are a lot of reasons you can legally fire someone. O'Meara says, most U.S. workers are what's called employed at will.
O'MEARA: Meaning the employer can fire them for good reason, bad reason, or no reason.
Which brings us back to using the recession as a excuse. Human resources consultant David Lewis says while getting rid of dead-weight employees may be a plus, no employer is happy to see their business shrink.
I'm Sally Herships for Marketplace.
Each week my job terminate employees whose salary range falls between a certain amount. The reasons that are given, have proven to be false and management continue to do business as usual. New employees are hire at a much lesser rate, this tactics shows favorable for the company.
Talk about taking advantage of the resection what at&t is trying to do to it's employees should take the prize.Even after posting 12 billion dollar in profit last year the company is using the current economy as an excuse to cut pay and benifit from it's workers.But top managment still take home millions.
I agree with this article and I've seen it in action! It has happened to me personally! My previous employer used the recession to target every senior employee who had mature benefits and a living salary, keeping only junior associates. They also used the recession as an excuse to lay off a gifted and qualified female employee who was one month from taking her maternity leave. To prevent a law suit they made her sign a paper where they would pay her cobra insurance premium for three months if she would not persue the matter in court. She took it of course, believing something was better than nothing. And me? I was "laid off" after opening a sexual harrassment investigation on behalf of my employees(which I thought would protect the company as a whole). Several of the female staff were verbally harrassed by the Senior VP and one hourly female worker was fondled by the CFO after hours. All those women, and myself are now "laid-off for economic reasons"; but the CFO & the rest of the leadership are still in place. Go figure. Hopefully there will be a backlash and the American worker will no longer be treated like chattle.
It is great story, a lot of Americans are now experiencing this new layoff waves. Our culture has lost touch with reality and how we use our resources, skills, knowledge, etcetera, as the previous comment indicates, it is all about making more money for the company and not for the sake of our community. Prosperity is a measure how the community is doing not the other way around. It is no wonder we have suffer what we suffer so far from the financial collapse to the creed of the big head management. We conduct legal employment, and we practice unethical and every immoral conducts. This continued attitude will make us 3rd world country soon.
I practice employment law on both sides of the fence. When the economic downturn hit, I expected to see a lot of fired employees, but also expected that their terminations would be more overwhelmingly lawful than ever because the econonmy demanded layoffs as legitimate business decisions. I soon found out, consistent with your report, that while downsizing may be warranted, it has also provided a cover to many employers to unlawfully discriminate in selecting whom to fire: the older workers (in particular, in my experience), those who have taken and may be expected to take "too much" protected medical or family leave, women. minorities and those whose disabilities should be accommodated. While proving that an the employer's stated reason is a mere pretext is always a challenge, I am seeing stronger employee-side cases than before the downturn. I hope a few judges listened well to your story.
Responding to the comments and not the article, a companie's bottom line is business and money so, while positioning an employee for failure is ethically wrong and Daivd Lewis is under 40 companies have and do this all the time. I worked for HP in the early 2000's when Carly Fionna was laying off people who'd work there for years with only a pink slip on there desk. HP is now one of the best selling companies though she herself was let go by HP's board of directors. My point is like it or not this is waht comapnies already do, and a recession is a good excuse (though I think you should be able to tell someone they suck at there job) to get rid of dead weight or an employee who is past there prime. How many of us complained about said someone needed to retire or be let go because they where too old or just couldn't perform anymore. We tend to forget that we we're younger at one point and younger people don't know they will get older and have a family. As one generation takes the stage another must get down question is, will the current generation gracefully bow down while they still have the championship title.
Let me guess, David Lewis is, maybe 25? I hope he lives to an age where he is considered "dead weight" and his job "has passed him by." I hope someone lumps him into 5 others and hands out the pink slips "because of this unfortunate economic downturn." I hope no one suggests training or upgrading his skills to stay in his job.
My cousin died after becoming "dead weight" at the age of 54, in a job that he gave his heart and soul to. After taking care of his mother for 5 years (Alzheimer's), and facing a wall of bills, he found out that he was considered "dead weight" by some young people with the ethics of this David Lewis.
Older people have people skills, mechanical skills, an understanding of a company that you can't always measure with digital software.
Maybe instead of cowardly firing these people, we could consider some ways to honor them and use their expertise in a new capacity. The bottom line of a great company has more to do with how it treats its employees and its customers than in its financial totals.
One thing's for sure, we will all get old, if we live long enough.
Thank you for airing this story. Mine is also relative. Mr O'Meara touched on it. Mine was a fire at whim issue of my former employer, and state sanctioned. We have 2 lawsuits already in our state by to soldiers of the Iraq conflict. Against their former employers.I won't sue my former employers. I'll just go on.My firing was a free speech issue. And they're already hurting, due to a nursing shortage, etc. God is in control of that situation. I'm just waiting for the close of the facility. The residents will suffer the most.Thank you for reading this.
If you need to use the economy to terminate someone who is no longer needed because they're not performing, don't fit the "new" norms or culture, or otherwise aren't growing themselves and/or helping you grow your business (assuming your business actually adds value to a community larger than you or your immediate family!), we call that unethical and dishonest at worst and extremely bad management at best. You can have a lawyer develop sleazy justifications all day long for age-ism, sexism, racism, and incompetent management, but at the end of the day, positioning any employee for failure is simply wrong. You owe them more even as you issue the pink slips, or just shut down the operation, because it's lost its worth. Ask Robert Reich or Peter Capelli and I think they'd concur. By the way, closing the story as written is also disingenuous..some employers do in fact want their workforce to shrink dramatically and indeed are using the 'economy' as the excuse. We need a new value orientation in business - why have one if not to employ neighbors in meaningful work for the benefit of community!!?? Why is self enrichment the primary goal??!!
