Whilst we're on about recessions, this is the stuff they're made from

[Banquo's Ghost]

I have a horrid day today.

After a lot of discussion, we have decided to make some employees redundant. (What an awfully dull, weasly word that is). Nine, to be precise. The businesses, started up by my father to expand the revenue of the estates, have not been viable for some months. (And when I say we, I mean joint discussion, my decision and responsibility).

My first priority is the estate workers - one or two occasionally deserve firing, but we have never let anyone go for economic reasons, not even during the Famine. But to protect them, the ancillary businesses must go.

I've never made someone redundant before. Fired yes, and rarely had a second thought about it because it was always deserved. But redundancy feels much more about my failure. I've elected to handle the interviews myself because it feels cowardly (especially in the light of the previous sentence) not to do so and leave it to the steward. I know all the rules and methodology, and I'm not much of an emotional type (externally anyway) but one cannot help but think of the families that will be affected. It seems a bit thick for someone like me - born to wealth and privilege, utterly safe from life's vicissitude - to sit in front of a good man and tell him that we couldn't make a go of it, so off you toddle.

It's not even as if there's much to toddle off to. We examined the possibility of finding something for them elsewhere, but there's just nothing in this neck of the woods.

Ach, this smacks of self-pity, but if I can't use an anonymous forum to be pathetic on, where else?

Moral of the story, dad: Stick to what we're good at.

[Fragony]

That's no fun at all, good luck

[CountArach]

On the bright side you are capable of empathising, which makes you completely human.

[Husar]

Yes, you're a nice guy Banquo.
If you just let them go and not think about it or feel bad for them, that would be a lot worse.
I wish you and them all the best and hope there are better times ahead somewhere.

[Adrian II]

Ach, this smacks of self-pity, but if I can't use an anonymous forum to be pathetic on, where else?

That's exactly what it is, old boy, self-pity. And I doubt that someone with your IQ will be comforted by the sympathetic but gratuitous noises coming from other anonymous forum guests. Or by prayer. Or by a session in the confessional.

I'm going to be even more gratuitous with you, in fact I'm going to be horrible.

If you are a true believer in Christ and heed his words, you owe us a proper breakdown of Matthew 20:1-16. In particular you should explain to us why 'many' (but not 'all', mind you) who are first will be last to enter the Kingdom of God.

Consider it a penance. As such, it should beat five Hail Mary's and a candle.

[InsaneApache]

I completely agree with you on the sacking issue. I always took the view that people sack themselves. When I closed my last shop I had to let the girls go. They were good lassies and took it well, they had seen that the business was going nowhere and that the end had to come sometime.

Like you I found it tough as I was about to put them on the dole for no reason attached to them. The old maxim that there's no room for sentiment in business is true, tough as it is.

I don't think it's self pity. It's empathy. You are well aware of the privations that the staff member and his family are about to face. Having been made redundant myself a couple of times in the late '70s, it's not a pretty situation, especially during a recession.

I will never have another job where I am responsible for other human beings. It can be very hard on the soul. I'm convinced it contributed to my heart disease, so I didn't get off scot free either.

Best of old chap, best of...

[Furunculus]

i had to do the same three years back.

[Adrian II]

The old maxim that there's no room for sentiment in business is true, tough as it is.

But there is, at least for someone like Banquo's Ghost. He will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong, but if I properly understood his post it is the contast between the fate of his sacked employees and his own (inherited) wealth and socially secure position that bother him. That sentiment has little to do with economic necessities, and everything with privilege and a religious tradition that frowns on it.

[KukriKhan]

The 'redundant' guys: do you give them some kind of severence package (like a couple month's pay, to tide them over), or something? Or is it just a metter of "Sorry, bucko. Times is hard. You're out by Friday next. All the best." ?

[Vladimir]

If I was ever dismissed by someone I hope it would be by someone like you Banquo. Yes it is your responsibility, and maybe even your fault. There are important things to consider, however:

What did those individuals do (or not do) to place themselves in that situation?

What could you have done to ensure profitable work for those employees?

What effect would retaining these employees have on your business (estate)?

I’m sure there’s more but am a government guy. Redundant and unproductive employees are par for the course.

Do the best thing for your family, loved ones, and friends. Depending on how you treat them, when things turn around, the people you let go may become some of your greatest assets.

If you decide to go Gordon Ramsay on any of them please post a video in the backroom video thread.

[InsaneApache]

But there is, at least for someone like Banquo's Ghost. He will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong, but if I properly understood his post it is the contast between the fate of his sacked employees and his own (inherited) wealth and socially secure position that bother him. That sentiment has little to do with economic necessities, and everything with privilege and a religious tradition that frowns on it.

There is a difference between personal wealth and the business financies. If you start mucking around swopping one to the other it may bugger up your tax and possibly give your accountant a heart attack.* I take your point though.

*Not altogether a bad thing.

The 'redundant' guys: do you give them some kind of severence package (like a couple month's pay, to tide them over), or something? Or is it just a metter of "Sorry, bucko. Times is hard. You're out by Friday next. All the best." ?

Depends on whether the business goes 'tits up' so to speak. IIRC in the UK it's a weeks salary for each year worked. I'm probably wrong on that but you get the general gist.

[Furunculus]

The 'redundant' guys: do you give them some kind of severence package (like a couple month's pay, to tide them over), or something? Or is it just a metter of "Sorry, bucko. Times is hard. You're out by Friday next. All the best." ?

i did it because my company was forced out of business by an unpaid debt of £465,000.

regulation states how much a redundant employee is due based largely on length of service i believe.

[Adrian II]

[..] give your accountant a heart attack.*
*Not altogether a bad thing.

I share the sentiment. If we can't have them legally drawn, quartered and fed to the dogs, a heart attack is the next best thing.

[KukriKhan]

IIRC in the UK it's a weeks salary for each year worked. I'm probably wrong on that but you get the general gist.

regulation states how much a redundant employee is due based largely on length of service i believe.

I see. If you fellas are at least 50% accurate, I wouldn't be too overly worried about doing the lay-off meetings with those redundant-ised folks. It's not like you're putting them and theirs immediately on the street with zero resources. Still: I agree, it sounds an unpleasant task. Just try to not drool or giggle in glee when doing it.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Are their positions actually redundant?

[LittleGrizzly]

Down with the wealthy land owners!!

On a more serious note my thoughts are sincerely with those being made redundant... though i suppose i can reserve a small part of my pity for your self-pity...

The one maybe helpful possibility i can suggest... is maybe there is some good training courses or education round your area... maybe do a little research see if you can get them to use this opportunity to further themselves... though i guess this slightly depends on who your firing... if they're young maybe you could suggest some training for them and do a bit of a leg work and find out some info for them...

At the very least you'll make yourself feel better... with any luck firing the guy could be the best thing that ever happened to him...

Probably a long shot with the recession and all but i don't suppose you have any 'contacts' who have need for one or two of your employee's ?

[InsaneApache]

I see. If you fellas are at least 50% accurate, I wouldn't be too overly worried about doing the lay-off meetings with those redundant-ised folks. It's not like you're putting them and theirs immediately on the street with zero resources. Still: I agree, it sounds an unpleasant task. Just try to not drool or giggle in glee when doing it.

In boom times I might be tempted to agree with you. In a recession when jobs are scarce it's a tough time for the guys who have lost their jobs. I have a very bad feeling about this one. I've lived through several recessions and never seen anything like this. Viable businesses are going to the wall for lack of credit. In other recessions it was a case of seperating the wheat from the chaff, this one's cutting all down.

Oh, and I never dribble whan I giggle, it's bad form old bean.

[rasoforos]

We own a family business and employ about 80 people. This means that over 250 people (their spouse and children, elderly parents etc) benefit from the company. It a very heavy burden. Too heavy sometimes...

I have only fired a man once. He deserved it because I gave him five (yes five) chances despite being continuously 1.5-2 hours late for days and days forcing other employees to work extra hard while he was happily sleeping instead of coming to work. It was unfair for the rest of 'the boys' and he totally deserved it but it still felt very very bad.

Alas, running a firm is like running a ship. If you don't make the necessary sacrifices in a storm then the ship will sink and everyone will drown. If you feel bad for lets say losing 2 sailors imagine how would you feel for the whole crew.



Think that what you are doing will help a lot of families earn their living. Don't desensitize yourself, its normal to feel gutted and it sucks to have to fire good workers. Just do not forget you are doing it for the good of other people and not only you and your dad.



In such times I feel very grateful about our field of work (supermarket shelf supplier and fittings). Supermarkets are almost never affected (people always have to eat) and sometimes benefit (people eat out less frequently and eat at home). Consequently it is business as usual for us and we are actually currently hiring people. I know that if we were affected we would survive but I wouldn't want to have to make people redundant.



P.S I didn't know you were posh

[Fragony]

Ach, this smacks of self-pity, but if I can't use an anonymous forum to be pathetic on, where else?

Here of course. http://www.fmylife.com/

[Banquo's Ghost]

That's exactly what it is, old boy, self-pity. And I doubt that someone with your IQ will be comforted by the sympathetic but gratuitous noises coming from other anonymous forum guests. Or by prayer. Or by a session in the confessional.

I'm going to be even more gratuitous with you, in fact I'm going to be horrible.

If you are a true believer in Christ and heed his words, you owe us a proper breakdown of Matthew 20:1-16. In particular you should explain to us why 'many' (but not 'all', mind you) who are first will be last to enter the Kingdom of God.

Consider it a penance. As such, it should beat five Hail Mary's and a candle.

I don't consider your points to be horrible at all.

I am a little confused as whilst you are correct to identify my tradition, I personally lost my faith some years ago. Therefore, I'm not really qualified to provide a breakdown as you ask, but I'll give it a try.

The passage you quote is, it seems to me, one of Our Lord's illustrative parables that is actually addressing spiritual issues through secular imagery. The reward being referenced and argued over is eternal life in paradise. Since that state is comprised of equal bliss for each blessed soul, the "payment" is exactly the same for everyone regardless of when they attain it. Thus, the "denarius" paid to each worker, irrespective of the time laboured. Christ is telling people that He has the right to determine this, and that - in accordance at least, with Cathloic teaching - all may attain it through repentance, no matter how late in life that revelation may come. We can all have our Lord Marchmain death, and it's never too late.

In other words, I don't think Our Lord is making a socio-economic point.

But there is, at least for someone like Banquo's Ghost. He will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong, but if I properly understood his post it is the contast between the fate of his sacked employees and his own (inherited) wealth and socially secure position that bother him. That sentiment has little to do with economic necessities, and everything with privilege and a religious tradition that frowns on it.

My conflict arises, I think, from my own conception of my role in life. It is the concept of noblesse oblige, that is the responsibility of the blessed to care for those less fortunate. A closely related obligation is stewardship - I "own" a significant chunk of countryside through inheritance - is that for me to squander or conserve for my children (and indeed the wider nation which values many of the possessions in my care?) Many of the families that work my estates have done so through generations - I consider this land as much theirs, in many ways. That is why I consider the estate workers sacrosanct - but those employed in ancillary business relatively newly formed, not so. However, one still feels a certain responsibility.

The 'redundant' guys: do you give them some kind of severence package (like a couple month's pay, to tide them over), or something? Or is it just a metter of "Sorry, bucko. Times is hard. You're out by Friday next. All the best." ?

There is the statutary redundancy pay, but I have agreed to pay them three month's severance. One might argue I could have kept them for another couple of months, but it is clear that the business will not improve in that time.

What did those individuals do (or not do) to place themselves in that situation?

Nothing. The market has all but disappeared.

What could you have done to ensure profitable work for those employees?

Difficult to say. The truth is I didn't really believe in that diversification anyway, but I have a good steward who did. Perhaps I shut the business quicker because of my own view. The business I have shut down was my father's idea - he was the farmer and considered that diversification was really important for his vision. He employed good people, which I retain, but the market so identified is a luxury one, and this is not a luxury time. My view was always that we should have stuck closely to production and not try to compete in the valued-added market - but then as he used to point out wearily as he contemplated the impending disaster of his eldest inheriting, I'm just a writer.

What effect would retaining these employees have on your business (estate)?

I would lose money, and that would impact on the safety net I have to protect the estates and those workers.

The one maybe helpful possibility i can suggest... is maybe there is some good training courses or education round your area... maybe do a little research see if you can get them to use this opportunity to further themselves... though i guess this slightly depends on who your firing... if they're young maybe you could suggest some training for them and do a bit of a leg work and find out some info for them...

At the very least you'll make yourself feel better... with any luck firing the guy could be the best thing that ever happened to him...

Probably a long shot with the recession and all but i don't suppose you have any 'contacts' who have need for one or two of your employee's ?

We've explored those possibilities but the recession in Ireland is getting very deep. Again, it's relatively easy to find positions for the household staff or estate workers if they ever wish to move on, because there is a good network between those who run great houses. Retail is very different.

Well, the day went reasonably, I suppose. Some tears, but generally understanding. The toughest thing was to hear people saying "I'm sorry, this must be hard for you." Dear God man, I felt like shouting the third time this happened, "It's not ME that's being fired! It's not remotely hard compared to what you have to go and tell the wife."

I guess people like to be polite in extremis. Ah well.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I generally thought of Human Resource personnel as a very cynical bunch. It takes gut and coldness to do it for long,especially when you're particularly small and the crisis means firing someone with whom you had a far deeper attachment with than amidst a traditionally corporate mean.

[Vladimir]

It sounds like things went as well as they could. This is an unfortunate situation but I'm glad you shared it with us.

[KukriKhan]

Well, the day went reasonably, I suppose. Some tears, but generally understanding. The toughest thing was to hear people saying "I'm sorry, this must be hard for you." Dear God man, I felt like shouting the third time this happened, "It's not ME that's being fired! It's not remotely hard compared to what you have to go and tell the wife."

When things turn around in a couple of years, were I you and found myself again more eager and willing to diversify, those folks should be on the top of my list to re-employ. Kindness, especially when it's not due, should always be rewarded - it being so scarce.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I have a horrid day today.

After a lot of discussion, we have decided to make some employees redundant. (What an awfully dull, weasly word that is).

Indeed. Does not that word mean that you have two employees doing the same job?

You recognize that it is a weaselly word; why not be forthright and say they are being fired, or at least laid off? I do not personally see anything but a minor difference between the two. My father did not have the same job security he has now earlier in my life, and employment was a cause of anxiety at times. And so I view the use of terms like 'laid-off', 'letting go', and especially 'made redundant' with disdain - they all mean the same thing.

I suppose there is some use to the term 'laid-off' in that it signals a person was let go for economic reasons of some sort.

I don't begrudge an employer for hiring or firing employees as they see fit. But I have to say I am not overcome with sympathy for the rich landed gentleman who has to lay off some people.

Yes, I am sure it was not pleasant and you seem like a very decent person. I know you are torn between being of aid to those less fortunate and taking care of your inheritance, but since you are not running a charity, the decision really was inevitable. So I rather think you should count your blessings.

CR
PS-Do no be so quick to discount diversification. After all, no company started out at the top of a market they just entered.

[Adrian II]

In other words, I don't think Our Lord is making a socio-economic point.

Isn't he? Wouldn't you agree that Our Lord's words have a distinct socio-economic smack in the light of Matthew 19:22-24?

[Ja'chyra]

As someone who has been made redundant in the past I can say that it's never easy and the current state of affairs can only make it harder.

That being said, 3 months severence pay will go a long way to ensuring that no-one will be going hungry and give them time to look for another post. Also not keeping them on for the extra few months and then giving them nothing at the end will mean that they can use the time they would have been working either job hunting or training.

I'd say you made the best of a bad situation.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Indeed. Does not that word mean that you have two employees doing the same job?

You recognize that it is a weaselly word; why not be forthright and say they are being fired, or at least laid off? I do not personally see anything but a minor difference between the two. My father did not have the same job security he has now earlier in my life, and employment was a cause of anxiety at times. And so I view the use of terms like 'laid-off', 'letting go', and especially 'made redundant' with disdain - they all mean the same thing.

I suppose there is some use to the term 'laid-off' in that it signals a person was let go for economic reasons of some sort.

Language is important because of the employment laws we have, as well as the local "interpretation". Redundancy means that the job no longer exists. For example, one cannot make someone redundant and then employ someone else immediately in the same job. One has to be very careful of the wording used otherwise appeals may be made to the courts.

Here, being told you are fired has the connotation that you did something wrong. However accurate (and most people reporting the fact to their loved ones will say "I just got fired") it's less confrontational to use the weasel words - which are also accurate and legally water-tight. I agree with you that terms such as "letting-go" are worst of all - as if they are straining at the bit to get to the dole queue.

Isn't he? Wouldn't you agree that Our Lord's words have a distinct socio-economic smack in the light of Matthew 19:22-24?

Those do, I agree. Though since my soul is damned for apostasy, one assumes that being rich doesn't make it any worse. I mean, how many eternities can one burn?

[Adrian II]

I mean, how many eternities can one burn?

What's the difference between a dead bird?

Oh dear. But the Old Testament is quite clear on the fate of apostates such as yourself, your Lordship.

If your very brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods, do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first to put him to death and then the hands of all the people."(Deuteronomy 13:6-9)

So I'm afraid we shall have to burn you, after which you will burn twice more, and in all eternity, on account of the accumulated charge of apostasy while being rich. Our Lord can be most unpleasant when irked.

[Vladimir]

I wonder of Banquo will attempt to thread a needle any time soon.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Why does Jesus hate camels anyway?

[InsaneApache]

You can't beat a bit of the old smiting. You know it makes sense.