PDA

View Full Version : My boss just got canned



SunDeck
08-08-2005, 02:47 PM
What a day this has been; My boss just got the ax, a complete surprise to many of us (and I'm pretty high on the food chain).
From what I know, there is no chance this goes beyond that to other staffers, but this is a pretty small organization and a lot of people are walking around stunned. The guy'd been here at least two decades.

Now, here's the weird thing- he's still in his office, working. My understanding is that most involuntary separations usually result in the immediate end of the relationship, it appears he's working through the day. I'd have a hard time sticking around.

KronoRed
08-08-2005, 02:50 PM
Ouch SunDeck :(

SunDeck
08-08-2005, 02:53 PM
Ouch SunDeck :(
Thanks, but I think you're still on the juice, man.

Seriously, I think I'll just hang out here the rest of the day and mark it as personal time. It's kind of surreal- I have twenty three people looking at me like I should be able to explain it and I can't.

RBA
08-08-2005, 02:58 PM
The part about going back to work to finsih out his last day doesn't make too much sense to me. So watch out, he may snap at anytime. Usually security escorts people out after they gather up their personal items.

Roy Tucker
08-08-2005, 03:04 PM
Yeah, when I've seen these things happen, after the person is notified of termination and relieved of badges, company credit cards, etc., a security guard walks them to their desk, watches them gather up personal items, and escorts them to the door.

Sometimes they go just from the meeting to the door.

zombie-a-go-go
08-08-2005, 03:19 PM
Hell, I rarely want to finish out my day at work, and I'm still employed at it. :dunno:

REDREAD
08-08-2005, 03:23 PM
Sometimes companies nowdays will lay off someone, but instead of giving them X weeks severance, they expect them to work those last X weeks.

That happened at our place recently. Three people that had been here a long time were laid off, but they were expected to continue to work through their "severance" period. They were still given assignments, etc.

KronoRed
08-08-2005, 03:24 PM
Thanks, but I think you're still on the juice, man.

Seriously, I think I'll just hang out here the rest of the day and mark it as personal time. It's kind of surreal- I have twenty three people looking at me like I should be able to explain it and I can't.

Are you next in command?

zombie-a-go-go
08-08-2005, 03:26 PM
Sometimes companies nowdays will lay off someone, but instead of giving them X weeks severance, they expect them to work those last X weeks.

That happened at our place recently. Three people that had been here a long time were laid off, but they were expected to continue to work through their "severance" period. They were still given assignments, etc.

And I imagine their productivity shot through the roof.

I thought severance packages were there so that you have some income while you look for a new job?

Caveat Emperor
08-08-2005, 03:30 PM
And I imagine their productivity shot through the roof.

I thought severance packages were there so that you have some income while you look for a new job?

Apparently they just couldn't keep a straight face while telling people in there 40s and 50s that they were giving them money to help the look for a "new job"

REDREAD
08-08-2005, 03:33 PM
And I imagine their productivity shot through the roof.

I thought severance packages were there so that you have some income while you look for a new job?

It isn't about productivity. It's about getting rid of older workers that were rewarded for good performance in the past.. These coorporations see no reason to keep someone in their 50's around when they can be replaced with a cheaper 28-30 year old. Again, it's not about productivity. People are just interchangable parts to them.

Yes, that used to be what severance packages were for. But they think, "Why pay people to do 'nothing' at home, when we can keep them around and humilate them for 8 more weeks?"

Reds4Life
08-08-2005, 03:41 PM
It isn't about productivity. It's about getting rid of older workers that were rewarded for good performance in the past.. These coorporations see no reason to keep someone in their 50's around when they can be replaced with a cheaper 28-30 year old. Again, it's not about productivity. People are just interchangable parts to them.

Yes, that used to be what severance packages were for. But they think, "Why pay people to do 'nothing' at home, when we can keep them around and humilate them for 8 more weeks?"

I'd come to work, but I'd just sit in my office and surf the net or something. What are they doing to do, fire you?

KronoRed
08-08-2005, 03:42 PM
I'd come to work, but I'd just sit in my office and surf the net or something. What are they doing to do, fire you?

Sounds like heaven

Joseph
08-08-2005, 03:45 PM
I'd come to work, but I'd just sit in my office and surf the net or something. What are they doing to do, fire you?

Already do that. Don't know what I'd do if they fired me and wanted me to keep coming in....well I guess I'd keep doing this on second thought.

REDREAD
08-08-2005, 03:47 PM
I'd come to work, but I'd just sit in my office and surf the net or something. What are they doing to do, fire you?

Yep, that's exactly what they'd do, fire them with no severance. Keep in mind that people in their 50's that have worked their entire career at one company aren't exactly the most marketable commodity. I'd like to think that I'd tell the company to stuff it, but sometimes you just have to admit "The man" has won and take it.

These people are still getting their normal workload dumped on them. Still having to take crap from the guy that laid them off.

SunDeck
08-08-2005, 03:58 PM
Are you next in command?
I'm fourth...wait a minute....third from the top, now.
Don't know if I should be saying this yet or not: :help:

Reds4Life
08-08-2005, 04:18 PM
Yep, that's exactly what they'd do, fire them with no severance. Keep in mind that people in their 50's that have worked their entire career at one company aren't exactly the most marketable commodity. I'd like to think that I'd tell the company to stuff it, but sometimes you just have to admit "The man" has won and take it.

These people are still getting their normal workload dumped on them. Still having to take crap from the guy that laid them off.

I dunno, most of the job ads I've been reading these days want people with considerable experience, so I don't think it's hopeless for people in their 50's. The Cincinnati job market is weird though, it seems all the companies around here want tons of experience and industry certifications, but are only willing to pay about 65% of the national average salary. Talk about wanting something for nothing. :bang:

alex trevino
08-08-2005, 04:31 PM
A severance package usually will waive the employee's right to sue under Title VII or the Age Discrimination in employment act. It is worth it to the employer, it saves them legal fees if nothing else and it give the appearance of caring. Unfortunately, laying off older workers who earn more money is usually justified as a "business necessity" and that usally protects employers from liability in age discrimination claims. Sorry to hear about your boss.

Caveat Emperor
08-08-2005, 05:26 PM
A severance package usually will waive the employee's right to sue under Title VII or the Age Discrimination in employment act. It is worth it to the employer, it saves them legal fees if nothing else and it give the appearance of caring. Unfortunately, laying off older workers who earn more money is usually justified as a "business necessity" and that usally protects employers from liability in age discrimination claims. Sorry to hear about your boss.

Well, up until recently, the right to sue utilizing "Disparate Impact" discrimination (i.e. "You didn't intentionally discriminate against me because I am old, but your policies are such that they adversely impact more older people than other groups.") didn't exist under the ADEA.

It'll be interesting to see how employers handle RIFs (reduction in forces) now that that card is in play.

REDREAD
08-08-2005, 05:44 PM
it seems all the companies around here want tons of experience and industry certifications, but are only willing to pay about 65% of the national average salary. Talk about wanting something for nothing. :bang:

Yes, unfortunately that's how it's like in a lot of places. A buddy of mine was laid off last year. Had about 15 years experience in a field with shrinking job opportunities due to the outsourcing wave. He had to turn down his first 3 job offers, because they were all offering him basically new grad money. (One actually offered him less than he made coming out of college 15 years ago).

There seems to be a "lowest bidder" trend in some companies. They'll get a stack of 100 resumes, and lowball everyone, figuring someone will be desparate enough to take the job. Of course, they don't take into account the cost of training the next guy when the lowballed employee bolts.

Luckily, my friend eventually found a decent job. It was still a huge paycut, but it wasn't totally insulting.

alex trevino
08-08-2005, 07:19 PM
Well, up until recently, the right to sue utilizing "Disparate Impact" discrimination (i.e. "You didn't intentionally discriminate against me because I am old, but your policies are such that they adversely impact more older people than other groups.") didn't exist under the ADEA.

It'll be interesting to see how employers handle RIFs (reduction in forces) now that that card is in play.

Good point Caveat Emperor, but it was my understanding "business necessity" was an affirmative defense even in "Disparate Impact" cases involving title VII claims (e.g. Griggs v. Duke Power). Do you think the court will handle Disperate Impact claims under the ADEA differently? Also, I was under the understanding that the ADEA allowed the employer to consider Reasonable Factors Other Than Age "RFOTA" and that the court has held salary as a RFOTA.

I agree strongly that ADEA cases should be more rigiorusly enforced, especially in RIF cases.

IMHO, Employment laws are an example where you have clear legislative intent but the courts will find a way, in most cases, not to enforce them. It is a shame what the courts have done to the ADA as well, I know attorneys who won't even take an ADA case because they are losers.