Layoffs: Single people vs those with families

[Chaotic42]

A coworker and I were discussing how teams decide who to layoff and it led to an interesting question. Given two people of identical performance and value, one with a house and family, the other single and renting, if you had to lay one off, how would you decide?

If you chose one over the other, how much better would the laid off person need to be in order to keep his or her job?

I'm not sure if I know my answer. It's tempting to keep the person with a family, but at the same time it's completely unfair. What do you folks think (no, this isn't happening to me, it was just a discussion)?

 

[NetWareHead]

It shouldnt be a factor what family & housing choices either of the 2 employees have made. It should only matter what their work performance is. Lay them off both if the ethical dilemma is too much.

 

[Bird222]

Layoff the single guy. Fewer people at risk.

 

[Humpy]

Lay off the family guy.

They are always missing work for stupid family reasons and cost more for health care.

 

[lxskllr]

I'd lay off the single guy assuming all things are exactly equal, but that's seldom the case. There's always some way to objectively discriminate. In any case, I'd keep the best fit for the company.

 

[amdhunter]

Lay them both off and then give myself a raise.

 

[Ns1]

Lay off the family guy.

They are always missing work for stupid family reasons and cost more for health care.

I would agree with this - single guy can work 14 hour days, fucking guy with a family needs to see his wife and kids. fucking selfish fuck.

 

[amdhunter]

Also, when the one with the house decides to sell, I'll show up at the open house and act interested in buying it.

 

[lxskllr]

I'll add that it depends on family guy's wife. If she's making good money, that might tip things in favor of single guy.

 

[amdhunter]

I'll add that it depends on family guy's wife. If she's making good money, that might tip things in favor of single guy.

That's BS. You lay off the worker who benefits the company least. That's it. His outside life should matter for ZERO benefit.

 

[IronWing]

Also, when the one with the house decides to sell, I'll show up at the open house and act interested in buying it.

If you're looking to maximize profit, go buy land somewhere then move the plant/office close to your land. Sell lots to your employees. Profit. Wait ten years, do it again.

 

[IronWing]

I would agree with this - single guy can work 14 hour days, fucking guy with a family needs to see his wife and kids. fucking selfish fuck.

This. The remaining employee is going to have to pick up the slack.

 

[lxskllr]

That's BS. You lay off the worker who benefits the company least. That's it. His outside life should matter for ZERO benefit.

That's what I said in my first post. The only way this scenario works is comparing two identical employees. Otherwise, there's no reason for this thread.

 

[Carson Dyle]

Identical performance and value to the company? Seniority.

 

[Chaotic42]

So does being married with kids and a house get the employee anything? Let's call the married person Mark and the single person Steve. If Steve is slightly better than Mark, should Mark's family come into play at all? Is there some "margin of performance" where Mark gets to stay on even if he's technically ranked lower than Steve?

 

[RockinZ28]

Depends who has the darker skin.

 

[Carson Dyle]

There's no rule that says you can't do it that way. You have a conscience, right? Do what it tells you.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Identical performance and value to the company? Seniority.

Exactly...lay off the older guy.

 

[lxskllr]

So does being married with kids and a house get the employee anything? Let's call the married person Mark and the single person Steve. If Steve is slightly better than Mark, should Mark's family come into play at all? Is there some "margin of performance" where Mark gets to stay on even if he's technically ranked lower than Steve?

I might look harder for a reason Mark's better. Maybe he isn't quite as technically proficient, but he gets along better with the other workers. Assuming they're equal though, it's the manager's job to look after the company. If you wanted to be cool, you could give Mark extra long notice that he's due to be cut.

 

[Carson Dyle]

Exactly...lay off the older guy.

The 25 year old instead of the 23 year old?

Layoff the higher paid one, maybe?

 

[Imp]

I wouldn't give a shit.

You can argue it both ways if you want to be "decent:"
- Single person can't support himself if laid off but may be able to rely on parents.
- Married person can't support family if laid off but may be a dual income family or have two sets of parents to fall back on.

 

[lxskllr]

If Mark's a real old guy ~50, and he's been there awhile, he's probably staying for the long term. You could get rid of him, and the 30 year old quits on you. Security for the company has value too.

 

[KMFJD]

You layoff the shitty worker and keep the good one, why is that so difficult?

 

[MtnMan]

Single guy, one income, to none. Devastating to the individual

Married, typically 2 incomes, down to 1 so money still coming in, plus it will further reduce company outflow, FMLA, dependent insurance coverage, extra time off for school meetings, kids to doctor, etc., etc.

 

[Imp]

You layoff the shitty worker and keep the good one, why is that so difficult?

Well, one party decided to acquire a mortgage, form a legal union, and impregnate someone or become impregnated... so have sympathy?