Layoffs: Single people vs those with families

[Carson Dyle]

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

Only if he/she is living hand to mouth. Even without dipping into retirement savings, it should be relatively easy for a single person to have a several month nestegg/buffer saved for a rainy day.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

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 given two people of identical performance and value, I'd go with last in, first out. Whoever had seniority would stay and the newest hire would be the one leaving. Their financial need would not be a factor.

But in the real world, you NEVER EVER have two people of identical performance and value. There is always one person that underperforms or outperforms their peers.

 

[Yakk]

Why is income down enough to possibly require layoffs?

I look at the sales team first, before anything internal.

 

[Humpy]

LOL @ the sexism and misogyny and homophobia in this thread.

Everyone just assumes that the employees are men because women are somewhere making sandwiches. And of course Steve must be single because he doesn't have a wife.

Can we get a trigger warning added to the thread title?

 

[Chaotic42]

I look at the sales team first, before anything internal.

Hah, funny guy.

 

[Carson Dyle]

If given two people of identical performance and value, I'd go with last in, first out. Whoever had seniority would stay and the newest hire would be the one leaving. Their financial need would not be a factor.

But in the real world, you NEVER EVER have two people of identical performance and value. There is always one person that underperforms or outperforms their peers.

Perhaps. More likely, though, is that each is more skilled or productive in certain areas. If we're talking workers on an assembly line it might be easy to say one is better than the other. Not quite so easy with more complicated skilled jobs.

And it would be very awkward, maybe to the point where it seldom happens, where a boss trying to be apologetic about laying off someone would say to them "We're keeping so-and-so and letting you go because he's just plain better than you are."

 

[Matthiasa]

If they were somehow performing equally either both would be or neither would be on the assumption there are others also working in that particular position position. Otherwise using a randomly generate list may help legally...

 

[Imp]

This discussion is kind of pointless. We all know the worker who's friends with the boss or someone on the firing committee will get kept.

 

[ImpulsE69]

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?

Is the boss banging Mark's wife?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Perhaps. More likely, though, is that each is more skilled or productive in certain areas. If we're talking workers on an assembly line it might be easy to say one is better than the other. Not quite so easy with more complicated skilled jobs.

And it would be very awkward, maybe to the point where it seldom happens, where a boss trying to be apologetic about laying off someone would say to them "We're keeping so-and-so and letting you go because he's just plain better than you are."

Then there are other factors that are going to determine the choice and again, it's not going to be equal. You're going to dump the person with the least important job, or the one whose responsibilities are going to be easiest to reassign or you'll keep the one with the broader skill set or the more flexible hours, etc etc. But even that is unlikely. The cuts will be made where the glut is and that's going to force the decision to be made among peers. If you're overstaffed in sales you're not going to lay off a programmer. There's no restaurant that will be forced to decide whether to lay off a chef or a waiter. It's always going to be decided by department first, person second.

And while it might seldom happen that a boss might say "We're keeping so-and-so and letting you go because he's just plain better than you are." that is exactly what's happening in most cases. Any boss that's claiming he has two equal people is either a shitty boss who doesn't really know what either of them can do or he's outright lying. If you're getting let go it's because you're the weakest link. Buh-Bye.

 

[Printer Bandit]

if single guy has a lifelong chronic illness and needs healthcare, does that affect the decision?

 

[IronWing]

if single guy has a lifelong chronic illness and needs healthcare, does that affect the decision?

You'd have to weigh the expected costs of his illness vs the cost of providing healthcare for a whole family, including possible births and fire the more costly employee.

 

[tynopik]

keep whichever offers you the biggest kickback

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Layoff the single guy. Fewer people at risk.

My wife makes 3 times what I do. So I get to keep my job.

 

[Red Squirrel]

This is why unions exist. It should be be seniority or other cut and dry predefined decision process. It's the only fair way of going. That said, I would prefer they choose the person with working wife, vs someone single but that's a bit biased given I'm single. But way I see it, someone married has dual income, someone like me is on the street within a month and credit goes to crap for not being able to pay bills. Life essentially ruined. Probably forced to move and start life over etc. Not that companies even care about that.

What pisses me off is that companies expect 2 weeks notice if you quit, but they won't even give any notice if they lay you off. Pretty much an impromptu meeting followed by building escort. At least they could give people a few months to find another job. (or try)

 

[Puffnstuff]

Honestly seniority should be the deciding factor if they perform equally and anything else is grounds for some type of discrimination.

 

[Humpy]

This is why unions exist. It should be be seniority or other cut and dry predefined decision process. It's the only fair way of going. That said, I would prefer they choose the person with working wife, vs someone single but that's a bit biased given I'm single. But way I see it, someone married has dual income, someone like me is on the street within a month and credit goes to crap for not being able to pay bills. Life essentially ruined. Probably forced to move and start life over etc. Not that companies even care about that.

What pisses me off is that companies expect 2 weeks notice if you quit, but they won't even give any notice if they lay you off. Pretty much an impromptu meeting followed by building escort. At least they could give people a few months to find another job. (or try)

These days you only give notice if there is a benefit to you, i.e. to show your next employer that you care, or maybe you actually care. Otherwise, whatever notice you give is limited to the amount of leave you have to use.

And lol @ fair.

 

[Exterous]

If I can't decide I'll throw a knife on the floor, lock the door and keep which ever one is still alive in the morning

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

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.

My first thoughts as well.

Situations can be different. The family can be struggling to survive with 2 kids and a stay at home mom. The single person can be debt ridden and barely paying for dinner. Or either case can be good with money and be well off either way.

Regardless, a family situation should never be a factor in whom gets layed off.