Huddlers in management postions

[Caveman_Nick]

I haven't been around the boards much today, so maybe my huddle-meter is off a bit, but this has to be a fishing trip, no?

 

I wasn't sure how to take it.

 

It's either 1. snide, 2. sarcastic, or 3. cold and calculating. 1 or 2 might be a fishing trip. Who knows.

[cliaz]

It is more expensive to hire and train a new employee than it is to keep one.

 

Look at the long term outcome for this decision. Regardless, you will be training a new employee if you decide to keep the 68 year old individual because he will be retiring in 2 years or so.

 

The age is irrelevant. I see replies on this thread saying that the 30 year old has a better chance of finding another IT job and it will be easier for him but I somewhat disagree. He may have a wife and kids and if you all remember the time frame of 27 - 33 most of use were still struggling to find our career path, make enough money to cover the cost of living, and, for a lack of a better term, just getting our feet wet with being an adult. What if he does have a wife and a kid and what if she isn't working or has just been laid off? There are no guarantees that he will be able to find another IT job. I have one ex-co-worker who was axed last October. She has her CCNP, ITIL foundations v3, MCSE, certified REHL and two Oracle certs along with a BA but she is having issues finding a job still to this day. She took a helpdesk position to float her until she lands another engineering role but it is almost worth it for her not to work there because the pay is so crappy (her words)

 

Same deal with the 68 year old. Obviously he doesn't have young kids running around but what if him & his wife are dependent on this current salary to maintain their current life style, paid for medications, or even what if they are taking care of one of his kids and/or grand kids?

 

Age is irrelevant. Base your decision on what is good for your department in the long term. My old exe director gave me some very good advice back in 2001. I was upset at something at work and told me that 'No matter what you think, your [company] owes you nothing. You are compensated for the time you are here and when your usefulness is over with it is time to end the relationship. Keep that in mind and your career will flourish.' That may sound cold but it is the truth and once I accepted it I've enjoyed probably one of the longest employment durations my corporation out of all of the employees in my division (12 years on the 14th of this month).

 

Do not make this decision based on personal feelings, make it on solid business sense. Work is work & friends are friends, keep them separate.

 

If this were me I would keep the younger employee since he has already been there 9 months and has a basic grasp of the job and then train him in the 68 year old job responsibilities.

[tazinib1]

Cliaz, you need to post more often cause that Avatar cracks me up every time I see it.

[Ursa Majoris]

Any reference to the older employee's age would make firing him illegal, of course. Once he passed 40, he entered a protected class. If you do decide to let him go, there will need to be nailed down reasons based on role redistribution, etc. Saying "well, he can get Medicare" will potentially cost a fortune in court.

[Savage Beatings]

Oh and by the way, my Brother-In-Law's company is currently looking for a Senior Network Administrator here in Minnesota.

 

Edit to add: BIL doesn't own the company, it's just the company he works for. He is an Associate there but has been asking for candidates.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Savage Beatings

[Perchoutofwater]

And we wonder why the "family" business model has folded like a napkin at a $500 per plate Executive function. It's not a "mushy" feeling at all. Not slamm'n, just say'n. The younger kid can collect unemployment for 56 weeks. The old guy? Loses his retirement more than likely. What is the average age now a days? 80? So he's got 10yrs after retirement to enjoy his life? Ok yeah, its a "mushy" thing. Sometimes "mushy" is the right thing to do.

 

I don't know if you've ever run a business or not, but if you had you would know that sometimes you have to make hard decisions that you don't want to make. I own a family business, and we treat our employees very well. We typically try to keep them on even if they don't have a job to do at the time. We allow them plenty of time off during emergencies, medical or otherwise. Still at a certain point you have to put the business first. If you don't you look up one day and you can't afford to employ anyone. What is best for the business is usually what is best for most of the employees of the business in these type of situations. Is it better to fire one guy, or give everyone a pay cut? Is it better to keep the more product or potentially more productive guy, or the guy that is on his last leg? You can say businesses should do this, or do that, but when it's your money on the line you have to do what is best for the company, otherwise everyone is going to get hurt. Sometimes you have to make what seem like heartless decisions, but sometimes the heartless decisions are what end up keeping everyone else employed.

 

Additionally like I said, the old guy can collect unemployment, SS, and qualifies for medicare. More than likely the older guys kids if he has any are grown and not dependent upon him. The younger guy would have a lot tougher time of it in the current high unemployment environment. He could collect unemployment, but that is it. He doesn't qualify for medicare. Does he have kids? Most 30 year old guys have kids. So in reality the more than likely the more humane thing to do is to keep the young guy anyway.

[cliaz]

Any reference to the older employee's age would make firing him illegal, of course. Once he passed 40, he entered a protected class. If you do decide to let him go, there will need to be nailed down reasons based on role redistribution, etc. Saying "well, he can get Medicare" will potentially cost a fortune in court.

 

And this, too

[Ursa Majoris]

I haven't been around the boards much today, so maybe my huddle-meter is off a bit, but this has to be a fishing trip, no?

Clearly, though I'd characterize it more in the vein of sardonic humor / cynicism. Doesn't mean he isn't right, though.

[Sugar Magnolia]

Any reference to the older employee's age would make firing him illegal, of course. Once he passed 40, he entered a protected class. If you do decide to let him go, there will need to be nailed down reasons based on role redistribution, etc. Saying "well, he can get Medicare" will potentially cost a fortune in court.

 

+1

[tazinib1]

I don't know if you've ever run a business or not, but if you had you would know that sometimes you have to make hard decisions that you don't want to make. I own a family business, and we treat our employees very well. We typically try to keep them on even if they don't have a job to do at the time. We allow them plenty of time off during emergencies, medical or otherwise. Still at a certain point you have to put the business first. If you don't you look up one day and you can't afford to employ anyone. What is best for the business is usually what is best for most of the employees of the business in these type of situations. Is it better to fire one guy, or give everyone a pay cut? Is it better to keep the more product or potentially more productive guy, or the guy that is on his last leg? You can say businesses should do this, or do that, but when it's your money on the line you have to do what is best for the company, otherwise everyone is going to get hurt. Sometimes you have to make what seem like heartless decisions, but sometimes the heartless decisions are what end up keeping everyone else employed.

 

Additionally like I said, the old guy can collect unemployment, SS, and qualifies for medicare. More than likely the older guys kids if he has any are grown and not dependent upon him. The younger guy would have a lot tougher time of it in the current high unemployment environment. He could collect unemployment, but that is it. He doesn't qualify for medicare. Does he have kids? Most 30 year old guys have kids. So in reality the more than likely the more humane thing to do is to keep the young guy anyway.

 

 

You caught me before I could delete my thread. While I agree with everything you say, its the very reason I would make a horrible manager.

[cliaz]

I don't know if you've ever run a business or not, but if you had you would know that sometimes you have to make hard decisions that you don't want to make. I own a family business, and we treat our employees very well. We typically try to keep them on even if they don't have a job to do at the time. We allow them plenty of time off during emergencies, medical or otherwise.

 

I don't know if I would call, "Perch's used Cock Ring & Butt Plug Emporium" a family business per say.

[Perchoutofwater]

Any reference to the older employee's age would make firing him illegal, of course. Once he passed 40, he entered a protected class. If you do decide to let him go, there will need to be nailed down reasons based on role redistribution, etc. Saying "well, he can get Medicare" will potentially cost a fortune in court.

 

Obviously you can't fire someone because they are old, but I think you can fire someone when they have said they plan to retire in 2 years.

[skylive5]

I haven't been around the boards much today, so maybe my huddle-meter is off a bit, but this has to be a fishing trip, no?

 

 

I wasn't sure how to take it.

 

It's either 1. snide, 2. sarcastic, or 3. cold and calculating. 1 or 2 might be a fishing trip. Who knows.

 

Door number 3.

 

The bottom line is the only thing that counts in business. There are millions out there that can take the place of the most expensive employee and usually within a short time be able to do an acceptable job.

 

You can't let any kind of emotions get in the way of what is best for the company. If that means firing a long time employee with a wife and three sick kids on Christmas Eve...then so be it. That is just the way it is. American businesses are built on that foundation. Employees need to be replaced from time to time to keep the business fresh and cost effective. Firing high priced employees is a fine American tradition.

 

I am sure that Perch agrees wholeheartedly. And many other business owners too.

[keggerz]

I just did a quick scan and will read thru it again and come back with a much more detailed answer but I will say this....AGE should have ZERO to do with it.

[ljbrun]

My 1st consideration would be keep the guy that will contribute more to your success.

 

If they are close, I'd lean toward the guy who has been loyal to the company for 9-10 years. You can't worry about age, but I believe loyalty should count.

 

I wouldn't worry about the 2 year window for the older guy. The young one left his old company because he didn't think it was stable enough. If I were him, after this workforce reduction I'd be thinking the same about my new employer and I'd probably start looking again. Either way I think you're going to be looking for someone in 2 years or less. Unless of course, you're not allowed to maintain your staff of one at that time.

 

Whether you keep one or the other. What will your workload be like? If needed, perhaps the guy that gets cut could be brought back as a consultant to help out if you fall behind.

[Furd]

Here's the scenario:

 

I may be told in the next day that I need to cut my staff of two to one. The why is really irrelevant. Any points that need to be made about why this might be a bad idea have been made.

 

The Employees:

1. 68 years old. Been with the company 9-10 years. Is not directly involved in IT on a major scale, but does some IT work such as software installs. Mainly he checks the files that leave our building daily to make sure they are up to spec. His breadth of knowledge in this area is vast. He's looking to retire in 2 years. He was hired by someone else, but was consolidated into my department 8 or so years ago. Regardless of his current age, he needs to work, although he would have the benefit of collecting both unemployment and social security.

 

2. 30something. Been with the company 9 months. Is really just getting his training wheels off as far as our environment goes. Does mainly desktop support, but also is a back-up for me for server support and some other areas. Has been trained by employee number 1 on how to check files before they go and can do so, but with much less experience or 'vision in fixing those issues'. Was a long term employee at his last job, but left that company to come here because the environment was becoming unstable. If I needed back-up, it would have to be outsourced. He has a much better chance to finding gainful employment if I let him go.

 

My options are: keep employee #1 and let go of employee #2. In that case I absorb all of employee #2's responsibilities and someone in another department becomes the back-up for employee #1. OR I can keep employee #2 and help him grow into what employee #1 is. This would be somewhat of a career path change for him, because he is on an IT track. He would become more of a jack of all trades. He would take over Employee #1's duties, backed up by someone in another department. I would absorb most of Employee #2's duties, but he would still be available to back me up as needed

 

Both employees are loyal and competent. Employee #1 has much more skill than Employee #2, but Employee #2 has much more upside and potential longevity.

 

What would you do?

 

Well, I know for sure that I would ignore the bolded part.

 

I'm not sure if anyone brought this up, but I don't think that you should assume that Employee #2 is going to stay with your company for even two years. Won't you feel silly if you hire him with the intention of grooming him, and 8 months later he moves to another job? You can also say that about #1, although I think that its probably far less likely that he voluntarily moves on.

 

And #2 may never grow into another #1

 

Knowing the limited amount that I know, I'll take the proven guy. Everytime. I want him around as long as possible.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Furd

[Riffraff]

If you feel your team compensates for the inabilities of the senior worker by having additional staff, maybe it is time for the additional staff to become the senior employee.

 

Is it easier to teach the new guy the wider range of duties or is it easier to teach the tenured member how to do server / IT duties? There are specialties in either direction I'm sure.

 

Bear in mind that taking the new guy 's focus in duties away from his IT base can make him less employable in his future. IT companies like specifics, not generalities. May not matter to your company at the moment, but you can bet that he will factor this in on his own. And he'll see that the widespread guy just got canned for the IT specific guy.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Riffraff

[matt770]

No matter what you think, your [company] owes you nothing. You are compensated for the time you are here and when your usefulness is over with it is time to end the relationship. Keep that in mind and your career will flourish.

 

Truer words were never spoken. I've seen countless layoffs over the past 9 years at my company. Almost every time, I thought to myself, "good start, but we have some more dead wood that could go too". I saw a lot of my coworkers whining about how unfair it was. I saw morale suffer and people not care about the quality of their work. They acted like the company owed them something. We just had another round of layoffs in December, a lot of them. We are outsourcing a big chunk of our operation to eastern Europe. My team right now is about 1/8th the size it was in 2002, and this time next year, the rest of the Atlanta people will be gone and our payroll will be a fraction of what it was. Our customers will not get nearly the service they get now, but nobody cares. Everything is driven by price.

 

I'm safe because I've made myself valuable. I moved away from the work that is being sent overseas. I was the first on my team to get my PMP certification. I have customers all over the world, and I get up at 3AM or go to bed at 3AM if need be. I look at my job through my manager's eyes, and my customers' eyes and anticipate their needs. I solve problems as quickly as possible. I know how to get from point A to point B with a minimum of BS in between. It's not difficult to me, but it must be a special skill because very often I have to wade through so much ancillary crap to get to the problem. I'm immensely proud of the work I do, and immensely grateful for my salary and benefits, when so many people are out there suffering. My company gets 200% from me and they know it.

[Ramhock]

3. Quit & let them run the shop.

 

Another vote for tenure. The youngun has recently shown that he would leave a job for a better opportunity & who can blame him. If you keep him, he may think things, there, are becoming unstable and start looking, as soon as you train him.

 

Old Yeller ain't going no where.

[whoopazz]

Tough one. I think most of us agree that the right thing business wise is keep the younger guy. The right thing morally wise is probably keep the older guy. I believe those managing their own business (Perch et al) have to consider the business only. THose of us managing for others can weigh other considerations (a little). No one mentioned this - what does the younger guy think about making a career at your place (and other employees for that matter) after seeing what happened to the old guy??? If there isn't a huge difference in salary, I keep the old guy with the long tenure.

[BillyBalata]

3. Quit & let them run the shop.

 

Another vote for tenure. The youngun has recently shown that he would leave a job for a better opportunity & who can blame him. If you keep him, he may think things, there, are becoming unstable and start looking, as soon as you train him.

 

Old Yeller ain't going no where.

 

 

This.

 

I'm not in management anymore, but for 17 years i was and trained too many young people i thought were going to be a help to me for years to come, only to see them think they know it all and leave for something they thought was better.

 

I've also watched our company go thru several downsizings over the last few years. At this point I think i would want the guy I can trust to be around for me the next two years. Who knows what can happen in two years, he may want/need to go another two years, Things may turn around where you need to hire 3 more people within 2 years. These days, I keep the more stable option.

[bpwallace49]

I work an in an industry where relationships can be more important than actual production.

 

Some may remember a post I had earlier this year where I had my dining room manager and chef both die of different cancers within weeks of each other. While the proper "business model" would be to fire them (and you CAN fire them, doesnt matter if they are sick or not) to save the company money and bring in someone younger and able to do the job. I walked that line as long as I could, the rest of the staff banded together to help out the people in need, and we were able to keep them on to the point of them passing.

 

While I could have been pennywise and fired both, that would have been dollar foolish. What message would it have sent to the other employees? That they dont matter? That as soon as they get sick they are gone? As a result I have a much closer and dedicated staff that is reflected in their performance every day, knowing that they have a company that cares about them.

 

Perch, you have stated that you are paying people to stay at home. Is that a wise financial decision?

 

I would still vote for the tenured guy. He knows his stuff, and you can put together a hell of a training program to bring someone else in when he retires. Duringthat time you will have less worries becasue he IS more capable, and you can strategically prepare for when he leaves by putting together an orderly transition program.

 

In fantasy football terms, are you happy with WR2 production out of a guy that gets you 10 points every game, but is unlikely to have a monster game, or do you want a hotshot rookie that "could" be awesome but also could fizzle out? You have to weigh both in your mind and what is more valuable TO YOU.

[keggerz]

Short answer, I am keeping the guy that has been with you the longest...many of the reasons why have already been stated.

[gilthorp]

I think you already know what my answer would be...

[Rovers]

If you feel your team compensates for the inabilities of the senior worker by having additional staff, maybe it is time for the additional staff to become the senior employee.

 

Is it easier to teach the new guy the wider range of duties or is it easier to teach the tenured member how to do server / IT duties? There are specialties in either direction I'm sure.

 

Bear in mind that taking the new guy 's focus in duties away from his IT base can make him less employable in his future. IT companies like specifics, not generalities. May not matter to your company at the moment, but you can bet that he will factor this in on his own. And he'll see that the widespread guy just got canned for the IT specific guy.

 

This. The younger guy may not want to get out of IT and do something that sounds rather limiting both in his present job responsabilities and for his career development. He could bail. Then you don't have either one of them. He may be looking for a bigger shop already with more promotional opps. Trust me, if he finds a better more stable situation, he's gone.

 

I also think longevity should count for something. I would lean towards keeping the older employee.