Huddlers in management postions

[Ursa Majoris]

This I don't completely agree with. I've had to fire some people for cause, and that was very easy. If someone is directly responsible for a significant financial problem, loss of a customer or damage to the relationship between my company and a customer, I have no issue wielding the axe. Whatever your problems are in life, perhaps you should have taken them into account before you conducted yourself in that fashion.

 

It's not easy to lay off someone that does a good job, pretty much whatever you ask of them, and was not any part of the situation that's causing the layoffs. Especially while those that are part of the picture are skating along with their jobs.

Agree wholeheartedly with this. When you walk through the door, behave like a grown up because I'm not interested in being your counselor or mediating childishness. My company provides that counseling benefit for free if you'd like it. Don't get into little spats with co-workers because I have no tolerance for that chit. We pay a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

 

However, if something chitty happens to you and you seek my help, I will bend over backwards to accommodate you.

[wiegie]

 

The better example is Star Trek TOS Season 2, Episode 11 titled "The Deadly Years" where the away team discovers a colony where the scientists have aged rapidly and are dying. Kirk, Spock, Scotty, McCoy realize upon beaming back to the Enterprise that they also have the same disease and are doomed to die of old age soon. The only one not affected by the aging process was Chekov because he found one of the scientists already dead and was shocked by his discovery. McCoy frantically searched on why he was unaffected and just in the nick of time, discovered he was a Commie Russian that couldn't say the letter v. Oh, and it was also the fact that, because he was startled by the dead body, his body produced a high amount of adrenaline. McCoy injected the rest of the away team with the adrenaline and saved them just in time before dying of old age and/or becoming completely worthless by sucking the Medicare and Social Security system dry.

 

I guess the question is if he can inject the old f'er with some adrenaline and get a few more useful years out of him? Or just kill him like the used-up old person he is.

Holy F'ing Crap.... what's the matter with you people?

 

I'm not a Star Trek nerd by any stretch of the imagination, but if you are going to insist upon using Star Trek analysis to decide which guy to fire, the only obvious answer is to fire the guy who is wearing the red shirt.

 

duh

[Perchoutofwater]

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

 

It depends on the how long I'm paying them to sit at the house. Most of my guys are the best in the industry, and would be difficult to replace. I've never gone after a project that I don't have someone to put on. We typically try to keep one guy out of work in case a "dream project" comes down the pike. You'd be surprised at how often people in my industry will let people go and then try to hire someone when the get work.. People get a job, then have to hire superintendents for that project. Usually this is not a good practice because it can end up costing you a lot of money. So as you say I've often had to walk that tight rope between what is best to do. When layoffs do come with only two exceptions I've always kept the more tenured guys, but that is because they are really good, and still had a bunch of gas in the tank. The two times I kept the less experienced guys it was because they both showed outstanding potential. Of the two younger ones I've kept, one was definitely a great decision, the other I think will end up being a very good decision, but the the jury is still out.

[delusions of grandeur]

There are alot of good perspectives and things to consider in this thread, but I wouldn't rely on any definitive answer here, because frankly, we don't know enough about your organization and employees to make that call...

 

First, I absolutely agree that age should not even be a consideration. Perhaps the issue of employee A eventually retiring is a factor, but then you have to ask yourself if you're more concerned with the company's performance now or what will need to be done in two years. In many cases, what happens for the next two years is more important than looking that far ahead beyond that. (Though like others have said, there's no guarantee either choice will buy you more time. It is also a stereotype and gross generalization that younger people tend to bounce around from job to job. Didn't the OP say that the guy had been with his previous company for long period of time until it became unstable?). My whole point here is that neither guarantees a shorter or longer tenure, only degrees of "potential".

 

Second, the culture of your organization must be considered. I've worked places where I left and they didn't skip a beat, but especially on some of the "crews" I've worked on, they thrive with a community of trust in one another to get the job done, and just one missing piece can cause the deck of cards to fall into disarray.

 

 

There are obviously a ton more things to be considered, but the only people really qualified to consider them is you and your colleagues. You work in the environment every day, so it should be far easier for you to weigh the pros and cons of the effects of your decision... But you do have to base it purely on what's best for your organization, because that's what you're paid to do. (This is not to say that it can't include ethical considerations, such as showing loyalty to a long-tenured competent employee, but you still have to view it all from a business standpoint, and remove all emotions from the equation...)