Employers use recession to cut workers
The recession is providing a great cover for employers who have been looking to get rid of employees. Sally Herships reports on why some workers are getting the ax under the guise of a bad economy.
Photo illustration of a manager with pink slip and ax. (iStockPhoto)
More on Jobs
TEXT OF STORY
Tess Vigeland: The economy has forced companies all over the world to cut jobs. The number of announced layoffs has topped one million so far this year, according to outplacement firm Challenger Gray and Christmas.
That's 60 percent more than at this point last year. Most of those pinkslips are the result of money woes. There's just not enough of it to issue all those paychecks.
But Sally Herships reports the recession is also giving cover to companies looking to get rid of employees, just 'cause.
SADIE NARDINI: Sadie Nardini managed a New York City yoga studio for the last two years. While there she had to layoff 15 employees. That was half of the workforce. She was told to say it was due to the recession. Except that wasn't the real explanation. Her boss had other reasons. Too many men at the front desk.
SADIE NARDINI: And she wanted some goddess energy up there, which means some women, apparently.
Or someone looked unhealthy.
NARDINI: Or this person talks too loudly.
Whatever the real reasons, Sadie's boss said to use the economy as an excuse. No one was given any notice. Even Sadie's mom. She worked for the Yoga Studio too.
HERSHIPS: Did they fire your mother?
NARDINI: They fired my mother last week, due to the economy. The economy is a scapegoat right now. It's dangerous a little bit.
David Lewis is a human resources consultant in Connecticut. He says on a scale of one to 10 for good excuses -- recession is an 11.
DAVID LEWIS: It is that ripe and that rich for the opportunity to be able to let that individual go who you just haven't been able to figure out a way to let go before.
Lewis says there are many employers who have a worker they should have fired long ago. One example:
LEWIS: Where that person is older, does not have the skills necessary to do the job today, they may have had those skills when they joined the company some 20 years ago, but the job's passed them by.
Dan O'Meara is a lawyer in Philadelphia. He represents employers. He says for employers honesty is the best policy.
DAN O'MEARA: I think it's better that employers tell employees an uncomfortable truth than a flattering lie. Sometimes employers want to say, "Oh, this had nothing to do with your job performance, oh, etc., etc.," -- when in fact it did.
But what about lawsuits? O'Meara says use release agreements to soften the blow. That's a severance package in exchange for an agreement not to sue. But HR consultant David Lewis says that can be expensive.
LEWIS: Even there you have no guarantee that the person is going to accept it.
Instead of a severance package, Lewis says employers may want to use the economy as an excuse.
LEWIS: Put 'em into a group of five people, you're laying off a lot easier.
SUZANNE GOLDBERG: When an employer is engaged in massive layoffs, proving that the reason for the layoff was discrimination rather then just financial distress will be more difficult.
That's Columbia University law professor Suzanne Goldberg. She says you obviously can't fire someone for race, gender or religion. But both lawyers agree there are a lot of reasons you can legally fire someone. O'Meara says, most U.S. workers are what's called employed at will.
O'MEARA: Meaning the employer can fire them for good reason, bad reason, or no reason.
Which brings us back to using the recession as a excuse. Human resources consultant David Lewis says while getting rid of dead-weight employees may be a plus, no employer is happy to see their business shrink.
I'm Sally Herships for Marketplace.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From New York, NY, 09/07/2009
I don't get the relationship between firing all your front-desk men because you want sexier receptionists and laying off underperforming employees. The first case is outright discrimination, and the employer is in a tough spot if she/he proceeds to hire women to replace the men. We call that "pretextual" in HR parlance, and it's discrimination. Letting people go who, for instance, were all rated less than average on their last 3 performance appraisals—as long as you can validate the appraisals, and you do it consistently—is a pretty good idea, and easily defendable in court. "Employment at will" does not allow you discriminate. If you were converting to an all-female gym and wanted to lay off all the male front-desk employees, you might have a better case, but not if you simply want some bigger boobs out front.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.