When it comes to layoffs/cutbacks, does seniority no longer matter?

[We_are_Bama]

I know that every employer is different, but I was under the impression that, at least to some degree, employers still had to follow protocol with regard to seniority when it comes to "belt tightening" time. My employer kicked off this week with a gloom and doom meeting about how we have too many employees and therefore, at some point in the not too distant future, someone has to go. Next month, I will have 13 years at my present job, so when I first heard that they would have to start cutting back, I didn't get too nervous. Well, that feeling quickly changed as they then went on to inform us that basically, seniority made no difference in this situation. Not only that, but apparently, temporary employees (in other words,people willing to work for next to nothing) have more security than people like me. Despite being temps and despite having been there less than a year. So, bottom line, I'm first up on the chopping block, due to the fact that I'm not a minimum wager, and I don't have enough time in to retire. This is where it gets contradictory. Apparently, those with enough time to retire are safe as well. Yet, they said seniority didn't matter.:conf2: So, if they attempted to lay me off over a temp, could I sue them for failing to recognize my seniority? Or, is nobody really "safe" in this current economic environment?

 

[Bamaro]

Unless you have a union contract, seniority doesn't matter.

 

[AlistarWills]

my 2 cents, and only my 2 cents. Not necessarily weighing in on your specific situation. I'm in a semi-managerial position. We had a situation come up a couple years back where we were looking at having to cut some people loose. I flat told the people in our office what was on the board and that they needed to make themselves invaluable. Basically, if you ain't gonna work, I don't need you here. I currently have people that are new working circles around folks with seniority. If I had to recommend people to cut today, it would be the ones not pulling their weight. I can see your organizations scenario, if they cut the ones that are retirement age, they are still paying them, so keep em around and get something out of them instead of a permanent paid vacation. As far as the temps go, it's all about the money. If they are pulling the weight a full timer is, for less money, why would they keep someone they are paying more, plus benefits to, when they can get it cheaper with the temp? It sucks when you've given that much of your life to a company that they wouldn't have your back, but in the end, it comes to dollars and cents and they will not be loyal to you like you've been to them.

 

[bamachile]

I had a discussion just this morning with a friend of mine on this general subject. It seems that loyalty (employer and/or employee) is no longer an expectation in the American corporate model. If you wish to go all philosophical about it, you could make a case that loyalty is no longer an American characteristic and that the corporate model is simply a reflection of American values, but, hey, when have we ever went all philosophical here on Tidefans NS...

 

[We_are_Bama]

It's looking more and more like my time there is at it's end. It sux, because in one week from this Thursday, I turn 40. I haven't job hunted since just before my 27th birthday. At 26, you can lose your job, walk across the street and find new employment. At 40, well, not so much. Now, I get to compete with a bunch of twenty-somethings for work. The world is far different than it was in the fall of 2000. I wouldn't know where to begin. Not only that, I could have to train my replacement before they let me go. They are in talks with someone who is willing to take my position for what would amount to less than the minimum wage! But, apparently, I may not be alone. Also, there is a lady here who is slightly older than me, and has like 15-16 years of service, and TWO college degrees. Yet, they are in talks with someone to replace her who has never even set foot inside a college classroom. Yet, when she got the job back in the late 1990's, an advanced degree was required. But, these people they are talking to now (potential future temps) will work for peanuts, and that is very attractive to my soon-to-be ex-employer.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Well unfortunately the philosophy on this topic has flip flopped a 180 degrees. Used to seniority meant something but no longer is the case. In today's business seniority means "higher wages" and many businesses would rather get rid of the experienced employee and his/her $20/hr wage and replace them with an inexperienced employee at $12/hr. That is the trend I've been seeing.

 

[twofbyc]

In this day and age, the climate being what it is, seniority is practically a liability.

 

[twofbyc]

It's looking more and more like my time there is at it's end. It sux, because in one week from this Thursday, I turn 40. I haven't job hunted since just before my 27th birthday. At 26, you can lose your job, walk across the street and find new employment. At 40, well, not so much. Now, I get to compete with a bunch of twenty-somethings for work. The world is far different than it was in the fall of 2000. I wouldn't know where to begin. Not only that, I could have to train my replacement before they let me go. They are in talks with someone who is willing to take my position for what would amount to less than the minimum wage! But, apparently, I may not be alone. Also, there is a lady here who is slightly older than me, and has like 15-16 years of service, and TWO college degrees. Yet, they are in talks with someone to replace her who has never even set foot inside a college classroom. Yet, when she got the job back in the late 1990's, an advanced degree was required. But, these people they are talking to now (potential future temps) will work for peanuts, and that is very attractive to my soon-to-be ex-employer.

I can just wish you luck; be glad you aren't 60.

 

[TexasBama]

We Are Bama - what kind of business are you in?

 

[Bamabuzzard]

It's looking more and more like my time there is at it's end. It sux, because in one week from this Thursday, I turn 40. I haven't job hunted since just before my 27th birthday. At 26, you can lose your job, walk across the street and find new employment. At 40, well, not so much. Now, I get to compete with a bunch of twenty-somethings for work. The world is far different than it was in the fall of 2000. I wouldn't know where to begin. Not only that, I could have to train my replacement before they let me go. They are in talks with someone who is willing to take my position for what would amount to less than the minimum wage! But, apparently, I may not be alone. Also, there is a lady here who is slightly older than me, and has like 15-16 years of service, and TWO college degrees. Yet, they are in talks with someone to replace her who has never even set foot inside a college classroom. Yet, when she got the job back in the late 1990's, an advanced degree was required. But, these people they are talking to now (potential future temps) will work for peanuts, and that is very attractive to my soon-to-be ex-employer.

Yep. "You" lose all leverage when someone else is willing to do "your" job for less. Not to get off topic but this is part of the reason for jobs going over seas and the amount of illegal aliens having work here in the states. They don't mind roofing a house for 30% less than the brick and mortar business up the road who's been in the community for 20 years. The people over seas don't mind putting together grills for pennies on the dollar that will be sold at Lowes compared to the American worker who requires a lot more.

 

[We_are_Bama]

We Are Bama - what kind of business are you in?

For now, anyway, I work at a community college. My title is inventory control.

 

[AlistarWills]

I will add to my post above. I wholeheartedly stand behind the guy that's been here longer, as long as they are working. We've had people putting in for jobs elsewhere and I was on the discussion as to if we should counter their offer. I made sure to point out that regardless of what the upper management thought, that you just cannot replace the historical knowledge that these folks have. I'm in a customer service type industry and the relationships they have with our customers and the knowledge of the backstory of how things got to where they are are invaluable. 2 bosses above me believe anyone can be replaced. They might can, but at what cost.
I don't know We_are_Bama's situation. May be a hard worker that is about to get screwed out of a job, if that's the case I feel really bad about the situation and I hope that as that door closes another is opened for you. I do know, personally, of cases where someone had seniority and they just flat wouldn't work. Those are the ones taking a large paycheck and not putting any work in. They truly are a debit on the ledger sheet and needs to leave.

 

[Tide1986]

We Are Bama - what kind of business are you in?

Good question.

In response to the OP:

Normally, companies employ a certain number of temps as insurance for just this kind of situation. Most companies would simply drop some or all of their temps and avoid the severance costs of terminating full-time employees. If a company can run successfully using substantially temporary labor, then someone hasn't been minding the shop very well if too many full-time employees have been allowed to accrue onto the payroll.

That being said and speaking as someone in management, when I've had to execute reductions in force, I've always focused on who I need to have around to get the job done afterward. This approach generally yields a mixture of new and experienced employees being caught up in the reduction -- seniority, either having it or not, has never factored into my decision-making.

 

[CrimsonNagus]

I hate seniority and I think all decisions should be performance based decisions. I've been laid off twice since 2008 and both were because of unions and seniority. The first job was with the Montgomery Public Schools back in 2008, I wasn't tenure and I was the last one hired so, I was the first one out. Second time was with a contract position on the AFB here in town. Budget cuts came through and a portion of the contract was de-funded so about 20 of us lost are jobs. Union said seniority ruled. This one upset me more then the school job because there were folks who sucked at there jobs but, because they'd been there longer, they got to stay. If it wasn't because of seniority, I'd still have that job, I'm sure of it.

I'm not saying that you are a bad worker We_are_Bama, so please don't take offense to what I said. I just don't believe in seniority based lay-off decisions with no consideration for job performance. If you have seniority and are really good at your job then yes, seniority should be the deciding factor if everything else is equal. Strictly going off seniority and nothing else just isn't right IMO.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I hate seniority and I think all decisions should be performance based decisions. I've been laid off twice since 2008 and both were because of unions and seniority. The first job was with the Montgomery Public Schools back in 2008, I wasn't tenure and I was the last one hired so, I was the first one out. Second time was with a contract position on the AFB here in town. Budget cuts came through and a portion of the contract was de-funded so about 20 of us lost are jobs. Union said seniority ruled. This one upset me more then the school job because there were folks who sucked at there jobs but, because they'd been there longer, they got to stay. If it wasn't because of seniority, I'd still have that job, I'm sure of it.

I'm not saying that you are a bad worker We_are_Bama, so please don't take offense to what I said. I just don't believe in seniority based lay-off decisions with no consideration for job performance.

I think seniority should matter when all things (of importance) are equal. For example if you and another guy are deemed relatively equal from a performance/production standpoint and management has to decide which to keep and which to let go. I think the one with the most seniority should get the nod.

 

[CrimsonNagus]

I think seniority should matter when all things (of importance) are equal. For example if you and another guy are deemed relatively equal from a performance/production standpoint and management has to decide which to keep and which to let go. I think the one with the most seniority should get the nod.

I agree and I added that to my post, probably while you were typing yours.

The union I was with, which we had no choice of whether to join or not, wouldn't even entertain the idea of allowing management to use some form of job performance review and seniority. Management said they tried (who knows if they really did) but, the union said no. A list was created sorted by start dates, a line drawn at the bottom 20 and we were given a month to find a new job. That last month of work was one of the most depressing office atmospheres I've ever been a part of, it sucked.

 

[Tide1986]

I think seniority should matter when all things (of importance) are equal. For example if you and another guy are deemed relatively equal from a performance/production standpoint and management has to decide which to keep and which to let go. I think the one with the most seniority should get the nod.

Only if pay and attitude were equivalent in this example would I then consider seniority. If they are not equivalent, attitude would likely be my first deciding factor (attitude impacts the productivity of others) and then affordability would be my next deciding factor if there wasn't a definitive attitude difference.

Seniority should be one of the last factors considered in my opinion. A lot has to be equal for me to get to seniority as a factor.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I personally think in many sectors of business we're seeing a deflation of wages. Just like I have a friend who worked 23 years for Sam's Wholesale and was part of a big layoff that cut loose a lot of long time workers with what they deemed "high wages". They hired people in their place for 40% less. This is happening in a lot of American businesses. My dad was a victim of this at GM. He was replaced with a worker that made $14/hour. My dad worked for them over 30 years. He ended up making $28/hour. But had one of the hardest jobs on the line as well. I've mentioned on here before but he shot rivets into to the chassis where he had to hold a pretty heavy rivet gun ducking under the line back and forth all day. He now has permanent nerve damage in his hands, elbows and part of this shoulder.

 

[twofbyc]

Been watching my last employer fumble and stumble 5 years on from getting rid of many experienced personnel. Their knowledge of the software systems, design, issues, etc was something they garnered over 10-12 years of work. I laughed when some of them actually got calls from some of their former co-workers asking for help, because they (along with the "new" employees), didn't have enough experience to handle problems.
They were let go because of pay, which they were getting as a result of their experience, attitude and ability.

 

[We_are_Bama]

What appears to be happening in my case is that the decisions are being made strictly on what/who is costing less. Without sounding like I am blowing my own horn, I know I am FAR better than the temp workers at my job. They are late, and they ALWAYS blame traffic, despite the fact that they live less than five minutes from the job. They smoke all the time, despite the fact that the workplace is smoke free, and nothing is ever said to them. Their work is mediocre at best. Some of them don't even have driver's licenses. Yet, they work for next to nothing and don't have any type of health insurance. If they aren't at work, they don't get paid, which in my employer's eyes, is even more savings. Whereas with people like me, if we get sick, or take a vacation, they have to pay us. I was even told that they "would hate to lose me" and I am "light years ahead of these temps" in terms of working, but, in the end the temps just aren't costing them very much. I asked if they were aware that the place would go to you-know-where in a hand basket if it were turned over to the temps who work for next to nothing, and they said something like "well, sure, it would be an adjustment and there would be some drawbacks". I just don't know what else to tell them to help my case. My 13 years don't matter because while it's a lot of time, it's not enough for retirement. Yet, those with 20 plus years aren't even in consideration for being laid off, because they have seniority, the very thing that the bosses say doesn't matter. Now, I'm hearing that if one of the retirement age workers puts in for retirement fairly soon, I might get a reprieve. I don't know.....DT_sad: