Mixing
Is it ethical to exclude terminally ill employees from end-of-year layoffs? [closed]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Recently, we've heard a lot about Microsoft's stack ranking system and Yahoo's "Quarterly Performance Review" system.
My Question:
- Is it ethical for companies to exclude terminally ill employees from the end-of-year layoffs attached to these programs?
My Concern:
- Making an exception, even for terminal illness, might start the company down a slippery slope and force it to make other exceptions for other kinds of hardships.
EDIT: @Greg McNulty just submitted a comment that deserves more exploration.
someone terminally ill just got let go here. Seems harsh. – Greg McNulty 4 mins ago
It is harsh.
- But it would also be harsh to lay off an employee whose two children were paralyzed in a car accident.
- And it would also be harsh to lay off a single mom who's living paycheck-to-paycheck while supporting three children, all under the age of 7.
Hence, my fear of the slippery slope.
ethics layoff
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:48
Community♦
1
asked Nov 14 '13 at 18:13
Jim G.
11.8k105373
closed as primarily opinion-based by IDrinkandIKnowThings, jcmeloni, Deer Hunter, bethlakshmi, jmort253♦ Nov 18 '13 at 0:01
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Recently, we've heard a lot about Microsoft's stack ranking system and Yahoo's "Quarterly Performance Review" system.
My Question:
- Is it ethical for companies to exclude terminally ill employees from the end-of-year layoffs attached to these programs?
My Concern:
- Making an exception, even for terminal illness, might start the company down a slippery slope and force it to make other exceptions for other kinds of hardships.
EDIT: @Greg McNulty just submitted a comment that deserves more exploration.
someone terminally ill just got let go here. Seems harsh. – Greg McNulty 4 mins ago
It is harsh.
- But it would also be harsh to lay off an employee whose two children were paralyzed in a car accident.
- And it would also be harsh to lay off a single mom who's living paycheck-to-paycheck while supporting three children, all under the age of 7.
Hence, my fear of the slippery slope.
ethics layoff
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:48
Community♦
1
asked Nov 14 '13 at 18:13
Jim G.
11.8k105373
closed as primarily opinion-based by IDrinkandIKnowThings, jcmeloni, Deer Hunter, bethlakshmi, jmort253♦ Nov 18 '13 at 0:01
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
3
I'm confused by the introductory paragraphs about performance review, then the use of the term "layoff". You lay people off because you need to employ less people due to lower sales volume or whatever. You may choose the poorest performers to lay off, but that's by no means the only strategy. Sometimes you lay off an entire department or location. If you are asking "should a terminally ill person be exempt from being fired because they had a poor performance review?" please clarify that, otherwise I fail to see what the review system comment is about.
– Kate Gregory
Nov 14 '13 at 18:53
2
I wonder if severance pay is a factor.
– user8365
Nov 14 '13 at 19:05
2
** comments removed ** This post is turning into more of a discussion than Q&A. While asking directly, "Is X ethical?" can lead to extended discussion and debate, it's very possible for these questions to be reworded to focus on the deeper problem. My suggestion is also to edit and focus on just the question and leave out opinions. This may help make the post sound more objective.
– jmort253♦
Nov 18 '13 at 0:00
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Recently, we've heard a lot about Microsoft's stack ranking system and Yahoo's "Quarterly Performance Review" system.
My Question:
- Is it ethical for companies to exclude terminally ill employees from the end-of-year layoffs attached to these programs?
My Concern:
- Making an exception, even for terminal illness, might start the company down a slippery slope and force it to make other exceptions for other kinds of hardships.
EDIT: @Greg McNulty just submitted a comment that deserves more exploration.
someone terminally ill just got let go here. Seems harsh. – Greg McNulty 4 mins ago
It is harsh.
- But it would also be harsh to lay off an employee whose two children were paralyzed in a car accident.
- And it would also be harsh to lay off a single mom who's living paycheck-to-paycheck while supporting three children, all under the age of 7.
Hence, my fear of the slippery slope.
ethics layoff
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:48
Community♦
1
asked Nov 14 '13 at 18:13
Jim G.
11.8k105373
Recently, we've heard a lot about Microsoft's stack ranking system and Yahoo's "Quarterly Performance Review" system.
My Question:
- Is it ethical for companies to exclude terminally ill employees from the end-of-year layoffs attached to these programs?
My Concern:
- Making an exception, even for terminal illness, might start the company down a slippery slope and force it to make other exceptions for other kinds of hardships.
EDIT: @Greg McNulty just submitted a comment that deserves more exploration.
someone terminally ill just got let go here. Seems harsh. – Greg McNulty 4 mins ago
It is harsh.
- But it would also be harsh to lay off an employee whose two children were paralyzed in a car accident.
- And it would also be harsh to lay off a single mom who's living paycheck-to-paycheck while supporting three children, all under the age of 7.
Hence, my fear of the slippery slope.
ethics layoff
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:48
Community♦
1
asked Nov 14 '13 at 18:13
Jim G.
11.8k105373
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:48
Community♦
1
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:48
Community♦
1
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:48
Community♦
1
1
asked Nov 14 '13 at 18:13
Jim G.
11.8k105373
asked Nov 14 '13 at 18:13
Jim G.
11.8k105373
asked Nov 14 '13 at 18:13
Jim G.
11.8k105373
11.8k105373
closed as primarily opinion-based by IDrinkandIKnowThings, jcmeloni, Deer Hunter, bethlakshmi, jmort253♦ Nov 18 '13 at 0:01
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as primarily opinion-based by IDrinkandIKnowThings, jcmeloni, Deer Hunter, bethlakshmi, jmort253♦ Nov 18 '13 at 0:01
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
3
I'm confused by the introductory paragraphs about performance review, then the use of the term "layoff". You lay people off because you need to employ less people due to lower sales volume or whatever. You may choose the poorest performers to lay off, but that's by no means the only strategy. Sometimes you lay off an entire department or location. If you are asking "should a terminally ill person be exempt from being fired because they had a poor performance review?" please clarify that, otherwise I fail to see what the review system comment is about.
– Kate Gregory
Nov 14 '13 at 18:53
2
I wonder if severance pay is a factor.
– user8365
Nov 14 '13 at 19:05
2
** comments removed ** This post is turning into more of a discussion than Q&A. While asking directly, "Is X ethical?" can lead to extended discussion and debate, it's very possible for these questions to be reworded to focus on the deeper problem. My suggestion is also to edit and focus on just the question and leave out opinions. This may help make the post sound more objective.
– jmort253♦
Nov 18 '13 at 0:00
add a comment |Â
3
I'm confused by the introductory paragraphs about performance review, then the use of the term "layoff". You lay people off because you need to employ less people due to lower sales volume or whatever. You may choose the poorest performers to lay off, but that's by no means the only strategy. Sometimes you lay off an entire department or location. If you are asking "should a terminally ill person be exempt from being fired because they had a poor performance review?" please clarify that, otherwise I fail to see what the review system comment is about.
– Kate Gregory
Nov 14 '13 at 18:53
2
I wonder if severance pay is a factor.
– user8365
Nov 14 '13 at 19:05
2
** comments removed ** This post is turning into more of a discussion than Q&A. While asking directly, "Is X ethical?" can lead to extended discussion and debate, it's very possible for these questions to be reworded to focus on the deeper problem. My suggestion is also to edit and focus on just the question and leave out opinions. This may help make the post sound more objective.
– jmort253♦
Nov 18 '13 at 0:00
3
3
I'm confused by the introductory paragraphs about performance review, then the use of the term "layoff". You lay people off because you need to employ less people due to lower sales volume or whatever. You may choose the poorest performers to lay off, but that's by no means the only strategy. Sometimes you lay off an entire department or location. If you are asking "should a terminally ill person be exempt from being fired because they had a poor performance review?" please clarify that, otherwise I fail to see what the review system comment is about.
– Kate Gregory
Nov 14 '13 at 18:53
I'm confused by the introductory paragraphs about performance review, then the use of the term "layoff". You lay people off because you need to employ less people due to lower sales volume or whatever. You may choose the poorest performers to lay off, but that's by no means the only strategy. Sometimes you lay off an entire department or location. If you are asking "should a terminally ill person be exempt from being fired because they had a poor performance review?" please clarify that, otherwise I fail to see what the review system comment is about.
– Kate Gregory
Nov 14 '13 at 18:53
2
2
I wonder if severance pay is a factor.
– user8365
Nov 14 '13 at 19:05
I wonder if severance pay is a factor.
– user8365
Nov 14 '13 at 19:05
2
2
** comments removed ** This post is turning into more of a discussion than Q&A. While asking directly, "Is X ethical?" can lead to extended discussion and debate, it's very possible for these questions to be reworded to focus on the deeper problem. My suggestion is also to edit and focus on just the question and leave out opinions. This may help make the post sound more objective.
– jmort253♦
Nov 18 '13 at 0:00
** comments removed ** This post is turning into more of a discussion than Q&A. While asking directly, "Is X ethical?" can lead to extended discussion and debate, it's very possible for these questions to be reworded to focus on the deeper problem. My suggestion is also to edit and focus on just the question and leave out opinions. This may help make the post sound more objective.
– jmort253♦
Nov 18 '13 at 0:00
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
17
down vote
Let's leave aside the whole question of whether, at a human level, you or anyone wants to be laying off a terminally ill employee ("Hey Fred. You know how you thought your life couldn't get any worse? Well, guess what.")
The main reason is that terminally ill employees aren't costing the company any money. Usually most of their 'wages' are being paid for by the health insurance provider. If the illness is terminal then they are probably not going to return to work, and so firing them will save the company no money, now or in the future.
Other good reasons not to lay off terminally ill employees include: if the employee is on sick leave now, then it may be illegal to lay them off during that period. In most jurisdictions it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of an illness. Even if the employee should be laid off regardless of whether they were sick, the company is going to have to be very confident that it can demonstrate that if a lawsuit is brought.
Also, most companies care about their public image, and their reputation with their employees. Laying off a terminally ill employee isn't going to do anything to help either one. That goes double if laying them off terminates their healthcare coverage.
answered Nov 14 '13 at 18:34
DJClayworth
41.6k989147
and dependent on company/locale they may well have different rules/laws for handling terminally ill workers for example medical retirement.
– Neuromancer
Nov 14 '13 at 19:29
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
17
down vote
Let's leave aside the whole question of whether, at a human level, you or anyone wants to be laying off a terminally ill employee ("Hey Fred. You know how you thought your life couldn't get any worse? Well, guess what.")
The main reason is that terminally ill employees aren't costing the company any money. Usually most of their 'wages' are being paid for by the health insurance provider. If the illness is terminal then they are probably not going to return to work, and so firing them will save the company no money, now or in the future.
Other good reasons not to lay off terminally ill employees include: if the employee is on sick leave now, then it may be illegal to lay them off during that period. In most jurisdictions it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of an illness. Even if the employee should be laid off regardless of whether they were sick, the company is going to have to be very confident that it can demonstrate that if a lawsuit is brought.
Also, most companies care about their public image, and their reputation with their employees. Laying off a terminally ill employee isn't going to do anything to help either one. That goes double if laying them off terminates their healthcare coverage.
answered Nov 14 '13 at 18:34
DJClayworth
41.6k989147
and dependent on company/locale they may well have different rules/laws for handling terminally ill workers for example medical retirement.
– Neuromancer
Nov 14 '13 at 19:29
add a comment |Â
up vote
17
down vote
Let's leave aside the whole question of whether, at a human level, you or anyone wants to be laying off a terminally ill employee ("Hey Fred. You know how you thought your life couldn't get any worse? Well, guess what.")
The main reason is that terminally ill employees aren't costing the company any money. Usually most of their 'wages' are being paid for by the health insurance provider. If the illness is terminal then they are probably not going to return to work, and so firing them will save the company no money, now or in the future.
Other good reasons not to lay off terminally ill employees include: if the employee is on sick leave now, then it may be illegal to lay them off during that period. In most jurisdictions it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of an illness. Even if the employee should be laid off regardless of whether they were sick, the company is going to have to be very confident that it can demonstrate that if a lawsuit is brought.
Also, most companies care about their public image, and their reputation with their employees. Laying off a terminally ill employee isn't going to do anything to help either one. That goes double if laying them off terminates their healthcare coverage.
answered Nov 14 '13 at 18:34
DJClayworth
41.6k989147
and dependent on company/locale they may well have different rules/laws for handling terminally ill workers for example medical retirement.
– Neuromancer
Nov 14 '13 at 19:29
add a comment |Â
up vote
17
down vote
up vote
17
down vote
Let's leave aside the whole question of whether, at a human level, you or anyone wants to be laying off a terminally ill employee ("Hey Fred. You know how you thought your life couldn't get any worse? Well, guess what.")
The main reason is that terminally ill employees aren't costing the company any money. Usually most of their 'wages' are being paid for by the health insurance provider. If the illness is terminal then they are probably not going to return to work, and so firing them will save the company no money, now or in the future.
Other good reasons not to lay off terminally ill employees include: if the employee is on sick leave now, then it may be illegal to lay them off during that period. In most jurisdictions it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of an illness. Even if the employee should be laid off regardless of whether they were sick, the company is going to have to be very confident that it can demonstrate that if a lawsuit is brought.
Also, most companies care about their public image, and their reputation with their employees. Laying off a terminally ill employee isn't going to do anything to help either one. That goes double if laying them off terminates their healthcare coverage.
answered Nov 14 '13 at 18:34
DJClayworth
41.6k989147
Let's leave aside the whole question of whether, at a human level, you or anyone wants to be laying off a terminally ill employee ("Hey Fred. You know how you thought your life couldn't get any worse? Well, guess what.")
The main reason is that terminally ill employees aren't costing the company any money. Usually most of their 'wages' are being paid for by the health insurance provider. If the illness is terminal then they are probably not going to return to work, and so firing them will save the company no money, now or in the future.
Other good reasons not to lay off terminally ill employees include: if the employee is on sick leave now, then it may be illegal to lay them off during that period. In most jurisdictions it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of an illness. Even if the employee should be laid off regardless of whether they were sick, the company is going to have to be very confident that it can demonstrate that if a lawsuit is brought.
Also, most companies care about their public image, and their reputation with their employees. Laying off a terminally ill employee isn't going to do anything to help either one. That goes double if laying them off terminates their healthcare coverage.
answered Nov 14 '13 at 18:34
DJClayworth
41.6k989147
edited Oct 30 '15 at 17:38
answered Nov 14 '13 at 18:34
DJClayworth
41.6k989147
answered Nov 14 '13 at 18:34
DJClayworth
41.6k989147
answered Nov 14 '13 at 18:34
DJClayworth
41.6k989147
41.6k989147
and dependent on company/locale they may well have different rules/laws for handling terminally ill workers for example medical retirement.
– Neuromancer
Nov 14 '13 at 19:29
add a comment |Â
and dependent on company/locale they may well have different rules/laws for handling terminally ill workers for example medical retirement.
– Neuromancer
Nov 14 '13 at 19:29
and dependent on company/locale they may well have different rules/laws for handling terminally ill workers for example medical retirement.
– Neuromancer
Nov 14 '13 at 19:29
and dependent on company/locale they may well have different rules/laws for handling terminally ill workers for example medical retirement.
– Neuromancer
Nov 14 '13 at 19:29
add a comment |Â
3
I'm confused by the introductory paragraphs about performance review, then the use of the term "layoff". You lay people off because you need to employ less people due to lower sales volume or whatever. You may choose the poorest performers to lay off, but that's by no means the only strategy. Sometimes you lay off an entire department or location. If you are asking "should a terminally ill person be exempt from being fired because they had a poor performance review?" please clarify that, otherwise I fail to see what the review system comment is about.
– Kate Gregory
Nov 14 '13 at 18:53
2
I wonder if severance pay is a factor.
– user8365
Nov 14 '13 at 19:05
2
** comments removed ** This post is turning into more of a discussion than Q&A. While asking directly, "Is X ethical?" can lead to extended discussion and debate, it's very possible for these questions to be reworded to focus on the deeper problem. My suggestion is also to edit and focus on just the question and leave out opinions. This may help make the post sound more objective.
– jmort253♦
Nov 18 '13 at 0:00