Do you support the idea that if you can hire someone better,

[closeupready]

you should do it, and fire those who are slacking?

6 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	4 (67%)
	No
	2 (33%)
	Undecided
	0 (0%)
	Not voting in this BS poll, reasons below
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. I was in a position to hire and fire people for over a decade and only fired one person.

Some people like it. It sucked to me .

[closeupready]

4. When I was very young (like 21 or 22), I used to think,

'how hard can that really be? I could do it, no sweat' with regard to firing people.

Then when I hit my 30's, I think that's when I realized, no, I don't think I could do it - coming to that realization on a number of axes.

Further, I've noticed that in every organization with which I've been employed, it's fairly common for HR to take a week or so time off AFTER doing a big lay off. NOW, I get it. It must be WAY stressful to understand that due to something YOU helped do, a child/dependent is now suffering. And after about 30 years working, I am absolutely SURE I could never do it. No amount of money could assuage the guilt for me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. I have seen people get fired and start crying./NT

[Rex]

14. Same here, I've seen a man break down, sob and plead for his job.

It is gutwrenching. Especially when you know that it is a life changing even and not for the betterment of the now unemployed. He had a wife and 3 young kids. That was in 2002, I hope he made it back into the workforce.

It was a firing due to attrition, he did nothing wrong and was a great worker.

[Cheese Sandwich]

2. We should be allowed to slack off more

[peecoolyour]

3. I'd want to get to the root of the problem.

And learn what about the company's culture is making people want to slack.

Maybe I'm not paying them enough to care.

[JaneyVee]

5. Lets fire the Republican party and hire better reps.

[Rex]

7. Even one better, let corporations that fail to make it on their own go out of business.

So that another can stand up and take their place. The government should never be in the business of bailing out private industry.

As for your question, if people are slacking then they are not really doing the job they were hired for right?

[closeupready]

8. Your question is an important one.

There is the concept, at least amongst the non-exempt, as being 'paid to wait'. That is, some employees (the non-exempt, who are paid overtime) are paid to wait for work to occur, during a pre-set time frame of the work day. Necessary work that occurs outside that time frame is work that is paid at a premium (mostly).

[Rex]

10. Sounds like "hurry up and wait" which was the Army business model.

Back in the 90s that is all we did, it was very frustrating. Of course there was no overtime, just Army time.

[haele]

9. Define better and slacking, and I might make a direct answer.

As it is, I've seen plenty of slackers who were considered "better" workers - better networkers, more charismatic, or "better" education.
I've seen plenty of better workers who were considered "slackers" - they did the work they were paid to do better than anyone else - knew the job inside and out and were far more productive (got the job done more efficiently and accurately than almost anyone else could). But since they refused to do more than their job description or working hours without compensation, or had more "time off" on the clock to sit because they got their work done quicker and had to wait for the other components in the tasking to catch up, they were slackers.

Now, if your job requirements have changed, and/or you do have a over-privileged, whining slacker who refuses to learn taking up desk space that does not meet the standards you set for the job - and you can find someone that can meet the standards, and you pay/compensate that new tasking at a legitimate level for the skills required for that job based on living wage calculations, then yes, I'd have no problems firing that particular slacker for someone who is more qualified.

Again, so long as you don't use this as an excuse to re-set the wage structure so as to make your business look "more profitable" by firing someone who is older and deserves those wages s/he was getting due to experience and knowledge, and then hire someone younger and cheaper to try to do the same work that older person did - and more work to boot.
If you can't afford to pay the people who do the work that makes your profit an equivalent share of that profit, then frankly, you don't deserve to be in business. As the economic health of businesses improve, so should the economic health of their workforce.

Haele

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

19. I mostly agree with Haele.

I think it depends on why your staff isn't meeting expectations. In many cases, I would suggest retraining or exercises to make the staff better, rather than firing them. If you simply fire people every time you find 'better' people, you'll have zero staff loyalty, and even those who look furiously busy may be highly unproductive (and seeking a better employer), because you've given them reason to believe they have zero job security and that you don't appreciate what they do, only seek to find ways to fault them and replace them.

[abelenkpe]

11. Define better. nt

[99Forever]

12. In almost all aspects of my life.

Especially when it comes to the life altering controls of how my family lives.

[lpbk2713]

13. The problem there is ... who makes the decision?

And is it an honest decision or is it a popularity contest?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. Only if they're more than a little bit better.

From the point of view of an employer or a colleague, continuity is helpful. Having been doing a job for a while is a big advantage, and will make a current employee preferable to an equal or even an only-slightly-more-talented new hire.

From the point of view of an employee, the negative of losing a job significantly outweighs the positive of being hired. I'd far rather find it harder to get a job but have more security once I'm there than vice versa.

Also, firing people is bad for the morale of those who stay, which has a negative effect on the business (and while knowing that you'll be fired if you don't perform is a strong motivation to perform better, it's probably outweighed if people have to worry too much).



So yes, if a new hire would be significantly better than a current employee, then you should replace them. But if it's doubtful, or if they'd only be a little bit better, you should probably stick with the person you're currently employing.

[Orsino]

16. How does one determine that someone one hasn't yet hired is "better"?

I do not support the pursuit of imaginary saving at the cost of jobs.

Either grow up and fire for malfeasance, or really, really grow up and do the hard work of training and developing employees.

[closeupready]

20. I like this line of thinking.

Cheers.

[alc]

17. I voted yes, but

Morale of the team/division/company is more important than one individual (rock start or slacker). That's true in almost every type of company. I have been a hiring manager at a huge company and worked for a number of 20-100 person startups and had my own businesses with < 5 employees.

If people get fired who aren't slackers, it's bad for morale. So I wouldn't fire someone who's doing an average job for someone who can do much better.

If people don't get fired who are slackers, it's also bad for morale. I would fire a slacker even if I don't have someone better, but only after some talks, and mentoring and opportunity to turn things around. Sometimes they just aren't capable of (or interested in) the tasks they are given and we just need to find the right things for them to do.

[brooklynite]

18. "I like being able to fire people"

[madinmaryland]

21. Thread win!

[Liberal_in_LA]

22. is this an anti Hillary poll?

[Caspian Morgan]

23. Maybe one could take the time to help the person who is slacking

and give them a hand in the world?

[Go Vols]

24. Slackers slow other workers down

and piss them off.I have fired 100's thru the years for this reason.

I have came back from lunch before and asked where is the guy I hired this morning and the crew would tell me that they fired him.

As an Ironworker building tall buildings,its a fast paced thing on a tight schedule,slackers don't fit into that happening.