Single People, Please Exit the Building

S

sparrow

Cathlete
OK all, here's something my friend told me happened at her job last week. She's an attorney, was in a meeting with the other legal types. The announcement was made that due to belt-tightening, there were going to be layoffs/terminations. Someone wonders if it will be done according to seniority. That's when this guy pipes up and says that single people should be the first to go. Single women, followed by single men, then married w/o kids, and then, married with children. Now they weren't planning on terminating EVERYONE, so what he was basically saying was that he should be "fire proof" because he has a wife (who works too, BTW) and kids.

What do you guys think of this?

Sparrow

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming ‘Wow - what a ride!’ — Peter Sage
 
I think the guy is probably a lazy, backstabbing, selfish person who only cares for Numero Uno. Marital status, sex, age, number of children, seniority, height, weight, eye or hair color should have nothing to do with the decision. The guy should be the first to go for even making such a ludicrous suggestion.
 
From an HR Manager, kinda reminds me of some of my gutless managers. Cannot get rid of a bad employee because they have a family.

Or what about parents that use all their sick time (we allow it) for their sick children and those that have older children, no children, or sitters that take sick children don't get as much paid time off.

There are many inequities when it comes to Reduction in Force (workforce) - if it isn't seniority then it should be due to some sort of business value. Not a perceived "wordly value".

What a bozo ! :+

(And as an attorney, how would he handle that one when it comes to discrimination?) }(
 
As someone who was single until the age of 40 I felt I was continiually discriminated against in corp. america for being single... cannot tell you how often people said to my face that I shouldnt have the holiday off, or use my flex time or be first on the calendar for vacations simply because my family was 2000 miles away and I was single/no kids.... People were serious and felt no shame is asking me to change my plans off (even tho I was their boss)... I think its just another way for people to try and manipulate a situation to fit their personal agenda and it has no place in the work arena.
 
Sparrow

I'm so glad I am retired with my husband. I just couldn't play the game anymore. I don't envy you. Please take care.

Janie

"If you can't say anything nice about someone, then don't say anything at all."
-My mother, Mary Cooper-
 
This guy sounds like an idiot, but lets give him the benefit of the doubt and hope, really hope, that he's just socially inept and was making some kind of bad, bad joke. I believe someone already mentioned this, but companies can't hire OR fire people based on marital status, just like they can't use height, sex, religion, etc, as bases of those decisions either.
was he just trying to protect his own ass by creating some stupid, arbitrary heirarchy? who knows.

cristina
 
Let's NOT give him the benefit of the doubt - he IS an ass and was not kidding at all when he said that. I wonderful what kind of lucky woman married this piece of work! Or married and divorced him, or married and WISHED she could divorce him!

"You can't win them all - but you can try." - Babe Zaharias http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/musik/music-smiley-004.gif[/img]
 
Sounds like he is doing a crappy job, and hanging on by his family's merits.

My husband and I work at the same place, have two children, one in college.......and the company is about to get sold, and we have no sweet clue if there will be jobs for everyone when the smoke clears.
But our expectations are, if there are lay-offs, they will be done on merit, or lack of merit. If the company moves, we will go find jobs elsewhere, because our family situation makes us it much harder for us to move. But we would never, ever use family as an excuse that we should not get canned. In fact, we work darn hard, and are there for the company despite all the other commitments we have in our lives. Our absentism is one of the lowest in the company.
 
Because I am a SAHM with three kids who relies on her DH for financial support, I kinda like his idea! :+ Okay, that is just wrong

Honesty, he sounds like a complete idiot who is desperate to be overlooked because he obviously isn't doing his job the way he knows he should and he is afraid of getting the axe. I wonder why he thinks that single WOMEN should go before singe MEN - maybe he is hoping that they all end up at Hooters or something....

Missy
 
"I wonder why he thinks that single WOMEN should go before singe MEN - maybe he is hoping that they all end up at Hooters or something...."

Missy-
You made me laugh so hard I spit my coffee out!
 
I think people should be laid off or fired ONLY based upon their contributions to the company. It's a very difficult decision to make, but putting people out of a job should never be taken lightly, and serious consideration should be given to it.

We have been going through a steady series of layoffs for about two years now. Just this spring, we lost an entire third of our employees. We're down to the bare bones, and it's pretty tough getting things done. The people who were laid off were all wonderful people. Some were single, some weren't. But unfortunately, their positions weren't critically essential to the survival of our department.

I guess what I'm trying to say in a rather long-winded way is that layoffs should not be made based upon who that person is, personally. They should focus specifically on how that person relates to the company.
 
I figured everyone would feel the same way I - and my friend - did about it. The guy is just a total weenie, even if he felt like that, he shouldn't SAY IT in front of his coworkers!

I asked my friend the same question about why single women before single men and she said she thinks it's because, in his mind, single men might be building up to support a family/future some day. Single women, on the other hand, are simply working to pay for bingo, cruises and the latest Danielle Steele novel. :D My friend did point out to him that he has a working wife and so can fall back on her income while single people have only one income to depend on. His response? "it's not my fault you never got married."

WEENIE WEENIE WEENIE!!!

Sparrow

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming ‘Wow - what a ride!’ — Peter Sage
 
OMG did this ever get my blood boiling first thing in the morning!

First of all, I think it should be the opposite--married couples typically have two incomes & can find some way to survive if they lost one (bearing in mind unemployment is available). Single people, on the other hand, are pretty much SOL if they lose their jobs. For crying out loud, I'd have to move back in w/my dad!

And BTW I did get married, the guy was a jerk & made absolutely NO financial contributions to our household other than paying mortgage & utilities so he could keep buying his expensive toys. That's one reason why I'm not married anymore.

Not to mention, women still make 80% of what men do for doing the same job, so this Danielle Steele/going on cruises is just a big old load of $hit. I work my skinny little a$$ off just so I can pay the bills, eat, & feed my dogs.

Boy Sparrow, props to you for not b*tch slapping this guy into next month! I don't think I'd have that kind of self control........
 
>OMG did this ever get my blood boiling first thing in the
>morning!
>
>First of all, I think it should be the opposite--married
>couples typically have two incomes & can find some way to
>survive if they lost one (bearing in mind unemployment is
>available). Single people, on the other hand, are pretty much
>SOL if they lose their jobs. For crying out loud, I'd have to
>move back in w/my dad!
>
>And BTW I did get married, the guy was a jerk & made
>absolutely NO financial contributions to our household other
>than paying mortgage & utilities so he could keep buying his
>expensive toys. That's one reason why I'm not married
>anymore.
>
>Not to mention, women still make 80% of what men do for doing
>the same job, so this Danielle Steele/going on cruises is just
>a big old load of $hit. I work my skinny little a$$ off just
>so I can pay the bills, eat, & feed my dogs.
>
>Boy Sparrow, props to you for not b*tch slapping this guy into
>next month! I don't think I'd have that kind of self
>control........

MArried people both work, usually because they need the income, with college and kids, we can ill afford to lose our jobs, just like a single person. Also, there is a cap on unempoyment, I believe if I lost my job I may be able to get 400.00 a week. Sorry, but that would hardly cover groceries, unemployment does not even come close to recovering what a job would pay. Give me the job any day.

I make more than my husband and most men at my employment. Our pay is based on experience and quality of work.

Bottom line, lay-offs should be merit based, as pay should, not if you are married, have kids, ect. On the same lines, someone should not be denied employment if they are a person with kids on the chance they would miss work because of childrens illnesses. Everyone needs to play by the same rules.
 
>
>MArried people both work, usually because they need the
>income, with college and kids, we can ill afford to lose our
>jobs, just like a single person. Also, there is a cap on
>unempoyment, I believe if I lost my job I may be able to get
>400.00 a week. Sorry, but that would hardly cover groceries,
>unemployment does not even come close to recovering what a job
>would pay. Give me the job any day.
>
>I make more than my husband and most men at my employment.
>Our pay is based on experience and quality of work.
>
>Bottom line, lay-offs should be merit based, as pay should,
>not if you are married, have kids, ect. On the same lines,
>someone should not be denied employment if they are a person
>with kids on the chance they would miss work because of
>childrens illnesses. Everyone needs to play by the same
>rules.
>

So you would have to move back in with your parents too? The $400 per week wouldn't be in addition to a second income? (here in NJ there isn't a cap on unemployment, it's a percentage of your salary--I think 80%)

I understand that children are expensive, but there are also scholarships & loans for college--my entire college education was funded that way, & 10 years later I'm still making the loan payments.

I agree that layoffs (and promotions & raises for that matter) should be merit-based, and that an employee's personal situation should not be a factor in any of this. But I still think single people would be in a much more difficult position since they don't have a second income to fall back on.
 
>>
>>MArried people both work, usually because they need the
>>income, with college and kids, we can ill afford to lose our
>>jobs, just like a single person. Also, there is a cap on
>>unempoyment, I believe if I lost my job I may be able to get
>>400.00 a week. Sorry, but that would hardly cover
>groceries,
>>unemployment does not even come close to recovering what a
>job
>>would pay. Give me the job any day.
>>
>>I make more than my husband and most men at my employment.
>>Our pay is based on experience and quality of work.
>>
>>Bottom line, lay-offs should be merit based, as pay should,
>>not if you are married, have kids, ect. On the same lines,
>>someone should not be denied employment if they are a person
>>with kids on the chance they would miss work because of
>>childrens illnesses. Everyone needs to play by the same
>>rules.
>>
>
>So you would have to move back in with your parents too? The
>$400 per week wouldn't be in addition to a second income?
>(here in NJ there isn't a cap on unemployment, it's a
>percentage of your salary--I think 80%)
>
>I understand that children are expensive, but there are also
>scholarships & loans for college--my entire college education
>was funded that way, & 10 years later I'm still making the
>loan payments.
>
>I agree that layoffs (and promotions & raises for that matter)
>should be merit-based, and that an employee's personal
>situation should not be a factor in any of this. But I still
>think single people would be in a much more difficult position
>since they don't have a second income to fall back on.
>

Laura, since I am in this situation of a possible job loss, yes, I have already contacted my parents in case I need financial help.

If you have not noticed, and I am sure you have, one income these days is tough to live on. And if the person who is laid off is the main bread winner, and the other person a secondary income with a third of the salary, it is tough.

And there is not that many scholarships that are full ride, only if you are Division 1 top of your game high money sports, and public school is currently running up to 20,000 a year. That is enough to not allow some kids to even afford school. Yes there are student loans you can get from the bank, federal loans are limited funds, and only cover half of tuition, no room and board. There is also ways to do work study and such, but I personally think ANYONE is in a bad position at a loss of job and if you want a turn of a coin, a single person with no dependants only has themselves to worry about, not the stress of raising children, wondering if they can even afford to pay their public school book fee books fees, cloth and feed that child.

So each side has major issues with this. I cannot see how it is worse for one and not the other. Going through a job loss is bad for anyone(been there done that).

We have had lay-offs here, and the people who either had no kids, or whose kids were grown and gone, both said " I am really glad I don't have kids to worry about at this time".
 
Ironically, in a non-seniority layoff, you and your husband would probably be the last to be layed off. Even though you both are employees, they only really have to cover one of you for health benefits.

Our school district has been known for years to hire husband/wife teams.

Dave
 
Actually marital status isn't covered under the equal protection laws that cover age , religion, etc. So technically your employer can legally fire you because you are married or single--not that I think any rational employer ever would!
 
That's discrimitatory. As a lawyer, he should know this.

What not let go who is the least productive?

This man obviously has no business or common sense. Probably not a good lawyer either.
 
>Ironically, in a non-seniority layoff, you and your husband
>would probably be the last to be layed off. Even though you
>both are employees, they only really have to cover one of you
>for health benefits.
>
>Our school district has been known for years to hire
>husband/wife teams.
>
>Dave

Currently we have good insurance, dependants fully covered, which is amazing in this day and age. If we are both employees, than if there were dependant coverage, than we should both get whatever coverage an employee gets than dependant coverage should a cost incur(and I fully expect it) would go under one of us.

The only word we have is "for now" all employees will be brought forward. So DH and I last winter did some financial planning for a time when we might be unemployed and job hunting. I also am taking additional classes to pad my knowledge and bring me up on the latest technology. DH is up on this because in 2000 his company got sold and he lost his job(so I kinda know how it feels to have a family member lose income, K?), he went back to school and switched to a safer career, ha! That is when he came to my company, which I had been at either part-time or full-time since 1984.

So single, married, with children, with out children, loss of a job is just a tough stressful part of life it seems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top