Lay Off or Selective Terminations?
When you hear the term layoff, don’t you expect the employees with the lowest seniority to be first out the door? Technically, the word does not require those with the lowest seniority to be let go first but common usage does just that.
-
In 2004, the City Manager reduced the City workforce by 44 employees, of which 17 took retirement. The remaining 27 were terminated without regard to their number of years with the City.
-
Of those who were terminated, fifteen had less than five years service with seven of them having three. Five had between five and nine years. Three had between ten and fourteen years. Two had between fifteen and nineteen years and one had twenty-five years.
-
I am sure the Manager considered some departments as being at a minimum, essential staffing level. But, his justification for terminating employees with five, ten or more years of service certainly has to be questioned. The Mayor and City Council had the power under the Charter to establish the severance package and the procedure to be followed in reducing the size of the staff; but they did not bother.
-
I first stated in a letter to the editor last summer, the truth of the matter. He eliminated employees in 2004 that “resisted” or failed to instantly embrace his grand staffing scheme and methods, just like he did when he first arrived in 2001. The City lost its planning director, senior engineer and chief building inspector to name a few. Yet, he kept an engineer who had just obtained his State registration, promoted an inexperienced planner and a plumbing inspector, with no experience in the area, to the position of Chief Building Inspector.
-
There is still time for the Mayor and Council to conduct an investigation into the Manager’s handling of the “layoff” and I do not mean that they should ask the Manager for the information. Obtain data on the position every person held at the time they left. Determine their seniority ranking at the time. Review their professional credentials where appropriate. Obtain a report on every person employed or rehired since that time. Put it all together, think and compare it to the purported savings provided by the terminations. (I have a copy) You still have time to add this information to his evaluation and do the right thing.
-
In 2004, the City Manager reduced the City workforce by 44 employees, of which 17 took retirement. The remaining 27 were terminated without regard to their number of years with the City.
-
Of those who were terminated, fifteen had less than five years service with seven of them having three. Five had between five and nine years. Three had between ten and fourteen years. Two had between fifteen and nineteen years and one had twenty-five years.
-
I am sure the Manager considered some departments as being at a minimum, essential staffing level. But, his justification for terminating employees with five, ten or more years of service certainly has to be questioned. The Mayor and City Council had the power under the Charter to establish the severance package and the procedure to be followed in reducing the size of the staff; but they did not bother.
-
I first stated in a letter to the editor last summer, the truth of the matter. He eliminated employees in 2004 that “resisted” or failed to instantly embrace his grand staffing scheme and methods, just like he did when he first arrived in 2001. The City lost its planning director, senior engineer and chief building inspector to name a few. Yet, he kept an engineer who had just obtained his State registration, promoted an inexperienced planner and a plumbing inspector, with no experience in the area, to the position of Chief Building Inspector.
-
There is still time for the Mayor and Council to conduct an investigation into the Manager’s handling of the “layoff” and I do not mean that they should ask the Manager for the information. Obtain data on the position every person held at the time they left. Determine their seniority ranking at the time. Review their professional credentials where appropriate. Obtain a report on every person employed or rehired since that time. Put it all together, think and compare it to the purported savings provided by the terminations. (I have a copy) You still have time to add this information to his evaluation and do the right thing.
posted by Gene Wieneke at
8:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home