Life above the glass ceiling

[angela146]

For those of you who think you want to break through the glass ceiling, read this before you get out your diamond-tipped spike.

Life at the top can be brutal when you least expect it.

I own my own company. I have one co-owner and no other employees.

However, I work with a bunch of sub-contractors, including a six-person company to whom I send a lot of work. They are really great folks (four men, two women) including a couple of long-time friends.

I consult with the end customer, design stuff at a high level, and turn it over to them to do the specs and write the code.

Over the past couple of years, I have sent them enough business that I represent about a third of their annual revenue. In fact, they expanded a year ago (from five people to six) in order to handle the load. They also throttled back on seeking new clients in order to avoid expanding further - they want to stay small.

So, anyway, I decided in September to take a couple of months off. I have been working hard for a long time and wanted to take some time to enjoy the spoils. I gave them fair warning so they could make some adjustments.

I should have seen it coming.

In December, they layed off one of their people - not the one they recently hired but another one. He was the weakest link; a good worker but not so good that they wanted to carry him when there was no work to do.

In fact, when business picks back up, they are going to hire someone else to replace him. So this guy is out of a job and looking for work in mid-December. Merry Christmas.

Sure, I didn't lay him off and they were partly using my "lull" as an opportunity to make a change that they kind of wanted to make anyway. But still, I take some time off to enjoy life and someone loses his job.

I don't fault them. They made a sound business decision. I also can't blame myself for wanting to have a life. But I can't shake the feeling of being one of those selfish-bastard CEOs who give themselves fat bonuses while they lay off the people at the bottom of the food chain.

And that's a big part of the reason why I haven't been posting for a few weeks.

So, ladies (and gentlemen), if you think you want to break through the glass ceiling and enjoy the perks of being the one in charge, be aware that there is a price to be paid. It's a lot harder than it seems to be a leader with a soul.

Sometimes you don't realize that you're screwing someone until after it's over and he's cleaning the cum out of his ass.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I haven't wanted to own my own business for about fifteen years now. I'd rather just be an employee think you very much. Too much hassle trying to keep up with everything when you are in charge of everything. Not my style (it clashes with the laziness )

 

[Liar]

In December, they layed off one of their people - not the one they recently hired but another one. He was the weakest link; a good worker but not so good that they wanted to carry him when there was no work to do.

In fact, when business picks back up, they are going to hire someone else to replace him. So this guy is out of a job and looking for work in mid-December. Merry Christmas.

Huh. That kind of shuffling stunt is highly unethical, and illegal in many places. You don't get to fire the senior staff first unless you can specifically prove he's not suitable for the position anymore.

Rest assured that you didn't screw him. They did. I'd ask myself if that's the kind of company that I'd want to do business with.

 

[angela146]

Huh. That kind of shuffling stunt is highly unethical, and illegal in many places. You don't get to fire the senior staff first unless you can specifically prove he's not suitable for the position anymore.

Here in the Midwest US, we have "at-will employment".

Seniority doesn't count for anything and you can fire someone without cause.

When companies "downsize" they select whichever workers are the least productive or whose skills are less in need. It's tough but it's SOP.

If you discriminate based on age or gender or race or whatever, you can get sued but even then it's tough for an employee to win those kinds of cases.

Larger companies often are a lot more ruthless.

 

[mjl2010]

I have to hire them and I have to fire them. You make your best guess and hire ,hopefully, the right people.

This will sound harsh and I know it.

I doubt I'd fire someone right before Christmas just because the lull is there. But then when you're small, sometimes you have too.

It may have seemed he was good worker to someone who wasn't there all the time, yet you called him the weak link. A company with only six employees can't afford weak links.

Unethical to get rid of someone who isn't pulling their weight? Obviously you never owned a business. What country is that? They did the guy a favor laying him off. He can collect Unemployment now, instead of nothing. As for calling it a shuffle, they just covered themselves to make sure they had the help they needed once he was gone.

What are they supposed to do, get rid of the person and then go under because no one was able to pick up the slack?

Please. I never screwed anyone. I've done my share of laying off and firing too. Right now I'm carrying three through the January lull. We've got contracts coming up in February and mostly small quick stuff now. But if even one of those contracts falls through, two people will get laid off. One won't be coming back. I'll hire someone else.

Survival of the fittest. It's either that or hang it up and go under.

Sorry for sounding off.

MJL

 

[neonlyte]

Here in the Midwest US, we have "at-will employment".

Seniority doesn't count for anything and you can fire someone without cause.

When companies "downsize" they select whichever workers are the least productive or whose skills are less in need. It's tough but it's SOP.

If you discriminate based on age or gender or race or whatever, you can get sued but even then it's tough for an employee to win those kinds of cases.

Larger companies often are a lot more ruthless.

Or does it just appear that way?
Large business has the ability to absorb the 'less than perfect', they are just one among many, when they swing the cudgle they have neither the time nor inclination to discriminate. Firing staff for large business is often about survival. All becomes horribly messy when the jobs are being transfered to a cheaper state or country - then they need balls of steel masked in a 'payoff deal' and enter into the kind of selection process you talk about without trying to make it too obvious. Means they are not going to fire by gender, or colour, or age and there will be 'undeserving casualties' losing out with the less productive/skilled.

Small business cannot carry the slack for long, deficiencies show only too clearly in a small team. I've run my own businesses of varying size almost my entire working life. I've fired four people in thirty + years, a Manager who made the rest of the staff unhappy. A girl for stealing and two boys - one of whom was stealing and couldn't work out which, so they both had to go. Small business in the UK has some leeway in firing, below a certain number of staff, it works 'at-will'. The stealing dismisals were difficult, threats of all sorts from parents of the teenagers, in one case I produced newspapers clippings showing the persons previous conviction for shop theft. With the two boys, I sat with their parents and went through the till records when they were on shift together. In the end, they agreed I had no choice, the alternative was to call the police.

For the three years during which I was employed at the end of the 1980's, I oversaw the dismissal of large numbers of staff - many of them senior to my position, but then I'd been recruited to try to save a joint venture (JV) company from going bust, my job was firing people, sorting out the mess, and reporting to an executive board comprised of senior directors of the two owning companies of the JV who, within each of their separate companies had made the decisons that caused the mess in the JV. I saved the company £34million over three years reducing the projected loss from an unmanageable £50m to a manageable £16m loss which the two owners of the JV could absorb. Why do that kind of job? It was a challenge to my 'nice guy' image, I happened to fit the bill in terms of knowledge and experience and was a complete outsider who owed no favours. And, if I'd not brought things under control, hundreds rather than tens of people would have lost their jobs.

In my experience, the people who usually lose their jobs do so because of poor decision making higher up the chain; that is what it sounds like your case Angela, your sub-contractors had fair warning and possibly gambled on extra work covering the slack period, or didn't take heed. Or they used it as an excuse to get rid of someone not pulling their weight transfering 'liability' to you - for taking a holiday.

I wouldn't take it personally, but I would make some gently enquiries, when harmony through business is restored, just to determine their rational - and then act accordingly.

Nice to see you posting again.

 

[mjl2010]

Since, obviously, I used strong words in my above post, I'd like to say something else.

Often times losing your job is a wakeup to some people. You're in the wrong position. You don't fit in. Whatever. You go get a new job and try harder, fix the faults you know you have. Bust your butt so to speak.

The notion that people are "Entitled" to their job just because they have it is plain wrong.

Liar I'm sorry for my harsh words above. But its the way it is in business. I feel bad whenever I have to fire someone, for whatever reason. I try to be an honest, honorable employer and business person. I pay my people more than the going rate. They have good benefits. When the company does well, I share the wealth with a bonus at Christmas. When it does poorly, I cut my own pay before I cut anyone elses.

MJL

 

[oggbashan]

Becoming someone you don't like.

Being a owner/manager of a business changes you. You have to take the unpleasant decisions and there is no one else to blame.

If the work isn't there, employees have to be fired. However you select those to leave, the decision is painful for you as well as them. You can't be the good guy when someone is losing their job.

I went from a product/profit orientated business to a people/service business. In the first I was seen as too soft, too caring for the employees, and although making a profit, not maximising the profit at the expense of the staff. In the second, I was seen as the strict manager from hell who expected outcomes to be achieved, budgets to be adhered to, and queried the cost of everything. I was the same - the environment was different.

In both businesses I was being a manager, modifying the impact of the company's activities so that my people could perform well and consistently. Sometimes I had to behave like a bastard, to pretend to lose my temper, to discipline (or fire) people for incompetence. I hated it. I hated what it made me become. But I did it.

What worries me, is that even now I have retired, I can still be just as ruthless. That I don't like.

Og

 

[Liar]

Unethical to get rid of someone who isn't pulling their weight? Obviously you never owned a business.

Have owned a business, thankyouverymuch, and have been the head of personell in a mid-sized company. So I've done my fair share of layoffs. Which is never fun, but that's another story.

And this was, according what Angela told, certainly not a case of somebody getting the boot for not doing their job. If he wasn't doing his job before the downsize, why wasn't he fired earlier and replaced with somebody who did? This sounded more like a company using the situation as an excuse to pick cherries in their workforce, which could mean the slightly better worker or the junior one with the lower paycheck.

Either way, yes, I call that unethical.

If I hire somebody and that somebody slacks. Fair and square, out they go. But if I hire somebody who fulfils their end of the contract, we have a different situation. I live in Sweden. There are laws here regulation that sort of thing. In a downsizing situation, the principle is last in - first out, except for specific expert positions.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

It's a lot harder than it seems to be a leader with a soul.

I think therein lies the source of your problem. Leaders are not supposed to have a soul, they're supposed to have a calculator.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

In a downsizing situation, the principle is last in - first out, except for specific expert positions.

Like "expert butt kisser".

 

[talimenios]

Often times losing your job is a wakeup to some people. You're in the wrong position. You don't fit in. Whatever. You go get a new job and try harder, fix the faults you know you have. Bust your butt so to speak.

That happened to me. Granted I got completely SCREWED but I'm in a better position now and I so totally love it and I know I wouldn't if I hadn't been dumped on my ass previously.

 

[R. Richard]

Back when I was an employee, I 'fired' one of the workers [actually non-worker] who were assigned to me. I found that the guy simply did not have the skills to do the job he was hired for. He was very angry and threatened me with legal action. I suggested that he instead review his job skills and find something for which he was qualified. He did both. His lawsuit was dismissed at the hearing stage when his co-employees back my assertion that the guy was totally unqualified. The guy got a job with some sort of charitable organization and ended up in a job where his duty was to manipulate people. He was a master at that last and apparently did quite well.

 

[Belegon]

Like "expert butt kisser".

Speaking as someone who has to routinely deal with clients who make inordinately large amounts of money and yet become extremely aggravated over minor costs...

this is a real, true and valuable skill in many industries. If you know of one that is available and truly good at it, I have work for them and I always will.

on topic...I despise firing people. I am lucky enough that I have never had to do it without cause, but even then I hate it. Even more, I hate the time when I am preparing to do it and yet can't let the person I am about to fire know...

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Speaking as someone who has to routinely deal with clients who make inordinately large amounts of money and yet become extremely aggravated over minor costs...

this is a real, true and valuable skill in many industries. If you know of one that is available and truly good at it, I have work for them and I always will.

on topic...I despise firing people. I am lucky enough that I have never had to do it without cause, but even then I hate it. Even more, I hate the time when I am preparing to do it and yet can't let the person I am about to fire know...

If you kiss the butt of a client, that's technically not butt kissing but business politics. Butt kissing is when you do it to your boss.

 

[Belegon]

If you kiss the butt of a client, that's technically not butt kissing but business politics. Butt kissing is when you do it to your boss.

Oh, granted...absolutely. But if you write good stories about dogs, I am willing to take the risk of hiring you to write a story about a cat...

office politics = dogs, business politics = cat ...but both are politics. Hey, I'm willing to train but I can't train talent. You have to find that.

 

[S-Des]

Oh, granted...absolutely. But if you write good stories about dogs, I am willing to take the risk of hiring you to write a story about a cat...

office politics = dogs, business politics = cat ...but both are politics. Hey, I'm willing to train but I can't train talent. You have to find that.

It is a skill (and one I simply do not posess). I've had several mid-management jobs that I was pretty good at, but lost because I couldn't look my boss (or his boss) in the face and not tell him he was a moron (actually I never said that, but I'm pretty sure my feelings were obvious). Now I have a job where I am my own boss and am very good at doing my job without supervision. That's a skill too, one that many people aren't good at. If people would stop insisting that they "deserve" a job, and find one that fits their skills, businesses would work so much better.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Here in the Midwest US, we have "at-will employment".

Seniority doesn't count for anything and you can fire someone without cause.

When companies "downsize" they select whichever workers are the least productive or whose skills are less in need. It's tough but it's SOP.

If you discriminate based on age or gender or race or whatever, you can get sued but even then it's tough for an employee to win those kinds of cases.

Larger companies often are a lot more ruthless.

And this is why the unemployment rate in the U.S. is less than five percent while througuhout Europe it's been well over 10 percent for more than a generation; in Liar's country it's actually over 20 percent (though the government covers that up in various ways.)

Angela, what you discovered is an aspect of what economist Joseph Schumpeter called "the gales of creative destruction." Around 10 percent of all the jobs in the U.S. - like 15 million or so - go poof every year. They are replaced by around 16 million new jobs. This dyanmism is a major reason why the U.S. has such low unemployment, and why economic growth here has averaged more than 3 percent for almost 25 years, vs. around 1 percent in Europe. Those growth numbers are cumulative, and are making Europe a relatively poorer place relative to the U.S. (To see a concretized example of what this means see the exchange a few minutes ago on the mood thread (or blurt?) beginning with Abs announcing she got a new dryer. )

The Europeans consider our system cruel and immoral, as evidenced by Liar's post above. He called it immoral for that small firm to lay off an employee who was not really suited to the job he was doing, and for whom there was not sufficient work anyway. Liar does not say what they should have done - presumably lost money by not laying the person off. He does not consider the eventual outcome of this - bankruptcy and six people without jobs (possibly for years) instead of one (probably for just weeks.)

As he says, in Europe they would not have been allowed to lay this person off. Given your experience as and with small business owners you can imagine the consequences on the micro-level of that absence of freedom - a lot fewer small businesses. At the macro level it results in something that really should be considered immoral and a violation of "social justice," which is decade-after-decade of double-digit unemployment - millions of people who go years unable to find work - with all the alienation and angst that means for those affected, and never mind that they may recieve generous welfare payments.

Bottom line: Modern economies are dynamic, not static. You witnessed one aspect of that. Given an unemployment rate of around 4.6 percent, and a labor market that doesn't make employers reluctant to hire for fear that regulations make them impossible to un-hire, you should relax and feel proud that you are contributing to a system that in the aggregate really does produce better outcomes for our society. At the individual level, it's entirely possible that the guy who got laid off will find something that suits him better and will be happier in the long run. The worst case is that within a few weeks he had a new job that possibly paid a little less. In Liar's country, he may well have have been facing years of joblessness.



PS. Neon suggests that lay-offs are "usually the result of bad decision making higher up," but then goes on to characterize "bad decision making" as equivalent to lacking mind-reading and clairvoyance skills. Certainly bad decisions are made all the time, but it's the dynamic nature of modern economies that really accounts for job market churning - those "gales of creative desctruction."

 

[R. Richard]

PS. Neon suggests that lay-offs are "usually the result of bad decision making higher up," but then goes on to characterize "bad decision making" as equivalent to lacking mind-reading and clairvoyance skills. Certainly bad decisions are made all the time, but it's the dynamic nature of modern economies that really accounts for job market churning - those "gales of creative desctruction."

I used to be a computer programmer. My bosses thought that they, who did not program computers, could select better computer programmer hires than I could. As a result we got a lot of people hired who could not program computers or could do so only at the most elementary level.

After I left my job, I ask a former boss for his picks of the latest NFL draft guys who would do outstandingly well or very poorly over the coming season. He said, "I have no idea. Why would you think I would know?" I said, "You have no idea at all about NFL skill requirements or computer programmers. Why is it that you realize that you can't evaluate the one, but think that you can evaluate the other?" The big man never answered. [Showing people that they are insane can negatively affect your popularity.]

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Originally Posted by Roxanne Appleby
PS. Neon suggests that lay-offs are "usually the result of bad decision making higher up," but then goes on to characterize "bad decision making" as equivalent to lacking mind-reading and clairvoyance skills. Certainly bad decisions are made all the time, but it's the dynamic nature of modern economies that really accounts for job market churning - those "gales of creative desctruction."

I used to be a computer programmer. My bosses thought that they, who did not program computers, could select better computer programmer hires than I could. As a result we got a lot of people hired who could not program computers or could do so only at the most elementary level.

It occurs to me as I read this post and some of the others how much better off we would all be if people understood that dynamic economy thing, and the resulting reality of job-churning that "destroys" 10 percent of all the jobs in the economy year - but creates new ones in even greater numbers. Angela wouldn't have to feel guilty about her role in this economy, and the discharged employees could also be spared many of the pychological consequences that accompany losing a job - the blow to self esteem and such. If we all realized that this was just a consequence of living in a modern post-industrial economy we would be be much happier. Widespread economic ignorance or misunderstanding exacts a steep price.