Engineering your layoff instead of quitting when you FIRE?

[Icecreamarsenal]

Is it ethical to pay a working mom $7 an hour to clean hotel rooms while paying a Kim Kardashian millions to complain about how rich she is on TV? My answer is there is no answer because ethics does not enter into sphere of business.

The logic here appears to be "Other entities act in a way that seems unethical to me when involved in X, therefore ethics is inapplicable to X".  I think that's bad logic that has dangerous results.  Are there no ethics in war because others may break the Geneva conventions?  Are there no ethics in politics because others lie and take bribes?  Are there no ethics in romantic relationships because so many people lie and cheat and break vows?  Are there no ethics in eating because companies are willing to produce all kinds of meat products raised in all kinds of ways?  If you take this logic to its conclusion, what "sphere" would have ethics at all?

I think that being an ethical person means adhering to one's ethical code when it leaves one at a pragmatic disadvantage due to others' willingness to violate that code.  In business, that means even if corporations are generally unethical -- even if they are all always unethical -- that does not excuse me from acting ethically.

It's important to distinguish between an ethical code and your own morals.  Suicide bombers are morally correct, and bank repossessions of working mothers' homes are ethically correct.  Perhaps in an in vitro example of the economy, ethics does not apply to supply and demand curves. But since the economy is immune from impartiality and political agendas also determine economic policies, ethics, as agreed upon by a republican (lowercase r) consensus, do play a role. Not saying they should or shouldnt, but they do. No?

Also, being an ethical person, following the above, does not mean being a moral person. Hence the nuance in the definitions.

[jim555]

My Megacorp routinely lays off people.  So I let it be known that I wanted out.  Eventually I was escorted out with a severance package and unemployment benefits.  They transferred my position to a "lower cost region".

[steveo]

You don't have to suck at your job; simply dictate the terms of your employment in your favor.  Don't take on assignments you don't want to do, and don't agree to deadlines that are going to put you under stress.  Set your hours to your liking.  When your boss decides that all this makes you "unmanageable", you'll be the first to get let go when it's layoff time.

At my work people have been let go left, right and centre. I'm moving more and more towards this approach. I'm going to push back on an unrealistic deadline today in the knowledge that the potential benefit is pretty freaken good.

My only concern is that I want to get a good yearly bonus and I don't want to impact that.

My Megacorp routinely lays off people.  So I let it be known that I wanted out.  Eventually I was escorted out with a severance package and unemployment benefits.  They transferred my position to a "lower cost region".

People in my area that ask for it don't seem to get it.

[Telecaster]

My advice at your workplace, regardless of the job or pending employment situation is always the same:  Kick ass at your job.   You are there for same eight hours regardless if you slack off or not.   Workplace studies show that most people do about three hours of actual work a day.   Double that to six and you a superstar.  Even if your boss doesn't recognize your efforts, your co-workers will.   And establishing your professional network can pay enormous dividends. 

You know those nice severance packages they hand out when companies downsize?  They don't always hand them out.

I've mentioned this story before, but it is a good one.  I work in consulting, and there is a lot of pressure, both spoken and unspoken, to bill a lot of hours.   Hence there is a lot of pressure, mostly unspoken, to spend lots and lots of hours at the office.  So lots of people did.   But the people who kicked butt, the people you wanted on your team, the superstars, pretty much all left at 5:00.   They simply worked during the day instead of checking and answering email every 20 minutes.   They were also the ones who could and did turn down shitty projects, and otherwise had the most control over their own fate.   If there is a nice package about to be handed out, those are the folks who are likely to know about it first.   And who knows?  If you are a top performer they might come around and ask your opinion who you can live without.  Perfect time to volunteer to take one for the team.   

 




 

[jim555]

I don't see how your logic works.  Top performers would be the last people they would want to let go.  Companies do not give severance because they are being nice.  They give it to avoid lawsuits over age, race,  disability, etc. discrimination.  They also have clauses to protect against former workers bad mouthing the company.

[ender]

I don't see how your logic works.  Top performers would be the last people they would want to let go.  Companies do not give severance because they are being nice.  They give it to avoid lawsuits over age, race,  disability, etc. discrimination.  They also have clauses to protect against former workers bad mouthing the company.

The trick is that generally a manager who can offer severance to whomever they lay off is not the manager who really "pays" for it.

If your immediate manager has to lay off two people out of a team of ten and is told they get severance/etc, they probably don't really care whether or not they save the company the severance package or not. They likely don't want to lay people off any more than the people they are laying off want it. They probably got a mandate from their management to let some folks know.

Working with a manager in that scenario is exactly what Chris22 did.

[jim555]

HR is the one giving the severance, not the manager.  HR wants to protect the company from lawsuits.  The company WANTS to give a severance, they hope you will sign it, and sign away your rights.

[goatmom]

Unemployment benefits are not money left on the table.  That money is the tax payers.  You should only apply for this if you are seriously looking for work.

[Chris22]

Unemployment benefits are not money left on the table.  That money is the tax payers.  You should only apply for this if you are seriously looking for work.

Kinda sorta. Unemployment insurance is paid by employers in your name. You've "earned" it.

That said, I don't believe it correct to draw it unless you are actually looking for work.

[gimp]

Unemployment insurance is for people who are actually looking for and need work.

My state has a budget to fix vandalism; doesn't mean that I should take back the taxes I paid in by breaking road signs... my state has a budget for a lot of things that I don't use, which is fine, because I use the hell out of things that other people don't use.