DB7.7

health care

CH.17

Part 1: (DONE)

After reading Chapter 17:

Answer the Discussion Question that:

Should a manager be able to use a reduction in force to rid the department of its less effective

employees? Why or why not?

Be Sure To Take on Consideration Discussion Points in the End of the Chapter 17

Part 2:

Respond to three other discussion(I’ll uploaded letter after you done the Discussion ). (Your response must

be of significance, more than just yes or no)

You will need to post your comment as respond to the comments by no more than 2-3 Complete Sentences. I

Looking on the depth, not the length of your comments

Comment to: (Please no more than 2-3 Complete Sentences.)

M. C.

When an organization is looking to downsize or restructure, this is usually a time when most people

are starting to worry about if they will keep their jobs or not. During my undergraduate, we learned that

when a manager hears the word reengineering, a manager will usually be let go; this can be either yourself

or a fellow manager. Fallon & McConnell (2014) found that in 1998, around 81% of healthcare

organizations had reduced staff, with around half laying off managers. When looking at whether or not a

manager could reduce force to lay off the less effective workers, it can vary depending on the situation.

Fallon & McConnell (2014) found that most hospitals tend to use a policy to determine how they should deal

with layoffs. However, this is usually not in a healthcare organization’s policy until they need to reduce

employees. It should also be noted how Fallon & McConnell (2014) say that most organizations would get

rid of temporary workers first, than part-time workers, and then move on to the regular workers. Even with

this, most organizations would try to see who would leave voluntarily, whether from early retirement or

receiving a payout from the organization (Fallon & McConnell, 2014, pg. 335).

After accomplishing these things, most organizations would turn their focus on who has seniority and

who does not and use this as a means to see who stays and who goes (Fallon & McConnell, 2014, pg. 335).

Their overall reason for doing this is to lessen the financial burden, and usually, senior workers make more

money than the ones who just started. This may cause them to think twice about if it truly is worth getting

rid of the newer hires, especially considering if said newer hires possess critical skills needing for the

organization (Fallon & McConnell, 2014, pg. 336). Showing that this is not a simple process to handle

cannot be a simple yes or no when regarding the topic question. Fallon & McConnell (2014) found the ideal

layoffs are rarely achieved, and compromises are needed to be fair for all employees.

References

Fallon, L. F., & McConnell, C. R. (2014). Human resource management in health care; Principles and

practice (2nd edition). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

J. V.

Chapter 17 examines the termination and lay off of employees it mentions the reduction in force in various

scenarios in which organizations must make the difficult task of laying off or terminating employees due to t

various factors. It mentions that there are times when an organization may need to lay off an employee and

must find ways to complete these tasks without getting into legal trouble. Some policies must be followed to

comply with the individuals that may lose their job. The text mentions that some may use an early retirement

option, however, it also states that many key employees may leave when given these options. Another point

that is made within the text is that many after being terminated have the right to severance pay as well as

unemployment. These are other costs that the organization will need to account for. Aside from losing

money already associated with losing staff which ultimately are needed to deliver Hc Services thus creating

revenuec(Fallon L., & McConnell C.,2014).

Using force reduction to remove less effective employees may not be the correct solution, ethnically this

may be incorrect if they are not a part of the ones that need to be terminated in the first place. Using force

termination,to a benefit of the organization may also lead to legal actions if found that they were wrongfully

terminated. Another point may also be that there are policies in place to remove a less effective employee

that needs to be completed such tasks may include talking to the employee about the issue. Further training

and education, may also be needed before termination is adequately completed. Not following correct

policies and procedures, may lead to wrongful termination suits which may create other issues for an

organization.

References

Fallon L., & McConnell C. (2014). Human resource management in health care. (2nd ed). Jones & Bartlett

Publishers. Sudbury, MA

S. K.

Reduction in force (RIF) is used when a company permanently eliminates positions. The employee is let go

from a company as there is no longer need for an employee’s position (careerminds) It takes place due to

budgetary reasons, change in business direction, moving to a new location, or it is undergoing a merger.

Organizations use several methods to reduce the number of employees like reengineering, mergers,

acquisitions, layoffs and terminations (Fallon & McConnell, 2014).

A manager should be able to use a reduction in force to rid the position or department but there should be

written documentation as well as a need to support the decision to reduce the workforce. The written

documentation should set forth the selection criteria and should be utilized throughout the process. If the

effective employees of that department meet the criteria used to identify employees for reduction, then only

they should be included in the workforce reduction. Performance criteria may be used to use RIF to know

whether the employee is less effective or not. Employers may consider previous performance reviews and

other performance documentation, such as warnings or any type of disciplinary actions. However, there

should be solid written documentation that the employee has been experiencing performance issues. But RIF

should not solely be based on performance issues. Terminating employee based on performance issues who

are in necessary positions will need to fill the positions, and this could lead to claims of wrongful discharge

or discrimination. Hence, if the employees in that department fits in the criteria of less effective employees

based on performance and the department also fits in the criteria of written documentation of the b usiness

purpose for the RIF, as well as defendable reasons for how and why employees were chosen for layoff, a

manager can use RIF to rid the department (Society of Human Resource Management).

References

Fallon, L. F., & McConnell, C. R. (2014). Human Resource Management in Health Care, Principles and

Practice, 2nd Edition, Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

careerminds. What Does “Reduction in Force” Mean? Retrieved from https://blog.careerminds.com/what –

does-reduction-in-force-

mean#:~:text=A%20reduction%20in%20force%20(RIF,with%20the%20termination%20of%20employment.

Society of Human Resource Management. Can we include employees who have performance problems in a

reduction in force (RIF)? Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools -and-samples/hr-

qa/pages/(rif)selections.aspx

FROMTEXTBOOK :

Fallon L., & McConnell C. (2014). Human resource management in health care. (2nd ed). Jones & Bartlett

Publishers. Sudbury, MA. ISBN: 978-1-449-68883-7.

CHAPTER 17

Terminating Employees

Chapter Objectives

After reading this chapter, readers will be able to:

• Understand the roles of human resources and department managers in terminating employees whether discharged for

cause, dismissed for reasons of performance, or laid off as a result of reductions in force

• Explain the concept of constructive discharge

• Know the sequence of steps to consider before deciding to lay off personnel

• Understand how to determine who is released and who remains in a layoff that is both legal and equitable

• Understand related dimensions of termination, including unemployment compensation and employee privacy

• Discuss the potential effects of a reduction on the survivors and suggest how management can address these issues

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Terminations of employment are inevitable. These include positive terminations such as retirements and resignations as

well as negative experiences such as firings and layoffs. Involuntary termination involves the end of employment at the

request of management. There are two types of such terminations. Dismissals occur either when individuals fail to meet

the standards of their job or as part of a layoff. Discharges occur when employees are released for reasons of conduct or

behavior usually involving violations of policies or work rules. Discharges are an ongoing concern because they may be

necessary at any time. Most dismissals, other than a relative few related to job performance, are layoffs for reasons such

as reengineering or downsizing, mergers, other affiliations, or economic forces. Layoffs are traumatic occurrences that

sever some personnel from their employment and adversely affect the morale and motivation of survivors. Properly

handled, layoffs require the guidance of human resources (HR) and the active participation of supervisors at all levels of

management.

Case Study: The Case of Joan von Willebrand

Joan von Willebrand was a phlebotomist at City Hospital. Her supervisor, George Parker, worked as a member of the

phlebotomy team. George reported to Gloria Garcia, a unit manager of the laboratory.

Joan had been employed at City Hospital for five months when she was discharged for chronic tardiness. Gloria initiated

the discharge with the concurrence of George. When the matter was turned over to HR, Gloria told HR that Joan had been

given written warnings for clocking in more than 30 minutes late on three prior occasions. Gloria also said, “There were

numerous other occurrences that had been overlooked or that had resulted in undocumented oral warnings.”

Joan complained that the 6:30 A.M. starting time for the morning blood-collecting rounds was too early for her. She stated

that as a single mother, she had the responsibility of looking after one child. Even though she lived with relatives, she had

difficulty getting to the hospital on time. She also stated that when she was hired, George had led her to believe that the

blood-collecting job was temporary and that a regular opening in the lab, starting at 8:00 A.M., would be available in two

or three months.

Gloria had criticized George for being too lenient and for not following organizational policies. He had delivered an initial

oral warning as required. However, on subsequent occasions, he repeated the oral warning and never issued written

warnings. She said that George was inconsistent in his behavior, often not reprimanding Joan for behavior that did not

comply with organization policy. George started delivering written warnings after Gloria prompted him to do so. According

to hospital policy, four written warnings for tardiness constituted grounds for discharge. George gave this information to

Joan each time she received a written warning. After receiving the fourth written warning, Joan was fired.

Although George and Gloria both admitted to the possibility of mentioning a regular technician job in the future, they

were both convinced that there had been no promises. The HR recruiter supported these facts and said that he had also

mentioned to Joan the possibility of moving into a different job should one become available but had made no promises.

Joan took her complaint to the State, claiming that her firing was unwarranted and unfair. Although she had been late a

few times, she said, she never failed to stay and make up the time and that she had always performed her assigned duties.

However, George cast some doubt on this claim. He said that on days when Joan was late, he and another technician had

to cover extra territory to make up for the missing employee.

Joan charged that the written policy meant very little because early in her employment she had been late several times,

but on these occasions she had not received warnings. She charged management in general, and Gloria in particular, with

using the tardiness policy as an excuse to get rid of her.

What procedural errors were made in the handling of Joan von Willebrand’s case? How would you rule on Joan’s claim?

What would be the basis for your decision?

………………………

INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION

This chapter addresses involuntary terminations. These include discharges for cause, such as violations of policies or work

rules, and dismissal for reasons of performance. These latter terminations include layoffs and reductions in the workforce.

Questions occasionally arise in relation to supposedly voluntary terminations, such as resignations and retirements. With

these exceptions, voluntary terminations are not included.

INDIVIDUAL TERMINATIONS

Discharge: Termination for Cause

Discharge and dismissal are different. Discharge is commonly referred to as being fired. Discharge usually occurs after

employees break organizational rules or violate organizational policies. Dismissal typically occurs for reasons related to

job performance, such as failure to pass the probationary period or failure to meet the minimum standards of a job.

Most managers dread having to fire someone, even if the employee completely deserves the termination. Dismissal is also

a managerial task that is not easy, and it rarely becomes easier. Before a termination is undertaken, the manager must

work with HR and must be in agreement with HR concerning the details of the termination and agree that all required

information is available.

From an employer’s perspective, terminations that involve the least risk to an organization are those for which good cause

is evident. Managers must ensure that their organization closely followed its own policies, and that the organization can

demonstrate that the discharged employee was given every reasonable opportunity to correct the offending behavior.

This question is often pertinent.

The supervisor or HR must ensure that organizational policies have been followed. Adherence to the progressive

disciplinary policy is critical. It is essential to ensure that all required documentation is complete and in place. The most

critical dimension of termination for cause is ensuring that management and HR observe all necessary policies and

processes. Despite the best efforts of department managers and HR, unexpected circumstances can surprise an

organization. For example, a written passage in an employee handbook stating that an employee who passes probation

becomes permanent has been interpreted as constituting an employment contract. Such an interpretation has been used

to protest discharge. When such problems are encountered, they are corrected. Using this example, a formerly permanent

employee is given “regular” status.

A department manager must prepare for the possibility that a member of a protected class may claim discrimination when

being discharged. A wrongful termination lawsuit is usually frustrating, costly, and time consuming. An organization’s best

protection against wrongful termination policies are fair personnel policies that are consistently applied. Performance

appraisal systems must be fair. All documentation must be complete and available. Above all, organizations must have

clear evidence of employee wrongdoing.

Dismissal: Inability to Meet Job Standards

A dismissal is when an individual is not considered to be at fault. This is an essential difference between dismissal and

discharge. Dismissal relates to performance. Because no rule is broken or policy is violated, dismissal for inability to meet

the standards of the job or for failure to pass the probationary period is treated as a layoff. The distinction becomes

important when dismissed employees apply for unemployment compensation. A discharged employee is ineligible for

unemployment compensation. A dismissed employee is eligible for unemployment compensation.

The majority of employees who are involuntarily separated apply for unemployment benefits regardless of the

circumstances under which they were let go. They do so because they feel they have nothing to lose. Discharged

employees are frequently granted unemployment compensation contrary to the fact that they were discharged for cause.

States have the legal responsibility to determine when individuals should receive unemployment compensation.

Constructive Discharge

Some managers will occasionally behave as though they believe that the most effective way of getting rid of an

underproducing or uncooperative employee is simply to keep piling on work, or otherwise making life miserable, until the

person finally quits. Such managers reason that persons who voluntarily resign are not eligible for unemployment

compensation. They incorrectly conclude that they have solved a problem without cost to the employer. To the contrary,

there is a significant risk in using this approach to getting rid of an employee.

The concept of constructive discharge becomes an issue when a former employee registers a legal complaint alleging that

the organization, as represented by one of its managers, made life so difficult and unbearable that the individual had to

resign. The alternative of remaining usually involves experiencing physical illness or emotional damage. A resignation that

is forced by extreme or intolerable conditions or treatment may be considered a constructive discharge. A resignation

tendered under such conditions is not considered strictly voluntary.

Another potential constructive discharge situation occurs when an individual who is approaching termination for cause is

allowed to resign in lieu of discharge. Well-intended managers may suggest that an individual resign for the record in lieu

of discharge, thinking that it is better for individuals to avoid having an involuntary termination in their personnel records.

Such behavior exposes an organization to a claim of constructive discharge. It is far more prudent for an organization to

conduct a well-documented discharge in accordance with organizational policy.

REDUCTIONS IN FORCE

There are several reasons that compel organizations to reduce the numbers of their employees. Growth supports

increases in employee counts; other forces cause organizations to reduce the numbers of their employees. These latter

forces include downsizing, reengineering, mergers, acquisitions, and combinations of these. Organizations use several

methods to reduce the number of employees, including layoffs and terminations.

Reengineering

Reengineering is the systematic redesign of a business’s core activities, starting with desired outcomes and establishing

the most efficient possible processes to achieve those outcomes. Healthcare organizations entered into reengineering a

few years after it peaked in manufacturing. Reengineering is often referred to by other names, including downsizing,

rightsizing, reorganizing, repositioning, revitalizing, and modernizing, although reengineering is in fact a considerably more

complex undertaking than these other named processes. Nevertheless, to most employees, reengineering has a single

significant result: job loss. Mentioning the term alerts employees to the likelihood of layoffs. Organizations in the

healthcare sector have been making changes that affect their employees for years. To provide some examples, by 1998,

81% had reduced their staffs through layoffs or attrition, and nearly half had laid off managers (Serb, 1998). More recent

data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics demonstrate that changes affecting employees continue. A 2011 report

issued by the Advisory Board Company noted that “the sluggish economy and looming provider payment cuts have driven

more hospitals to consider reducing staff as a way to stabilize their bottom lines” (Advisory Board, 2013). Increasing

demand for healthcare services that are associated with decreasing reimbursement payments for such services have led

hospitals to seek less costly staff to deliver needed services. Steady rates of new unemployment claims by displaced

hospital staff coupled with and slow but steady increases in total numbers of employees illustrate these changes (Bureau

of Labor Statistics, 2013).

Employee morale is likely the most severe HR problem in the healthcare sector, and layoffs are the main cause of morale

problems. There is apparently no way to avoid the conclusion that reengineering is synonymous with eliminating jobs.

Mergers, Acquisitions, and Other Affiliations

Mergers, acquisitions, and other forms of affiliation have become common in contemporary health care. Because these

recombinations are usually made in response to financial pressures, they usually mean the loss of jobs.

Systems often promote diversification and breadth of services. Not-for-profit systems are usually more diversified than

for-profit systems. For-profit systems are more likely to be specialized. They are far less likely to maintain services that are

not profitable. Not-for-profit systems are more likely to carry unprofitable services for the sake of remaining full service

to the communities they serve. Little evidence exists to suggest that hospitals belonging to multiorganizational systems

are any more efficient than are freestanding hospitals. In some parts of the country, systems and alliances have been the

salvation of endangered rural hospitals, but usually at the cost of job loss in the rural communities.

Mergers frequently lead to the reduction of management jobs as well as staff positions. Consider the merger of two small-

town hospitals located not far from each other. The merger involved combining parallel departments at both institutions

under a single management structure. For example, two clinical laboratories with two managers were combined into a

two-location laboratory department with a single manager. Because of this merger, 12 managers were eliminated, and

each of the managers who remained was left with a greatly enlarged span of control.

The process of consummating a merger is usually considerably more difficult and more expensive than what was originally

anticipated. Employees of one organization usually fear absorption by the other organization and the loss of their identity.

This happens even in a merger of so-called equals; one organization absorbs the other or is at least perceived as having

done so.

Consolidation expenses can be high. Organizations can require an extremely long time to recover their merger expenses

through lower operating costs and improved efficiency. Organizational recombinations can be highly disruptive to staff in

a number of ways as conflicting organizational cultures are forced to mix. The human side of merger or acquisition is rarely

given sufficient attention. Emotional issues that can make or break a merger usually take a distant second place to the

financial issues.

When organizations explore the possibility of merger or affiliation, little information is likely to be available. Once the

possibility of a merger becomes known, however, employees will become uneasy. Successful supervisors maintain a

dialogue with their employees. They listen to their concerns and keep them informed. They keep lines of communication

open and provide the best information that is available. Honesty is an absolute requirement for maintaining personal

credibility.

Layoffs

Other Considerations First

Department managers and HR staff experience considerable stress when they are ordered to implement mass layoffs.

When a layoff is impending, an organization should plan to take other steps that frequently precede a layoff. All realistic

steps that do not involve layoffs should be taken before employees are actually released. An early step should be

eliminating the use of all temporary employees. Another early step is imposing a hiring freeze. By stopping the influx of

all but essential staff, such an action provides time to consider internal reallocation of personnel.

Following a hiring freeze, closing open positions can reduce the total number of employees without releasing people. If

the reduction in staff is to be extensive and likely to be permanent, executive management should consider offering a

voluntary termination incentive. Organizations might also consider offering an early retirement incentive. Early retirement

incentive plans are helpful but can be risky. Specific individuals or groups cannot be targeted; to do so is discriminatory.

An additional risk is that key employees may actually leave.

Who Goes and Who Stays?

A department manager is usually involved in determining which employees leave and which ones stay. Personal

preferences must be subordinate to established organizational guidelines. All organizational guidelines are established

with the guidance of legal counsel. Selection for layoff is most often accomplished by seniority, although this is not an

absolute requirement unless a contract governs selection for layoff. Seniority may not be the sole factor. For example,

assessment mechanisms might consider a combination of factors that could include performance as reflected by

appraisals, attendance, conduct as reflected by disciplinary actions, and seniority.

Many organizations have determined that seniority is the fairest and safest means of determining who leaves and who

remains. Using seniority alone, questions remain about how it is determined. Seniority can be determined by time in an

organization, time in a specific department, or time within a particular task or job class.

Related to the degree of seniority is the process of bumping or displacement. Bumping occurs when the job of an individual

is eliminated. Persons of greater seniority are allowed to displace or bump persons having lesser seniority from their

positions. This process continues until the person having the least seniority is laid off. Bumping can be simple or extremely

complex, depending on the rules that are in place.

In addition to utilizing temporary employees, healthcare organizations actively use many part-time employees. An official

approach taken to selecting employees for layoff may include guidelines governing the order of reduction based on work

status. For example, temporary employees are released first, followed by regular part-time employees. Their status

typically puts them ahead of regular full-time employees when determining who will be released.

Whatever combination of factors is used by an organization, consistency in how the guidelines are applied is critically

important. Ideally, an organization should have a personnel policy to govern staff reductions. Such a policy should be in

place well before reductions ever become necessary. However, in many organizations, no policy is created until the need

for reductions becomes apparent. Exhibit 17-1 contains a sample reduction-in-force policy illustrating how one

organization has addressed most of the foregoing concerns. If employees are represented by a union, a collectively

bargained agreement between employer and union will determine how employees are chosen for layoff.

Once a layoff plan has been created, personnel from administration, HR, and legal counsel must assess the proposal to

ensure that it is not biased. Charges of discrimination are likely if patterns based on age, gender, or race emerge among

those slated for layoff. For example, organizations wanting to reduce personnel costs have laid off higher-paid employees.

As these people tend to be older, the resulting process can be considered discriminatory. All scenarios must be examined

before a layoff plan can be considered to be workable and nondiscriminatory.

The goal of an ideal layoff will be an organization that has reduced its personnel costs but retained its best employees.

Rarely is such an ideal outcome achieved. Compromises must be accepted as a consequence of being fair to all employees.

Older employees tend to earn higher salaries, and they are often protected by seniority. Younger employees may earn

lower salaries and possess critical skills. While these traits are desirable to an organization, younger employees lack

seniority. Layoffs should not be undertaken without considerable deliberation.

The Timing of Layoffs

The timing of reductions is an issue for which there are no easy or unambiguous solutions. From the perspective of

employees, timing is irrelevant because layoffs contain no positive benefits. Consultants and HR professionals who

develop reduction plans and policies disagree on whether it is best to phase in reductions over a period of time or

accomplish all layoffs at once. Both approaches have shortcomings.

When layoffs are phased in over a period of time, morale and productivity decrease as everyone waits and wonders who

will be next. Teamwork becomes a distant second to individual survival. The effect spreads across an entire organization.

If the reduction is expected to include managers, then it will permeate all levels of an organization. As morale is lost, it

tends to be replaced with anger. Over time, organizational chaos will occur.

Even when a layoff is significant, usually far more people remain working than were released. Prolonged layoffs take

their toll on the morale and attitudes of those who remain. Time is required for healing. The time is proportional to the

magnitude of a staff reduction. Layoffs that are prolonged and that inflict pain require more time for recovery. Phased-in

layoffs are easier to administer. Operating managers have more time to adjust layoff schedules. However, from an

employee perspective, they produce more stress and anxiety than a single mass layoff.

Other Layoff Considerations

Most organizations employ some form of severance policy in conjunction with layoffs that are considered permanent.

These are reductions in which employees do not have a realistic possibility of being recalled to work within a reasonable

period. Severance pay is ordinarily based on an individual’s final salary in combination with length of service. It is usually

capped at a stated maximum number of years. A common example of severance pay determination is one or two weeks’

pay for every year of service. An alternative is to provide two weeks’ pay per year of service to a maximum of, for example,

15 years. On average, healthcare organizations tend to offer less generous severance pay than can be found in other

industries, such as manufacturing.

In exchange for a severance pay arrangement, and possible outplacement assistance, an organization may ask a departing

employee to sign a waiver of the right to sue. In doing so, an employee agrees not to bring charges related to the

termination in trade for what is likely to be a more generous severance arrangement than would otherwise be obtainable.

However, employees often successfully challenge such waivers after the fact. In reality, waivers provide no guarantee that

legal complications will be avoided.

When a layoff is coming, all employees should be given the reasons for the action. The approach should be as

straightforward as possible and accompanied by as much detail as is available, and should be readily understood.

Economic issues are the basis for most layoffs. While some employees will choose not to believe the reasons they are

given, if no explanations are provided, employees will feel that they are being treated in an unfair manner. Ideally,

employees should be kept advised of an organization’s financial health on a regular basis. Reminders that layoffs are

possible may be useful. Surprises should be avoided. The reality of a layoff is sufficiently shocking when it is announced

even if employees expect one.

No Easy Time

From the perspective of management and HR, nothing is easy about implementing a reduction in force. However,

managers and HR have a far easier time than do the employees who are being laid off. The initial impact is invariably

stressful for both laid-off employees and those who remain.

Feelings of anger and betrayal are normal among employees who are laid off. Terminated employees face psychological

stress and economic hardship. Personal routines are disrupted, as are relationships that may have existed for years. For

all practical purposes lives are turned inside out as individuals are thrown into a mode that some of them may never have

experienced. Those who have experienced employment displacement do not look forward to repeating the experience.

For many individuals, the loss of a job is as traumatic as a death in the family. The grieving process is proportional to the

degree of loss. Employee assistance programs and other resources may be used to help ease the transition for both laid-

off staff and stressed-out survivors. The overall impact of a reduction in force is eventually healed with the passage of

time. This occurs more rapidly if a measure of employment stability returns to an organization.

RELATED DIMENSIONS OF TERMINATION

Unemployment Compensation

An employee who is discharged for cause is technically not eligible for unemployment compensation. One who is dismissed

for reasons related to performance or laid off for lack of work or for economic reasons is considered eligible for

unemployment. However, regardless of the reasons behind any particular termination, any discharged employee is free

to apply for unemployment. It costs only the time to complete an application. Many claims receive favorable

determinations even though an organization considered them ineligible.

Consider an example. An organization following its own procedures for progressive discipline provides counseling sessions

and warnings before discharging an individual for chronic tardiness. As long as policy is followed and applied in a consistent

manner, an organization has every right to release such an employee for not meeting the expectation of being on the job

when needed. This individual is technically not eligible for unemployment. This person applies for unemployment

compensation and pleads hardship due to an inability to get to work on time. The stated reason may involve a supposedly

regular ride that has been erratic, a constantly changing bus schedule, child care arrangements that are in a state of flux,

or some other issue why the starting-time expectation has not been met. If the unemployment office determines that the

discharged employee is eligible for benefits, the former employer will be notified. If the employer protests the

determination and the employee chooses not to accept the employer’s decision, then a hearing is held. An administrative

law judge renders a decision. Discharged employees claiming hardship are frequently granted unemployment

compensation benefits.

Human resources, acting on the organization’s behalf, initially responds to every claim for unemployment compensation,

making an initial determination as to which claims to contest and which to concede. Some HR departments have taken

the authoritarian stance of automatically contesting every unemployment claim. This practice accomplishes little more

than consuming time and energy while generating ill will. The HR assessment of each unemployment claim should involve

an honest judgment of the merits and validity of the claim. Only those claims that appear invalid or questionable should

be contested.

When a contested claim results in a hearing before an administrative law judge, the department manager and an HR

representative usually attend the session. The former employee typically attends. The information that they provide will

be used to make the determination. An unemployment hearing can consume several hours when travel and waiting time

are included. A conscientious HR manager will be mindful of the impact on managers and will contest only those claims

that honestly appear to be unwarranted.

Employee Privacy

Any termination, regardless of the reasons behind it, should be accomplished in private and in a place where the

conversation is not visible or audible to other employees. Terminations should be scheduled near the end of the workday

so that an individual who has just been let go can leave the premises without being forced to give an explanation or answer

employee questions about what has happened.

Terminated employees should be allowed as much dignity as possible. Managers must weigh considerations of trust and

caution. Many organizations have policies that require dismissed employees to be accompanied when they return to their

workstations or offices. This precaution is taken to ensure that computer files or other property is not damaged. Human

resources commonly has the responsibility to recover keys, employee identification cards, and other organizational

property. Security generally has the responsibility to delete any electronic access codes given to former employees.

Discharged employees should be escorted out of the building. However, not all experts agree on this suggestion. Angry

former employees may commit acts of vandalism or sabotage. In contrast, employees who were terminated and then

escorted out have sued because of the humiliation experienced in the manner of departure. Juries are frequently

sympathetic to allegations that defamation can result from actions as well as from words. Terminations occasionally

require the presence of security personnel. A security officer’s presence should be discreet, not especially visible but

readily available.

Outplacement

When significant numbers of employees are being released during the same reduction, organizations often provide access

to some form of outplacement service. Individual outplacement services are often extended as part of the severance

arrangement made with a manager or professional employee. These are individualized services intended to assist the

person in preparing a résumé, initiating a job search, and securing future employment. Group outplacement activities are

often provided for rank-and-file employees. Direct contact with organizations that are known to be recruiting may be

arranged. Any assistance toward new employment that can be provided will lessen the feelings of betrayal or

abandonment that employees experience when they are laid off.

HUMAN RESOURCES FOLLOW-UP

For all terminations, HR representatives should discuss issues related to benefits with departing employees. An important

topic is continuation of insurance coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). Options

should be discussed and employees should be shown how to apply for coverage. Other options should be explained.

Unemployment compensation benefits, if applicable, should be discussed. Human resources should secure a signed

release to give out reference information. Human resources will ordinarily explain how remaining vacation or sick time

and applicable severance will be paid and whom the departing employee should contact with questions.

THE SURVIVORS OF REDUCTION

Before, during, and immediately after a reduction in force, people who have been laid off receive a great deal of attention.

Those who have been terminated receive so much attention that individuals who remain often feel forgotten. However,

employees that remain must not only keep the organization running but also pick up the slack created by the loss of those

who were discharged. They often think of themselves as survivors rather than as regular employees.

Survivors commonly feel overworked, if not overwhelmed. This is most acute in the days immediately following the

reduction when the shortfall created by the absence of some staff is most pronounced. Survivors experience guilt over

having avoided the reduction while so many others lost their employment. They distrust management for terminating so

many of their coworkers and wonder about the security of their own employment, fearing that they will be next to depart.

Survivors experience an overall decrease in morale, productivity, and employee loyalty. They feel less compelled to be at

work on time or at all. This contributes to a general increase in absenteeism and tardiness. In some extreme instances,

they may carry out acts of sabotage, violence, or other disruptive behavior.

Inevitably, some survivors of a reduction react by looking for new employment. In this way, critically needed staff may be

lost due to the insecurity of the environment. Skilled technical and professional employees often feel more loyalty to their

occupations than to an organization. Organizational loyalty has eroded with the reduction in force, and employees are

ripe for offers of more secure employment. A job market favorable to highly skilled professionals can cause an organization

to lose staff members that they worked so hard to recruit or protect.

The attitude among the survivors of a reduction can be particularly grim if their organization had implemented a total

quality management or other motivational program during recent years. These programs, launched and pursued with

much promotional activity and a strong emphasis on the value of employee participation, delivered a single message. All

employees are told that they are important, that their contributions are essential for the organization’s continued success,

and that they are needed. When layoffs follow, the message is changed. The organization says that employees have

become less important. When a significant reduction in force follows a motivational program, the cumulative effect is

more demoralizing than if employees had never heard about the original program.

Following a significant layoff, top management must be openly supportive of those who remain and must be visibly active

in efforts to help all survivors adjust to changes and return to normal operations. Reassurance about continuing

employment without additional layoffs is helpful. However, it is useful only if it is true. A second round of layoffs made

after a message of employment assurance is often catastrophic to the morale of remaining employees. Decreased morale

is often followed by decreases in productivity. This cycle is vicious and highly detrimental to an organization.

Human resources and management at all levels can provide valuable support to the survivors of a reduction in force by

stressing training and education as people attempt to adjust to new or altered roles. Specifically, this is an appropriate

time to provide training in time management, coping with change or managing stress. Any action that promotes a sense

of business as usual or allays fear among workers has value. The overarching goal is to allay fear and change the focus of

employees from survival and security to service and productivity.

During the recovery period following a reduction in force, supervisors must maintain close communications with their

employees. Employees will have questions. Many of them cannot be answered. Employees will be stressed out, worried,

and demoralized. As employees, supervisors are subject to the same negative influences as their subordinates. However,

as managers, they must keep their employees upbeat and willing to produce in spite of what is occurring around them.

This often requires great effort in the face of potential discouragement. It also requires support from organizational

executives. The outlook, morale, and productivity of an entire group of people often hinges on the attitude of a single

person, a departmental supervisor.

CONCLUSION

Involuntary terminations include layoffs and firing. The former are usually triggered by economic considerations, while

the latter are due to problems meeting organizational expectations or conforming to policies. Allowing a person to resign

instead of being fired has great potential for creating future organizational problems. Persons who are involuntarily

terminated may be eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. Human resources provides essential services

whenever an employee leaves an organization. Survivors of any reduction in force have special needs. Ignoring these has

the potential to cause great losses in employee morale and productivity.

Case Study Resolution

The case of Joan von Willebrand demonstrates the importance of following policies and procedures faithfully and

consistently applying all rules during an involuntary termination.

Joan should be discharged. However, unnecessary information will have to be collected and reviewed. Extra time and

unnecessary aggravation will result from George’s off-and-on, lax application of the tardiness policy. At present, enough

information is available to document the fact that Joan was given an opportunity to correct her offending behavior but

did not do so. All of the provisions in the organization’s progressive disciplinary policy must be followed. George should

be reprimanded for inconsistent application of his supervisory responsibilities. In all involuntary terminations, it is

essential that an organization has clear, comprehensive policies and procedures and that these are applied consistently

and in a strict, nondiscriminatory fashion.

………………………

SPOTLIGHT ON CUSTOMER SERVICE

Customer Service and Terminating Employees

At first glance, customer service and terminating employees are, in the language of geometry, nonintersecting sets. Some

reflection may provide useful insights. Common reasons for terminating employees include consistently poor job

performance, violation of organizational policies, and endangering the health or well-being of other employees.

A common denominator of these infractions is disregard toward others and ignoring their safety or personal needs. Stated

simply, it is selfish behavior. Others can include people as well as organizations such as an employer.

It should not be surprising to learn that people who are terminated rarely provide customer service. They have difficulty

leaving their own worlds that are defined by selfish behaviors and are unable to put others ahead of themselves.

While it may seem tempting to use nonparticipation in an organizational customer service program as an early predictor

of future difficulties, such a leap would be foolish because it overlooks other explanations for not providing customer

service. Lack of awareness of an organization-wide customer service program or a lack of training may be the reason.

These are easily remedied. Only after ruling out all other reasons for nonparticipation should customer service inactivity

be considered as a harbinger of future problems.

References

Advisory Board. (2013). Hospital mass layoffs on the rise. Available at: http://www.advisory.com/Daily-

Briefing/2011/09/30/Hospital-mass-layoffs-on-the-rise. Accessed

May 11, 2013.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Workforce Statistics. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag622.htm. Accessed

May 11, 2013.

Serb, C. (1998). Is remaking the hospital making money? Hospitals and Health Networks, 72(14), 32–35.

Discussion Points

1. What are the differences between dismissal and discharge?

2. In your opinion, should a general layoff be implemented at one time, or over a period of weeks or months? Why?

3. What steps would you advise a department supervisor to take before laying off employees? Why?

4. What are the principal advantages and disadvantages to an organization in implementing a voluntary early retirement

program?

5. What is a constructive discharge? Provide an example of a constructive discharge.

6. Why should some form of seniority be used as a criterion in identifying employees for layoff?

7. Why is it necessary to pay particular attention to the employees that are retained following a reduction in force? What

is the basis for concern, recognizing that these survivors still have their jobs?

8. When should employees who are laid off be expected to leave? Why? What are the advantages and disadvantages of

leaving at the time that they are notified? What are the advantages and disadvantages of being allowed to work out a

reasonable period of notice?

9. Why do mergers and other affiliations often lead to the consolidation of positions and reduction of the workforce?

10. Should a manager be able to use a reduction in force to rid the department of its less effective employees? Why or

why not?

11. Once all employees have been designated for layoff, what should HR do before the layoff is implemented? Why?

12. What steps can an employer take to minimize the possibility of terminations being overturned by legal action? Why?

13. Assuming that a significant number of skilled employees are designated for layoff, how can an organization assist

these workers following dismissal? Can an organization protect selected skilled workers in a layoff? Why or why not?

14. Why is it advisable that human resources provide individual meetings with each employee that is terminated in a

workforce reduction?

15. Should an employee who is about to be discharged for cause be allowed to resign? Why or why not?

Resources

Books

Anderson, C. (2004). Tool kit for human resources. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.

DeCenzo, D. A., & Robbins, S. P. (2004). Fundamentals of human resource management (8th ed.). New York: John Wiley.

Fleischer, C. H. (2004). The complete hiring and firing handbook: Every manager’s guide to working with employees—

legally. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.

MacKay, I. (2005). 35 checklists for human resource management. London: Ashgate.

Riccucci, N. (2005). Public personnel management: Current concerns, future challenges. New York: Longman.

Periodicals

Blackman, M. C., & Funder, D. C. (2002). Effective interview practices for accurately assessing counterproductive traits.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 109–116.

Galle, W. R., & Koen, C. M. (2001). Reducing post-termination disputes: A national survey of contract clauses used in

employment contracts. Journal of Individual Employment Rights, 9, 227–241.

Lansbury, R., & Baird, M. (2004). Broadening the horizons of HRM: Lessons for Australia from experience of the United

States. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 42(2), 147–155.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 87, 698–714.

Roberts, R., & Hirsch, P. (2005). Evolution and revolution in the twenty-first century: Rules for organizations and managing

human resources. Human Resources Management, 44(2), 171–176.

Storey, J., Quintas, P., Taylor, P., & Fowle, W. (2002). Flexible employment contracts and their implications for product

and process innovation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1), 1–18.