

The "No Fire" Policy - bconway
http://www.michelemmartin.com/thebambooprojectblog/2013/02/an-antidote-to-disposable-worker-syndrome-the-no-fire-policy.html

======
brokentone
I'd argue that telling someone "their new job was to look for a new job" is
similar emotionally to a proper firing. Then what time contraint to you give
this person? Someone will abuse the system.

I worked at a company who had an effective "no fire" policy, while it wasn't
official, they just never fired to my knowledge. It was very frustrating being
a competent employee there because the staff knew they wouldn't be fired and
did very poor work--like the one person doing all the work in the school
group.

Policies like this, while sounding pretty and caring, actually create poor
workplace culture and punish your best employees.

~~~
RougeFemme
It sounds like maybe that company didn't do the upfront work required to make
sure - or at least increase the likelihood - that they were making a good hire
in the first place. Or maybe they didn't have good employee development in
place once the employees are hired. Having said that though, my knee-jerk
reaction is to be skeptical of no-hire policies. For the company in the
article it seems to work. I'm just skeptical that most companies would have
the will/capability to truly make it work.

~~~
chc
Even a perfect hiring process won't completely eliminate bad employees. Just
because someone was good when you hired them doesn't mean they'll continue to
be. Maybe your needs change and they are unwilling to cope effectively. Maybe
they develop a drug problem. Maybe they burn out. Maybe they just stop caring.
Sadly, a good employee is not necessarily good forever.

------
mdkess
I guess at the heart, the problem with firing is the emotional and social
stigma associated with it.

Someone is under-performing, and you don't think that it can be corrected. By
firing them, they have to go home to their wife and kids and tell them the
news, that _they_ were rejected, that _they_ failed (even if it's not true).
Managers don't want to inflict this on people, but they're looking out for
something greater than an individual employee, they're looking out for their
team.

The other trouble is that sometimes under performance isn't the employee's
fault. They were a bad match for the team, but your interview wasn't a good
filter for that. Or maybe family issues are making them unfocused. Or their
job has morphed out of their control into something beyond their skill set.
Point is, even if someone needs to be laid off, they don't deserve to be
punished.

What they are proposing is not no-firing, it's making firing expensive, and
treating people respectfully during it. Some companies fire quickly. Others,
really slowly - mostly because there's no process for it, and nobody wants to
take initiative to get rid of someone. Both have problems. The former puts
employees on edge, and can feel random (project slips a week and you're gone?
That'd be like programming with a gun to your head). The latter will reduce
the team's productivity, since teams seem to tend to converge to the lower
bar.

Were they to say "we'll keep you on payroll for N months, please find a new
job. You can continue to say that you work here for those months" people would
be able to leave with their ego more in tact.

------
shyn3
Does anyone remember when they were young and you used to get 1st place, 2nd
place, or 3rd place ribbons. Now they give you a ribbon for participating.

This "no fire" almost feels like the same. Granted I like the fact it
encourages hiring managers to use their brain when hiring because a lot of
organizations hire badly and this could potentially provide value.

------
hudibras
This is wrong in so many ways...

Getting fired is not the end of the world.

~~~
Timmy_C
As someone who recently was fired . . . you're right, it's not the end of the
world. But it does make life very uncomfortable for a lot of reasons. You
don't see work friends. You don't have the cash to do the things you once did.
Searching for a job becomes your new job and going to interviews sucks.
Writing 20 different versons of the same cover letter sucks. Filing for
unemployment sucks. And the list goes on. It's not something I would wish upon
someone unless they really deserved it.

~~~
rodw
Wait, are we talking about be _fired_ (i.e., "for cause") or being laid off?
As I understand it one isn't eligible for unemployment (in the US) when it is
the former.

"No layoffs" is a stronger (and harder) criterion to meet.

(My condolences either way. Neither is the end of the world, but they both
suck. If you haven't yet found a new gig, hang in there. Persistence will pay
off. Like any sales, applying for a job is a numbers game.)

~~~
Timmy_C
You're right, being fired disqualifies you from collecting unemployment. But
you should still file anyway. Your former employer has to provide an
explanation of why you were let go. If the reason isn't sufficient or your
former employer doesn't reply then the state will provide you unemployment
benefits.

