From my view point it is not ethical to lay off senior employees, because they earn more, their productivity has declined and cannot work for longer hours, who are experienced and in their place hire the desperate college graduates. Such a move according to the utilitarian theory does not bring out the good to many. A good ethical decision need to benefit the larger population. In this case, you cannot send home 10 people and bring 5 young minds and term the decision as ethical. Also, doubling the work of the new hires because they are desperate is not ethical. The senior employees have years of experience, which is a company asset and sending them away as is in this case, the company will lose a total of 210 year of which even if the work is doubled the new employees may not be able to reach it.
The management of the company in question needs to understand the generation’s gaps in the workforce. As far as they think of doing away with the old employees (Generation X and Baby Boomers) and bringing the Millennials to work at a lower cost, the tastes, attitudes, preferences, values and lifestyles of each generation need to be put in considerations. The Millenials can work for longer hours as the new VP for HR recommends but it will be unethical to lay off a generation of its workforce due to its age.
It is not worthy to lay off because of cost cutting
The main reason of layoff in the subject case is to cut costs and therefore generate more profits. What the management of this company should know is profit is not the only driver of business success. There are other ethical factors and impacts that need to be looked keenly. On the positive side, the company will achieve its target of making the shareholders happy by the increased value of their investments. The productivity and the quality of customer service may increase. But on other side, laying offer senior employees may trigger a negative response from the surviving employees which may be inculcated in the new hires (Debra & Burke, 2020).
The surviving employees may develop mistrust with management. This is because they may not know who will be laid off next. The productivity and creativity may as well go down. The management may find themselves working for longer hours with unfriendly teams. The $700,000 saved in a year may lure the management to think their decision is good and ethical but, the negative impact of the layoff to the company stakeholders may be far greater. Before the new VP of HR of the XYZ company implements his plan, he should consider whether his action will increase the good, that is, happiness, to the many. The interests of the employees (both surviving and the one to be laid off), stockholders, clients, government and the community around them should be taken into consideration.
Pre-screening potential employees
It is unethical to pre-screen the employees to be based on their internet profiles. The companies that dare to do so risk discrimination lawsuits. It is illegal to use the social media information of an individual in decision making. In this era where there is pseudo and fake accounts, potential job seekers can be denied opportunities, if screened, because of internet information that has no valid sources. Also, social networks are not professional in nature and therefore information therein is not professional in any way.
It is very rare nowadays to find reliable information on the internet relating to individuals. Since, the social sites do not require individuals to authenticate their real name; people find themselves using nicknames and other names that are only known in their circles. The information that can be collected can also have protected characteristics, for example, race, gender, religion, age, etc.
Solutions to the case study
The solutions to this case include; engaging the employees expected to be laid off for a negotiation of how the process will be carried out. The employees can be asked whether they will be ready to continue working at a lower pay and for longer hours instead of being laid off. Another option will be to maintain all the senior employees up to the retirement age and bring the new hires so that skills and expertise can be transferred smoothly. But, the best solution is to engage all the stakeholders so that the good that will yield happiness to many can be sought in order to make the final decision. The management should not be blinded by the amount generated after cutting the employees costs. The result of laying off the senior employees can be detrimental if not well thought out to an extent of the company collapsing. In this case the happiness of the many should prevail.
The management of the company in question needs to understand the generation’s gaps in the workforce. As far as they think of doing away with the old employees (Generation X and Baby Boomers) and bringing the Millennials to work at a lower cost, the tastes, attitudes, preferences, values and lifestyles of each generation need to be put in considerations. The Millenials can work for longer hours as the new VP for HR recommends but it will be unethical to lay off a generation of its workforce due to its age.
It is not worthy to lay off because of cost cutting
The main reason of layoff in the subject case is to cut costs and therefore generate more profits. What the management of this company should know is profit is not the only driver of business success. There are other ethical factors and impacts that need to be looked keenly. On the positive side, the company will achieve its target of making the shareholders happy by the increased value of their investments. The productivity and the quality of customer service may increase. But on other side, laying offer senior employees may trigger a negative response from the surviving employees which may be inculcated in the new hires (Debra & Burke, 2020).
The surviving employees may develop mistrust with management. This is because they may not know who will be laid off next. The productivity and creativity may as well go down. The management may find themselves working for longer hours with unfriendly teams. The $700,000 saved in a year may lure the management to think their decision is good and ethical but, the negative impact of the layoff to the company stakeholders may be far greater. Before the new VP of HR of the XYZ company implements his plan, he should consider whether his action will increase the good, that is, happiness, to the many. The interests of the employees (both surviving and the one to be laid off), stockholders, clients, government and the community around them should be taken into consideration.
Pre-screening potential employees
It is unethical to pre-screen the employees to be based on their internet profiles. The companies that dare to do so risk discrimination lawsuits. It is illegal to use the social media information of an individual in decision making. In this era where there is pseudo and fake accounts, potential job seekers can be denied opportunities, if screened, because of internet information that has no valid sources. Also, social networks are not professional in nature and therefore information therein is not professional in any way.
It is very rare nowadays to find reliable information on the internet relating to individuals. Since, the social sites do not require individuals to authenticate their real name; people find themselves using nicknames and other names that are only known in their circles. The information that can be collected can also have protected characteristics, for example, race, gender, religion, age, etc.
Solutions to the case study
The solutions to this case include; engaging the employees expected to be laid off for a negotiation of how the process will be carried out. The employees can be asked whether they will be ready to continue working at a lower pay and for longer hours instead of being laid off. Another option will be to maintain all the senior employees up to the retirement age and bring the new hires so that skills and expertise can be transferred smoothly. But, the best solution is to engage all the stakeholders so that the good that will yield happiness to many can be sought in order to make the final decision. The management should not be blinded by the amount generated after cutting the employees costs. The result of laying off the senior employees can be detrimental if not well thought out to an extent of the company collapsing. In this case the happiness of the many should prevail.
