Can someone explain to me the idea of layoffs based on seniority?

You know, that actually makes some sense. I never thought of it that way.

I mean, I get why the union would want to make it based on seniority but, at the same time, I can't really understand the steadfast determination not to come up with a better system.

Like, if you know the company needs to cut X amount of dollars, why not get rid of the most highly-paid people, thereby laying off as few an amount of individuals as possible?

These are the things I wonder.

 

And I think we can all agree that in a lot of places nowadays, quality is no longer part of the discussion.

 

You need to stop going back to for-instances of one employee writing five stories a week and the other writing 10 and somehow the two of them getting sorted out by layoffs.

No, what would sort that situation out is "management." The first employee's production, if unacceptably low, should be managed toward better productivity whether this is a time of layoffs or not. Workers don't just exist in a vacuum. But if bosses can't lead or develop people, well, sure then you might have serious slackers on a staff.

Here's a question related to the dues part of this: Don't many labor unions keep you as a member after you've been laid off? You're not a non-carpenter, for example -- you're a laid-off carpenter who has paid lots of dues over the years and will be trying to get back to work in that field. Newspaper unions, though, take your money till you're put on the street and then suddenly, you're not a member of the union anymore -- even if they've collected thousands of dollars in dues from you over many years.

What's with that bullshit?

 

I'd think that also keeping people with more seniority also shows that the senior people have more at stake, because they built their lives with the company, instead of the newer folk, who may be seen as able to move on to a different company.

That, and a company might want to look at keeping senior people as a way to reward loyalty. They don't want the younger people to see the veterans get chopped, then decide to jump ship themselves.

Now, as we know, in the newspaper business, this hasn't happened lately. A lot of veterans are ousted because they make the most money. Quality of work and loyalty be damned.

 

I agree with the second paragraph here but I'm only doing the for-instance because we all know there's no real way to compare two people in this industry besides bylines and paychecks.

It's an unfair way to do it too because two people can write the same story and one can put in extra work on it (finding extra sources, taking a pictures, etc) and still only get it counted the one time.

When I use the example, I'm basically saying that, in my opinion, there are a lot of employees who get cut based strictly on seniority that might be outperforming others on or above their level and I feel like individuals aren't being treated as individuals when it comes time to do the cutting.

Absolutely agreed that everyone should be contributing the same but there are always going to be people who rise about expectations and people are happy just getting by. And that's in any industry.

 

Again, though, those factors could be weighed in when analyzing an individual person's overall worth to the company.

It's easy to say you can just cut the highest-paid people (as I did above) but even that's poor logic as you're gutting people who can often be your biggest resources.

There really is no way to overcome experience in this industry. It should be considered. But as the only factor in determining layoffs? I think that's VERY shortsighted.

 

By definition, if you are cutting just for money you are forced to make shitty choices. And if you've been doing it right all along, the more highly-paid people got there for a reason.

 

This.

Very rarely, even in this industry, are layoffs based strictly on seniority, age or pay, or even performance, politics or whom you may have in your back pocket.

Usually, it is some combination of all of all those factors, along with comparisons also figured in such as your current beat/position/salary coupled with an employee's perceived "ceiling" within a company.

 

schiezainc, no one said life was fair. Best advice I can give you....TAKE IT!!!!!

 

Seniority equals higher wages. Without it being protected, layoffs just lop off the highest-paid employees. It's not perfect. But there's really no other way to protect people that's effective. Management is NEVER going to make those choices on pure merit, if only because merit is ultra-subjective.

 

You answered your own question.

And to add: Seniority can also be quantified.
Evil was hired to Oct. 27, 2008.
Schiezanic was hired Dec. 1, 205.
There's no debate. Hire date is the hire date.
Productivity can be debated and argued.

 

These are the exact reasons.

I'm not saying a company should be bound by the idea of laying off folks based on seniority, but this is why employees and their unions want the rule, and if they negotiate it into their contract, then more power to them.