D-Day Has Arrived At My Shop. Wish Me Luck.

How do you know I'm married? It has nothing to do with being married. like I said, someones relationship status should have nothing to do with who gets laid off, nothing.

Most employers would rather have single people so they won't have to deal with people having to take time off for there kids. You would think you would know that since you're middle aged, which I highly doubt since you started your post with Dude.

Maybe you struggle, not because you're white, middle aged and single, but because you're not very good at your job.

 

I'm secure.
Are you?
And who died and made you God?
Get over yourself.

 

Trust me, I can guarentee that I'm secure with my life. I'd venture a guess that you might not be since you're being persecuted for being a middle aged, single white male. You come across as a complete moron. Not tough to see why you're single.

 

Could we cut the bullshit or get pissy somewhere other than Pete's thread? It's a disservice to him. It's one thing to discuss the implications inherent in his situation, but the name calling is just going to get this thread locked.

 

You're right, this isn't the place for it. Sorry Pete.

 

From what I've heard, there are some employers who also prefer singles because it lightens the company share of the health coverage, too. Nothing like a bunch of kids getting sick and breaking bones to up those premiums, with the employee only paying a share of the family-plan coverage.

This is the same reason, I'm told, that some employers try not to hire older people. Something about their medical insurance costs being greater.

How about getting out of the health-care business, then, and focusing on whatever businesses you're actually in, cheapskate bastards?

 

by your employer? correct. but when it comes to you making a personal decision that's gonna suck no matter what? sf is right. tougher to pull the trigger to keep your paycheck coming if it means bumping someone with a wife and kids at home. for me, anyway.

 

I wonder if you'd be allowed to negotiate with the guy you have the right to bump...

 

so if i'm single, i should feel compelled to take the hit and let the married parent have the job? bullshit. and i shouldn't be made to feel like i was unethical for protecting myself.

 

if I have to make a decision to bump someone to keep my job, and I've got two guys I can bump who are equal in every respect other than one has a wife and kids - I think I bump the single guy. if there's only one guy to bump, and he's got a family at home? yes, that's harder. for me, anyway. I probably still do it, but that doesn't mean that I don't feel like shit in the process.

 

This is all just another management Nazi trick, and badly conceived union mechanism. It's like handing a gun to one hostage and telling him to pull the trigger on one of the other hostages, while the captors have machine guns trained on all of them.

This gets very close to a situation, I believe, in which all affected parties, real or potential, should walk. Bosses are supposed to lay off staffers, staffers aren't supposed to lay off other staffers.

 

bingo