Termination First Thing Tomorrow Morning

Balloonman

Not looking forward to tomorrow, terminating a long term employee first thing in the morning. Poor performance, poor attitude, and once again just screwed up on a job..........of course it is not his fault.
He deserves it, but still I don't enjoy it.
My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

marc

This is why HR professionals get paid the "Big Bucks." I do not envy you, this is one of the hardest parts of the job, especially if you have developed personal relationships over the years. I don't know of a best way to do it, but I start out right away with the message and pick up the pieces after. Still, no fun and no love. Time will heal.

Good luck.

mwild31

Good luck to you DJ - it's tough and no fun, but it has to be done.

System

What was the question? Or did you just want us all to face East tomorrow morning at the same time and fold our hands? x:-)

crawfod

I'm going to make an assumption that this employee does not directly work for you, but that one of your roles in HR is that of a terminator, regardless of whose department the employee is in. I guess I've been lucky all my career to work for organizations where that was not an HR role.

In my experience, HR should insure Supervisors or Department Heads or whomever are properly trained in knowing who, when, where, why, and how to terminate someone or to make darn sure they check with HR if they have questions. HR should then handle outprocessing, exit interviews, benefit counseling, perhaps one final appeal level, etc. Help me understand why those of you with this role have it.

P.S. I'm not talking about downsizing or lay off type terminations or those where severance packages are involved. HR has a role there. I'm talking about situations whereby you have been directed to terminate some other department's employee for poor performance, absenteeism, or any other reason where your main source of knowledge comes from the department, and you are the only one present to do it.

gillian2

Ditto to Crawfod.

ray a

I agree with Crawford. I actually started training our leaders to handle terminations on their own, but I've been ordered by higher ups to do it myself. Unfortunately, I have no choice in the matter. No matter how much good we do for people, if their perception is we are the bad guys because we mete out the discipline and do the firing, they will not trust us. But, my boss insists I do it because he trusts me to do it correctly.

scottorr

I hear you! It is the one thing I dislike about HR. Even when they have it coming, I have never enjoyed a termination.

Don D

We have created this conundrum for ourselves. For the past 15 years or so, HR professionals have tried hard and successfully to 'teach' management that we are
knowledgeable professionals who can save them thousands if not millions of dollars by riding herd on labor law compliance issues. In many cases that was a tough nut to crack, but I think its fairly universally accepted now that a company does rely heavily on the skills and knowledge of its HR people. We have spent countless hours standing at podiums doing refresher training for supervisors and likewise have sat in hundreds of staff meetings and entered the secret conclave numerous times to give advice and help steer ships. It is for this reason, lots of times, that upper management insists on our doing the tough tasks....because we have convinced them along the way that we know how to do it correctly and compliantly and they have a business view that it is better to rely on that rather than on our trying to show somebody else how to do it. Additionally, every labor attorney I have interracted with or sat in class and listened to over the past 10 years or so has said that HR should always be in the room at termination, if not doing it themselves. I don't like it either but accept it. I would rather know it was done safely and correctly than wonder when the hammer is going to drop because some manager or supervisor screwed it up. But, I do understand the strong argument that Gillian and Pork will make.

Dasher

I understand and actually appreciate the new role(s) of HR professionals, including the responsibility of seeing that all terminations are done legally and compassionately. We went through a tremendous change initiative a few years back which involved a number of terminations that if not done correctly could have created a royal (and legal) nightmare. I take pride in the fact that they were done with respect for the employee involved and as much as possible with dignity and compassion. Of course no one likes it, but sometimes it must be done. There was a great thread last year that Don D. started when he had to oversee a termination, which was very moving.

The forum teaches me that HR duties vary considerably from company to company. For small companies like I work for, it is best that HR take a strategic and active role in lots of things not typically considered HR functions. I try not to get tired of the big and varied hats we must wear. Like Margaret says, we are now "Running with the Big Dogs". To know that we do good for employees and the company has its rewards. One poster says something like -- it's good to do the impossible. I like that.

Balloonman

Hey I learned something today, turns out I am a di%k and a fuc*ing a-hole, and I am personally ruining the company. I love getting cursed out, though I have to be honest, makes it easier.................
He ran off a list of people I have fired how I have done a disservice to the company, two of the three were for drugs, one after violating his last chance agreement. I don't believe he knows why they were canned, or felt that was an appropriate reason.
Funniest part, he was informed that foreman and site mgrs all felt his job performance was unsatisfactory, went out to the one on the job he was on, asked him if his job performance was satisfactory, the foreman was silent for a moment, then one of our good hard working guys who was standing next to him said "NO".
He walked off at that point cursing me. :-)
My $0.02 worth,
DJ The Balloonman

PS Thanks to all of those who turned East and said a prayer for me.............

Whatever

The same sort of thing happened to one of my assistants who was there when I terminated some one. The former ee turned on the assistant rather than me. Afterwards, my assistant (with a broad smile and wink)asked if he could have a raise because his job title had changed and because he had just learned how much power he had.
Know how you feel, but you're handling well.

ray a

I will be terminating someone soon this morning for willful destruction of company property. Should be interesting.

Dasher

Hang in there Balloonman! We gotcha back.

HRQ

Since we are sharing stories...

For weeks after I'd termed him, a former employee left me voice mail messages almost nightly. (he would call after my normal hours-never left his name but I was sure I recognized the voice) Examples:
- "yooooouuuuu ssssuuuuuucccckkkk!" (this was the most common one)
- "just checking in on the Queen of Wishful Thinking"
- "bbbbuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrpppppppppp" (at least I think that one was from him)

I never felt threatened - mostly amused and a little bit sorry for him that he couldn't get over it. The messages eventually just stopped. Must've finally gotten another job. (Hopefully not with any of you on the Forum!)

Always Learning in OR

Just want to add my two cents here. I agree that it is an unpleasant but important part of my job to assist supervisors in terminations. My opinion is that it is tremendously important to have the supervisor lead the termination process, and equally important that they have me there to support and guide the process when/if I'm needed. I think it adds a professional level to the process and makes clear that the matter is closed in the eyes of the company at all levels.

So sorry to hear the process was so uncomfortable Balloonman. Sometimes it helps me to take a breath and think of all the days ahead of you that will not include the individual and the problems and morale struggles that came to work with him each day.

gillian2

Correct, Don. We lose something in our ability to foster good employee relationships when we become known as the place where people go to get fired. If we have brought this on ourselves by educating our managers about our ability to do things right, we should be just as resolute in training them that it is their job to terminate employees. Of course attorneys say we should be the ones terminating employees or at least being there. Their role is the "least risk of lawsuit" role so they think the same as managers - we are the best to take on the firing role. They think about how to protect the company, not what is best for HR or our relationships with employees. Other managers can be witnesses - it doesn't have to be us. There are always exceptions, and the one that you described last year was probably such an exception - obviously you were the best for that particular event.

Don D

Their role is the "least risk of
>lawsuit" role so they think the same as managers - we are the best to
>take on the firing role. They think about how to protect the company,
>not what is best for HR or our relationships with employees.

Maybe I just fell off a turnip truck and need to totally relearn something basic; but, I have always thought foremost "about how to protect the company, not what is best for HR or our relationships with employees." My relationship with employees and my concept of what is best for the department are important, but secondary to what's best for the company, as defined by the people who employ me. I take as my primary obligation, my responsibility to protect the company from lawsuits and do what's best 'to protect the company'. Company attorneys aren't the only ones whose 'role is the least risk of lawsuit'. Unless I've been terribly misinformed for the past three decades, that is my role too. In a dream world or in the most perfect of all possible situations, we would be able to guide and teach and believe that our managers and front line supervisors could accomplish these tasks as well as we might want them to. But, alas, it is a crapshoot at best.

Balloonman

gillian I must disagree in one respect. Everyone knows which employees should be fired for performance issues, after all the others pick up the slack. As my mentor told me, "You don't fire them, they get themselves fired". True except in layoff downsizing etc.
I do not believe it damages our relationship with the employees as long as we treat people in the proper way.
My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

Whatever

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-18-03 AT 01:32PM (CST)[/font][p]I find I have to be two personalities at a termination. Most of the terminations are done by the manager with a HR person present. Though an occasional ee behaves in a crude manner, most are expecting it. After all, they have been previously warned. Many times, the ee has questions about their benefits,earned vacation etc. So while I am there to protect the company and witness the termination (or do the termination myself), I, also, find myself helping the ee.

gillian2

Nope, Don, you didn't just fall off the turnip truck. We just have a different philosophy generated by many years of experience. Since my 36 years is more than your three decades, maybe you will come around.

E Wart

I have to agree with you. (Maybe we are control freeks, I've been called worse.) Since we have locations in 8 states, I can't be sitting at each termination, but am actively involved. You are right about the perfect world... supv. being trained etc. Face it, most supervisors are where they are because they were either nice people or excellent technicians. Most don't want to do a termination either.
Balloonman, sounds as if it wasn't too bad for you and that the employee felt that this was going to happened. However, we never fess up to that when it is "us" that are perfect.
Hope you have a good weekend.
E Wart
PS In one of my other jobs, I learned that I was known as the "hatchet woman". I didn't realize it at the time, but the only time I was given a travel budget was when I went to terminate someone. This was when portable computers were just coming out and I had a compact about the size of portable sewing machine that I would carry with me. This is obviously the least favorite part of my job, but it is something we knew we would be involved with when we took the job. (I haven't found anyone else who likes to be involved in it either.)

Carey

It has been interesting reading the different opinions about who should conduct termination meetings. At my company, usually it's the manager and if a witness is needed for a sensitive situation, we recommend a supervisor and manager together. The reason we keep HR out of it, is that we are where the employee comes if they feel they have been treated unfairly. Of course, HR is involved in the decision to terminate, but we don't want to be seen by the employee as having made the decision. I feel I need to be somewhat impartial if the employee decides to come to me and claim some sort of discrimination. There are times when we have managers who are ill-equipped to handle termination meetings and in those cases I do help out. We also try to train our managers, but thankfully it's not an everyday occurrence, so some of them just need the moral support. Even after terminations that go smoothly, the employee comes to HR for an exit interview and to receive information about benefits, final paycheck, etc.

Don D

Gillian always keeps me smiling and pumped. If I am to 'come around' to his way of thinking because he has 36 years of experience, that would indicate that the simple adding up of years is the measure of 'right'. And, that would mean that the measure of greatness is determined by time on the job. And that might mean that Robert Byrd is the most brilliant of senatorial minds. This theory is quickly falling apart. x:-) I saw the old 'clucker' play the fiddle 40 years ago when I was a little boy. He fumbled around and danced a jig and made no sense, then, as now. Robert Byrd, Not Gillian! I've not yet seen Gillian play the fiddle.

gillian2

But the world would be a better place if everyone thought like me.

ray a

DJ, if yours had been as easy as mine, we wouldn't need all this philosophical discussion. I took the supervisor to the ee's work area and we couldn't find him. Apparently, he took off mid morning without the supervisor knowing about it. He took all his stuff with him and as a parting shot, broke a broome handle in about 3 pieces - this is a big boy. So, now it becomes job abandonment.

Don D

Based on what's in the news today about big boys with broom handles, Ray, I'm glad he didn't find YOU.

Balloonman

Lucky you Ray, job abandonment = no unemployment!!!! :-)

My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

obsan

After 12 years in HR it's never easy to terminate someone. However, a buddy told me one time that we actually don't terminate employees, instead they terminate themselves. They have signed the policy manual saying they understand and comply with the policies and procedures. They willfully violate the policy, they don't respond to progressive discipline, so they have sealed their own fate. We are just helping things along a little.

mwild31

It just so happens that this afternoon, we made the decision to let go of not one, but TWO employees for performance. I say we, because in our company, HR makes final decision, but I do it with the consensus of the manager/lead. It's tying the pain to the gain. If HR doesn't make this decision, it's going to be really hard to write the UI letters or sit in on the meetings or sit on the stand in front of the jury explaining policy & how it was followed/or not followed. On the other side, if I make the decision without their agreement, they will complain, maybe not treat the next employees so well or leave me out of important discussions.

I've been told that I'm an enigma, a maverick, etc. in relation to my philosophy of HR around this company (been here over 3 years), but I really think I just happen to fall into the category of HR folks that believe their main job is to keep the business running by supplying resources (people) to get the job done. It's not politically correct, or sweet, or sexy, but that's what I think my job is about. The methods I use to ensure the resources contribute, behave, act, stay, comply, etc. are all the HR tricks up my sleeve like, benefit offerings, promotion programs, compensation programs, setting up EAP programs, company picnics, performance appraisals, training and development programs, etc. When people work together and jobs get done faster and there's a sense of teamwork within the group - I feel that I contribute to that result by ensuring I've helped put the right "resources" to the job. HR is fun - and I LOVE it - but it is, at the end of the day, just business, i.e. supply and demand.