Probably Employment law. Not personal but the question arises out of real life events.
So they are offering buyouts at work (tempting but not realistic) but the offers are not available to those on PIPs (Personal Improvement Plans aka Employment Probation aka fuck up again and you’re out) I was wondering if there is a legal reason why as that would seem to be a possible win-win for both parties. The only place I see a possible conflict is in the ill defined job placement aid they are offering, but, have no idea how that would work.
Is there something I’m missing or is this just bad management? (Neither would surprise me really even if I’m leaning toward the latter)
Legal question
Legal question
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Legal question
You'll probably get a better answer from others here but I'm going to offer my opinion: If I'm understanding the question, it seems to me that a company wouldn't want to offer a buyout to people who are already potentially going to be terminated. It's cheaper to terminate somebody than to give them a severance package.
Re: Legal question
My understanding is a PIP give protection from firing and the while the plan is in effect and the whole point of doing the buyout now is to eliminate the need for paying another year of benefits something they still have to pay even if an employee is on a PIP or not. It wouldn’t make sense to incur those costs to just fire employee.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Legal question
Joe Guy--I would guess that is what the buy out is; and when I got a buy out, I got a salary and benefits for an extended period of time.
But, realistically, buyouts are usually offered to the most senior (often oldest) employees who are approaching retirement. Accepting a buyout is a voluntary termination and prevents a lawsuit for age discrimination; I don't know all the elements of it but a company terminating a to of 50 plus age employees who have gotten good reviews and have had no problems with their employment provides the basis for a good suit. Those on PIPs are presumptively underperforming employees whose discharge would not be seen as problematic. Further, from what I recall from reviewing PIP policies in a number of places, there is no guarantee of continued employment if the goals of the PIP are met, only a recognition that they will be discharged if they are not. I would guess that if all 50 + employees who met the goals of their PIPs were discharged while the younger ones were retained, it could be a problem, but I doubt that would happen.
FWIW, I once was employed by a company where every year one of your direct reports had to be put on a PIP--this was mandatory. It was easy (I presume) when you had dozens of direct reports, but I had 15. I wasn't there 15 years, but the general practice was you rotated it among your reports (and this was a big thing since you lost bonus and stock options eligibility while on the PIP) with everyone taking their turn; this was interrupted only when a new hire came it--they always went on a PIP their first eligible year and then the rotation resumed. Nothing written down, but it was understood. Damn stupid system, and I imagine a system that worked this way could change things for age discrimination suits.
But, realistically, buyouts are usually offered to the most senior (often oldest) employees who are approaching retirement. Accepting a buyout is a voluntary termination and prevents a lawsuit for age discrimination; I don't know all the elements of it but a company terminating a to of 50 plus age employees who have gotten good reviews and have had no problems with their employment provides the basis for a good suit. Those on PIPs are presumptively underperforming employees whose discharge would not be seen as problematic. Further, from what I recall from reviewing PIP policies in a number of places, there is no guarantee of continued employment if the goals of the PIP are met, only a recognition that they will be discharged if they are not. I would guess that if all 50 + employees who met the goals of their PIPs were discharged while the younger ones were retained, it could be a problem, but I doubt that would happen.
FWIW, I once was employed by a company where every year one of your direct reports had to be put on a PIP--this was mandatory. It was easy (I presume) when you had dozens of direct reports, but I had 15. I wasn't there 15 years, but the general practice was you rotated it among your reports (and this was a big thing since you lost bonus and stock options eligibility while on the PIP) with everyone taking their turn; this was interrupted only when a new hire came it--they always went on a PIP their first eligible year and then the rotation resumed. Nothing written down, but it was understood. Damn stupid system, and I imagine a system that worked this way could change things for age discrimination suits.