Do you think cut backs should be based on senority or job performance?

Why are you even asking a question on cutting on jobs. We need to be more strong and not talk about job cuts at all. I have been a victim of job cuts and I was being rejected because I was a new bie to the company!

It is a tough one and it is a balance of two important factors but I fail to see why someone who is very poor at his or her job should be kept on at the expense of a hard worker who happens to be new at the job. I've had the 'pleasure' of working with a senior member of staff...oh, wait, I did the work, she just showed up most days and it irritated me a great deal to see her keep her position when good workers were being made redundant. I agree with theweerouss, poor performance is poor performance irrelevant of how long you have been there or who you are. Believe me I have met several senior members of staff who had actually retired but forgot to tell the company about it!

That's a good question Jen. I think it depends. Seniority should always be considered first and foremost. However, if the newer person is doing a better job, then by all means they should be the one to stay on, so long as they are sincere in their work performance. Because that same person might slack off after all the cut backs have been made.

Well cutbacks are based on how much it will cost the company. So if you have a good worker who has been there 2 years or a boss who has been there 5 years then its cheaper to get rid of the worker because the leaving pay will be less.. but for me I think regardless of who it is then cutbacks should be made to get rid of the higher waged earners who are not doing as much as the lower paid workers who are. unfortunately being a big boss means the company is more indebted to you if you are made redundant .. so the lesser paid workers are released instead...

I think job cuts should always be based on job performance. If someone cannot perform at their job, or does not care to, then the job should be given to someone more deserving who is willing to put in the hard work to succeed. It really ticks me off when people think that just because they have a job, they're entitled to keeping it, even if they're not putting in the work! Sometimes, and especially in this economy, just doing what's expected of you isn't enough. You have to really show you care and put in the extra work to get the job done and show your managers that you work hard and deserve the position you have. They will ultimately come to respect you more and trust you with more responsibility, in turn helping you out in the long run. (ps - all the "you" references aren't at you, JenInTN, they're just general "you"s!) thanks for the discussion :)

They should stay with the people that really know what they are doing and that makes them more money. If they have been working at the same place for a long time they might be able to prove that they are better than any new employee that might have a good idea on how everything works. Your question would be hard to answer if I actually had to decide but since I don't have to decide on the future of other I hope you understand my answer. :)

Hey Jen! That is really a difficult question, but unfortunately the fair answer would have to be to keep the person who has been at the job the longest amount of time! How can you let someone who has been with the company go and keep someone that has only been there a short time even though they may be a better worker? It is a very difficult and unfair choice to have to make! But, nonetheless seniorily should still count more!

Each company does it's own thing, many get rid of long time worker because they are the ones that cost the most to keep. It's none of it good but often it's the only way to keep the company running.

Obviously to me, better work, thats mean better performance should be the question here. But in my country if you fire someone you have to pay relative to the years he has work for you. So it is no convinient to fire someone who has work for many years, when the time come to pull the trigger, then it is the newer employees that take the bullet. That's my country.

Jen- This is a tough one in this enconomy. I'd not like to see anyone loose their job, but I think that middle management positions should be the first to go if you're going to have to make cut backs. Consolidate jobs, if absolutely necessary. I think far too often management does everything to protect their jobs and instead of taking pay cuts, etc they simply lay off the working class who do the brunt work of the corporation. In terms of senority, I would assume that if someone has been with a company for a long time they might be offered a reasonable early retirement package. No, not fair I suppose, but practical to the organization as a whole. I do think that people should do good jobs, mind you. However, it seems that management can come up with ways to make it look like a good employee is bad just to make that budget cut. I've heard from others first hand on this one, and it's really sad. Namaste-Anora

I think it should be by Senority.But I know some of the older hands are being passed over for younger ones not because they or more qualifid either.I worked for 44 years and I saw alot of it.

Cut backs should be based on performance. A companies success is'nt grandfathered in and neither should an employees.

First of all i feel cut backs should be the last option for a company.....it should try finding ways to retain employees, maybe by cutting down on their salary(at least they have a job then) If at all they do, then i believe it should be purely based on job performance....as keeping the best staff will help getting or rather keeping the company on track.....and by this the company might come back on track and no further cut backs takes place.....but yes even the senior employees who have been a part of the organization since many years should be given a chance....they should not be deserted....maybe a fair compensation should be given to them if no other alternative is available......

For me, I think the employee with the better work performance should stay rather than the employee who is more senior and who has stayed with the company a longer time. Seniority is a bit out-of-date now in the modern world as compared to a few years/decades back. And of course, seniority is an unfair/biased concept that companies should take steps to avoid/eliminate nowadays. Sometimes, the employee who has a better work performance can be considered more of an asset that the senior one. To add, seniority does not necessarily mean he/she is a great performer/genius in the workplace.

I think both should be taken into consideration. Not solely seniority. You could have seniority and actually be a horrible worker. I was once laid off in my department years ago because I was the last one who had been hired even though I was a harder worker than some of the ones in there.

My opinion is they shouldn't cut back huge amounts and of course we are facing serious financial problems but this is not the way to cut back huge amount so i can agree that 10% of cut backs if the company want.

i think seniority should count first. i also think that people abuse seniority & if that is the case i think people like that should be weeded out. good workers are hard to find so i think they should be awarded for their hard work.

Phew! This is very difficult to pick if that is the case. From my opinion, it should based on the firm vision. If they want to pump in new blood for a change definitely the young should be counted. Just for maintaining, of course the most seniority preferred.