Last Hired, First Fired
Losing one’s job is tough. Knowing that someone has lost their job is also not pleasant. And even though the government is massively in debt and needs to take drastic action to get its financial house in order, it’s sad to see so many employees terminated with very little notice.
I’ve been on both sides of that in the private sector, including here at the radio station. Even though failure to perform was the driving force behind each of the terminations, it was still no fun to have to be there when the news was delivered.
But I’m struck by the outcry from the political left about it, especially the complaint that many of those government employees who were terminated had barely been on the job and it was not fair to fire them in essence this early in their probationary periods.
First, that’s why people are hired on a probationary basis…so if it doesn’t work out, you can end the employment easily. And second, the political left has been a strong supporter of labor unions, who typically have it written into labor contracts that those with seniority are protected in the face of layoffs…that’s the “last hired, first fired” rule. Why is it OK to let newer employees go if there’s a union, but not if they are at-will government employees?
Would those folks prefer firing those with decades of experience? We’d save more money in salary that way. But my guess is then the complaint would be that we are losing valuable employees with unmatched experience, and that would be wrong in their view.
Businesses have to keep a handle on expenses, including costs of employees, in order to keep the doors open. Government can swim in deficit spending, but at some point, the math just doesn’t work. President Clinton saw that 30 years ago when he tried to cut the size of government. It’s far worse, far more bloated now.
None of it is pleasant. But to those who complain, especially about the “last hired, first fired” rule they typically support being used…what’s your alternative?
