I’ll start by saying that I am not at all sure there is any ‘case’ here and may be I am just a concerned wife who is manufacturing a case out of thin air but here is the situation:
My husband has been with his current employer for over 19 years, has always been well respected and all his yearly performance reviews have been very laudatory in nature.
Fast forward to now and the situation seems to be changing within his department - one of the colleagues has retired so a new younger employee was brought over from a different department to be trained as a replacement. In addition, due to normal business fluctuations (some clients have left so a large chunk of department’s work load has been taken away), another co-worker was left without some large projects she used to be responsible for. So, my husband was told to start training this co-worker on some of his duties which means there is less for him to do now. The situation was presented as ‘this employee x lost some of her work so we need to give her something to do’. Ok, that’s great but is the employer legally allowed to just take away something from one employee, give it to another and then use the lack of work as a reason to fire the employee whose work was given to someone else?
Also wondering if seniority matters at all when the decisions are being made on who to lay off or is the employer allowed to do pretty much whatever it wants?
Most states have “at will” employment. As long as they aren’t blatantly engaged in age discrimination, my understanding is employers can do pretty much what they want. IMO, the writing is on the wall and I would be getting my resume together and putting feelers out.
If your husband is in a union position, I would talk to the union rep because seniority could potentially matter in that situation.
@MomofWildChild might have some insight. Unless your husband is in a union, I don’t think there’s much he can do about the situation, though. My husband and I were laid off by the same company the same day at one point. Another time, my husband was laid off four days before the birth of our second child. Employers can let people go at will, as momofsenior1 stated.
If action is being taken which your husband believes is discriminatory based on his age, he can go to the EEOC or the state human rights commission (depending on the state). That’s about the only recourse. I would maybe go to HR and express these concerns up front and indicate a concern that work is being shifted away from him. They might step in it in a way that would benefit him.
Wanted to add that when he was asked to train that other co-worker, he was told he’d be assigned other projects instead but wasn’t trained on those until now. The manager seems to be telling him that ‘everyone will be cross-trained’ and that’s their ultimate goal. It really sounds like we as employees don’t get any protections at all and that’s what I was afraid of. We were thinking for him to go to HR but then, wouldn’t that antagonize the management towards him even more and give them even more ammunition to try and get rid of him? So hard to believe that something like this is legal and allowed.
Unless there’s a union or this is a government agency, then I agree the employer can pretty much do whatever they want. Nothing in what OP describes sounds the least bit actionable or even unusual. I’d strongly recommend polishing up the resume and LinkedIn profile, and start interviewing just in case.
Note that oftentimes seniority can work against you, as cheaper, younger employees are brought on board to replace older workers. Age discrimination is illegal, but it happens. Sometimes blatantly over the course of many years like in the case of IBM.
^That’s why my husband and I started our own firm in 1999. We got tired of how we were treated as engineering employees. Much better working for ourselves. Life is crazy, but at least we’re in control.
Retaliation is the largest growing type of EEOC filings, so there can be no retaliation against him for going to HR or raising these issues. I know it is still a concern, but the company would be very short-sighted if they took any action based on his raising concerns. To the contrary, employees have many, many protections and the majority of EEOC charges are totally bogus and are basically dismissed.
Any talk with HR can be friendly questions, not accusations.
It’s not uncommon for responsibilities to shift. People lose an account or share one. In the flush of the moment, we can feel threatened. So he’s being trained on other projects now?
It goes both ways. Your husband could walk out the door with no notice as well. It sounds like business is slow so they’re taking the opportunity to cross train. People could be let go, it could be your husband. Sounds like they’re trying to keep people busy during a downtime. I do the same thing at my company. I make sure every function in the company has 3 people trained on it.
Does he know if there are new clients in the hopper? I wouldn’t sit and wait around to find out, I’d get a resume and at least start looking just in case.
When decisions are made to let people go it’s a complicated decision, it’s never just seniority for me. Who does the job well, what does each employee cost vs how much do they produce. Historical perspective is important to me. There are just things that can’t be explained and trained that just take time to absorb.
As far as eeoc, here’s the reality. An employee can make a claim without a lawyer and it will get investigated. If it escalates the employee will need to hire an attorney to pursue. Unless there is good and solid proof the employer will win. And going before being removed will not make your husband all that popular or wanted. They aren’t doing anything illegal. It’s perfectly acceptable to change job duties at any time or do cross training. Not liking something doesn’t make it illegal.
@lookingforward, yes, he is being trained on a new type of project but so are the others. What I don’t understand is that the lady who he is training on part of his job is even older than him and also has been with the company a while and also makes good $$ so what’s the point in training her and take it away from him? That’s where I see unfairness and I think that needs to be questioned but he doesn’t want to start anything now in case he is wrong or even in case he is right but to not burn his bridges…
On another note, what he specializes in is technically IT but a very narrow specialty so it’s going to be extremely hard for him to find something in that field. Does anyone know of good resources to try and find companies that specialize in his areas or use the same system/technology?
Keep in mind if he decides to speak to HR that the primary focus of HR is to protect the employer. They are not necessarily an advocate of the employee nor are they required to keep discussions confidential. He should expect that any conversations with HR will be reported in some form to his supervisors.
Not necessarily a bad thing in that an employee can frame discussions with HR in a way that provides backdoor influence to a boss that wouldn’t otherwise be receptive, but something to keep in mind as an employee.
It wasn’t clear from your posts if your husband was also being cross trained in other roles. If he’s being asked to train others in his roles but not being trained in theirs (or others), that’s not cross training, it’s a red flag.
It sounds like there have been a number of adjustments that the business has needed to make to adjust for less activity. Part of this may be reorganization, some downsizing. Smaller operations can be particularly vulnerable to having only one person knowing how to do certain tasks, so cross training reduces that vulnerability and makes it easier to ensure that everyone has the same workload. So this is all to say that based on what you have said, this could all be very normal.
It could also be a planned transition into further staff reductions as you fear. Your husband’s best protection is to ensure that his work quality is excellent and that his skills are up to date. He can proactively suggest ways to improve efficiency. In other words, he should do everything possible to make himself invaluable. (I have worked with folks who have tried to protect their jobs by making sure nobody else had all the pieces to do them and it never ended well for them.) He could definitely scope out other positions in the company, but it could be wise to start to see what else is out there. Unfortunately, even awesome employees can find themselves without work if a company heads off into a direction that doesn’t match their skill set or experience.
But if they had some downturn, want to cross train, and are doing that, why does this only mean something negative? I get the concern. But this could equally mean trying to preserve staffing. A company that forward plans could replace someone who left, to be ready for more business.
They didn’t demote him, right? And as a senior person, I can see starting his x-training starting after others.
Because the company has no guarantee your husband will stay forever. What if he quits, or gets injured, or dies? The company is cross training so that it has employees trained and things keep going even if there is an emergency or if someone quits.
I think he should enthusiastically agree to train others and to be trained by others. If a new project comes in, any of those trained will be able to do it.
A company’s job is to do what is best for them. Cross-trained employees are best for them. Having employees who have a similar workload is what is best for them.
Honestly, they really don’t owe your husband anything with “at will” employment. His best bet is to make himself amenable and needed by being a hard worker, a team player, and good at training others. At the same time, he should keep his skills fresh, his resume up-to-date, and his networking current.
I’d be careful about going to HR with questions that could be seen as complaints. In my experience, HR is there for the company’s benefit not the employees’ even when it might appear otherwise.
No, no demotion but just the optics of it all don’t help us think optimistically. Thank you for great insight everyone!
If you know of any resources that could be helpful in locating companies that use specific product or system, please share.
Emily.
“If you know of any resources that could be helpful in locating companies that use specific product or system, please share.”
Companies that need experience in a specific, rare product or system often search for people with those key words on their LinkedIn resume. One step your husband can take is to make sure his resume on LinkedIn clearly lists the key words associated with that product/system. That way, his resume will show up on specific searches.
I have found that some specific products often have some sort of user community. This kind of community could put him in touch with other companies that also use that product.
It’s times like these when I’m really thankful H opted to start his own firm. He never has to worry about whether the boss agrees with him or wants to keep him!
Any chance your H can do something for himself as a consultant or something, if not as Plan A, at least as Plan B if it’s needed? If he has specialty knowledge that isn’t needed as much, perhaps freelancing to when/where it’s needed would be a nice niche? He should have a bit of background experience for his profile.