Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
MODULE 25: Layoffs and Health Care
Core Module Issues:
• Should an organization every consider a worker's need for company-
sponsored health care when making decisions about downsizing?
• If so, under what circumstances?
Module Teaching Notes
Even more than in some other modules, this time I focus on a particular sympathetic figure. I find
that students who are often initially inclined to take a “hard line” for increased profits will change
their minds when presented with a specific person who may suffer.
And so, enter Terry, who has significant medical needs, which may or may not be met if he loses
his company's insurance policy.
If you have an interest in Congress' massive 2010 debate over health care (“Obamacare” to some
in the press), then by all means spend some time lecturing on the creation of the overhaul, and
perhaps on the legal challenges that are all over the lower courts at the time of this writing in
January of 2011. (As I write this, the new GOP-controlled House has announced plans to seek to
repeal the law altogether).
Or, if you want to stay focused on the information presented, no particular need to go down that
road.
And so, the company is in trouble. It is not like the grocery store from a few modules ago – it NEEDS to lay
off several workers to stay afloat. The only question is – who gets the axe? Terry is “below the line”, if one
goes strictly by the numbers. But is that the way to go here?
This discussion should be interesting, both in how students view Terry, and who might “take his place” on
the list of workers to be terminated.
It might be helpful to display the box with the rankings of the least productive workers from the text (on a
screen, or copied on the board) during the discussion.
Discussion Points for Scenario Questions
1. If you were the sales director, would you lay off Terry?
A. YES – WHAT WILL HE DO?
B. NO – WHAT IF HE HAD A LESS EXPENSIVE CONDITION?
2. If Terry is not laid off, how should the other “below-the-line” workers featured on the partial
spreadsheet be treated? Is it fair to terminate Javier and Ellen, when they had higher numbers
than Terry? Should Susan now be terminated, since she is in the bottom six among the “not-
Terry” employees?
[JUST ASK A “PRO-TERRY” STUDENT: “WHO TAKES HIS PLACE? WHO
GETS LAID OFF INSTEAD?” THEN LET THE GROUP RESPOND AND
3. If Terry’s job is spared, should the company create a policy for layoffs and workers with
unusual medical needs, or should it just make exceptions on a case-by-case basis?
A. POLICY – WHAT SHOULD THE POLICY LOOK LIKE/INCLUDE?
4. If Terry’s job is spared, what should be done if Terry’s performance slips even further at
some point? Say, for example, that next year he bills only the $52,000 that last-place Stan billed
in this scenario. Should he be terminated at that point?
A. KEEP HIM ANYWAY – NO MATTER WHAT?
B. LET HIM GO – AT WHAT POINT?
5. Assume now that Terry is not a hemophiliac. Rather than a genetic condition that he has had
since birth, suppose that he instead has huge medical bills because of a problem created by his
behavior. Assume that Terry was driving drunk, ran his SUV into a concrete pillar, and that he
has ongoing substantial bills related to physical therapy and a series of reconstructive surgeries
that are not yet complete. Would you give less consideration to his potential problems if he loses
his health insurance? Why or why not?
A. SAME TREATMENT – EVEN WITH A SELF-INFLICTED PROBLEM?
ELABORATE.
