It doesn't seem to be related to layoffs, because if they do layoffs, they don't need disciplinary reasons. Or, is it to decide who gets laid off first? Are managers trying to prove they're working by leaving paper trails? Is it for future buyers to decide who stays on? It seems sudden and widespread, but I can't figure out why.
4 replies (most recent on top)
OP is correct in saying that PIP'S will help determine who is laid off first. When another RIF occurs in a department they lay off those on corrective action first. This is their way of trying to control who is laid off as opposed to leaving it up to tenure or some other criteria.
I don't believe it's to avoid unemployment costs, severance, etc. RIFs will catch the attention of employees, ED, and the media. They want to get rid of people "for cause" and I guess they're hoping that us regular employees will be too dumb to notice all the empty cubicles. One thing I do know: when CCi gives you a PIP, you ARE about to be fired. It's never used as a performance improvement tool here.
Because of the Federal Title IV regulations, admissions representatives get fired for not providing adequate customer service. Even in the old days of not enough enrollments, it amounts to the same thing: Unemployment will not be denied because the company has unrealistic performance expectations. 305 has it right, the reasons unemployment is denied is not because the company tries to craft an unrealistic expectation about employee performance, but rather the reason must be a serious infraction that the employee has total control over, or as 305 put it, "fraud, theft, are frequently late, etc. the burden is on the company to prove it." Given the overall condition of CCi, I doubt there will be much dispute of the unemployment benefits. Also with all the layoffs at this point CCi has a long history of unemployment claims for "not enough work."
You can collect unemployment if you are fired unless you commit fraud, theft, are frequently late, etc. the burden is on the company to prove it. They would also take into account the number of fired employees by one company. It's up to unemployment to decide. But if you have had a stellar number of reviews and then the company suddenly starts finding fault, unemployment sees it. They know ALL
The games. But make sure you have copies of ALL your prior reviews and any email recognition you received. Also get a copy of any emails that affect your workload or the paycut. You will need them to prove you've been a good employee prior to the disaster. You can also prove company is going under with media stories. Just have copies of ALL of it. This will prove that you were an employee in good standing. Just in case.
A company is under no legal obligation to pay severance or benefits upon seperation (Caliornia may be different...). Some who receive an unjustified PIP will get angry and quit. Others will be fired - justified or not - as the result of a PIP. In both cases, the ex-employee is usually not eligible for unemloyment. I als do not completely understand the motivation for PIPs at this point but learned a long time ago not to confuse CCI management actions with logic.
299, that occurred to me as well. If people quit, they don't have to pay unemployment. They do have to pay partial unemployment for layoffs and firing, as long as they're open. But, with a criminal investigation and being for sale, does it make sense to ruffle feathers. A few screen shots of last term' Gradebook to prosecutors or Fitzgerald proves attendance fraud. (Students are not supposed to be kept in class after missing 14 consecutive days. Last term I had many students who never got dropped. It's FA fraud.) and whatever other employees know could be told. Why take that chance? Seems really risky to me.
Just throwing this out there: maybe it has to do with severance and benefits. If the school fires an employee for cause, it might not have to pay those. If it goes out of business because it has no money, it won't have to pay those, either, but maybe firing some employees is a way to try to thin the herd and stay in business longer, even if longer only happens to be four months. Again, this is just conjecture.
To weed out extra staff and money... Try to show a profit to increase chances of selling. If that fails, hey, less people to layoff when they close.