Engineers, Do I Have to Leave My Conscience at the Door?

Good Q.
I would say tell the truth, but maybe you could re-visit the figures and maybe the payoff isn't as quick...plug in some more pessimistic figures...see how you could massage them a little, but no outright lies...(that's how the bankers got us in this mess)
Bottom line is...if you don't can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
I wouldn't want to be in your shoes which is why I've avoided the senior management route.
You have my sympathy..(but not as much as the guys who don't even know the axe is poised)
Del

Hello Del,

Thank you for your reply, I am not in management other than managing to keep a job for now. There are some good replies along the themes I have heard from the 3 managers that I approached.

Their take was that if the company survives they may be able to re-hire the 4 operators but if the company does not reduce costs quickly, it will fail fast.

Best regards to you and all who voiced an opinion.

A GA from me.

If the process can be done more efficiently with fewer people that means a competitor will probably figure it out. Once a competitor figures it out that could jeopardize the future of the company you're currently employed at.

They can offer the same product at a lower cost and make more money.

I agree with Vulcan that upper management needs to do also.

The job you save might be your own!

Then your conscience should bother you, and its time for you to look for another job.

Because there was never a job there in the first place, and business isn't a welfare program.

Allot of businesses as well as good employees suffered with self protectionism like that.

And if you thats you, your not worth it as an employee.

phoenix911

I may be wrong, but I think PennPiper was trying to say that trying to hide the results of the study that would MAYBE cost 4 people a job, could, if found out, instead cost him his job.

They may have been ambiguity in his post, thats is why I added the last sentence.

phoenix911

It amazes me that your plan eliminates 4 people. Was the process that inefficient before?

Hello,

The assembly line process was initially designed to perfect each particular assembly task with fixturing to do one specific job at a time. I am combining 3 fixtures into one operation. It is obvious now that this is the most efficient way but it was not obvious to begin with.

There are complex hand assembing and testing and machine asssisted assembly and testing processes. Now that the operators are experienced, it allows for combining all aspects into one process. The result is one operator is totally responsible for one piece production with a significantly reduced takt time.

Did you evaluate the costs of the increased or reduced wastes created by this change? It has been my experience that many engineers miss the environmental issues (material usage, waste created, water usage, and energy usage) created or reduced by changing the process. Many times, these increased wastes cost more than paying the employee.

We have something a little similar where employees work on small improvement projects themselves.

One thing I noticed (now that you brought it up), I never saw a project proposal that reduces the number of people. No one would touch such a thing.

I think it's something that only upper management should take on themselves.

regards,

Vulcan

Unfortunately, that's business. I have headed up a CQI team before, and I can tell you, workers don't like it, and not just because there could be layoffs. Most are suspicious of the philosophies of TQM and CQI as some kinds of conspiracies to make them responsible for profits, and if the company isn't profitable, they get laid off.

A good consultant will look at the entire operation and suggest improvements, which may include moving workers from one operation to another that needs more bodies. Unfortunately, that's not always possible. A good company will try to find ways to prevent layoffs or help find jobs for workers at risk.

Don't lose sleep over it.

Hello,

Your sentiment was also my final sentiment and it led me to implement the improvements. I just received a P.O. for the first of 4 stations.

But I wrangled with this one for quite a while. There are other forces at work that brought about the pain in my decision making. With out elaborating, this company is not always fair to its workers but has been good to me.

I do believe in a fair days work for a fair days pay. Life decisions are not black and white but varying shades of grey. This is a topic to discuss which obviously people feel strongly about. I gave you a GA as I liked that you have a well formed opinion and expressed it well. I did not happen to come about my opinion without wrangling.

This is the point of the question, to sound -off other engineers.

I hear you loud and clear. As a manager I lost a lot of sleep. But hardly ever as a engineer or tech...

We both agree that life decisions are seldom black and white, but often shades of grey.

But since you did the math, the engineering numbers should ave been pretty clear cut.

You are right about the wrangling.

And that is why this forum is here, and populated by some pretty doggone sharp people.

Congrats on your successful study.

milo

Milo, GA from me too.

My take on this is that one has a fiduciary responsibility to his/her employer to do the job they are hired for as long as it is not illegal or beyond their capabilities. If your ethics are still in the way after reasonable negotiations then the honorable thing to do is resign your position. To do otherwise will be no credit to you.

Ed Weldon

It does look like a hard decision on the persons losing job, But it is the correct one. GA Milo

In this time of economy (we are not that much affected) - you have to decide about the survival of the company (all losing job) Vs only four of them losing it.

And the question is not whether the pay-back is immediate or not.

In normal circumstances may be you need not have gone for the job-cut, rather gone for the extra production. In fact that also can be looked at,

Assuming you go for cost saving- that translates into extra market (by of course passing on the saving to the customer) that may helpyou in retaining a couple of the cut jobs.

Another way - since these are skilled labourer you are losing (and mind it nobody likes to lose skilled blue collar, white collars OK) may be they can be re-located into some bottlenecks that will be created due to the extra production. Look on these angles. We do it often (though being semi-socialistic job cuts are rare so relocation is the only way).

But whether it succeeds or not, you don't have any choice, you have to go ahead and save the company. that is the part why you are being paid for. If you don't then the ethics come in picture- you have let down the company for something which doesn't concern you.

Do what you were hired to do. It becomes a lot harder, when the numbers would show that reducing the employee head count includes yours. Don't dwell on it. Thats the unions job.

Improvements in productivity should reflect positively on the output of the company.

The bean counters should be convinced that improved production may lead to more sales and will make them look better.

Ther is always the possibility of converting spare capacity into $ by molding small / medium quantities for external users.

Just choose your words positively.

You are obliged to perform your job to the best of your ability, which may have unfortunate circumstances, but, as other people here have said, knowingly "fattening" or not trimming the fat from the process may have larger consequences on the company. In these times, so many companies are operating with very thin margins, & every little bit helps. It is this same reasoning that drives every other company trying to stay viable in this recession to look at cutting employees, benefits, overhead, etc. If the company doesn't survive, all employees there will lose their jobs, instead of just the 4 heads.

It is an unfortunate spot to be in, but there isn't much you can do now, especially considering you have all but told the world the name of your company, along with some pretty specific project details. If I were your supervisor, & I happened to stumble across this post, but didn't see a 4 head process improvement, a new head (yours) would certainly roll.

Good luck. I do not envy your position, but be thankful you have it & know that you may not if tough choices are not made.

First of all, I would question your findings.

In my experience, new technology never meets the reliability claims of the manufacturer, and is obsolete faster then you can pay it off. It usually costs more in the long run, to maintain, repair, or upgrade. There are always hidden costs such as; utility costs, software upgrades, licenses, and incompatibilities, etc. The manufacturer decides to obsolete the item, or goes bankrupt, or is bought out.

What may seem a savings in the short term will undoubtedly cost you in the long run.

Our last upgrade was supposed to reduce the number of techs to 6. It now is currently over 20 and growing.

There is the other problem of being too lean. If you count on the minimum number of operators, what happens when two or three get sick at the same time? does your business come to a halt.

If you have factored all the possibilities in, and there is still savings, you should report it. Worst case scenario:The cost of not reporting it could mean that a competitor who does will steal all your business and your whole company will be out of a job. In the world market only the leanest survive.

Dear Friend.

You're a great human being.

Hold the plan. 4 Families depend on you right now. These 4 people will still be able to shop and feed their families. That's what holds the economy together. Buying power.

The 140K you are saving will only make some fat cat fatter ... no big change there.

If everyone has buying power than we all be fine. Think of it ... in the long run they are helping you to keep your job. Even artificially we all should do our part and keep as many people employed as possible.

When you move to another job you will still have to live under your skin.

Hold the plan. Screw the corporation, they're the ones that put us into this position.

Help the economy recover ;)

GA Milo, my sediments also

phoenix911

HI biggiginthesky,

I give you GA I also gave GA to MIlo.My thoughts match with you bigg. I had been in similar situation when I was selling Electric Hoist to a plant which had handling problem for feeding coal to hopper. When I explained whole arrangement of loading the coal in hopper to the Supervisor, he agreed with my proposal but added that "Mr.Sharma you know that this poor laborer who is carrying load on his head to feed hopper will loose the job." I told why they can't use him for some other work. He said that "There is no other work for him.". I felt guilty but I did my job and completed the project as I did not have any other alternative.

We always look at labour saving devices which hardly constitute 10% of the total cost.There are many other avenues which should also be investigated to save the cost such as materials, processes, equipments etc.

I agree with bigg that 140 K will only add the fat to the company. Will it be passed on to the customers or to the employees or will just add up to General Reserve for the company?.Please read the message of our late President which I carry at the bottom of my message.

Suresh Sharma.

Sounds like a union, let them protect your job

It would seem that the moral problem is with management. They are trying to reduce head count, and using engineers to do the dirty work. If they had any courage they would say, we have to reduce headcount, (and explain why) and then they could expect the engineers to do their job of looking for efficiency.

Management in this case seem to be hiding behind the engineers raather than admitting they are looking to shed jobs. While i agree you have a moral responsibility to do the best by your employer, that doesn't mean you have to run a covert employee removal program on their behalf.

Management should be looking at who is contributing to the company, and who isn't and getting rid of those who aren't. The fact that someone has been put in a non job is a management failing, and if that person is useful, he/she should be transferred to a viable job.

To say it is the unions responsibility is passing the buck. 2tinker has raised a major issue, of relevance to everyone in work. It should be discussed openly, yet 2tinker is facing a management who are doing everything in an underhand fashion. Does he have a moral responsibility to support their gutless behaviour?

Simon

Hello,

I appreciate the input. It is hard to pose a question as I have done, giving as much info as possible to get some thorough answers, while holding the full scope in reserve.

I am reasonably impressed with the clarity of peoples answers, although there is a certain righteousness being expressed in some replies. Is it always your fiduciary responsibility to act in a manner to feed the insatiable bottom-line, regardless of the human cost?

I know companies that demand that their buyers hammer their vendors for reductions in cost every year, while making 350% profit on the articles being purchased, while the vendor makes 10-12% if he's lucky. "do what you were hired to do, hurts!"

This theme been voiced as a "you must do what you were hired to do, or quit, 'cause you must be a "lily liver useless, immoral bum".

It is good to have a tempered, thoughtful answer and there truly is no clear cut GA for the question. Just keep the responses coming.

Regards

If we look at this through a legal lense, your actions or failure to act can be evaluated as responsible, nonfeasance (failure to perform); misfeasance (performed badly); or malfeasance (Performed with malicious intent.) In at least one of those cases, a jury would award multiple damages to the harmed party.

Can you afford to reimburse your employer for the moniesthey are out by the non-, mis-, or mal-feasance??

If you can afford and offer to make it right , then you can claim to be responsibile.

Is it always your fiduciary responsibility to act in a manner to feed the insatiable bottom-line, regardless of the human cost?

It is always our duty as professionals to act in good faith and not to "conceal the truth."

And in our system, in the worst case a jury in a civil trial will evaluate the action or failure to act using the feasnce criteria. and award damages accordingly. So now its not a righteous ness issue. It's just a matter of dollars and sense ... who will pay the damages to the wronged party?

milo

If you are having a moral dilemma with this issue, try putting yourself in the position of one who designs products meant to kill other people. I have not had to do that but there are those of us who do; that contribute to this forum.

I suggest you do your job and cut the fat from your company. I have had to fire workers who were non productive, stolen or just plain dangerous. It's not easy but necessary.

The proverbial horns of a dilemma.

If you were in a country where there was more substantial "cushion" for economy-caused layoffs, it would be easy to buy the guys a basket of fruit and tell them to enjoy the down time. But you don't live in Scandanavia, and the support that is available after job loss in the States is just enough to keep you alive until you feel at home living under a bridge with other economic refugees.

The burden of social responsibilty for job losses which is constitutionally the responsibility of our government (the proxies for us) has been undercut in the years of prosperity, and it will take a loooong time for government to respond to this sort of problem in any meaninful way. So you're stuck with a problem, my friend. Do you live up to your responsibilities as a worker with a job to do, or do you take on the responsibilities of supporting other human beings abandoned to a rough situation. Government won't help anytime soon. The company won't help when it's a matter of numbers and corporate financial health.

But as noted above, what happens if the whole firm crashes because of excessive and unnecessary personnel on the payrolls? And how reliable are the claims of vendors regarding cost improvements when they are trying to make ends meet for their own companies and positions? No easy fix here.

So without a logical and clear decision path, I'd keep the guys for no other reason than it makes me feel like a benevolent god . To smite or not to smite, that is your question.

"The burden of social responsibilty for job losses which is constitutionally the responsibility of our government"

Say what?!

I do not believe what you are saying, or I am misunderstanding you. Please provide evidence.

Chris

Hi Chris,

Here is the opening line of the US constitution where "welfare of the people" is stated. This has been interpreted in many ways, from simply providing protections of life and property to establishing near-Utopian welfare states. Regardless of one's interpretation, it notes that the responsibility lies with "we, the people", and by extension the government we have created and charged with these responsibilities.

My personal interpretation would tend toward insuring that people have a decent (neither bare survival nor luxurious) standard of existence so long as the means was available to provide it. My country, for all its flaws and magnificent achievements, has not provided a satisfactory baseline of existence for its people. It has provided great opportunities for success, but has not established a very effective safety net for folks whose lives are disrupted by economic (and other calamitous) events. Our investment in "recycling" and "salvaging" our unemployed people has been mediocre at best, and we have enjoyed mediocre results as a natural result.

Cheers, Chris !

HF

The burden of social responsibilty for job losses which is constitutionally the responsibility of our government (the proxies for us) has been undercut in the years of prosperity, and it will take a loooong time for government to respond to this sort of problem in any meaninful way

and

So without a logical and clear decision path, I'd keep the guys for no other reason than it makes me feel like a benevolent god . To smite or not to smite, that is your question.

You are lost...............

How so, Phoenix?

I guess that when outcomes are not reasonably assured (the company may not actually enjoy the benefits promised by the new policy, and may flourish or fail regardless of this specific decision), and the roles of the worker at this specific task are in conflict with the welfare of others in the organization, I would vote to keep the guys in the lifeboat. As mentioned, it is really a management decision, but in the end we are all managers of our own actions.

All the best !

I would vote to keep the guys in the lifeboat. As mentioned,

No manager want to make cuts to good workers, but it come to apoint where cuts have to be made.

Workers are there to make money for the company, when orders dry up so does the A/R (money). And it is a management decision and not a democracy. That what separates leaders from the rest.

One Word . CREATIVE DESTRUCTION ( no That's Two)

Having lived on both sides (Engineer/Management), it may be easier to see both views, but no easier to post an absolute conclusion. Your final moral answer may well depend on what you believe is the main purpose of business - to employ and support society or to compete and make a profit. My advise: never let a company change your core beliefs. If you can not justify your employer's mission (with all of its shortfalls) find employment elsewhere ASAP or (as I eventually did) start your own business (this gives a whole new perspective).

I have followed this forum as a guest for a few months now and have even received some GA, but it is inspired discussions like this that led me to register today (U NO WHO)

It is very difficult to make these decisions. My advice agrees with most of the posts and proceed with the reduction if....

You have been very careful about your method to determine and have really eliminated the need for four workers.

When ever time studies are done the savings are almost never fully realized.

When the limiting factor is reduced or eliminated there is always something else that is the new limiting factor, that was never noticed because the prime limit is recorded and many assumptions made that it is the only limit affecting capacity.

What about the availability of these four to fill in for other workers when sick or out? A moderate amount of overtime now may become an unsustainable level without the extra people.

Is quality about to take a hit in an unsuspected way by something the new process changes?

Are there now "minor" tasks not noticed in your evaluation that will become a major burden? Material movements, cleanup retooling, unloading, logistics, recording, safety related permitting, record keeping?

Once eliminated it will be difficult, if not impossible to bring them back. Recommend to proceed is stages, perhaps two, then the third, then the fourth.

Best of luck and great question

Thank you,

You are correct about the redundancy needed for sick or absent workers and even increased demand.

The company has chosen to make one station first, to prove it out and then proceed with three more, if it has been successful. This is their normal approach and works well.

They may have downsized too rapidly with the general reduction in sales of cars and trucks but sales for the 2 cars we deal with are only off 7.8%. Molding has found shortages of skilled operators in the last few weeks as people are no longer with the company or are furloughed. There is a reluctance to recall people and there is an increased burden on everybody to work faster and harder.

Thank you for the g-question, I had qualms about this post or posters remorse. It took me a full weekend and the meetings I referred too Fri and Mon, before I came around. Most people had no hesitation and great clarity to proceed with the head reduction.

Maybe I am a little slow, I had made up my mind prior to posting on what to do and it was in line with the general consensus. The reason I posted was to see how others handle this. I thought that they might have second thoughts like me but I was wrong. I got my answers and I am happy to see how ethical engineers are.

Good Luck

2Tinker- Thanks from all of us for giving us the feedback on how our answers helped (or not). You mention poster's remorse, and Their is a reciprocal called repliers remorse, where one posts what they think is a good response and then gets no response or feedback from the OP.

Thanks for COMMUNICATING and closing the loop.

milo

Hello Milo,

Thank you, as I am inclined to beat around the bush, or simply put, be a tad 'long winded'.

I tried to reply to thread followers by chosing a response that crosslinked to many good responses, hoping that " if the cap fits, wear it" would kick in. It might be better to respond to individuals. I see some some ugliness develop in a few posts when people feel spurned.

I enjoy your responses to a wide variety of posts.

Best regards.

i couldn't agree more , thankz

This issue can't be removed from it's larger context -- globalization. And it shouldn't be removed from what others have tried to refer to here -- dehumanization.

What market is your business in? Is it competing with global competition? If so, this usually means an uneven labor factor. When products are produced with labor costs of pennies on the dollar (read two different standards of living), then the product with higher labor costs is very likely doomed to failure; or at least "efficiency" must be improved to try to offset the difference. This is the crux of the problem along with mismanagement, which includes taking unfair compensation compared to average workers in a company. Would you have to come up with a more efficient plan if it weren't for this factor?

In a very real sense, American workers are having their standard of living reduced because of this. And in cases like this, real lives will be thrown into chaos.

Like sheep we've all come to accept that "that's just the way it is". Well, it may be the way it is, but that doesn't make it right. When are people going to approach life the same way they do their engineering?? When are we going to question how "business" works and start trying to "design" a "business model" that includes caring about people as much as "efficiency" and profit.

I would like to invite readers to visit http://www.gangsofamerica.com/ and download the book for free. Before I knew it was free I had checked it out of the library and read it. Those who are well off always cry that this kind of discussion creates "class warfare". Well, the sheep are going to the slaughter-house without even realizing that they can do anything. Read this book and see if you don't agree that corporations have gotten WAY out of hand. In fact, as currently operating, I would even go so far as to call them evil. If you think I'm reactionary, don't judge that without reading this book.

Thanks for the link.

Nace is no friend of industry.

But, he's no Luddite either.

And he played the course pretty well.

I will enjoy the provocation sure to be in his book.

milo

A good manager can not be spineless,

When I had to let my first engineer go, It was difficult, Bringing him in and talking to him, seeing him wring his hands, he knew I was letting him go.

I gave him a number of chances, with progress updates during his probationary period, In written and verbal.

Seeing him made me hurt, I offer him any kind of help possible exception of a reference. He was a smart but bad engineer as in impractical.

I knew it was a crossroad for him, I'm basically forcing him to take the other path. Right then I decided do not got personall with employees, just respect them, tell them the truth and handle them with dignity.

I can't say enough. You have a job to do, or your the one that should go.

phoenix911

There are other factors not being considered in your original post. You originally stated that you were charged with reducing one person, but found away to reduce more. That being said, you should go to your boss and do a little fishing. Ask him "what if I could find a way to reduce more than one person? Would we want to pursue that, or should we just stick with one?"

If your boss tells you to stick with one, then stick with one. Corporate politics may be playing a role that you may be unaware of. You recognize that when a department budget is cut, costs have to be cut. But do you recognize your boss' perspective that if he cuts his costs further and does not spend his budget, the following year his budget will be cut.

Then there's the false economy side of things. People usually assume that automating cuts jobs. This is a falacy. Someone has to machine the fixture. There may be electricians, assemblers, maintenance personal, or machine operators involved. Oops,,, almost forgot engineers! It may seem counter-intuitive, but when you look at what's involved in automating, you begin to realize that the jobs aren't lost, they just change places.

About 18 months ago I was brought into a company that manufactures a high volume quality product. They wanted me in on the design of a new production cell that would run with 2 guys each shift on 3 shifts / 5 days a week. The new cell would replace 3 existing cells that ran 3 guys each shift/ 3 shifts. In short, 6 guys total instead of 27; a cut of 21 people. This was inresponse to heavy overseas competition from an inferior but much cheaper product.

They had the right idea, but were not quick enough. The bottom fell out of the market before the cell was up and running. They let go 35 people in that production area and another 45 in other departments the facility. The cost of their product is still the same, but volume is way down. The timeline was stretched out and the new production cell is about to come on line, but the company will have to take another financial hit if they want to cut prices and re-establish competition.

Automation has a direct affect on a company's ability to remain solvent. By automating, you are actually saving American jobs that would otherwise go overseas to more progressive companies who are automating inspite of cheaper labor. So unless you want your company owned by Tata, who will automate you or eliminate you, bite the bullet and do it now.

is the question : is there more to the answer than just a mathematical equation..

as you've mentioned 2 shifts.

is it possible to consider 4 10 hour days...?

retaining loyal , trained employees would benefit the company with greater production over 20 hours per day, vs 2 shifts of 8 hours,..yes , there would still be layoffs, but, the pool of skilled , dedicated workers would prove invaluable ,possibly in a reduction of the amount of o/t required. .. fulling your need to perform your task with clarity of conscience, and providing you that opportunity to face yourself in the morning when brushing your teeth...listening to Greg Kihn...and smile back at the image you see...

Dear 2,

Nummi is not in the habit of caring about you or your feelings. In looking at the latest news from Nummi, I see that there are layoffs and cutbacks galore. Anyone on the assembly line should have already realized that their jobs might not be there tomorrow and should already have been re-training.

There are 700 new postings of jobs on Craigslist SF just today.

Protect your job and if you feel responsible for their predicament, help the displaced with job hunting.

Protect your job

I hope you mean "Do your Job."

phoenix911

To "Do" in the 21st. Century is to "Protect"!

Protectionism, put that on your resume.

Dear P,

I do agree with you. I have been an owner and it is sad when our valued charges see themselves as protecting their positions. I am afraid though that this is the norm these days. One slip up with the budget or vendor coordination and it will be someones (probably the engineer's) head on the block. I feel for the originator of this post but if he or she modifies a plan once it is in place, it may be easier for the great Nummi gods to cut 140K by getting rid of him/her.

Live Long and Prosper!

R.

I worked at a ship yard that went through tough toughs, engineers, managers played the project my own job. Well that shipyard is no more.

It may be the norm, but I'm still against it, because the norms can change

Changed my mind.

Yeah ... let's talk about numbers, fat and efficiency.

We are, or we have been at some point in History considered "fat" by someone with the "means" and the "right kind of mental aptitude". That being for several different reasons, too much money, too little money, too light of a skin, too dark of a skin, too tall, too short, too smart, too dumb, too productive, too lazy ... ...

Those 4 guys there, love to go every single day of their lives to a meaningless job that could bloody well be done by some better designed system. HELLO?! They're fat! ... too desperate for a job.

Let's just get ride of all the fat, let's send them all to the front where they could be used as meat for the cannons ... nah too expensive, not enough wars ... let's just fire them all and let them roam the streets ... who cares? they're fat.

Soon my friends, gray matter and muscle will not be able to survive ... you know why?

Because there's no more croissants left for anyone to eat and they themselves became ... you guessed it ...BIG CHUNKS OF FAT. Just enough bread for the man behind the gun.

Let's not kid ourselves, we're all on this boat together. One hand washes the other.

Capitalist management formulas, being closest to "perfection" because they really are, thanks God for capitalism, are nothing but the new lingo of the powerful (should read wealthy, money equals power) to make the masses work for them. It's all there is to it.

You the enlightened are being laughed at right now, cuz you're playing they're game, by the book. So let's the enlightened decide what's better ... I say let's all live and let live together.

Love you all, it's a privilege to be alive ... just hope there's bread enough for all of us tomorrow.

Thanks

IF THERE IS NOT ENOUGH BREAD, WE CAN ALWAYS EAT FAT.

"IF THERE IS NOT ENOUGH BREAD, WE CAN ALWAYS EAT FAT"

We eat cake, don't we, or is that the Brits? The French?

Hmm! To me, that whole story, 2tinker, has a certain 2tink to it. Is it just me holding my 2chnozz?

I'm not an engineer, but having worked closely with and observed several different engineers in a variety of different industries as well as once been on a crew that was laid off, feel that my opinion has merit.

You ask two questions

1. Do I have to leave my conscience at the door? I say no, that should be one of the tools that you use to determine the "best" solution to any problem but it shouldn't have undue weight in your decision. Remember all your team members (which unfortunately includes the money hungry management types aka. the people who hired you) are counting on you as the all-pro running back that will ensure your team beats the competition or accomplishes what ever goal it is your trying to achieve in the most efficient manner.
2. What would you do, in my situation, hold the plan, or implement it asap? I would do what is right and present my findings,..... I would do my job. If there are 4 people to be laid off it should be the least needed 4 people in the plant, everyone usually knows who they are, probably one of the managers relatives. This is were your personnel or human resources department should get involved and do their job....you're in not HR - you're an engineer.

Recently 2 people who had been in my department longer than me got laid off ......instead of me .......because I was more of an asset to the team than they were, that's business.

Hello Markar,

Thank you for caring to answer. It is easy to get put off by the volume of answers.

I do value the richness of having so many view points available by simply posting a question. You are right in saying your conscience is part of your set of tools to be used to derive the ' best solution'. I let mine get in the way briefly, clouding my judgement rather than clarifying it.

I wondered if the "guest" that I mention below is Gepetto, Edgar or just plain 'voodenhead'.

I have read and chewed on all, even the off the cuff one that suggests that everything about the thread and possibly the OP, stinks. Thoughtful enough of his own reputation to make an anonymous comment, as a guest.

Dear Mr. Tinker,

If you are stuck up at the door of Conscience, you do have a conscience to pacify, otherwise you would have just walked past it with no regrets and no questions asked.

Pacify your conscience, hold it until things turn out good for those who would be eventually in line of fire.

I am not a communist or a socialist though living in a capitalistic environment but a humane human.

After all we are all living "to make this a better place to live" make it better for them.

Most important the saving that you would make for the company would just end up as one of those many drinks in the chartered aircrafts of one of your directors or chief executives.

If you did hold that design of yours that would preserve the integrity of 4 families, their children, schooling and whatever little they have to run for in their lives.

Personally I feel automation should bring in convenience and accuracy but not replacements for labours.

God be with you.

Best Regards,

George Kottackakathu,

+91 9944 904 304
kotshome@gmail.com