My complex may fire a doorman- WWYD?

**kmeyrick** · 03-07-2009, 11:49 AM

I live in an apartment/condo complex, and, like everyone else, we're facing some economic hardships. I for one cannot afford for my common charges to go up- I live very simply as it is but I really don't have anything to spare. My car is about to die it's final death, and I may or may not have a job come June. Our board has been trying to find ways to cut costs, and it looks like the only viable, significant money saving avenue is to fire a doorman. (We have four). Here are the pros:

1. It would save us about 30,000 a year. Pretty much exactly the amount we need to save to recover.
2. Two of the doorman, much as I love them, don't do their jobs. They sleep, talk on the cell phone, don't open the door for seniors or pregnant women carrying bags. I can't fault the other owners for being furious with them.
3. It would prevent common charges from going up.

Here are the cons:

1. I am very nervous about having a period where there is no one at the door- I don't live in a very safe neighborhood and that would get around to the wrong people.
2. I just don't want another person to lose his job. I really, really don't.
3. I think it may bring down the property values of our condos, as if they haven't dropped enough already. That may hurt us in the long run even more.

What do you think?

**pollypurebred39** · 03-07-2009, 12:36 PM

It would save you personally $30,000 a year?

**Nishu** · 03-07-2009, 12:52 PM

I think she means it would save the apartment complex 30K a year.

Frankly, if someone does not appreciate their job enough to actually do it, I wouldn't be overly concerned about preserving his or her job- especially in the case of the tough choice you guys have to make. I would insist though that the person who got fired was in fact one of the people who weren't doing their job.

Since you don't seem to be in a position to put someone else's personal financial situation above your own, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it.

As for the door situation, is there some kind of compromise you can come up with? Perhaps there's a time of day when it's safe to go without, or maybe there's people in the building who can handle the gap of service in shifts? Would lowering the pay of the people who work there be an option? It wouldn't be ideal but it might be preferable to losing a job.

Good luck.

**missyali** · 03-07-2009, 12:58 PM

I agree with Nishu, if they are not doing their job, it's an easy management choice ~ nothing personal about it. Could they then hire someone at a lower rate to maintain the security of the position by replacing two who don't actually work? Is their an exterior lock that could be installed as a safety means and to replace that position during the day when it is safer?

**pollypurebred39** · 03-07-2009, 01:33 PM

I believe that $30,000 divided by 3 doormen would be $10,000 a year, how much lower a paycut can you expect someone to take? I 'm in agreement with finding new doormen though, if you can't do your job properly you shouldn't be there.

If you have no doormen you may find yourself in a situation where it's unsafe to live in your own home. How much is your safety worth to you? That would be what I was asking myself. Would the risk be worth the savings?

**kmeyrick** · 03-07-2009, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by pollypurebred39

I believe that $30,000 divided by 3 doormen would be $10,000 a year, how much lower a paycut can you expect someone to take? I 'm in agreement with finding new doormen though, if you can't do your job properly you shouldn't be there.

If you have no doormen you may find yourself in a situation where it's unsafe to live in your own home. How much is your safety worth to you? That would be what I was asking myself. Would the risk be worth the savings?

This is what I'm thinking. Even if two of the doormen don't do their jobs, their mere presence wards off plenty of thugs, I'm sure. Since they no longer check the cars outside like they used to (they complained about it) 5 cars have been broken into, when we used to have no break-ins ever. Imagine what creeps will come out of the woodwork if they realize there's no one at the door at all?

**pollypurebred39** · 03-07-2009, 04:59 PM

Oh gosh kmeyrick, I sure hope they make they right choice for your building. Them being there is a deterent for sure, kind of like how dummy cameras in stores prevent shop lifting. I'd want them there, but that's me. It's scary to think of the what if's if they were not present.

**vigilant20** · 03-07-2009, 05:11 PM

A lock and/or a buzzer is a lot better and much cheaper alternative.

**LastDragonfly** · 03-07-2009, 05:36 PM

Can you vote to let the ones who don't do their job go?

Can all three of their hours be cut or rearranged?

**fixer** · 03-07-2009, 06:33 PM

If two of them are not doing their job, they should have already been fired. It would seem that a buzzer would be more economical than paying four people. I don't think we can continually ask people to take pay cuts to avoid making tough decisions. We end up with everyone stretched thin as opposed to getting rid of dead wood. I know people have families but I think it is for the greater good. My performance in the jobs I have had was always quantifiable. My boss knew how many minutes it took to complete a task and how much money it cost the company. It gave you no where to hide. Even though the pressure was intense, it rewarded those how worked hard and did a good job. It was a lot like being self employed in that your performance was the most important thing, not how well you kissed butt. I never could get away with not doing my job so why are people worried about keeping on someone who is in effect getting paid without providing the service they should. In the past good years, a lot of companies hired more people than necessary. They were making a good profit so it was easier to hire additional people to do a job than getting more productivity from the workers they had. Please don't think my heartless, I know there are human costs involved but, even in good times, getting rid of unproductive employees in a good idea.

**MomToTwoBoys** · 03-07-2009, 08:23 PM

I'd install a buzzer and lock, fire the doormen that aren't doing their job, and put the money that's left over into a security system for the residents. It doesn't cost a lot to hook up a security system in each apartment. If they're concerned about costs, remind them that they can use the money they'd be paying for the doormen who weren't doing their jobs and the system makes it more secure.

**FrugalMomof3** · 03-07-2009, 08:41 PM

I agree... fire the doormen, invest in a security system and install buzzers for all residents.

**eanddmom** · 03-07-2009, 09:28 PM

I'd also vote to fire one of the ones not doing their job and tell the other one your next if you don't straighten up. I agree you could probably hire in a replacement for the other one not doing his job and pay them less to start. Don't feel guilty they chose to not earn their paycheck so why should you give them one.

**kmeyrick** · 03-07-2009, 10:19 PM

Thanks for all your opinions, guys. I'm writing everything down, and will bring up all options at the meeting. I would like the two to be put on some sort of probation- some of the senior residents are attached to them. I think hour reductions would be reasonable- noon to 5 I would say don't need to be covered.