To Whom It May Concern:
Today I was informed with the unfortunate news I was to be laid off. While I respect XXX County’s & Mrs. X's decision to make the right choice, I cannot help but wonder there being some underlying issues with this resolution.
Firstly I must say I deeply regret you felt the need to release me from employment. The loss of a job is never an easy thing. More than myself though, I also worry about my place of (or former place of) employment, Section 8. With the two people including myself today let go, the office will suffer even greater than it has. There was much strain already in the office with the retirement of four individuals. I cannot even begin to imagine how things might run with the loss of two more employees, and the overall morale of the office.
Then earlier this year, it was announced that Section 8 would be merging with the Department of Social Services. At that meeting, Mrs. X announced that Section 8 was to be one of, if the only, department to not suffer any staff cuts due to the budget. My questions are fairly simple. What suddenly changed that we had to lose an additional two employees on top of the four that have already retired? And what of Mrs. X said? We had 45 people hear her say there would not be any staff cuts. Was she out of place when she said this, or are there other factors which we do not know of? With our office already losing 10% why must we lose an additional 5%? Where are the cuts in the planning department at in ?? Avenue. With that, why are there 3 people in that building under Section 8’s budget, when they do not work with us? I feel all of these questions are equally important and deserve answers. I understand people are unable to see into a crystal ball, but the statements made were hardly anything to be taken lightly.
The retiring of those four employees is one of the topics I wish to discuss. Late last year, it was asked of every department to prepare a budget that would save 10-20 percent preparing for budget cuts/constraints. It was hard to imagine our office running on far less assets. With Ms. A, Ms. B, Ms. C, and Mrs. D all leaving the department, that alone is 10 percent of our employees. Ms. A and Ms. B were Program Administrator and Program Specialist, respectively. This alone should factor in huge savings. I understand in not replacing jobs through attrition is necessary at this juncture. This however, also saves the department the same amount of money as if they were laid off.
To my understanding, the whole reason this layoff is occurring is because the FSS program budget was reduced by more than $100,000. I would see how this can affect the employment, but at the same time am confused by something. I myself have nothing at all to do with the FSS program at all, so why am I the one being affected by this layoff? Should it not affect the employees directly related to the program? More importantly, with one of the few departments that brings in guaranteed revenue every single year, why are cuts necessary at all? The section 8 program brings in over $3,500,000 a year. More than enough to cover all of it’s employees.
You might see why I am concerned. We have not received any reasons for these cuts. Mrs. X, who is one of the heads of the planning department, refuses to offer us any kind of information, and will not come to the employees of Section 8. Instead, we must rely on information that is trickled down. If she were to come over to our office and explain the situation, we might understand the situation. I do not think that is too much to ask as an employee, or the head of the department.
I ask that the questions presented in this letter are looked at and addressed properly. More so, I ask that the decision to lay me off is reconsidered, for all of the reasons listed above.
Sincerely,
XXXX