beachmom wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 2:10 pm
beernutz wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:54 pm
If you are reassigned to a new position and also have to train your replacement would you do both jobs simultaneously?
Yes, essentially. Because I would still be there, I would get asked if questions came up and have to answer them. And questions would arise, because no one knows close to what I know about this area. Unfortunately the area touches on all other labs.
So my ability to avoid the lab manager with the issue would be limited.
I appreciate your thoughts. I am not sure I could manage to work under this situation. There are about 250 employees so it would be a pretty open and widely discussed unexpected transfer.
**** WRONG ANSWER !! ****
Once you are out of that role your response is "You will have to ask (Dr./Mr./Ms.) XX that question".
If they ask again...REPEAT !
Similarly, as you wouldn't have the sign-off authority, don't accept shipments (especially DEA scheduled) or sign off any disbursements !!
You are not covered by D&O and are not covered for "tail risks". I would get copies of any audits and, if any deficiencies are noted, proof that corrective actions were implemented.
[Side Note: I knew of one midwest pharma company, also where the owner wanted to challenge/override QA. They had issues, FDA came in and shut them down for IIR one and a half to two years! (and, of course since they already had a prior action, they were subjected to "enhanced oversight".]
ETA: In your update you mentioned that you "skated to the edge of compliance".... just what I mentioned in the side note and why you need to keep documentation that all audits were satisfactory or that any issues were addressed "while on your watch", otherwise you could get dragged in to any legal issues of the company in the future and be made the scapegoat because of your QA position. That the owner is wanting to sell unfortunately makes it more likely that the ice will get thinner that you would be skating on, and again reiterates why I recommend leaving, but with full documentation that all procedures and audits were satisfactory while you had the authority.
RE: financial
You've already identified that you could recieve survivor SS benefits in roughly six months. I can't see any reason for you not to initiate then, and wait until 70 (or at least FRA) to start your own SS benefits. As noted by others, the extra time, since you have significant quarters already, will not materially affect YOUR SS, especially if waiting until 70.
Further, by taking survivor benefits you allow for reduced reliance on your nestegg, to the small extent you'd need it given the numbers you gave.
MY CHOICE:
Given what you described, your employer is the equivalent to junk bond... very high risk. You task is to extricate yourself from the situation with the best outcome-- in this case, negotiated severance with the help of an experienced labor attorney.
That you would not be relieved of the stressors, due to future required interaction with the other manager and with others in the 250 person office, further indicates that an exit with severance might be preferred.
[Another side note: I had a couple of cases where I had told the director that I --- could not -- train certain individuals, mostly due to their prior cases where they indicated they were trained one way, totally contrary to what was performed, and thus failed QC and ISO causing significant rework by others and retraining of individuals.
You didn't indicate that the individual even shadowed you at any point; HENCE MY FIRST STATEMENT. You want the individual to have to deal with ALL aspects of the job when they get that authority. In some respects, you need to have them understand what they DON'T know... if you did stay and train (which I again DON'T recommend) those issues are part and parcel of the regular task at hand, DON'T let them delegate them to you "to make it easier on the transition"
Owner/management set up the conditions and need to deal with the situation THEY set up. ]
<off my soapbox now>