Getting a pink-slip stinks. But how’d you like your boss to pull you and a coworker aside, and announce that one of your jobs is being eliminated – but that the two of you have to decide who gets fired!

That’s what happened recently to two journalists at the Kansas City Star. Critics called it a real-life version of “The Hunger Games.” And say that pitting two employees against each other is an incredibly bad idea. For one thing, it’s emotionally stressful for both people and whoever stays will have lost all respect for the boss for making them choose. Plus, the other company employees will start wondering when they’ll be forced to make the same decision.

Employment expert Bob Kelleher says that people in leadership positions get paid more because they have to make difficult decisions. And employees expect their bosses to make tough choices when it’s necessary - which helps the boss earn the trust and respect of their staff.

Our expert goes on to say that when a company makes cutbacks, deciding who stays and who goes is a no-brainer. It should be based on performance and if both employees are equal, whoever was the newest hire should go.      

The newspaper defended their actions. They said that when they announced company-wide cutbacks, the employees wanted more say in who got let go. So, they offered to let employees who were interested volunteer to accept a severance package.

It turns out, the two journalists in question were the only two people in the department. And both had been with the company for over 14 years, and neither volunteered to be fired.

So did the newspaper bosses do the right thing? Or was it hurtful to make the employees make the decision? Weigh in at