Is it just me or ........

[Muse2k8]

Or maybe HR but then our area manager was a waste of space too.

 

[Deleted member 9966]

Or maybe HR but then our area manager was a waste of space too.

or maybe HR???

 

[White Room]

I'm not in that situation of being employed for many years by one perticular company but I have at times and have found some of the managers useless and it's the employees that have taken the brunt of the managers inadequite knowledge of a subject IMO

 

[Muse2k8]

or maybe HR???

Bad experiences with the hr dept in my previous employer.

Not generalising I meant that they need to learn to do their job better too. Long long story.

 

[Deleted member 9966]

Bad experiences with the hr dept in my previous employer.

Not generalising I meant that they need to learn to do their job better too. Long long story.

In my experience, it isn't the HR people that are inexperienced or lacking in knowledge. More often than not, they are constrained by management views and working practices that are out of date.

Employment Law is a huge beast and Vince Cable is dabbling in something that works well as it is. Businesses will not benefit from being able to dismiss someone with very little comeback on them, because the dismissed employee will then go straight to Tribunal to seek redress. And then both employees and employers end up lining the pockets of the lawyers to unpick a situation that would have been relatively straightforward if management has merely got their act together sooner, gathered evidence of whatever the problem, sat down with the employee to seek improvement and gave them time to try and improve. It then costs nothing because you have followed the correct process and if the employee still fails to improve, you can dismiss. This can be about underperformance, lateness, sickness absence, misconduct, gross misconduct.

 

[widler]

personally i think you should be able to get rid of who ever when ever you want,without paying redundancy or being taken to court.

if a employee is useless you should be able to get shut,if the business is struggling,say because of recession,you should be able to get shut without having to pay over 10 grand out in redundancy to 2 employees,who have been kept in employment,paying them good money for years,keeping a roof over there heads,feeding there kids,even when times are hard,even if it means the employer aint took a wage for nearly 18 months out of 24,but still under bloody laws you have to pay them or be taken to the cleaners.
to much is given to employees and not enough to employers IMO,and 12 times out of ten,it is only employees who agree with the current laws and i don't know 1 employer who agrees with it.

gosh, i was ranting then 😉

 

[Deleted member 9966]

personally i think you should be able to get rid of who ever when ever you want,without paying redundancy or being taken to court.

if a employee is useless you should be able to get shut,if the business is struggling,say because of recession,you should be able to get shut without having to pay over 10 grand out in redundancy to 2 employees,who have been kept in employment,paying them good money for years,keeping a roof over there heads,feeding there kids,even when times are hard,even if it means the employer aint took a wage for nearly 18 months out of 24,but still under bloody laws you have to pay them or be taken to the cleaners.
to much is given to employees and not enough to employers IMO,and 12 times out of ten,it is only employees who agree with the current laws and i don't know 1 employer who agrees with it.

gosh, i was ranting then 😉

you can do it this way too.... provided that your contracts of employment state that the employer is entitled to lay people off at times of downturn. but the chances of you getting employees to sign up to those terms is pretty slim.

I agree, employment law is onerous on very small businesses but it works very well at keeping large, multi-national, massive profit-making companies in check.

 

[Muse2k8]

In my experience, it isn't the HR people that are inexperienced or lacking in knowledge. More often than not, they are constrained by management views and working practices that are out of date.

Employment Law is a huge beast and Vince Cable is dabbling in something that works well as it is. Businesses will not benefit from being able to dismiss someone with very little comeback on them, because the dismissed employee will then go straight to Tribunal to seek redress. And then both employees and employers end up lining the pockets of the lawyers to unpick a situation that would have been relatively straightforward if management has merely got their act together sooner, gathered evidence of whatever the problem, sat down with the employee to seek improvement and gave them time to try and improve. It then costs nothing because you have followed the correct process and if the employee still fails to improve, you can dismiss. This can be about underperformance, lateness, sickness absence, misconduct, gross misconduct.

I agree... Just in this case even though my employee was useless and damaging the business and losing sales by pretty much slating the product (in one instance a gentleman had been in to us in the morning and went all over town during the day and then came back because he loved our product, this staff member still managed to talk him out of it!).

Our policies were that HR dealt with all disciplinaries and dismissals from head office and they still wouldn't do anything about it!

 

[Deleted member 9966]

I agree... Just in this case even though my employee was useless and damaging the business and losing sales by pretty much slating the product (in one instance a gentleman had been in to us in the morning and went all over town during the day and then came back because he loved our product, this staff member still managed to talk him out of it!).

Our policies were that HR dealt with all disciplinaries and dismissals from head office and they still wouldn't do anything about it!

so technically not HR that were the problem, the company's approach to how things were handled was wrong. there's no point having HR handle disciplinaries or under performers because HR are not the people that manage them on a daily basis. managers manage, HR people are there to make sure managers get it right.

 

[Deleted member 1779]

At a factory on our Estate the boss has 12 workers and had a disruptive employee. Called him into the office and gave him £2000 in cash and said thats it you are fired and its all you are getting. If you want the cash sign the form. If you want to sue leave the cash on the table. Employee took the money. Never heard of again. Set an example to the other guys to tow the line. PS: What the employee did wrong (the last straw) was take his 5 year old child into work on Saturday. And he was filmed.... So they worked quickly to get rid of him.

Not saying any rights or wrongs just thats what they did.