About to get much easier for companies to sack folk

[mph1977]

heebeegeetee said:

Gaspode said:

Approach A : "I know they can't sack me from my job, so I'll fk about at work, and borrow money I can't afford to spend on crap I don't need, simply because I can"

Approach B : "Times are hard, I'm not sure I can always be certain of finding work, so I'll make sure that I do a good job for my employer, and save up for stuff that I genuinely need."

Why is approach B bad for business?

Well, A doesn't exist apart maybe for teachers and nurses,

really ?
care to evidence that brave assertion ...

[DSM2]

martin84 said:

Extreme example I know, but the point is we need to get money moving. People aren't going to spend money if they think they might get the sack tomorrow, whether they deserve the sack or not. PH'ers must've come across some very sensible management in sensible companies to say the things they're saying, most places are not run as well as that. Good management can get rid of bad staff already, these reforms play into bad managers

Edited by martin84 on Saturday 26th May 16:14

Any sort of manager can get rid of any member of staff if they really want to. The reforms won't threaten anyone's job they will just save a huge waste in terms of the money that goes to HR lawyers and the like currently.

[bga]

0000 said:

Not being able to sack people isn't a solution for poor management, but it will hinder good management.

Good management (and even bad management) can easily get rid of people if required. Lots of people complain they it's hard to sack people but are unwilling to put in the work that makes it easy to get rid of an under performer.

[PugwasHDJ80]

bga said:

Good management (and even bad management) can easily get rid of people if required. Lots of people complain they it's hard to sack people but are unwilling to put in the work that makes it easy to get rid of an under performer.

so to make it easy to sack people you have to put lots of work in.

ergo it ISN'T easy to sack people.

[BlackVanDyke]

heebeegeetee said:

Gaspode said:

Approach A : "I know they can't sack me from my job, so I'll fk about at work, and borrow money I can't afford to spend on crap I don't need, simply because I can"

Approach B : "Times are hard, I'm not sure I can always be certain of finding work, so I'll make sure that I do a good job for my employer, and save up for stuff that I genuinely need."

Why is approach B bad for business?

Well, A doesn't exist apart maybe for teachers and nurses, and how is people not spending money in B good for business?

Er, really? Sounds a lot like the classic pasttime of taking a pop at public sector workers by those both unable and unwilling to do their jobs.

I've seen more piss-takers at the low and medium tiers of big business - which I've not had much contact with - than in all my years of dependance on the NHS.

[Murph7355]

BlackVanDyke said:

...
I've seen more piss-takers at the low and medium tiers of big business - which I've not had much contact with - than in all my years of dependance on the NHS.

This is an oft used angle in discussions like these.

Whilst I am inclined to agree with the general premise, it misses one pretty vital point.

[miniman]

BlackVanDyke said:

Er, really? Sounds a lot like the classic pasttime of taking a pop at public sector workers by those both unable and unwilling to do their jobs.

I've seen more piss-takers at the low and medium tiers of big business - which I've not had much contact with - than in all my years of dependance on the NHS.

My best guess then is that you have had a lot of contact with the people in the NHS who are tasked with caring for others who are, on the whole, amazing. I can assure you that the levels of incompetence and lack of management skills elsewhere within the NHS are astonishing.

[eccles]

miniman said:

BlackVanDyke said:

Er, really? Sounds a lot like the classic pasttime of taking a pop at public sector workers by those both unable and unwilling to do their jobs.

I've seen more piss-takers at the low and medium tiers of big business - which I've not had much contact with - than in all my years of dependance on the NHS.

My best guess then is that you have had a lot of contact with the people in the NHS who are tasked with caring for others who are, on the whole, amazing. I can assure you that the levels of incompetence and lack of management skills elsewhere within the NHS are astonishing.

As they also are in many private sector companies.

[mph1977]

miniman said:

BlackVanDyke said:

Er, really? Sounds a lot like the classic pasttime of taking a pop at public sector workers by those both unable and unwilling to do their jobs.

I've seen more piss-takers at the low and medium tiers of big business - which I've not had much contact with - than in all my years of dependance on the NHS.

My best guess then is that you have had a lot of contact with the people in the NHS who are tasked with caring for others who are, on the whole, amazing. I can assure you that the levels of incompetence and lack of management skills elsewhere within the NHS are astonishing.

I sometimes wonder how we manage to deliver service despite some of the fools in general management aided and abetted by those who have abandoned their career as actual nurses in favour of a clipboard and clipp-cloppy shoes...

[DSM2]

mph1977 said:

I sometimes wonder how we manage to deliver service despite some of the fools in general management aided and abetted by those who have abandoned their career as actual nurses in favour of a clipboard and clipp-cloppy shoes...

Yes, we'll the fact is that very often you don't............

[crankedup]

0000 said:

martin84 said:

If implimented badly, reforms could play into the hands of poor management. For every 1 person who works hard and gets rewards, theres 500 who work hard and get exploited. Unfortunately theres too many examples of people outperforming their pay grade who are merely used by their company to get skills on the cheap.

Not being able to sack people isn't a solution for poor management, but it will hinder good management.

You need to get yourself up to date with employment legislation and new legislation coming through later this year. Employers good and bad have more than adequate time to sort wheat from chaf. If the Company hits hard times use the redundancy channel. Really I cannot see the excuse or arguments put forward.
Think yourself lucky martin84, 0000 likes to ask for evidence on claims made.

[crankedup]

martin84 said:

Gaspode said:

Approach B : "Times are hard, I'm not sure I can always be certain of finding work, so I'll make sure that I do a good job for my employer, and save up for stuff that I genuinely need."

Why is approach B bad for business?

Its bad for business because if everybody does it then people arent spending, which means businesses don't make money, businesses fold and those good employees trying to do a good job will be made redundant due to the fact nobodies spending. Not to mention the fact most employees dont trust a word their employer says. They say you're safe one day, but what about tomorrow?

The last thing the economy needs is for everybody to hide every penny under the mattress. The people who only spend money on what they genuinely need aren't the people who power the economy, if everybody only bought the bare essentials the economy would consist of EDF, Shell, Tesco, water companies and nothing else. In turn that'd damage anybody they're linked to, put people out of work, force prices high and those nice well meaning savers will be hit very hard indeed.

Extreme example I know, but the point is we need to get money moving. People aren't going to spend money if they think they might get the sack tomorrow, whether they deserve the sack or not. PH'ers must've come across some very sensible management in sensible companies to say the things they're saying, most places are not run as well as that. Good management can get rid of bad staff already, these reforms play into bad managers hands.

The problem with the 'save money' message is we're never going to get anywhere if people have no confidence to spend. For years we've been awful at managing money but we dont want to turn into serial savers either because that'll engineer permanent recession.

Edited by martin84 on Saturday 26th May 16:14

The problem here is that you are stating real life scenario, don't expect the hero's in here to understand or agree.

[Gaspode]

crankedup said:

The problem here is that you are stating real life scenario, don't expect the hero's in here to understand or agree.

If the economy's survival depends on people borrowing money they can't afford to repay to buy crap they don't need, whilst being employed in a make-work role by an employer who is unable to get rid of the incompetent buffoons who are dragging everyone else down with them, then as far as I can see we're already fked.

...and it's "heroes" FFS.

[crankedup]

Gaspode said:

crankedup said:

The problem here is that you are stating real life scenario, don't expect the hero's in here to understand or agree.

If the economy's survival depends on people borrowing money they can't afford to repay to buy crap they don't need, whilst being employed in a make-work role by an employer who is unable to get rid of the incompetent buffoons who are dragging everyone else down with them, then as far as I can see we're already fked.

...and it's "heroes" FFS.

Blimy! you certainly make up a theatrical (spelling?)setting for your side of the argument. How are these people employed if they are such incompetent buffoons in the first place, are those doing the employing incompetent buffoons in a different way. Why is it so difficult to fire these people? employers have up to one year already. Having said that Fred the shred falls into your category of worker and it took years to fire him FFS. Who are these mystical people you refer to as dragging the rest of us down. Last thing to say is that people have to pay rent or mortgage, do you include that in your 'crap' analogy?

[Gaspode]

From my experience over the last 30 years, incompetent buffoonery ( and laziness) seems to be pretty evenly spread across the workforce, be it management or staff.

The way I see it, we don't have much choice available:

1. The existing economy isn't big enough to sustain the levels of public spending that we need (let alone that which we might desire)
2. The public sector is funded entirely by taxation from the private sector
3. To grow the economy, the private sector therefore needs to expand, and do so as quickly as possible. Only then could we expand the public sector (if we wanted to)
4. In order to give private sector bosses the confidence to expand their businesses, we must remove all possible disincentives from them
5. Small businesses grow faster than big businesses, therefore the development needs to focus on SMEs
6. Small businesses frequently report difficulties with engaging and releasing staff as being one of the biggest disincentives

Making it easier for companies to get shot of crap employees (whatever their rank) seems to me to be an inevitable step.

[Countdown]

Gaspode said:

2. The public sector is funded entirely by taxation from the private sector

Sorry to be pedantic but the PubSec is funded by all taxation, not just that of the private sector. The main difference is that Public Sector services are procured via the Government (and people pay based on income rather than usage), whereas private sector services are procured directly by the individual from the Supplier (and people pay for exactly what they use).

[Gaspode]

Countdown said:

Sorry to be pedantic but the PubSec is funded by all taxation, not just that of the private sector.

I'm not entirely sure what trying to make here? When people in the public sector pay taxes, they are simply returning to the exchequer monies that were original taken from the private sector as taxes, aren't they?

[Countdown]

Gaspode said:

Countdown said:

Sorry to be pedantic but the PubSec is funded by all taxation, not just that of the private sector.

I'm not entirely sure what trying to make here? When people in the public sector pay taxes, they are simply returning to the exchequer monies that were original taken from the private sector as taxes, aren't they?

No. "Public Sector" taxes are no different to "Private Sector" taxes. Taxes paid by an NHS Nurse or a State School teacher are no different to those paid by a BUPA nurse or a Teacher who works at Eton. It is only the way you, The Consumer, purchase them that is different.

If the Government disappeared tomorrow the services currently regarded as Public Sector would still exist, (albeit for most people they would be less affordable and, consequently demand would probably fall)

[eccles]

Gaspode said:

From my experience over the last 30 years, incompetent buffoonery ( and laziness) seems to be pretty evenly spread across the workforce, be it management or staff.

The way I see it, we don't have much choice available:

1. The existing economy isn't big enough to sustain the levels of public spending that we need (let alone that which we might desire)
2. The public sector is funded entirely by taxation from the private sector
3. To grow the economy, the private sector therefore needs to expand, and do so as quickly as possible. Only then could we expand the public sector (if we wanted to)
4. In order to give private sector bosses the confidence to expand their businesses, we must remove all possible disincentives from them
5. Small businesses grow faster than big businesses, therefore the development needs to focus on SMEs
6. Small businesses frequently report difficulties with engaging and releasing staff as being one of the biggest disincentives

Making it easier for companies to get shot of crap employees (whatever their rank) seems to me to be an inevitable step.

Using your logic, nobody would want to work for a small business because there'd be no job security, so they wouldn't be able to expand......

[DSM2]

eccles said:

Using your logic, nobody would want to work for a small business because there'd be no job security, so they wouldn't be able to expand......

Are you seriously suggesting that the unemployed have such little confidence in their ability that they would turn down a job because they might then lose it because they are crap at it?

Oh boy...............