Why are so many decent people subject disciplinary hearings

[Sir Fergie]

Its easily done if you work with muppets that insist on making it hard to get things done as you need to do them.

Then you land in the because of others not playing ball.

And how do you class whether demands are reasonable - I got bkings for the following

1) you put certain labels on a product for a specific customer - ie their brand logo - but the order doesn't come in - so the labels can't be put on. Still got a bking - somehow I was supposed to magically make the order appear. When the customer RIGHTLY ordered product when they knew what they needed - not simply on a day to suit our production schedule

2) Keeping the yard tidy - great - but if I need to take brown pallets of a stack of pallets to get at the blue ones underneath (customer would only take products on blue pallets) - how am I supposed to put the brown pallets back on the stack of pallets - when the pallets have to be lifted to a height that means me stretching my arms up as far as they will go - and im 5 foot 11. Just stick it down as failing to comply with directions on keeping yard tidy. Btw - im not talking pallets with stuff on them - just literally the pallets themselves - stacked on top of each other.

3) your on a packing line putting items into little containers - well more like shopping basket type things really - putting them on pallets - but ALL the labels on the baskets had to face a certain way. Lo and behold occasionally the odd label might face in when it should face out. problem is your putting something like 150 on a pallet - you've to grab a basket - fill at end of line - put basket on pallet - get next basket - repeat - and your constantly having to practically run between pallet, baskets, end of the line, and filling baskets.

4) people not in on a particular day of the week deciding performance on that day of the week was never good enough - inspite of not being there themselves. That little issue actually fixed itself when one of them had to work on that particular day of the week. "oh I never realised you were so busy on Mondays" - ah yes love ive being only trying to tell you that for the last 2 years my dear

Easy to pick up disciplinarys for stuff like the above - for failing to follow procedure, failure to meet targets, customer not happy etc.

I didn't - because I was actually a GOOD worker - but I could have done if they felt in a humour to use the "right arguments" or as someone said earlier "manage me out"

[0a]

Jasandjules said:

Well in my position you see the odd dismissal for Gross Misconduct.

Hello Jasandjules, sorry to ask but what is 'your position'?

[Sheepshanks]

Tannedbaldhead said:

My own experience of how you can land yourself in trouble was where I was supposed to wear a hard hat to open loft hatches while surveying tenanted and void council properties I was surveying. Whilst being audited I found myself having to enter a loft where the hatch was already open and a loft ladder had been pulled down by a very accommodating tenant. As I started my climb the auditor ask if I should be wearing my hard hat to which I replied "No need. Done my risk assessment and as the loft is already open nothing can fall on my head". He reported it I received a final warning and was bloody close to getting the chop.

It wasn't a personal attack we lost a few surveyors to some very dubious breaches of H&S policy. ie guys were perceived to have breached policy but close examination would show nothing dangerous occurred.

To be fair, you can imagine how it would go if something dangerous did occur - company would appear in court and be painted as an employer that was lax on H&S and they'd get a massive fine.

It's one thing taking short cuts when no one can see you, but it's a bit bonkers if you've got an auditor watching. If he'd said nothing, you could have reported him for not reporting you!

[Sir Fergie]

Sheepshanks said:

To be fair, you can imagine how it would go if something dangerous did occur - company would appear in court and be painted as an employer that was lax on H&S and they'd get a massive fine.

It's one thing taking short cuts when no one can see you, but it's a bit bonkers if you've got an auditor watching. If he'd said nothing, you could have reported him for not reporting you!

I think the issue isn't the auditor reporting it - but almost getting the chop over it.

In other words - yes - auditor reports - that's fine - that's their job - but almost losing your job over it - kind of sucks a bit

[MitchT]

To add to my earlier comments, disciplinaries are often part of a process of strategic bullying by lousy managers who, fearing they'll be 'found out' sooner or later, seek to destroy the image of the highly credible employees who are most likely to show them up for whom they really are. I've witnessed it myself, my OH has been subjected to it directly, and this article describes it well ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peggydrexler/2013/07/1...

[mph1977]

MitchT said:

To add to my earlier comments, disciplinaries are often part of a process of strategic bullying by lousy managers who, fearing they'll be 'found out' sooner or later, seek to destroy the image of the highly credible employees who are most likely to show them up for whom they really are. I've witnessed it myself, my OH has been subjected to it directly, and this article describes it well ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peggydrexler/2013/07/1...

i would also agree that this is a significant problem in many workplaces.

[whoami]

Tannedbaldhead said:

I always thought people who have been sacked for some form of misconduct must be workplace hooligans, crass incompitants, sexual predators or crooks.

Regular visits to J&EM show regular instances where parties subject to disciplinary hearings have been none of the above.

How do you know that??

[Sheepshanks]

Sir Fergie said:

I think the issue isn't the auditor reporting it - but almost getting the chop over it.

In other words - yes - auditor reports - that's fine - that's their job - but almost losing your job over it - kind of sucks a bit

Well yes, but then the employer has to be seen to be taking a strong line over apparent H&S breaches - it's arse covering on their part.

[Jasandjules]

0a said:

Hello Jasandjules, sorry to ask but what is 'your position'?

Employment Lawyer... So I hear all the worst about employment.

[50volt]

MitchT said:

To add to my earlier comments, disciplinaries are often part of a process of strategic bullying by lousy managers who, fearing they'll be 'found out' sooner or later, seek to destroy the image of the highly credible employees who are most likely to show them up for whom they really are. I've witnessed it myself, my OH has been subjected to it directly, and this article describes it well ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peggydrexler/2013/07/1...

Just started to read a book called "Snakes in Suits - when psychopaths go to work". Its brilliant, I'd recommend it.

[NoNeed]

I often see the word "gross" being put in front of misconduct and negligence cases for reasons that are beyond me. It's like bad managers feel a need to make something sound far more serious than it actually is, and one such case resulted me having a stand up heated row with a director for employing a manger that couldn't read a contract that had specific offences listed as misconduct and not in the gross misconduct section yet allowing the hearing to go ahead.


Why managers do it I have no idea.

[Tannedbaldhead]

Sheepshanks said:

Tannedbaldhead said:

My own experience of how you can land yourself in trouble was where I was supposed to wear a hard hat to open loft hatches while surveying tenanted and void council properties I was surveying. Whilst being audited I found myself having to enter a loft where the hatch was already open and a loft ladder had been pulled down by a very accommodating tenant. As I started my climb the auditor ask if I should be wearing my hard hat to which I replied "No need. Done my risk assessment and as the loft is already open nothing can fall on my head". He reported it I received a final warning and was bloody close to getting the chop.

It wasn't a personal attack we lost a few surveyors to some very dubious breaches of H&S policy. ie guys were perceived to have breached policy but close examination would show nothing dangerous occurred.

To be fair, you can imagine how it would go if something dangerous did occur - company would appear in court and be painted as an employer that was lax on H&S and they'd get a massive fine.

It's one thing taking short cuts when no one can see you, but it's a bit bonkers if you've got an auditor watching. If he'd said nothing, you could have reported him for not reporting you!

The risk assessment clearly identified the risk as an object either on the loft-hatch panel or to the side of and on edge of the loft hatch which could be disturbed as the panel if lifted to gain access and fall on the person below. If the loft hatch was already open and the Ramsey Ladder was pulled down, set up and ready to be climbed said risk was not an issue. As such, PPE was not required. I also pointed out the method statement required three points of contact with the ladder AT ALL TIMES yet loft hatches to be opened with both hands. Can't be done. Quantity surveyors have a much better eye for detail and are very good at interoperating schedules of work, method statements, employee contracts etc. Better than HR managers and a damn site better than the wee girl not that long out of uni who was expected to leave the meeting with the keys to my company car.

The result was I was not guilty of a failure to carry out my of duty of care to self, colleagues and public (a sackable offence) but guilty of failure to comply with company H&S policy (inspite of no instruction for PPE to be worn entering an open hatch and written instructions stating PPE was to be worn opening the hatch). They got their pound of flesh with a written warning. I was then told on the QT that HR were furious with me as I had made the dept look bad and that it would be wise for me to leave before I was sacked which I did.

[Jerry Can]

No one goes to work to be st at their job, even though some maybe, they aren't deliberately trying to be st. Equally, in my experience there are only 2 reasons why people under perform - piss poor management, or a broken recruitment process. If HR took this view the work environment would be a very different (better) place.

[Dr Jekyll]

Jerry Can said:

No one goes to work to be st at their job, even though some maybe, they aren't deliberately trying to be st. Equally, in my experience there are only 2 reasons why people under perform - piss poor management, or a broken recruitment process. If HR took this view the work environment would be a very different (better) place.

There are people who intentionally try to get away with as little as possible, though I agree it's management that should pick up on it. So other than health issues I agree with you.

[Johnnytheboy]

Jerry Can said:

No one goes to work to be st at their job, even though some maybe, they aren't deliberately trying to be st. Equally, in my experience there are only 2 reasons why people under perform - piss poor management, or a broken recruitment process. If HR took this view the work environment would be a very different (better) place.

Wow, really?

I suppose it depends on your definition of "st at their job".

I've met plenty of people who seem to take great pride in doing as bad a job as they can get away with, or at best the bare minimum without being actually bad.

It can't always be bad management or bad recruitment. Some people interview well (or just no one good applies), and the only way to manage someone who doesn't want to work is to get rid of them, which is what the OP was complaining about in the first place.

[mph1977]

Johnnytheboy said:

Wow, really?

I suppose it depends on your definition of "st at their job".

I've met plenty of people who seem to take great pride in doing as bad a job as they can get away with, or at best the bare minimum without being actually bad.

It can't always be bad management or bad recruitment. Some people interview well (or just no one good applies), and the only way to manage someone who doesn't want to work is to get rid of them, which is what the OP was complaining about in the first place.

which is the manifestation of poor management practice.

if an organisation is well managed people have pride in working there and doing a good job, they realise that fulfilling the needs and wants of the end user of the product or service is what makes the company tick

If the copmpany is run poorly and the managers behave like a bunch of tts people go to work because the money is better than being on the dole.

[whoami]

mph1977 said:

Johnnytheboy said:

Wow, really?

I suppose it depends on your definition of "st at their job".

I've met plenty of people who seem to take great pride in doing as bad a job as they can get away with, or at best the bare minimum without being actually bad.

It can't always be bad management or bad recruitment. Some people interview well (or just no one good applies), and the only way to manage someone who doesn't want to work is to get rid of them, which is what the OP was complaining about in the first place.

which is the manifestation of poor management practice.

if an organisation is well managed people have pride in working there and doing a good job, they realise that fulfilling the needs and wants of the end user of the product or service is what makes the company tick

If the copmpany is run poorly and the managers behave like a bunch of tts people go to work because the money is better than being on the dole.

So, any poor performance is always a result of poor management?

[Johnnytheboy]

whoami said:

So, any poor performance is always a result of poor management?

...and it's poor management to try and get rid of poor performers as well?

[Asterix]

I had a claim of sexual harrasment and bullying made against me years back.

I had a woman working for me who was difficult to say the least. When it became obvious she was going to have to be let go after making yet another project critical mistake - she got in a pre-emptive strike.

To add some context - This was in Sharjah, UAE. The charges brought against me, could have then moved to a criminal case and I could have been jailed, then deported if found guilty.

Simply, it would have wrecked my life.

The company went through the process, interviewed everyone in my department, of which the majority were female of many different nationalities, plus others in the company etc... and I came out the other side with a glowing report - arguably, the best appraisal I've ever had. She was informed of the results.

However, she could have still gone to the Police for the criminal aspect but was advised that it was unlikely she'd get anywhere due to the internal report and testimonials from my other staff. However, the way it works here is they lock you up and then ask questions. It would have still been extremely damaging.

Conclusion - She dropped the charges but stayed in my department and was moved so she wouldn't be a direct report to me.

I don't really have time to hate anyone, it's a waste of energy - however, an exception has been made for that nasty piece of work.

I left 6 months later and she was still there bugging the crap out of everyone.

[Eric Mc]

Johnnytheboy said:

whoami said:

So, any poor performance is always a result of poor management?

...and it's poor management to try and get rid of poor performers as well?

The problem is that performance measurement can be very subjective - and a manager with a grudge against an employee can "engineer" a poor result from a vague and arbitrary method of measuring in order to achieve a desired result.