Why are so many decent people subject disciplinary hearings
Discussion
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.
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.
I've seen QSs given warnings for submitting tenders without conducting proper measures or on-site scoping inspite of being instructed to do so by managers. I've also seen fitters sacked for cutting corners on jobs when everyone knows they were following the "unwritten rules" to achieve unachievable performance targets that failing to meet would result in, oddly enough, a disciplinary hearing. It's not just construction, I know of some very dubious sackings that have occurred in other industries.
What happens to these poor buggers who are getting fired. Can they resume their careers from where they left off in other companies or do they languish in McDonalds or on benefit?
Regular visits to J&EM show regular instances where parties subject to disciplinary hearings have been none of the above.
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.
I've seen QSs given warnings for submitting tenders without conducting proper measures or on-site scoping inspite of being instructed to do so by managers. I've also seen fitters sacked for cutting corners on jobs when everyone knows they were following the "unwritten rules" to achieve unachievable performance targets that failing to meet would result in, oddly enough, a disciplinary hearing. It's not just construction, I know of some very dubious sackings that have occurred in other industries.
What happens to these poor buggers who are getting fired. Can they resume their careers from where they left off in other companies or do they languish in McDonalds or on benefit?
Well in my position you see the odd dismissal for Gross Misconduct.
I've seen one sacked because he wasn't family (family business, family member had stolen something, this chap got the blame - which might be reasonable but he was not in work on the day the items went missing.....) - I managed to get his Gross Misconduct sorted.
I've seen one sacked because she stole products and sold them on ebay. I told her I would not assist her.
I've seen one sacked because she failed to take remedial steps which resulted in a very ill person nearly dying. That was the end of her career.
I've seen one sacked because she was hopeless. My only involvement was getting costs removed against her which was what she wanted, already had another job.
I've seen one sacked because he wasn't family (family business, family member had stolen something, this chap got the blame - which might be reasonable but he was not in work on the day the items went missing.....) - I managed to get his Gross Misconduct sorted.
I've seen one sacked because she stole products and sold them on ebay. I told her I would not assist her.
I've seen one sacked because she failed to take remedial steps which resulted in a very ill person nearly dying. That was the end of her career.
I've seen one sacked because she was hopeless. My only involvement was getting costs removed against her which was what she wanted, already had another job.
Seen a couple, been involved in a couple.
The way I see it, a lot of it has to do with perception; if someone is seen as "good" by management then they have to do an awful lot of crap stuff before that opinion starts to change. Similarly someone judged as "bad" can hardly afford to put a foot wrong.
Sometimes that perception is justified, sometimes it isn't. But management's view is often quite out of kilter with that of the average shop floor person.
The way I see it, a lot of it has to do with perception; if someone is seen as "good" by management then they have to do an awful lot of crap stuff before that opinion starts to change. Similarly someone judged as "bad" can hardly afford to put a foot wrong.
Sometimes that perception is justified, sometimes it isn't. But management's view is often quite out of kilter with that of the average shop floor person.
davepoth said:
Sometimes that perception is justified, sometimes it isn't. But management's view is often quite out of kilter with that of the average shop floor person.
Indeed. And going further, sometimes management (or specific managers) don't like a particular person, and so along come disciplinary hearings.If we move from Gross Misconduct into any kind of hearing, there are a lot more spurious ones IME.... Including pregnant ladies who suddenly are "not performing" and in certain industries when bonus time comes, the same happens, which by a stroke of luck means the company does not have to pay the bonuses...
Zeeky said:
An employee doesn't have to behave unreasonably according to any objective standard to be lawfully dismissed, He simply needs to fail to meet the requirements of his employer. What is less straightforward is knowing whether or not the employer has followed a fair process.
And if the employee's face fits you get away with blue murder.Some people are unlucky others make their own luck.The way of the world.
I have been involved in scores of disciplinary processes and 99% of the employees are not as you describe in your first paragraph. Even those that are do not exhibit outwardly the sort of behaviour you might think gives them away. I've worked in predominantly male environments and employees can be old guys, young guys, fathers, grandfathers, new joiners or long servers. I don't look at people suspiciously but at the same time am never surprised at who may be in front of me.
I've seen a switch in strategy over recent years.
Was at a meeting where head of HR turned up and started to bang on about their new method of identifying groups of employees who need to be looked at more closely.
Traditionally, those identified would have been the bottom third in terms of performance (sales in most cases) but now their focus was on annual appraisal grades. However, not the poor performers but those in the middle who had not improved year on year.
The message was that our staff who did not improve would be the ones to manage out of the business.
managing out of the business was the key phrase and why, I suspect, that you see more people on disciplinary measures.
Was at a meeting where head of HR turned up and started to bang on about their new method of identifying groups of employees who need to be looked at more closely.
Traditionally, those identified would have been the bottom third in terms of performance (sales in most cases) but now their focus was on annual appraisal grades. However, not the poor performers but those in the middle who had not improved year on year.
The message was that our staff who did not improve would be the ones to manage out of the business.
managing out of the business was the key phrase and why, I suspect, that you see more people on disciplinary measures.
And that sounds highly suspicious - if not downright illegal.
"Managing out of the business" implies that management are planning on selecting a particular person so that they can get rid of them IN ADVANCE of them doing anything wrong or failing in some meaningful way.
"Not improving" is far too woolly a concept unless the employment contract states specifically what it means by "improvement".
"Managing out of the business" implies that management are planning on selecting a particular person so that they can get rid of them IN ADVANCE of them doing anything wrong or failing in some meaningful way.
"Not improving" is far too woolly a concept unless the employment contract states specifically what it means by "improvement".
Eric Mc said:
And that sounds highly suspicious - if not downright illegal.
"Managing out of the business" implies that management are planning on selecting a particular person so that they can get rid of them IN ADVANCE of them doing anything wrong or failing in some meaningful way.
"Not improving" is far too woolly a concept unless the employment contract states specifically what it means by "improvement".
'Managing out' was pretty much as you put it, set high standards, fail to meet, disciplinary, tarar!"Managing out of the business" implies that management are planning on selecting a particular person so that they can get rid of them IN ADVANCE of them doing anything wrong or failing in some meaningful way.
"Not improving" is far too woolly a concept unless the employment contract states specifically what it means by "improvement".
'Not improving' easily measured against annual appraisal scores.
My industry has always been ruthless but I feel that this has become more organised over recent years.
Sharted said:
.
to manage out of the business.
I've heard this phrase used in the financial sector a lot. The business pattern of the banks and insurance companies is to outsource all the clerical, middle management, account management, sales, IT support and customer support to subcontractors. to manage out of the business.
The result is men and women in comfortable positions with reasonable salaries, very good pensions, good holidays that became great holidays with time served, bonuses, commission, profit shares and share issues lost the lot and found themselves redundant and having to take the same position for the new contractor on merely a basic wage 30% to 40% less than before, 4 weeks holiday a year and a 3+3% pension. Worse still these guys are expected to work harder, process more paperwork, deal with more customer calls, manage greater efficiency, sell more product and yet meet ever more stringent and stringently audited KPIs.
Without bonuses and commission to motivate a demotivated workforce HR are no stranger to the threat "those who don't up their game will be managed out the business.
The sad thing is the guys who drive this and drive it hard don't seem to suffer the same drop in renumeration, quite the contrary. Their salaries, bonuses, pensions, profit shares and share issues are going through the roof.
Sharted said:
'Managing out' was pretty much as you put it, set high standards, fail to meet, disciplinary, tarar!
'Not improving' easily measured against annual appraisal scores.
My industry has always been ruthless but I feel that this has become more organised over recent years.
If a person fails to meet the standard required they don't need to be "managed out". You just tell them after their probationary period that they failed to reach the standard required.'Not improving' easily measured against annual appraisal scores.
My industry has always been ruthless but I feel that this has become more organised over recent years.
"Not improving" seems to indicate "moving the goalposts". If a person HAS met the standard required, why do they need to "improve" beyond what that standard is?
If management keeps "upping the ante" then management are poor managers and maybe they should sack themselves as they don't seem to know what the job really requires.
It all sounds like a licence for bully boys (and bully girls) to throw their weight about.
Sharted said:
'Not improving' easily measured against annual appraisal scores.
So the person doing an appraisal gets a strong hint that Bloggs appraisal must reflect Bloggs perceived failure to improve. Then it's the task of the person doing the appraisal to make sure the individual ratings add up to the desired grade.davepoth said:
Seen a couple, been involved in a couple.
The way I see it, a lot of it has to do with perception; if someone is seen as "good" by management then they have to do an awful lot of crap stuff before that opinion starts to change. Similarly someone judged as "bad" can hardly afford to put a foot wrong.
Sometimes that perception is justified, sometimes it isn't. But management's view is often quite out of kilter with that of the average shop floor person.
This is especially common in the public sector despite the perception that no-one is ever sacked in the public sector, especially in female jobs where the the management team have been appointed on a time served basis and the the cliques etc are at play... The way I see it, a lot of it has to do with perception; if someone is seen as "good" by management then they have to do an awful lot of crap stuff before that opinion starts to change. Similarly someone judged as "bad" can hardly afford to put a foot wrong.
Sometimes that perception is justified, sometimes it isn't. But management's view is often quite out of kilter with that of the average shop floor person.
your choice of union or professional membership organisation can be quite interesting in these settings and scenarios - especially where the TU convenor is a full time convenor being paid by the employer to do the work of the TU...
Dr Jekyll said:
So the person doing an appraisal gets a strong hint that Bloggs appraisal must reflect Bloggs perceived failure to improve. Then it's the task of the person doing the appraisal to make sure the individual ratings add up to the desired grade.
Absolutely - changing the goalposts so the "victim" they went rid off hasn't a hope of matching the supposed "improvements" that were expected of him/her.It stinks.
We have the concept of "managing out" in my company. I am in the US so things are different though. In fact they do not understand the concept of redundancy being the role and not the person. But, managing out is based on a constant shifting of the goal posts. The idea is that as a company evolves the person has to evolve with it. The idea is that what was good practice last year probably isn't good enough next year.
I must say though that HR do not intend it to be a witch hunt on employees. It's meant to be the opposite. The focus is on the term "managing". If an employee isn't developing in their role then the first assumption is that they are not being managed. A plan is put in place to put the employee back on track and it has to be reasonable and quantitative. Then if the employee doesn't make the required improvements then the plan is switched to an exit strategy.
There is a very big difference between a good HR and a bad HR. They help create the culture of a business. It is unfortunate that, my experience shows, good ones are rare. The company I work for just had the loss of the senior HR Director and over night there was a shift in culture for the worse. Not that the current one created it. More that she doesn't have the respect of the President to prevent it.
I must say though that HR do not intend it to be a witch hunt on employees. It's meant to be the opposite. The focus is on the term "managing". If an employee isn't developing in their role then the first assumption is that they are not being managed. A plan is put in place to put the employee back on track and it has to be reasonable and quantitative. Then if the employee doesn't make the required improvements then the plan is switched to an exit strategy.
There is a very big difference between a good HR and a bad HR. They help create the culture of a business. It is unfortunate that, my experience shows, good ones are rare. The company I work for just had the loss of the senior HR Director and over night there was a shift in culture for the worse. Not that the current one created it. More that she doesn't have the respect of the President to prevent it.
Eric Mc said:
"Not improving" seems to indicate "moving the goalposts". If a person HAS met the standard required, why do they need to "improve" beyond what that standard is?
The Standard changes. I work as a surveyor for a company that provides or arranges surveys of Social and Privately rented properties to ensure they meet their SHQS standards. I've worked with surveyors and service engineers who provide Condition Reports, EPCs, Gas Safety Checks, Asbestos Surveys and Repair Requirements Schedules of Work not to mention the various trades who carry out said works. In the old days you could get away with being a lazy bugger, not now. I recon about 2005-2006 efficiency drives got most workers to a point where employers were getting a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. Workers then had to up the anti, and did the job making targets by getting to the office for 8.00am and out to site for 8.30, skipping lunch (a sandwich in the car or van)finishing at five and writing up reports back home in their own time. That wasn't enough. Now they are cutting corners and failing to meet client set contractual KPIs. They are in the position that if they aren't meeting these new targets they are "managed out" the door and if an unfortunate set of circumstances conspire to someone being caught cutting corners (which off the record they are instructed to do) they are sacked for misconduct. Hopefully this will change as the economy picks and the workers find themselves in a sellers' market. When it does happen though I recon there is going to be a massive drop in national productivity as workers wont tolerate these working conditions for a nano-second as soon as an other construction company down the road is looking for staff and that drop in productivity will be miles before increased wages and better T&Cs are factored into the account.
Tannedbaldhead said:
Why are so many decent people subject disciplinary hearings?
On the basis of my depressing observations I'd say it's part of the strategic derailing of highly competent workers so the self-promoting gobs
tes that are favoured by the board on account of their superior arse-licking abilities aren't obstructed in their rise to the top.Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff