Why are so many decent people subject disciplinary hearings

[Tannedbaldhead]

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?

[Tannedbaldhead]

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.

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.

[Tannedbaldhead]

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]

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.