Managing someone out

[Countdown]

lyonspride said:

They're all toothless politicians puppets now, the govt made sure of that in the 1980's, and the obvious thing is ACAS, but don't even get started on that shower of sh*t, their sole purpose seems to be to help companies to avoid legal action when they mistreat employees.
The whole concept of a career for life, what a load of nonsense.

1. Confused - why are Union reps "politicians puppets"?

Agreed that Unions in the private sector are weaker than they used to be. However that doesn't mean they can't hold employers to account for behaviour that is potentially illegal.

[ferrariF50lover]

lyonspride said:

before two years you have no rights, none.

It's perhaps prudent to make the point that this isn't true, that we enjoy today significantly greater protection than in the past, and to express sadness that anyone in Britain would feel so powerless.

[lyonspride]

ferrariF50lover said:

lyonspride said:

before two years you have no rights, none.

It's perhaps prudent to make the point that this isn't true, that we enjoy today significantly greater protection than in the past, and to express sadness that anyone in Britain would feel so powerless.

Look it up, within 2 years they can kick you out without any notice or reason..... You can't do anything like claiming "unfair dismissal" until you've been employed for 103 weeks, which means that effectively they can do whatever they want.


All they have to do is make up a reason and give you notice of termination, you cannot even appeal it.

Edited by lyonspride on Thursday 1st November 12:34

[Antony Moxey]

lyonspride said:

bad company said:

lyonspride said:

They're all toothless politicians puppets now, the conservative govt made sure of that in the 1980's

That had to happen, the unions were far too powerful in the 1970’s.

Yeah I can't disagree, but now you get a job and with no warning or reason your gone in under two years, because before two years you have no rights, none. And in the engineering field, your seen as a necessary evil which needs to be gotten rid of as soon as the need passes.

What utter nonsense. I don’t know one single person who’s had their employment terminated after less than two years’ service. Don’t let that massive chip on your shoulder make you come up with ridiculous generalisations that are patently wrong.

[bad company]

lyonspride said:

Yeah I can't disagree, but now you get a job and with no warning or reason your gone in under two years, because before two years you have no rights, none. And in the engineering field, your seen as a necessary evil which needs to be gotten rid of as soon as the need passes.

If you’re good at your job you’ll make yourself indispensable. That’s what you need to do.

[Flooble]

Antony Moxey said:

lyonspride said:

bad company said:

lyonspride said:

They're all toothless politicians puppets now, the conservative govt made sure of that in the 1980's

That had to happen, the unions were far too powerful in the 1970’s.

Yeah I can't disagree, but now you get a job and with no warning or reason your gone in under two years, because before two years you have no rights, none. And in the engineering field, your seen as a necessary evil which needs to be gotten rid of as soon as the need passes.

What utter nonsense. I don’t know one single person who’s had their employment terminated after less than two years’ service. Don’t let that massive chip on your shoulder make you come up with ridiculous generalisations that are patently wrong.

Sadly I do. I even know of managers who expressed contentment that they didn't have to make much effort as the people being terminated (there was more than one occurrence, at more than one firm, with more than one manager) had been employed for less than two years.

Generalisations cut both ways.

You are correct that there are some rights, but they are pretty limited when you consider the circumstances in which a lot of people live. I remember managing to argue for someone four weeks' notice instead of their statutory one week. When people are living pay cheque to pay cheque that is a huge difference to them.

[lyonspride]

bad company said:

lyonspride said:

Yeah I can't disagree, but now you get a job and with no warning or reason your gone in under two years, because before two years you have no rights, none. And in the engineering field, your seen as a necessary evil which needs to be gotten rid of as soon as the need passes.

If you’re good at your job you’ll make yourself indispensable. That’s what you need to do.

That's why I need to get out of engineering, these companies are run by people who don't share that technical knowledge, don't understand it and often play it down as being "simple, anyone can do it" and dispensable, I find this is always the attitude in companies where the office staff assume superiority over everyone else. It's not helped by the misuse of the title "engineer" in this country, which makes us look like low skilled spanner monkeys.

Flooble said:

You are correct that there are some rights,.

Yea you have rights, on paper.... But just try exercising those rights and it'll be instant dismissal.

Edited by lyonspride on Thursday 1st November 12:59

[Flooble]

bad company said:

lyonspride said:

Yeah I can't disagree, but now you get a job and with no warning or reason your gone in under two years, because before two years you have no rights, none. And in the engineering field, your seen as a necessary evil which needs to be gotten rid of as soon as the need passes.

If you’re good at your job you’ll make yourself indispensable. That’s what you need to do.

Doesn't guarantee you are safe. I was finished by one firm and replaced by a guy on half the wage. He could do maybe 20% of the job, but management still judged that to be cost-effective.

[princeperch]

As an employment lawyer let me assure you that I have seen plenty of people binned off just under the 2 year mark specifically because the employer could and they didn't want them to gain employment rights.

[Countdown]

Flooble said:

Doesn't guarantee you are safe. I was finished by one firm and replaced by a guy on half the wage. He could do maybe 20% of the job, but management still judged that to be cost-effective.

Devil's advocate - isn't that management's right (and purpose)?

In other words they need to deliver a certain service for as low a cost as possible. Whilst your replacement was only doing 20% of the job, maybe that was all that was required? And if the 20% is insufficient then it will be management who bear the responsibility.

[lyonspride]

Countdown said:

Flooble said:

Doesn't guarantee you are safe. I was finished by one firm and replaced by a guy on half the wage. He could do maybe 20% of the job, but management still judged that to be cost-effective.

Devil's advocate - isn't that management's right (and purpose)?

In other words they need to deliver a certain service for as low a cost as possible. Whilst your replacement was only doing 20% of the job, maybe that was all that was required? And if the 20% is insufficient then it will be management who bear the responsibility.

Responsibility? Not sure management really take any responsibility these days, most likely in that situation they'll blame the new guy, warn him and the replace him. A lot of the time when someone is replaced by someone on a lower wage, it's because the management don't understand the job and in their heads it doesn't require any skill.

[Countdown]

lyonspride said:

Responsibility? Not sure management really take any responsibility these days, most likely in that situation they'll blame the new guy, warn him and the replace him. A lot of the time when someone is replaced by someone on a lower wage, it's because the management don't understand the job and in their heads it doesn't require any skill.

But surely that would only work in the short term? In the long term it means the Company going out of business (if profits < costs).

I'm sure there are occasions where Managers don't necessarily understand what the job entails, but that's not ALWAYS the case. And if they didn't understand it enough to be able to do their jobs then, sooner or later, they'll get found out.

[StanleyT]

Coin Slot. said:

I can't believe this topic has got to 5 pages and the OP hasn't even been back on to make further comment.

OP managed himself off on holiday more like!

Anyway, annoying tt has resigned, to go somewhere else for "more money" where he'll feel valued. Apparently he was let go there and then on the day, pass removed etc etc, he was almost crying when he "wanted to go and say goodbye to his friends".

There is already in HR the O/T threat letter already and a poorly written "letter before action" for sick pay owed? (he was paid all as far as HR are aware, sneaky bugger used to be ill for just enough time to self certify). Five day flu.

[StanleyT]

lyonspride said:

Lenovo said:

This has been an interesting read for me as I was on the other side of the fence and was successfully managed out. It started when my then OH at the time suffered a bit of a mental break down. I was really struggling to try and look after her and do my job. The section head told me to go my GP and get signed off for stress so I could look after my OH. I did this but when I subsequently returned to work it was clear my Line Manager now wanted rid of me.

Classic management paranoia.

There was a young lady I worked with in my last job, a part time purchaser, she was off sick for 6 weeks following a major operation, during this time one of the managers was making noise that she was "taking the piss" and wasn't sick at all, people were starting to listen to this BS and I was getting really angry about it. I got sick of sitting in on meetings and having to hear all this BS.

By the time she got back, her manager was convinced that she'd never been sick at all and started giving her heavy manual tasks to do (like doing stock checks in the warehouse, away from her usual desk job), she actually opened her wound at one point, blood everywhere and yet manager was convinced she was faking it. Eventually they got rid of her.......

The OP on this thread also sounds like paranoia too. Imagine being that guy, being unwell, knowing everyone thinks your taking the piss and then walking into the toilets to find your colleagues have hidden all the toilet paper, it's not exactly going to motivate you is it?

If you were that unwell, that frequently, wouldn't you either get a GPs note to help prove to your employer you were genuine, or take up the companies offer of private health treatment. The fact that the employee didn't speaks volumes I'd say. Anyway, he's gone so he knows he was found out or would be managed out. So he is happy as he found somewhere better apparently for more money and we're happy. The mood in the department he was in is much better know, amazing how one person brings everyone down to their level.

[StanleyT]

StanleyT said:

Sticking "Here is the desk for Matt, we remember you, you big Fat Lazy G&y Sh!!ting Yourself Fake Tw!T" will get us straight on a tribunal I guess?

Shame we never got to do that. One of the staff mentioned at NewCo that it was a shame he was put straight on gardening leave, they'd got him a 48 pack of loo roll for a leaving present! That would have got us in trouble I guess!

Funny thing is, until three years ago when he retired we used to have a pretty senior (one or two levels below FSTE plc board equivalent) manager whom handled the personnel type things - if you were called into his office it meant one of three things a) You were going to get seconded to "that site" way down South, b) You could leave with three envelopes - your reference, your months notice, however much extra was being bunged your way to go or c) you could leave with nothing if you insisted in which case security would escort you out via the fire escape. Pretty much everyone choose b). Life was so much simpler when the rules were clear and employees weren't skivying snowflakes.

[bad company]

princeperch said:

As an employment lawyer let me assure you that I have seen plenty of people binned off just under the 2 year mark specifically because the employer could and they didn't want them to gain employment rights.

I’m sure that’s true but the vast majority of employees get past the 2 year mark because they’re valued by their employers.

[Flooble]

Countdown said:

Flooble said:

Doesn't guarantee you are safe. I was finished by one firm and replaced by a guy on half the wage. He could do maybe 20% of the job, but management still judged that to be cost-effective.

Devil's advocate - isn't that management's right (and purpose)?

In other words they need to deliver a certain service for as low a cost as possible. Whilst your replacement was only doing 20% of the job, maybe that was all that was required? And if the 20% is insufficient then it will be management who bear the responsibility.

You could easily argue that however, I happen to know they ended up having several project blow ups and having to hire in contract resource. Didn't go under, but certainly wasn't a good place to be. As pointed out somewhere or other, paying someone £40K to bring in £150k if cost-effective. Paying someone £20K to bring in nothing isn't.

[Countdown]

Flooble said:

You could easily argue that however, I happen to know they ended up having several project blow ups and having to hire in contract resource. Didn't go under, but certainly wasn't a good place to be. As pointed out somewhere or other, paying someone £40K to bring in £150k if cost-effective. Paying someone £20K to bring in nothing isn't.

Agreed - and that’s absolutely in the manager’s interests as well. Managers want an easy life and they’re usually prepared to pay a bit extra for it. It is completely not in their interests to pay as little as possible and then have to deal with the cock-ups.

The issue is that some workers think they are worth X when the manager thinks they are worth X-5. In this case the best solution is for both to go their separate ways and both will get what they are rightly owed. What is annoying for both is for the employee to be stuck in a job that they don’t want and the manager to be stuck with an Employee they don’t rate but can’t get rid of.

[Flooble]

Countdown said:

Agreed - and that’s absolutely in the manager’s interests as well. Managers want an easy life and they’re usually prepared to pay a bit extra for it. It is completely not in their interests to pay as little as possible and then have to deal with the cock-ups.

The issue is that some workers think they are worth X when the manager thinks they are worth X-5. In this case the best solution is for both to go their separate ways and both will get what they are rightly owed. What is annoying for both is for the employee to be stuck in a job that they don’t want and the manager to be stuck with an Employee they don’t rate but can’t get rid of.

Yep, agree, however, I see far too many short-term short-sighted managers (and I say that having been in a position both above and below said managers) who simply cannot see past the end of the month or quarter.

I also have seen, especially in software and creative industries, firms operating by promising people that they might start out on a low salary but if they put in the effort they'll get rewarded - and then jettisoning them at the 1.5-2 year mark. I know too many places who seem to make it a habit of getting people in, promising them the earth, then dumping them before they get expensive.

[lyonspride]

StanleyT said:

If you were that unwell, that frequently, wouldn't you either get a GPs note to help prove to your employer you were genuine, or take up the companies offer of private health treatment. The fact that the employee didn't speaks volumes I'd say.

GP notes are not that easy to get, because GPs don't want the come back from it.
In fact I think they only do "fit notes" now, to say when your fit to return to work, and these are for sickness of more than 7 days.

And perhaps he just values his privacy and has enough BS at work, without it creeping into his personal life?
Managers are part of the business, but most employees feel like hired help (of no value) and that is the way they view work.

StanleyT said:

There is already in HR the O/T threat letter already and a poorly written "letter before action" for sick pay owed? (he was paid all as far as HR are aware, sneaky bugger used to be ill for just enough time to self certify). Five day flu.

I've seen people get disciplinary action for taking 1 or 2 days off, the assumption being that 1 or 2 days is not enough, especially if it's a Monday. If i'm off with sickness or flu, It's at least 3 days, possibly a week, the more I hate work the longer I take off, the more unappreciated my efforts are, the longer I take off.
You reep what you sow when it comes to employee motivation.

Many years ago I used to go into work early, leave late, work through breaks, work weekends for no pay, used my car to help the company move buildings, but since then i've been sh*t on so many times throughout my career by management that made ridiculous assumptions, that I now just separate work from home, I work to the clock and when I go home, they can all f**k off.
I don't care about the money, but if they want overtime they have to pay on principle. Hard work doesn't get you anywhere, talking BS and kissing arse does.

Now i'm not suggesting the guy from OP was good/bad, i'm suggesting generally that perhaps if people looked at things from the other persons perspective once in a while and stopped making assumptions about peoples motives, then perhaps all these costly and unproductive actions could be avoided.

Edited by lyonspride on Friday 2nd November 09:55