I'd work out this "sick leave" problem with her ASAP and include it in any contract you may draw up.
In my opinion these days should be treated as "unpaid leave" and you have the right to be informed of them before not after they are taken.
I'd work out this "sick leave" problem with her ASAP and include it in any contract you may draw up.
In my opinion these days should be treated as "unpaid leave" and you have the right to be informed of them before not after they are taken.
What has happened so far:
Girlfriend called around (think the department of labour).... we had a contract drawn up, where we'll pay her R100/day - and then we pay her transport of R36, so, effectively R136/day (+1% on our side for UIF, -1% on her side for UIF). This would include one paid day sick leave for every 208 hours worked (26 days) and one days leave for the same. She will be given one working weeks notice, and paid on the first day of the next week (so we can calculate hours, etc) which she has to sign.
We then sat her down and explained everything to her - she was happy, and signed.
Week 1: Complains that she's not happy about being paid in arrears (which is normal, she wants to be paid in advance for each week).
Week 2: Not happy, as we are not treating her fair as she now has to work 8 hours a day, but she HAS to accept it else she doesn't have work
Week 3: Wants to go back to R150, not pay UIF and not have paid leave. (which actually means she gets paid less per year), and she'll work on public holidays for her R150. She actually wrote us a letter stating this and left it at the house.
I recon I'm giving her one week notice, enough time has been wasted -and she's obviously not right for the job, I'm sure there are better candidates.
There will always be people that will abuse there situation and then when they law is applied, because someone is not bringing their part, it is usually the person not bring their part that doesn't like the new arrangement.
Well - unfortunately - she has no choice now.... she wanted it, now she has it, and can live with it.
Right, she's gone.
Got home on Monday, she'd locked the one dog in the house, left the back door unlocked , threw away nails from an antique wine barrel I was restoring (which I told her to leave alone), and left the floors dirty.
We called her to ask her what she did in the 8 hours she was there, as there was no ironing - she washed the windows, that's it, she claimed she cleaned the floors, but my muddy footprints were still there. She'd been warned about leaving the house unlocked more than once, as our insurance won't pay if forced entry is not found, and its also the second time she'd locked a dog in house, with no water or food. She's also been told the dogs arn't allowed in the house.
So - gave her notice, cheers.
As far as I know, with part-time workers you only need to give them notice as per the contract, which was one week.
We've given her one weeks pay, and told her not to come again.
No I mean the lawyer who drew up the contract for her etc? (a bit of a waste of money now but guess you can use it for the next one and at least have it upfront)
I clean houses. How much you willing to pay?
BTW, as far as I know in the labor act there is a clause that states how many hours is considered full-time vs part time and how/where these things work (as well as overtime pay/public holidays etc)
Good luck in finding someone more reliable, not to sound negative, but I doubt you will. We've had about 6 employees go through and all of them were expecting to be paid for doing no or sloppy work. We paid them bonuses each week at let them go at 16:00 everyday since we required they be there for lunch (lunch periods usually the busiest). So they got the dept. of labor to visit my dad because they said he wasn't treating them fairly (re: the lunchtime) where he was up to scratch with everything else. The person who did the audit even started to go on about their pay where my dad showed her what they were getting incl. bonuses to which SHE replied it wasn't necessary, as long as he complied with the lunchtime rule.
So my dad said "fine". He stopped paying them bonuses and gave them a raise instead (like the labor chick recommended he do) which pushed them all into the next tax bracket (my dad knew this) and they got out R10 more than their original pay packet LESS the bonuses they used to get paid. Plus now, because they "have to take lunch", he requires them to work till 17:00 instead of 16:00 like their original agreement.
In this case the labor law screwed the employees, and rightly so. They're all too happy with whatever you give them, but they tend to bite the hand that feeds them more often than that. I don't exclude myself or anyone else from this either, sometimes you're blinded with your own ideas (and friends' opinions). But yea... good luck finding someone who won't do that...
Bookmarks