You are fired

[Moederloos]

Why are those three words in SA taboo?
Why are employers not simply allowed to get rid of the bad?

The usual arguments abound - "the poor person will be out of work" etc etc.

But surely, the good staff will be kept and the rubbish tossed to the curb.
And, how many companies suffer financial drain due to the rubbish they are forced to keep? At what cost to the company in terms of lost job opportunities?

Look at Radebe - endless lies, a badly flawed system, allegations of flawed tenders, and yet he remains in office?

The economy would be a whole deal healthier if we allowed those three words "You are fired".

 

[sox63]

Why are those three words in SA taboo?
Why are employers not simply allowed to get rid of the bad?

The usual arguments abound - "the poor person will be out of work" etc etc.

But surely, the good staff will be kept and the rubbish tossed to the curb.
And, how many companies suffer financial drain due to the rubbish they are forced to keep? At what cost to the company in terms of lost job opportunities?

Look at Radebe - endless lies, a badly flawed system, allegations of flawed tenders, and yet he remains in office?

The economy would be a whole deal healthier if we allowed those three words "You are fired".

The CCMA, COSATU will be up their @sses so quickly, it will make their head spin.

 

[Bageloo]

Why are those three words in SA taboo?
Why are employers not simply allowed to get rid of the bad?

The usual arguments abound - "the poor person will be out of work" etc etc.

But surely, the good staff will be kept and the rubbish tossed to the curb.
And, how many companies suffer financial drain due to the rubbish they are forced to keep? At what cost to the company in terms of lost job opportunities?

Look at Radebe - endless lies, a badly flawed system, allegations of flawed tenders, and yet he remains in office?

The economy would be a whole deal healthier if we allowed those three words "You are fired".

There are legitimate ways of firing non-perfomers...appraisal -> unsatisfactory perfomance -> perfomance management -> appraisal -> unsatisfactory perfomance -> fire his ass...

 

[dominic]

kind of different when it comes to Ministers - not so much a case of being fired as the doctrine of ministerial accountability and the honour to fall on your sword when you have been caught with your fingers in the till or up to your elbows in the incompetence jar

 

[Moederloos]

There are legitimate ways of firing non-perfomers...appraisal -> unsatisfactory perfomance -> perfomance management -> appraisal -> unsatisfactory perfomance -> fire his ass...

My question is do we need this "legitimate" process? The good people don't - unless they work for corrupt people, and the good people tend to move on from there.

 

[Bageloo]

My question is do we need this "legitimate" process? The good people don't - unless they work for corrupt people, and the good people tend to move on from there.

Yes we do otherwise bad people can fire good people for no apparent reason.
Good employers hire good performers and rarely have to fire people for non perfomance.

The president can fire a minister because those are executive appointments but it's ussually called cabinet reshuffling.

 

[Gothan]

My wife use to work as a senior kitchen manager at a restuarant, and believe me, she had hell. They could not fire someone, unless they gave that person, 3 written warning for the same offence. And the person in question had to sign at each written warning, if they did not want to sign, there was an entire process to go through yet again.

And the unions! They are the rudest bunch of people under this sun. My words to them is...go get a real job, oh wait, you are doing what you are qualified for....nothing

 

[Moederloos]

My wife use to work as a senior kitchen manager at a restuarant, and believe me, she had hell. They could not fire someone, unless they gave that person, 3 written warning for the same offence. And the person in question had to sign at each written warning, if they did not want to sign, there was an entire process to go through yet again.

And the unions! They are the rudest bunch of people under this sun. My words to them is...go get a real job, oh wait, you are doing what you are qualified for....nothing

This higlights my argument. Why should so much effort be undergone to support a person who obviously should be fired?
Just looking around, there is a major shortage of good people - any company would be only too happy to cling tight to the good staff - and the bad? well, they can be tossed to the wind.

 

[USZA]

This higlights my argument. Why should so much effort be undergone to support a person who obviously should be fired?
Just looking around, there is a major shortage of good people - any company would be only too happy to cling tight to the good staff - and the bad? well, they can be tossed to the wind.

The disciplinary process is there to help to correct the actions of errant employees. The employer has to give the employee a fair chance to make good on his actions; at the same time, the employer much manage that employee's performance - so, there's an accountability on both sides to get up to an acceptable performance level. This is a process that is fair to both parties, and should it not work out in the employee's favour, the employer will have every right to dismiss them, and will have covered all their bases at the same time.

 

[USZA]

The disciplinary process is there to help to correct the actions of errant employees. The employer has to give the employee a fair chance to make good on his actions; at the same time, the employer much manage that employee's performance - so, there's an accountability on both sides to get up to an acceptable performance level. This is a process that is fair to both parties, and should it not work out in the employee's favour, the employer will have every right to dismiss them, and will have covered all their bases at the same time.

If you come to think about it, this whole process hinges on a single principle in business - CYA (Cover Your @ss).

 

[Bageloo]

This higlights my argument. Why should so much effort be undergone to support a person who obviously should be fired?
Just looking around, there is a major shortage of good people - any company would be only too happy to cling tight to the good staff - and the bad? well, they can be tossed to the wind.

There are offences for which immidiate dismissal is warranted, eg. misconduct in most forms. For those, no written warning is necessary. A DC hearing is all it takes and if a person is found guilty they are dismissed...right there and then. I used to chair a lot of DC hearings whilst working for Telkom
and the unions sometimes make the decision to fire someone easier through their stubborness and their unwillingness or inability to mitigate...
Porn, sexual harrasment, isubordination, theft, fraud, were amongst the most popular offences

 

[kaspaas]

If you dare to fire a baddie the right way, he will most probably be bad enough to take you to the CCMA.

Going to the CCMA means a lot of trouble. It is many hours wasted in preparation and hearings, and a lot of energy down the drain.

Not to speak about lawyer bills etc.

The best is to hire as few as possible people.

 

[bekdik]

The disciplinary process is there to help to correct the actions of errant employees. The employer has to give the employee a fair chance to make good on his actions; at the same time, the employer much manage that employee's performance - so, there's an accountability on both sides to get up to an acceptable performance level. This is a process that is fair to both parties, and should it not work out in the employee's favour, the employer will have every right to dismiss them, and will have covered all their bases at the same time.

The disciplinary process is there to protect the butts of people who will be sued in a litigent society.