employers - most common reasons to let people go?

Robsweezie

To the employers on here, what are the most common reasons you've had to pull the plug on an employee?

endacl

Varying degrees of useless.

tomwaits48

Repeated unverified sick leave

RedXIV

I wouldn't let people go if they were trying but hadn't the ability, I'd try and transfer them if possible or at least put them on an improvement plan.

Generally I try to get rid of people if they aren't actively trying to contribute. You can be perfectly punctual, polite, well groomed but basically add nothing and have no intention of trying to and that grinds my gears.

the_syco

As an employee, have seen those that were either useless or had multiple unverified sick leave.

Have also seen a few of the those who repeatedly break said rules claim not knowing the rules, but in fact knowing the rules very well when the company tries to get rid of them. They often formally quit on their own accord just before getting fired so that being fired is not on their record.

Have seen the useless get to know members of HR, and become "invincible" to all improvement plans, or warnings by their managers.

gordongekko

the_syco wrote: »

Have seen the useless get to know members of HR, and become "invincible" to all improvement plans, or warnings by their managers.

Brilliant tip thanks for that

Irish_Elect_Eng

A quick chat with my 2 mates and this is what we came up with for places that we know of:

[

*]No work for the employee. (Number One reason by a long way)
[*]Breach of Health and Safety Rules, putting themselves or others at risk. (Forklift racing, carrying a knife at work, working at heights/hot-work without a permit, etc)
[*]Various Breaches of Contract.
[*]Inability to fulfill contract
[*]Poor performance over an extended period of time or multiple assignments.
[*]Lying about qualifications
[*]Theft, (From stealing physical items from other employees to expense fraud)
[*]Drinking and Drunk at work, High and taking drugs at work.
[*]Interpersonal Conflict Verbal, Psychological and Physical between employees (Bullying & Harassment)
[*]Unapproved Absences from the workplace.
[*]Extremely bad timekeeping over an extended period of time.
[*]Working two jobs and exceeding a safe number of working hours.
[*]Personal Hygiene
[*]And my favourite, Fired for an inability to find own arse with both hands.


And as mentioned, many people are offered the "opportunity" off the record to leave before being sacked so that they can move on without having a dismissal on record. This also protects the company "somewhat" against unfair dismissal claims. This seems to be pretty common practice.

homewardbound11

Promote them to middle management .

Robsweezie

is there a difference between firing and letting one go?

I say this because my understanding would be if an employee is well meaning, but sloppy and making tons of mistakes, and just not right for the company, then you'd ''let them go''. and its fairly amicable. along with redundancy.

if its a case of misconduct like theft, turning up drunk or stoned, assaulting someone, absenteeism then that would be a firing?

Skatedude

"And my favourite, Fired for an inability to find own arse with both hands."

What if they only have one hand?

Avatar MIA

Robsweezie wrote: »

is there a difference between firing and letting one go?

I say this because my understanding would be if an employee is well meaning, but sloppy and making tons of mistakes, and just not right for the company, then you'd ''let them go''. and its fairly amicable. along with redundancy.

if its a case of misconduct like theft, turning up drunk or stoned, assaulting someone, absenteeism then that would be a firing?

That can only be used in specific circumstances and could come back to spectacularly bite you in the arse if used incorrectly.

livedadream

everything from turning up to drunk to function,

claiming they were pregnant (a male employee)

incompetence

long term sick leave

bullying harassment

breach of contract

theft/fraud

redundancy

person wasnt liked

hygiene issues

punching a member of the payroll team on a night out

gross misconduct

refusing to attend work

sleeping at your desk

the list is endless....

my personal favourite is the gentleman whom i worked with in a call centre who claimed he was pregnant.

Avatar MIA

livedadream wrote: »

my personal favourite is the gentleman whom i worked with in a call centre who claimed he was pregnant.

This guy deserves a promotion!

Eoin

I've not had to do it, but the most common reason I've seen is just not being up to the job. Sometimes there's only so much you can find out in the interview process.

Robsweezie wrote: »

is there a difference between firing and letting one go?

I say this because my understanding would be if an employee is well meaning, but sloppy and making tons of mistakes, and just not right for the company, then you'd ''let them go''. and its fairly amicable. along with redundancy.

if its a case of misconduct like theft, turning up drunk or stoned, assaulting someone, absenteeism then that would be a firing?

Theres a big difference between firing someone and making someone redundant ("letting someone go" is a vague term that can be used for either scenario).

When you make them redundant, it means that the role no longer exists and you're not supposed to replace that person. Some companies try and get around this by hiring another person to do the same job but with a different job title, but it's pretty dodgy.

If someone is making tons of mistakes and is not a good fit, then they need to be fired so you can replace them, but then you need to go through the disciplinary procedures (if they're there longer than a year, I think). You can still try and do it amicably - they finish immediately but get paid their notice period and a reference etc.

cml387

Once we had a guy who turned up on day one under the weather (hungover), fell asleep during the induction course and then abused the trainer when she woke him up. He lasted until after lunchtime. Later that week he phoned us up looking for expenses so he could go back to the uk.

Mrs OBumble

There's a 3rd scenario: if a fixed term contract is coming to an end, and the person is ok: just good enough do to the job but you think you could get better, so don't bother trying keep them on.

I've seen this a lot with contractors / fixed-termers in IT, where it can be hard to distinguish between "no more work" and "no more work for you".

JackHeuston

livedadream wrote: »

claiming they were pregnant (a male employee)

What.

kazamo

The need to maintain profit margins.
Let some of them go and the cost of the redundancy is charged to a corporate cost centre and the remaining staff have to do a bit more.
Move on a couple of older staff at the end of every quarter\half year to keep costs down as newer younger staff cost less.

Eoin

kazamo wrote: »

Move on a couple of older staff at the end of every quarter\half year to keep costs down as newer younger staff cost less.

If the older people have a longer period of service, they're more expensive to make redundant. They're often the last to be made redundant for this reason.

kazamo

Eoin wrote: »

If the older people have a longer period of service, they're more expensive to make redundant. They're often the last to be made redundant for this reason.

Not if the company operates a corporate restructuring cost centre, then the local subsidiary didn't bare the brunt of the costs.
Saw it in operation for over five years, then the cost centre was closed and redundancies diminished considerably, but magically returned for large scale redundancies.

Stock markets like the idea of large scale job cuts, profit margins enhanced in the medium term as a result.

livedadream

JackHeuston wrote: »

What.

two women in his department were taking their afternoons for pregnancy related things (appointments and the like which the company pay for)

he approached me said it was discrimination against men because they couldn't get pregnant that they got extra paid time off.

I laughed it off, noted his complaint but then two weeks letter he produced a fairly impressive Dr's letter saying he was up the duff and letters showing his future appointments.

I literally almost started crying at my desk, he said he was going to take me all the way to the high court for discrimination that he told me he was pregnant and i didnt take him seriously etc etc he would name and shame me and make loads of money.

in the end i sent him to the company Dr (which is procedure for preggers women, risk assessment, they have a free Dr then if they need), who thought i needed a psychiatric evaluation after i told him the reason for the appointment.

Me: Hi Dr's receptionist, can i get an appointment for John Smith one of my lads there for as soon as possible.
receptionist: sure its at blaaa time and date: ill put you though for the briefing
Dr: hi Livedadream hows life etc etc etc what can I do ya for?what are we checking for, long or short appointment, anything you wana let me know in advance?
Me: Eh yeah, he's pregnant?
Dr: okaaayyy maybe you should pop in first, for a little check up, have you been feeling very stressed lately? sleeping okay?
Me: yearah im grand but no seriously i have what i think is a fake GP's note saying he's preggers so can you lie him down and just show him the massive stick you use to give early ultrasounds that would be savage.
Dr: sure. report to follow after appointment.

turns out he thought it was hilarious to fake a GP's note and letters from his local hospital just to prove a point. lost his job soon after, he was investigated, found to be in breach of contract, attempted to commit fraud and gross misconduct.

i still think it was a seriously extreme way to prove a point.

Irish_Elect_Eng

Skatedude wrote: »

"And my favourite, Fired for an inability to find own arse with both hands."

What if they only have one hand?

If they had only one hand it would be difficult to fire them based on equality legislation.....

Mrs OBumble

livedadream wrote: »

turns out he thought it was hilarious to fake a GP's note and letters from his local hospital just to prove a point. lost his job soon after, he was investigated, found to be in breach of contract, attempted to commit fraud and gross misconduct.

Great story!

I think this points out something that's at the basis of most firing, though, and which many people don't realise about their jobs.

The stated reason may be something like sleeping on the job, hitting a colleague, stealing from the company - or a zillion other things. To the employee, the firing looks like a punishment for this action.

But really the firing is because the employer has lost trust in the person not to do it again, and isn't prepared to risk letting them lose in their building, with their stock, employees and customers any more.

If you think about it, employing staff is really frightening: you advertise, get applications and choose someone based on whatever front they can put on it an interview, some pieces of paper from 3rd level education, and telephone conversations with people you most likely never met. Then you give that person access to your building and systems - assuming that because you are paying them, they will look after you and your stuff.

Looked at this way, it's amazing that more people don't get fired.

Trust is the glue that holds all this together - and once it goes, so does your job.