Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Staff issues

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Clara B
    Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭Clara B


    pilly wrote: »
    Ciara, would it be worth hiring an administrator/book-keeper, especially bearing in mind that you will have to take your own maternity leave at some stage? They could take a lot of the burden off you. Even a part-time one.


    Yes I am going to take that idea-i think even 20 hours a week would make a huge difference


  • Options
    #93
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Clara B wrote: »
    Yes I am going to take that idea-i think even 20 hours a week would make a huge difference

    It definitely will, you'd be so surprised. The burden someone can take away, especially if you get an all rounder who can do a bit of everything (in the office I mean). One of the biggest mistakes managers of businesses do is try to scrimp on admin staff and do it themselves but if you do you'll easily find you're spending 75% of your time on admin which is not why you went into business.


  • Options
    #94
    Clara B
    Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭Clara B


    pilly wrote: »
    It definitely will, you'd be so surprised. The burden someone can take away, especially if you get an all rounder who can do a bit of everything (in the office I mean). One of the biggest mistakes managers of businesses do is try to scrimp on admin staff and do it themselves but if you do you'll easily find you're spending 75% of your time on admin which is not why you went into business.

    I am very guilty of that I'm afraid. I think that I'll save a few quid so I do it myself and then things get put on the long finger when instances like sick leave happen.


  • Options
    #95
    Clara B
    Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭Clara B


    pilly wrote: »
    Yeah I would agree with screamer here, think about it if you were less than 6 months in a job would you be out sick? I wouldn't because you're still on trial. You can easily get rid of them. But the pregnant lady is a different story, she's more or less untouchable.

    Yes that seems to be the case-though how would you approach that. If someone has been out sick and produces a cert to cover the absence I can't do much in that situation. Would I not still have to follow the 3 warnings rule of thumb?


  • Options
    #96
    Clara B
    Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭Clara B


    Trojan wrote: »
    Don't mind the ultra-negatives on here, there's a core group that seem to get off on offering unconstructive criticism of anything that moves.

    But don't let that take away from the constructive criticism, that's where the gold is here.

    The business sounds less mis-managed, more like un-managed. You need to be able to pull yourself back from the day to day technician tasks - i.e. those that your staff do - and make sure you are spending time managing the business and looking at it from a high level view.

    You couldn't pay me enough to start a restaurant business. Long hours, staff issues, a lot of money tied up in assets, tight margins. Utmost respect for anyone who can make a success of it.

    I have PM'd details of a HR consultant who might be worth contacting. Best of luck with the business, give us an update after you've made some progress.

    Thanks so much for sending that-I really appreciate the helpðŸ‘ðŸ»


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,146 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Clara B wrote: »
    Yes that seems to be the case-though how would you approach that. If someone has been out sick and produces a cert to cover the absence I can't do much in that situation. Would I not still have to follow the 3 warnings rule of thumb?

    Remember you're not legally obliged to pay sick pay, simply state that you don't have a sick pay policy and it will soon enough sort out the wheat from the chaff. If they're back of house who are calling in sick all the time then they've no business belonging in the kitchen, consult with your head chef and find out what the issue is, if they don't tell you straight then they don't belong in the role either as they're your interface between the two


  • Options
    #98
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,518 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    duploelabs wrote: »
    Remember you're not legally obliged to pay sick pay, simply state that you don't have a sick pay policy and it will soon enough sort out the wheat from the chaff. If they're back of house who are calling in sick all the time then they've no business belonging in the kitchen, consult with your head chef and find out what the issue is, if they don't tell you straight then they don't belong in the role either as they're your interface between the two

    While you are not legally obliged to pay sick pay, you must enforce it in the same manner across all employees. you cannot just decide to not pay someone for an absence if you pay others who have been absent in the same way. To do so would be discriminatory. You must have a valid reason for withholding payment from one person, if you have a scheme in place.


  • Options
    #99
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Tell me how wrote: »
    While you are not legally obliged to pay sick pay, you must enforce it in the same manner across all employees. you cannot just decide to not pay someone for an absence if you pay others who have been absent in the same way. To do so would be discriminatory. You must have a valid reason for withholding payment from one person, if you have a scheme in place.

    On which of the 9 grounds would it be discriminatory?


  • Options
    #100
    storker
    Registered Users Posts: 5,644 ✭✭✭storker


    intheclouds wrote: »
    The kind of people who respond well to that question are either boring individuals who have no life outside work, liars or people who are desperate and will do anything for a job. Sounds like good staff alright :rolleyes:

    I have a life outside work, and a family, so I would be taken aback by such a question, and consider the possibility that the prospective employer is an exploitative chancer. No doubt others would too, which might backfire on the employer if he were to offer one of them the job.

    My answer to that would be...yes, I could do it, for a very limited time i.e. the 7 days, and there would need to be a good reason, and it would have to be adequately compensated.


  • Options
    #101
    storker
    Registered Users Posts: 5,644 ✭✭✭storker


    intheclouds wrote: »
    There are always people who insist on working through illness like Spartans.

    The those Spartans are cold-sufferers, they're a pain in the neck, because their "heroics" often end up other people getting it too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,518 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Graham wrote: »
    On which of the 9 grounds would it be discriminatory?

    Discrimination is defined as less favourable treatment. Maybe not specifically on one of the 9 grounds but in any way one employee is treated differently to others there needs to be a valid explanation for it.


  • Options
    #103
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Discrimination is defined as less favourable treatment. Maybe not specifically on one of the 9 grounds but in any way one employee is treated differently to others there needs to be a valid explanation for it.

    Employees are treated differently all the time. If I have 2 employees, it is generally my choice what terms I offer each and entirely their choice whether to accept those terms. As long as those terms are not discriminatory under one of the 9 grounds.


  • Options
    #104
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Discrimination is defined as less favourable treatment. Maybe not specifically on one of the 9 grounds but in any way one employee is treated differently to others there needs to be a valid explanation for it.

    So if one employee negotiates better terms for the same job is that discrimination?

    At op getting someone in to do admin would be a great move imo


  • Options
    #105
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Discrimination is defined as less favourable treatment.

    It's probably worth pointing out that discrimination is not illegal outside of the 9 defined grounds.

    I can decide to pay employee A double what I pay employee B based on his shoes being a nicer colour. I can discriminate based on shoe color.


  • Options
    #106
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,518 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Stheno wrote:
    So if one employee negotiates better terms for the same job is that discrimination?

    Absolutely not. The one who negotiated lesser terms were happy enough with their negotiations to sign up to it at the end of the negotiating term.


  • Options
    #107
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,518 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Graham wrote:
    Employees are treated differently all the time. If I have 2 employees, it is generally my choice what terms I offer each and entirely their choice whether to accept those terms. As long as those terms are not discriminatory under one of the 9 grounds.

    Yes. But if employees have signed up to the same terms then they cannot be treated differently.
    If you choose to offer different terms for employees doing the same job before you know how they will perform, that's your business.


  • Options
    #108
    Clara B
    Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭Clara B


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Yes. But if employees have signed up to the same terms then they cannot be treated differently.
    If you choose to offer different terms for employees doing the same job before you know how they will perform, that's your business.


    I wouldn't have very different terms for my employees. Barring the head chef they all start on the same rate of pay. Hours would be slightly different depending on their position. They are all told at interview that their performance will be reflected in their rate of pay. If they work well,do a good job and are reliable we will alter their hourly rate-I have done this with 2 employees who have been with me since the beginning and deserved an enhanced hourly rate.


  • Options
    #109
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,518 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Clara B wrote:
    I wouldn't have very different terms for my employees. Barring the head chef they all start on the same rate of pay. Hours would be slightly different depending on their position. They are all told at interview that their performance will be reflected in their rate of pay. If they work well,do a good job and are reliable we will alter their hourly rate-I have done this with 2 employees who have been with me since the beginning and deserved an enhanced hourly rate.

    That's normal and good practice in my view.


  • Options
    #110
    Clara B
    Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭Clara B


    duploelabs wrote: »
    Remember you're not legally obliged to pay sick pay, simply state that you don't have a sick pay policy and it will soon enough sort out the wheat from the chaff. If they're back of house who are calling in sick all the time then they've no business belonging in the kitchen, consult with your head chef and find out what the issue is, if they don't tell you straight then they don't belong in the role either as they're your interface between the two


    I don't pay sick leave. I have considered it but having worked in the public sector and hse I saw how abused the system was. If I pay for the first 2 days and then only pay after a cert is produced people will get the cert and stay out for the week to get full pay. If they have a medical card it has cost them nothing. We are working under the assumption that nobody is going to want to spend €50 on a doctor but that's not the case with a medical card.
    If excessive sick leave occurs within the first 6 months then how is it possible to get rid of them quickly. You would still need to follow procedure and give them their due warnings .
    Regarding the pregnant lady-her only sick leave occurs during pregnancy.


  • Options
    #111
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭intheclouds


    Clara B wrote: »
    I don't pay sick leave. I have considered it but having worked in the public sector and hse I saw how abused the system was. If I pay for the first 2 days and then only pay after a cert is produced people will get the cert and stay out for the week to get full pay. If they have a medical card it has cost them nothing. We are working under the assumption that nobody is going to want to spend €50 on a doctor but that's not the case with a medical card.
    If excessive sick leave occurs within the first 6 months then how is it possible to get rid of them quickly. You would still need to follow procedure and give them their due warnings .
    Regarding the pregnant lady-her only sick leave occurs during pregnancy.

    Public sector and HSE don't reflect private industry at all.

    I get paid sick leave. It used to be self certified for up to 5 days. As a result people only took as long as they needed. A new manager has implemented the requirement for a cert after 2 days. It's had exactly the effect you describe above. People pay for a doctor they get signed off for a week. Completely counterproductive. Treating staff like they're out to get you tends to result in them being out to get you!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    JohnRock
    Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭JohnRock


    intheclouds wrote: »
    Treating staff like they're out to get you tends to result in them being out to get you!

    very good point


  • Options
    #113
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    You can let anyone go under a year with no repeecusscions Ciara. You just tell them you don't think they're suitable. They have no comeback.


  • Options
    #114
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    pilly wrote: »
    You can let anyone go under a year with no repeecusscions Ciara. You just tell them you don't think they're suitable. They have no comeback.

    Absolutely do not do this...you need to have a process to deal with this. Unfair dismissals act states 12 months but with reference to a case involving Ebay, it cost them 12k to let go a employee with less than 12 months service without following a fair process.

    Clara, you can probably do the handbooks yourself, but you do need HR advice, you can get it anywhere these days, including from the business associations but it needs to be professional advice, otherwise you may get it wrong.

    Personally it sounds like you are doing a good job, its not easy to cover all the bases within your first 6 months, many restaurants are in trouble from the start with HR issues, vat compliance etc.

    Sickness is something you have to accept, but follow good procedure, back to work meetings, discussing any patterns in sick leave you have noticed, etc. The same with staff turnover, its natural your temp staff leave quickly, they are temp staff. But do what you can to keep staff interested.


  • Options
    #115
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    storker wrote: »
    The those Spartans are cold-sufferers, they're a pain in the neck, because their "heroics" often end up other people getting it too.

    These people! I work in a small bar/restaurant and we try our best to make sure we can get cover for each other if someone has a dose then some "spartan" rocks in absolutely useless to anyone as they're sick and takes a few more out with them.


  • Options
    #116
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,281 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    intheclouds wrote: »
    Public sector and HSE don't reflect private industry at all.

    I get paid sick leave. It used to be self certified for up to 5 days. As a result people only took as long as they needed. A new manager has implemented the requirement for a cert after 2 days. It's had exactly the effect you describe above. People pay for a doctor they get signed off for a week. Completely counterproductive. Treating staff like they're out to get you tends to result in them being out to get you!

    It's called respect. Many employers think it's a one way street.


Advertisement