Just got fired

mouthful

beauf wrote: »

Its was pointed out from the 2nd post and countless times since. By all and sundry.

The issue really is about having a policy in place. You can't really fire someone for not following procedure, if you either don't have one, or haven't make the employee aware of it.

Actually you can fire someone for any reason or none, the question is will the dismissal be fair or unfair.

This worker does not have the necessary service (one year) to take a case under the UD Act. There is also no apparent discrimination under the prescribed factors.

In this regard his/her union should ensure all holiday pay is secured (one week) adequate paid notice is received and the four weeks claim under the MP Act. That is why people join unions to protect themselves from bad employers

mouthful

BBM77 wrote: »

Not to make light of your problem but this does not seem too bad. At least you were given a reason based on things you did, even if it was harsh. I was let go during a probationary period on one job. I was not given an actual reason, I exceeded client’s expectations and did not miss a day. On one project I was able to progress it more in two weeks than it had been for years. Was just called into a meeting and told they were finishing up with me. My performance seemed to show my manager up as performing poorly so I had to go.

These things happen in the workplace you just have to put it down to experience and move on. Managers are just people at the end of the day. You don’t know what is going on in their head and they can have very fragile egos.

You have a legal right to a written explanation as to the formal reasons for your dismissal - failure to issue it allows the worker to take a case-

robtri

mouthful wrote: »

You have a legal right to a written explanation as to the formal reasons for your dismissal - failure to issue it allows the worker to take a case-

probation period is different. so this is not always true

most contracts of employment would have it stated in contract during probation you can be let go without any notice or reason.

Contracts do vary so its always worth checking

some good advice here
http://brophysolicitors.ie/probationary-periods-a-guide-for-employers-and-employees/

mouthful

robtri wrote: »

probation period is different. so this is not always true

most contracts of employment would have it stated in contract during probation you can be let go without any notice or reason.

Contracts do vary so its always worth checking

some good advice here
http://brophysolicitors.ie/probationary-periods-a-guide-for-employers-and-employees/

When in doubt go to the act
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1977/act/10/section/14/enacted/en/html#sec14

Section 14.4 for ease of reference

gl0Rob

mouthful wrote: »

When in doubt go to the act
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1977/act/10/section/14/enacted/en/html#sec14

Section 14.4 for ease of reference

Section 2 is also useful for exclusions to the act

mouthful

gl0Rob wrote: »

Section 2 is also useful for exclusions to the act

Would love to see an employer try that in the Labour Court.

Err Chairperson we did not give an explanation because we did not want to. We had a clause which denied the reasonable expectation that the employer would issue it.

work

Seanachai wrote: »

I rarely use all of my sick days in a year but reading this makes me want to go off-grid and be done with companies for good.

What is wrong with people in Ireland. If you don't like your employment situation then go somewhere else. If you don't like that or the next one or the next one then WORK FOR YOURSELF.
Try being an employer in Ireland it is difficult to say the least. I have great employees and look after them well. I thank God they do not have the caustic attitude of some here.
2 days off in 3 months is very significant OP and yes you are not "worth the risk" but I am sure it is a little more than that like motivation, ability, team player etc, you probably fail on lots of these but they do not need to discuss this with you. Move on and try harder.
Now my favorite bit form this post..."I rarely use all my sick days", Imagine being an employer in Ireland and dealing with that level of stupidity/entitlement, so much so the poster didn't even think its abnormal. We have a caustic environment for small business in Ireland. But don't worry because those of us running small businesses are too busy trying to run the show to deal with this.
Obviously Ive given the employer end and the employee end can be bad but at least its easier to move on.

oholly121

Wow you sound like a great employer – id love to work for you ( that was sarcasm by the way )

“I thank God they do not have the caustic attitude of some here”. – Really exercising their legal right against unfair and unfounded dismal – Right
Questioning an employers ethics around a potentially unfair dismissal – OK

“2 days off in 3 months is very significant OP and yes you are not "worth the risk" but I am sure it is a little more than that like motivation, ability, team player etc, you probably fail on lots of these but they do not need to discuss this with you. Move on and try harder.” - Is 2 days off in 3 months a catastrophic issue for any company even in probation id wager a No here and again if in your mad perception a company can’t operate on your above notion on the absence of 1 employee for a day or so then really you’d need to ask yourself “should I be running my own company and or recruiting

And now for MY favourite part of your post “ "I rarely use all my sick days", Imagine being an employer in Ireland and dealing with that level of stupidity/entitlement, so much so the poster didn't even think its abnormal “ Because it’s a legal requirement that you are entitled to sick days if your are indeed ill

Do you expect your employees to come to work if their sick? Really?

Again you sound like a great employer !

lainey_d_123

partyguinness wrote: »

Hold on "use all of my sick days in a year". Read that again and let it sink in.



Are you a public sector worker by any chance who see "sick days" as basically additional holiday?



I have sat and heard public sector friends of mine say "Oh sure I have sick days coming to me.". Cue Ricky Gervais side glance to the camera by me.

Yeah, God forbid people who are working 40 hours a week for years on end might take some time off for their health and mental wellbeing. Far better to have people slaving away like good little serfs so they can get home exhausted every night, cook dinner, go to bed, get up, do it all again and drop dead shortly after retirement.

Dodge

work wrote: »

What is wrong with people in Ireland. If you don't like your employment situation then go somewhere else. If you don't like that or the next one or the next one then WORK FOR YOURSELF.
Try being an employer in Ireland it is difficult to say the least. I have great employees and look after them well. I thank God they do not have the caustic attitude of some here.
2 days off in 3 months is very significant OP and yes you are not "worth the risk" but I am sure it is a little more than that like motivation, ability, team player etc, you probably fail on lots of these but they do not need to discuss this with you. Move on and try harder.
Now my favorite bit form this post..."I rarely use all my sick days", Imagine being an employer in Ireland and dealing with that level of stupidity/entitlement, so much so the poster didn't even think its abnormal. We have a caustic environment for small business in Ireland. But don't worry because those of us running small businesses are too busy trying to run the show to deal with this.
Obviously Ive given the employer end and the employee end can be bad but at least its easier to move on.

Fair bit of generalisation there. One poster mentioned they didn’t take ‘sick days’ and you’ve established that that person is representative of the whole public service and then all employees

We do not have a caustic environment for small business in Ireland. To give you your own advice, if you don’t like your situation l, move on

lainey_d_123

beauf wrote: »

You're implying that taking a sick day is never genuine.
That if someone says they are sick its never genuine.
Basically people never get sick enough not to go to work.

Maybe you should share some of your ideas on the long term illness forum and let us know how you get on.
Let them know they are not creating a "good impression"....

I know...the ableism on this thread is disgraceful. I'd love to know who the posters are to make sure I don't go anywhere near those workplaces.

Some people simply do not have good health, often through absolutely no fault of their own. People have Crohn's, ulcerative colitis and other illnesses which make it difficult or impossible go into the office on certain days. They might have mental health issues which flare up now and again.

The idea that 'good' workers never get time off sick is outdated, discriminatory and downright ridiculous. You might have an excellent employee who is good at their job but who suffers from a chronic illness and needs more time off sick than most. So what? Do you worry you're not getting enough value for money if you allow people the time off they need?

Graham

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Some people simply do not have good health, often through absolutely no fault of their own. People have Crohn's, ulcerative colitis and other illnesses which make it difficult or impossible go into the office on certain days. They might have mental health issues which flare up now and again.

Don't think the OP mentioned any of the above.

Morgans

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I know...the ableism on this thread is disgraceful. I'd love to know who the posters are to make sure I don't go anywhere near those workplaces.

Some people simply do not have good health, often through absolutely no fault of their own. People have Crohn's, ulcerative colitis and other illnesses which make it difficult or impossible go into the office on certain days. They might have mental health issues which flare up now and again.

The idea that 'good' workers never get time off sick is outdated, discriminatory and downright ridiculous. You might have an excellent employee who is good at their job but who suffers from a chronic illness and needs more time off sick than most. So what? Do you worry you're not getting enough value for money if you allow people the time off they need?

You aren't going to convince the hardliners on here, but you are continually making lots of sense. The 'employer who is always right' attitude is one of the main reasons why so many work environments are toxic and miserable. Often in smaller offices. The type who defend the employers who discriminate against women of a certain age, you know in case they might want kids in the future, anyone who discloses they have an illness at interview, and the type that believe employers are justified in not passing a staff member because of one sick day when under probation. Obviously, they are not so stupid to disclose this. The attitude of the employers are always right comes from a position of insecurity, and a lack of self-respect from the employee, but it causes huge damage. It gives employers licence to act accordingly. The best employers dont view their employees as mercenaries. Try to avoid working in those companies if at all possible.

Strumms

For all the people claiming two sick calls within the first 13 weeks isn’t good enough. Rubbish. If during that time something happens to your health whereby you are unable/unfit to attend work, you call in end of. 13 weeks is exactly a quarter of a year, and you missed 2 days, for valid reasons, that wouldn’t be excessive or unexpected. I’d be more disappointed in an employee who dragged their arse in coughing, sneezing or pale with migraines, the first two symptoms with the capacity and likelihood to pass it on to other employees who in turn could miss work.

The average annual sick days in Ireland in private sector is 6 days per year. Public sector 11.

Strumms

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

2 days taken off for separate reasons within the 1st 3 months....

They probably see it as a sign of things to come, and it just not being worth their hassle.

They missed 1.3% of work because of illness during their duration of employment , sign of things to come, you are dead right... better off out of there, not looking back, a bullet dodged.

Graham

The OP wasn't sick for 2 days. One of those days a tall-tale about a car breakdown was given.

An employer not in full possession of the full/real story might (correctly) question the legitimacy of that absence and by extension the reliability and/or trustworthiness of any employee. Never mind one that's only been there a few weeks.

While most people/employers would naturally be sympathetic knowing the real reason for the second absence, it's hardly reasonable to expect the same consideration from an employer unaware of the facts.

the_syco

Emilee wrote: »

I only started working for this company 13 weeks ago, called in sick once, then another time cause of car issues.

Emilee wrote: »

I live 25+ miles from work, they knew that when they hired me. I appreciate your response thank you.

I'm sure others have come from further away. In the 1st year, you don't have have many (any?) employment rights, and can be let go without reason.

lainey_d_123

Graham wrote: »

Don't think the OP mentioned any of the above.

Who cares? The employer doesn't know, and so what if OP was off with something less 'serious'? I can't stand people who come to work dying of the cold and infecting everyone around them.

There is no benefit to presenteeism whatsoever. It's fairly obvious if an employee is a p1ss taker or not. Number of days off sick doesn't automatically make someone a slacker.

mouthful

I guess the lesson is some employers are decent people, whilst others are getting squeezed by the thug employers who perceive us wage slaves as very dispensable, or are the thug employers themselves.

I am biased but my life experience has told me th bosses have their experts (accountants, HR legal etc) if we go into a workplace without being a union member we are at their mercy.

Even individual membership (if the others do not want to join) offers protection and a much stronger voice

lainey_d_123

Morgans wrote: »

You aren't going to convince the hardliners on here, but you are continually making lots of sense. The 'employer who is always right' attitude is one of the main reasons why so many work environments are toxic and miserable. Often in smaller offices. The type who defend the employers who discriminate against women of a certain age, you know in case they might want kids in the future, anyone who discloses they have an illness at interview, and the type that believe employers are justified in not passing a staff member because of one sick day when under probation. Obviously, they are not so stupid to disclose this. The attitude of the employers are always right comes from a position of insecurity, and a lack of self-respect from the employee, but it causes huge damage. It gives employers licence to act accordingly. The best employers dont view their employees as mercenaries. Try to avoid working in those companies if at all possible.

Exactly...employers with the attitude that their staff are going to screw them over and who treat their employees with contempt end up getting the employees they deserve. If someone treats me like this, I will give them the absolute bare minimum. Someone said about a man in their work who was pulled up about tea breaks when he was working an hour every day for free...so many bosses can't see the wood for the trees and are just total jobsworths.

No idea why it's so hard to grasp the fact that treating your staff as human beings is far more likely to result in happy, productive and loyal employees and everybody wins.

Strumms

mouthful wrote: »

I guess the lesson is some employers are decent people, whilst others are getting squeezed by the thug employers who perceive us wage slaves as very dispensable, or are the thug employers themselves.

I am biased but my life experience has told me th bosses have their experts (accountants, HR legal etc) if we go into a workplace without being a union member we are at their mercy.

Even individual membership (if the others do not want to join) offers protection and a much stronger voice

Agreed, another thing, is, a business that can just hire in a couple of days, train in a week etc doesn’t really need to ‘invest’ in their employee. They are seen as dispensable, you are out the door tomorrow ? 7 days later someone is hired, trained and on the floor working. A deterrent needs to be there. You are on the tills, it gets quiet, you are told to grab and mop and bucket and clean the warehouse floor, you refuse (rightly) they bring you down the disciplinary road or try because they know you have no backup and if they manage you out there is a Q of people who won’t care about getting up on the roof and shoveling birdshît if it means getting a wage to send back to xyz.... protect yourself, don’t enable asshôle employers...

barneystinson

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Who cares? The employer doesn't know, and so what if OP was off with something less 'serious'? I can't stand people who come to work dying of the cold and infecting everyone around them.

There is no benefit to presenteeism whatsoever. It's fairly obvious if an employee is a p1ss taker or not. Number of days off sick doesn't automatically make someone a slacker.

WTF is presenteeism?! Or ableism, as you mentioned in an earlier post?! Are these actual things?

Number of days sick does not make someone a slacker, but if you are running a small business with a small pool of workers it can represent a substantial burden / cost / operational problem and - without wanting to be overly dramatic about it - the livelihoods (and work / life balance) of everyone in that small business are dependent on everyone else.

If there’s only a few employees and Susan, through no fault of her own, regularly calls in sick for a day or two because her [insert condition here] flares up, it puts huge pressure on everyone else around them.

Other staff, or the employer (and contrary to what some posters seem to think, not every person who employs people is rolling in cash), have to provide cover - at the expense of their own intended down time.

barneystinson

Strumms wrote: »

Agreed, another thing, is, a business that can just hire in a couple of days, train in a week etc doesn’t really need to ‘invest’ in their employee. They are seen as dispensable, you are out the door tomorrow ? 7 days later someone is hired, trained and on the floor working. A deterrent needs to be there. You are on the tills, it gets quiet, you are told to grab and mop and bucket and clean the warehouse floor, you refuse (rightly) they bring you down the disciplinary road or try because they know you have no backup and if they manage you out there is a Q of people who won’t care about getting up on the roof and shoveling birdshît if it means getting a wage to send back to xyz.... protect yourself, don’t enable asshôle employers...

Sorry, am I understanding this correctly, you’re saying you should be paid to do nothing if it’s quieter than expected? And your definition of an asshole employer is one that tries to find work for the people that they employ?!

You sound like an absolute delight, and your attitude is absolutely the reason why things like zero hours contracts were invented.

Strumms

barneystinson wrote: »

Sorry, am I understanding this correctly, you’re saying you should be paid to do nothing if it’s quieter than expected? And your definition of an asshole employer is one that tries to find work for the people that they employ?!

You sound like an absolute delight, and your attitude is absolutely the reason why things like zero hours contracts were invented.

If you hire me to work on a till in a supermarket, I have agreed to the hours set out, I have agreed to the wages offered and most importantly I have agreed to come in and do the job AS advertised. I’m not a general operative, if the work isn’t there to keep me ‘busy’ well the employer can address that by doing whatever they feel will get more business and get me more busy... people don’t agree to be interviewed and hired for jobs with the possibility that they would have to do something completely different.

Graham

Hello 1970s industrial relations, haven't seen you in around half a century how've you been?

While an explanation of why newer supermarkets are eating the lunch of their legacy counterparts would be an interesting post, it's probably not going to help the OP.

lainey_d_123

barneystinson wrote: »

WTF is presenteeism?! Or ableism, as you mentioned in an earlier post?! Are these actual things?

Number of days sick does not make someone a slacker, but if you are running a small business with a small pool of workers it can represent a substantial burden / cost / operational problem and - without wanting to be overly dramatic about it - the livelihoods (and work / life balance) of everyone in that small business are dependent on everyone else.

If there’s only a few employees and Susan, through no fault of her own, regularly calls in sick for a day or two because her [insert condition here] flares up, it puts huge pressure on everyone else around them.

Other staff, or the employer (and contrary to what some posters seem to think, not every person who employs people is rolling in cash), have to provide cover - at the expense of their own intended down time.

Wow...can't believe someone in 2020 hasn't heard of these things. They're not new concepts.

Ableism is discriminating against people for being disabled/sick, and that includes punishing employees for taking time off when they need to. Now obviously there are cases where the job depends on a person being fit to do it. You can't reasonably expect to be hired to do construction work if you're in a wheelchair. But if you're in an office job, and a good worker and generally very productive and just happen to need more time off sick than the average person? Being punished for that is discrimination.

Morgans

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Wow...can't believe someone in 2020 hasn't heard of these things. They're not new concepts.

Ableism is discriminating against people for being disabled/sick, and that includes punishing employees for taking time off when they need to. Now obviously there are cases where the job depends on a person being fit to do it. You can't reasonably expect to be hired to do construction work if you're in a wheelchair. But if you're in an office job, and a good worker and generally very productive and just happen to need more time off sick than the average person? Being punished for that is discrimination.

And presenteeism is essentially clockwatching - forcing employees to wait until assigned time in the office even if there is no benefit to anyone from having them in the office.

I think employers should value those employees who are keen and demonstrate their commitment to the organisation/company by staying late when required or taking on tasks not exactly in their job description. Good employees working for good employers will do so willingly. Most people like to feel that they are contributing and that their efforts have meaning But employers need to understand that it can't be taken for granted and being an arsehole about a car breakdown or a genuine illness means you are far less likely to get any effort over the minimum. It becomes a battle and makes everyone miserable. Turnover of staff increases. There are plenty who seem to think that being an arsehole when an employer is the only way to run a successful business.

beauf

Graham wrote: »

Don't think the OP mentioned any of the above.

Lots of stuff on this thread is generic employment imo or anecdotal stories about having ebola and 3 broken legs and still being able to walk 100k to work and not specific to the op.

beauf

Morgans wrote: »

And presenteeism is essentially clockwatching - forcing employees to wait until assigned time in the office even if there is no benefit to anyone from having them in the office. .....

... There are plenty who seem to think that being an arsehole when an employer is the only way to run a successful business.

Generally find places (or people) that clock watch don't track productivity or efficiency. Same with being pedantic about unimportant stuff. There is a place and a time and place for this sort of stuff.

lainey_d_123

Morgans wrote: »

And presenteeism is essentially clockwatching - forcing employees to wait until assigned time in the office even if there is no benefit to anyone from having them in the office.

I think employers should value those employees who are keen and demonstrate their commitment to the organisation/company by staying late when required or taking on tasks not exactly in their job description. Good employees working for good employers will do so willingly. Most people like to feel that they are contributing and that their efforts have meaning But employers need to understand that it can't be taken for granted and being an arsehole about a car breakdown or a genuine illness means you are far less likely to get any effort over the minimum. It becomes a battle and makes everyone miserable. Turnover of staff increases. There are plenty who seem to think that being an arsehole when an employer is the only way to run a successful business.

Exactly. Very few people are at peak productivity throughout an 8-hour day anyway. You could have an employee who comes in early at 7am and powers through work in the couple of hours the office is quiet and gets loads done, but if that person leaves at 4.55, a clock watching employer complains than they didn't sit there until exactly 5pm. Meanwhile you could have someone who turns up at 8.59am, then goes to make a coffee, spends half the day messaging people and reading the news, but because they're 'in the office' during normal working hours and at their desk, their boss is fine with them. It's really ridiculous how petty some people are about hours and absence.

beauf

There are jobs that require a body, like working on a till, manning phones, etc.

Wanderer78

beauf wrote: »

There are jobs that require a body, like working on a till, manning phones, etc.

and those 'bodies'(humans), deserve a bit of respect

beauf

I'm not implying anything different. Simply that some jobs require a physical presence.

partyguinness

Let's make some general points about the two issues:

1. You took a sick day

You were fine the day before, you rang in sick (presumably) sounding fine and then turned up the next day looking fine. The employer called BS on this because you were not sick and they were right. As a general point if you are on probation and just started a new job then unless you are holed up in intensive care with Ebola you get your ass into work no matter what because you are just giving the employer ammo later down the line. Now, I read that your daughter had an issue- you should have said it and been honest.

2. Car broken down

Again if you are on probation you should have busted a nut to get in no matter what- even if late. I know you live 25+ miles away but still you should have done everything to get in no matter what it took (taxi, bus, friends, family whatever). Just not turning up at all is way worse than being late.

"Oh my car has broken down so I have taken it to the garage and I am just going to sit around here all day and leave someone else pick up the slack." Not a good picture the employer is forming.


You have given the employer plenty of ammo to just get rid of you and perhaps as another poster said- they saw it being an issue in the long run and foresaw in their mind plenty of drama.

If they wanted to keep you they could have extended your probation period for another 13 weeks and given you another chance.

Gael23

Calling in sick because of not having a car didn’t help your case

spankmemunkey

firstly sorry to hear what happened. But...

Now you should be entitled to the dole.

Plus posters who say you knew you lived 25 miles away when you took the job?? If she was posting about how she didn't take a job because it was 25 miles away she would be lambasted by people calling her lazy and making excuses!!

Some of the facts we don't know,

Were you good at your job? maybe they thought this one is useless gotta let her go.

Re Managers

Some Managers are gob****es, some of them should never have been allowed to take up a position of responsibility but they knew the right things to say to their superiors kissing ass etc, it happens in life

partyguinness

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Yeah, God forbid people who are working 40 hours a week for years on end might take some time off for their health and mental wellbeing. Far better to have people slaving away like good little serfs so they can get home exhausted every night, cook dinner, go to bed, get up, do it all again and drop dead shortly after retirement.

Who said anything about mental health wellbeing? You are mangling several different issues and going off an a complete tangent.

I was referring to cushy public sector employees with water tight life time contracts who see sick days as additional holiday. Sick days unless I am missing something are for when you are sick.

Have you heard of the concept of 'holidays' which is generally seen as good time to refresh and recharge the body and mind or even 12-18 month 'career breaks' that a few of my public sector friends took?

Bloody hell I would love to work just 40 hours a week. Luxury.

10000maniacs

beauf wrote: »

Theres a very cynical attitude here.

I'm reminded me of a manager I worked with (not one of mine) who decided to pull up one of his senior team members over his tea breaks. (there was nothing excessive about the tea breaks btw). This was guy who worked at least an extra hour a day because it suited his transport. He was technical expert and by far the most expert person in the department.

Result the guy stopped working the extra hours, just worked his exact contract hours and then spent those extra hours sitting in the coffee shop next door working on other things on his laptop waiting for his transport.

People are human, not all are the same and people have personal issues from time to time. Might be sick patents, kids, childcare, cars breakdown, plumbing breaks etc. If they are a good worker in every other way it makes no sense to get rid of them and go through the cost and time of recruiting someone else who might be very bad worker. Simply through a lack of empathy.

That said as temp or under probation you have to expect it could end at the drop off a hat. Same with working contact.

Some places working with students or temp staff or unskilled labour you often find a lot of unreliable people. Construction used to be a lot like this. It's a nature of the business. You can't be precious about it. You have to work around it, with over lapping cover and flexible projects. If the plumber doesn't turn up, work on something else. Etc.

If your whole place is in crisis because someone on probation didn't turn up for two half days out of 100 you have bigger issues.

Haven't you heard?, this is jobsworth central.
I get the same thing when I go to the Transport forum and complain about Iarnrod Eireann. Or go to the Broadcasting forum and complain about RTE.
I think it was pretty harsh to sack her considering the circumstances.

partyguinness

10000maniacs wrote: »

Haven't you heard?, this is jobsworth central.
I get the same thing when I go to the Transport forum and complain about Iarnrod Eireann. Or go to the Broadcasting forum and complain about RTE.
I think it was pretty harsh to sack her considering the circumstances.

But you see (and of course we do not have all the facts) it seems clear that they just wanted rid and had ready made excuse to hand. Just after Xmas also which leads me to believe that she was just needed for a short period of time leading up to Xmas. She was not sacked for missing 2 days- she was a goner regardless IMO.

Now it's "Thanks we do not need you anymore so you you can eff off."

Speaking as an employer, good reliable workers are actually very hard to find and employers do not sack good reliable essential staff just for missing a couple of days. Even if those days had not been missed I am willing to bet she was going to be let go anyway.

Expendable part time role. That is just reality.

Morgans

partyguinness wrote: »

But you see (and of course we do not have all the facts) it seems clear that they just wanted rid and had ready made excuse to hand. Just after Xmas also which leads me to believe that she was just needed for a short period of time leading up to Xmas. She was not sacked for missing 2 days- she was a goner regardless IMO.

Now it's "Thanks we do not need you anymore so you you can eff off."

Speaking as an employer, good reliable workers are actually very hard to find and employers do not sack good reliable essential staff just for missing a couple of days. Even if those days had not been missed I am willing to bet she was going to be let go anyway.

Expendable part time role. That is just reality.

You are arguing against yourself. Yes, the employer has the power to get rid of anyone while on probation for any reason. That's the system. Any you are probably right that there wasn't anything that could be done by the employee in this situation, given the circumstances of this role. And the probable mindset of the employer hiring for the role.

However thats a very different approach to many (including yourself earlier, that unless it's ebola don't call in sick) which seems to suggest that it was a days sickness or car breakdown was the reason for being let go.

Dodge

partyguinness wrote: »

I was referring to cushy public sector employees with water tight life time contracts who see sick days as additional holiday.

Except no one here has said they work in the public sector. You’re just bringing in your own biases here

If someone is sick, they should take the time. If they’re not; they shouldn’t. Everything else is nonsense

partyguinness

Dodge wrote: »

Except no one here has said they work in the public sector. You’re just bringing in your own biases here

Whether people here work in the public sector is not relevant. My original point is that I have several friends in the public sector (local authority) who have discussed in my presence 'sick days' coming to them i.e they are not going to turn up to work and take the day off under the pretense of being 'sick' without any repercussions. While I have not heard of it in the private sector I am quite sure it goes on there also.

You are basically defrauding your employer and the tax payer. Of course the very same employees are running off to their Union rep crying foul at the first hint of trouble and what a bad bastard the employer is.

Perhaps you have not read my earlier post in response to another poster who brought it up.

Dodge wrote: »

If someone is sick, they should take the time. If they’re not; they shouldn’t. Everything else is nonsense

I agree if you are genuinely sick- stay at home. Unfortunately when you are on probation the bar is set a lot higher so you better be on death's door to justify not turning up.

But that was not my point at all. My point being that some employees see 'sick days' as additional holiday and take them off regardless of being sick or not.

partyguinness

Morgans wrote: »

You are arguing against yourself. Yes, the employer has the power to get rid of anyone while on probation for any reason. That's the system. Any you are probably right that there wasn't anything that could be done by the employee in this situation, given the circumstances of this role. And the probable mindset of the employer hiring for the role.

However thats a very different approach to many (including yourself earlier, that unless it's ebola don't call in sick) which seems to suggest that it was a days sickness or car breakdown was the reason for being let go.

I'm afraid I cannot see how I am arguing against myself...

beauf

partyguinness wrote: »

...You were fine the day before, you rang in sick (presumably) sounding fine and then turned up the next day looking fine.....

I know you are talking about optics and perceptions etc.

But People can be sick and recover in 24 hrs. Just saying.

bladespin

beauf wrote: »

I know you are talking about optics and perceptions etc.

But People can be sick and recover in 24 hrs. Just saying.

True, but while someone is on probation optics are important.

beauf

partyguinness wrote: »

Whether people here work in the public sector is not relevant. ...

It isn't because taking a "sickie" is ubiquitous.

Monday morning sickies are very common in many jobs. Which is why they often treated differently in many sick policies.

beauf

bladespin wrote: »

True, but while someone is on probation optics are important.

The optics of not informing people of a procedure then sacking them with no warning for not following it are not great either.

bladespin

beauf wrote: »

The optics of not informing people of a procedure then sacking them with no warning for not following it are not great either.

Ok, so how do poor optics harm them? (the company in this case)

beauf

They get a rep on glass door and they find it difficult to recruit.

bladespin

beauf wrote: »

They get a rep on glass door and they find it difficult to recruit.

Yep, that'll hurt, compared to OP who's lost a job.

From the sounds of it OP was only seen as temporary anyway, despite not being told this, shoddy way to go about business, even shoddier is dismissing without some form of warning, but they're out there, and I'd doubt if most would pay any heed to a website review, especially GD, reminds me of Monster tbh.