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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Staff issues

13»

Comments

  • #102
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,940 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #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.


  • #104
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 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


  • #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.


  • #106
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,940 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #107
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,940 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #108
    Clara B
    Registered Users Posts: 96 ✭✭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.


  • #109
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,940 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #110
    Clara B
    Registered Users Posts: 96 ✭✭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.


  • #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
  • #112
    JohnRock
    Registered Users Posts: 101 ✭✭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


  • #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.


  • #114
    davindub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #115
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #116
    lawred2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,460 ✭✭✭✭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