Why? I am currently looking to put someone on. If i do not like them for personal reason or for work ethic reasons why should I not be able to say "it isn't working, find something else"? It is my money paying for this person, it is my business on the line...whyt hen should I not have the right to give marching orders as I see fit?
what if its you who is the cockhead? What if you are the
"problem"?That’s all fine if its your business and your money. To a point. Of course the consequences go further that just you though. You have a finacial responsibility to your creditors and other employees who you may
“like” and who may suffer for your inability to act professionally. But in a larger organisation where you are merely the manager or administrator your owner or owners would surely like to believe you can act professionally toward employees and not personally?
Since when did jobs become rights? This is why our workforce is becoming so unproductive,
Explain. With facts in comparison to other similar countries as ours. These facts may not include ridiculous biased anecdotes.
we allow even the dopiest of people so many warnings before they can be dismissed and even then FWA steps in and re-instates them.
”
So many warnings?!!”
Employer groups are furious with Fair Work Australia's decision to order the reinstatement of a worker who was sacked because of "serious misconduct" relating to a health and safety breach, because of his family circumstances, length of service and poor job prospects.
The case involves Paul Quinlivan, an employee at Norske Skog Paper Mills in Albury, who was dismissed in September last year after repeatedly removing his safety glasses while cleaning a piece of machinery during a plant shutdown.
Removing safety glasses is serious misconduct is it? What is
repeatedly? 2, 3, 1012 times? Who managed him? What training did he have? Did his line manager
“not like (him) for personal reasons"?
"What is the employer supposed to do? Is this decision suggesting that prior to terminating an employee it is required to take into account the personal circumstances of an employee, their family situation and their job prospects?
There’s an idea! Having some kind of concern or value for your employees. Especially given their long service record as it appears in this case. Given the period of service (conveniently left out by this obviously employer biased little gem of a site) One would have to ask what other examples of
"serious misconduct" had this employee demonstrated? Perhaps the lack of any may have also contributed toward the commissions decision the dismissal was unfair?
Andrew Douglas of Douglas Workplace and Litigation says the case should serve as a reminder to employees that they must consider personal circumstances when moving towards a termination.
He says the main personal circumstances include the employees' employment history (specifically previous warnings or breaches of company policy), For example!!
But does this mean that employers are stuck with underperforming workers, just because they are long-serving or have poor future job prospects?
Douglas says no, but says employers must be able to show that the dismissal is the result of careful performance management, including documented plans to attempt to help a worker improve.
Not just because someone didnt like him...
Vitale also says the case underlines the need for employers to warn workers that they can face dismissal for safety breaches.
So while it may be convenient to take this isolated example on face value as an example of
“why our workforce is becoming so unproductive” there are a few glaring omissions and inconstancies that would probably have been fleshed out in a less biased publication.
