Employment Relations Authority

[awa355]

What do you do with lying thieving employees? or employers?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/employment/news/article.cfm?c_id=11&objectid=10882881

[FJRider]

There are steps laid down in Legislation for the dismissal of staff by employers.

To NOT follow those steps ... leaves the employer open to legal action against them ... if they don't do it correctly.

[Woodman]

There are steps laid down in Legislation for the dismissal of staff by employers.

To NOT follow those steps ... leaves the employer open to legal action against them ... if they don't do it correctly.

Exactly, follow the steps and keep a cool head and its easy.

[FJRider]

Large (ex) employer payouts have featured in the various News media often. It's not a new or unusual thing.

But it doesn't help the respective ex-employee find work afterwards. Nor does it allow that ex-employee go straight on a benefit either ...

Payouts don't make the ex-employee's actions right either ...

[Subike]

We had a professional disputes claimant person at my work this year. Easiest job in the factory, a line filler.
He got the job via an employment agency, worked really well till he got permanent position, ( after 90 days).
Then became an asshole to everyone in the factory,was deliberately late, damaged stock, deliberately placed stock in the wrong place.
It took another three months for the management to get rid of him inside the legal process.
He was trying to get an unfair dismissal, even admitted that was his intention to some of the staff on the shop floor.
Be aware there are those who are out there doing this for a living, he admitted to me he had already scammed two other employers.

[Scuba_Steve]

There are steps laid down in Legislation for the dismissal of staff by employers.

To NOT follow those steps ... leaves the employer open to legal action against them ... if they don't do it correctly.

You didn't read the writeup did you??? especially rhis part

And Christchurch children's clothes store manager Koren Sullivan was sacked after she received four warnings - including a final warning - for a range of offences, including ignoring instructions, poor customer service and abusing her managers. She lost her job after her manager, Karla Martin, said Sullivan threw a roster book at her and said: "Actually get someone else to do my f-ing job, right here right now".

The ERA ruled Sullivan never used the words "I resign" and her employer had seized the opportunity to get rid of her. She received $5053 in lost wages and $3000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.


The door really needs to swing both ways, it is near impossible to get rid of useless employees (which could explain how companies get so massive nowadays they can't fire the useless person so they gotta hire someone else to do their job for them).
It needs to be made so good employees are still protected while making it much easier to get rid of the junk like those in the writeup.

[Ocean1]

Exactly, follow the steps and keep a cool head and its easy.

I'm simple. It's too complicated for me, far easier to just not bother.

There's probably some really good employees that would've come in handy, but with the few arseholes in the mix it's just not worth the hassle.

[FJRider]

You didn't read the writeup did you??? especially rhis part



Perhaps you NEED to read this ...

http://www.howtolaw.co.nz/dismiss-an-employee-xidp392063.html

Not rely on online news media reports. Regardless of their content or accuracy (sic)

[Kickaha]

it is near impossible to get rid of useless employees
No it isn't, I'd bet it happens every day but thats hardly going to make the news

[mashman]

Just fuckin shoot them.

[AllanB]

I have noticed that young people think it is OK to sit at work on the net when they are meant to be working. Something is going wrong out there batman.

[Ocean1]

I have noticed that young people think it is OK to sit at work on the net when they are meant to be working.

Get back to work you bone idle wee git!

[FJRider]

I have noticed that young people think it is OK to sit at work on the net when they are meant to be working. Something is going wrong out there batman.

A few "older" ones log on here in work time too ... nothing new there Robin ...

[FJRider]

Just fuckin shoot them.

There is a member of this site with the sig ... "Some people are only alive because it's illegal to shoot them".

I'm inclined to agree ...

[mashman]

There is a member of this site with the sig ... "Some people are only alive because it's illegal to shoot them".

I'm inclined to agree ...

KB anfem innit.

Although I've come to realise that removing the person and ignoring the issue is tantamount to entrapment. To that end you fuckas get what you deserve from them fuckas. If you're not going to do anything about the issue, stop moaning about the problem.

[Ocean1]

KB anfem innit.

Although I've come to realise that removing the person and ignoring the issue is tantamount to entrapment. To that end you fuckas get what you deserve from them fuckas. If you're not going to do anything about the issue, stop moaning about the problem.

Removing the person isn't ignoring the issue, it's fixing it. And us fuckers are absolutely entitled to moan about thieving, lying employees.

But, y'know, you're right to blame employers for the size of the dole queue, if they didn't sack thieving, lying employees there wouldn't be anywhere near as many.

[mashman]

Removing the person isn't ignoring the issue, it's fixing it. And us fuckers are absolutely entitled to moan about thieving, lying employees.

But, y'know, you're right to blame employers for the size of the dole queue, if they didn't sack thieving, lying employees there wouldn't be anywhere near as many.

It is if your investigation stops at he stole.

I know I'm right, but thanks for the affirmation... fortunately for employers though, I look further than them just wanting to make a profit at the expense of their employees.

[Dangsta]

ERA cases tend to be pretty long and complex, plus if its being heard by the Authority it would have had to go through employment mediation and fail first. In summary it would have been fairly drawn out dispute over a period of months so I'm pretty sure there's alot more to this than can be pulled from a newspaper article. From what I can see though, the case was pretty open and shut with the employee irrepairably damaging the trust and confidence of the employer by lying about his credentials and also nearly killing people with shoddy work. The threshold to terminate employment is pretty high but I think a reasonable employer would have been justified to sack. It can only be then that the employer acted unreasonably in the process of dealing with the problem.

Don't forget as well that if the employer had actually done the reference check before he employed rather than after he sacked the guy, he'd have found out all about his quals and not hired him in the first place.

The employer seemed to want to "go it alone" as there's no way anyone with an ounce of knowledge of employment law would have taken the approach he did. A simple letter inviting the guy to an investigatory meeting and asking him to respond to the allegations that he had lied in his application, wasn't qualified and had nearly killed an apprentice would have taken half an hour to draft and a few minutes to deliver. Give him a couple of days to get a support person/union rep/lawyer by his side and then meet, consider his response and probably terminate his employment (I can't see any excuse saving the job if the allegations were substantiated). Done and dusted in less than 5 days. There's nothing complicated or difficult here....he could have googled the answer or made a free call to the dept of labour and have someone guide him through it. Instead he finds himself on the pointy end of a $38k legal bill and $10k damages to pay. Plonker deserved all he got. Maybe he'll actually do the reference checks before he employs someone next time.

Finally, as if its not enough of a kicker.....the idiot has the audacity to blame the legislation for messing the case up. If this guy hadn't failed the intelligence test on almost every level the employee wouldn't have got through the factory door in the first place. Rant over......

[Oakie]

The employer seemed to want to "go it alone" as there's no way anyone with an ounce of knowledge of employment law would have taken the approach he did. A simple letter inviting the guy to an investigatory meeting and asking him to respond to the allegations that he had lied in his application, wasn't qualified and had nearly killed an apprentice would have taken half an hour to draft and a few minutes to deliver. Give him a couple of days to get a support person/union rep/lawyer by his side and then meet, consider his response and probably terminate his employment (I can't see any excuse saving

Exsakery. I've terminated 5 people myself using just that process. It's not hard. Just got to play by the rules. It's about being fair because employers have a heap of power and the process just tries to provide a bit of balance. Good process makes the end result more manageable for everyone too. Of the 5 I've dismissed, one gave me a hug at the end of the process and another shook my hand. They knew they'd had a fair hearing and that I'd only made the decision having heard and considered what they'd said in our meetings.

[Ocean1]

It's about being fair because employers have a heap of power and the process just tries to provide a bit of balance.

Balance, eh?

How many legal hoops does an employee have to jump through when he decides to terminate the agreement?

[Oakie]

Balance, eh?

How many legal hoops does an employee have to jump through when he decides to terminate the agreement?

Just the one. Fair process. Same as you get in the criminal courts.

[tigertim20]

making their position redundant can be an easier alternative

[Dangsta]

making their position redundant can be an easier alternative
umm nope.........Definition of redundancy is that the position is surplus and not needed. If you plan to replace the "redundant person" then expect to get challenged.

Also, a genuine redundancy takes consultation which in itself can be a long, drawn out process (nowhere near as short as a disciplinary) and involve and stress out other staff that didn't do anything. You'd need to map it out carefully and just the period for affected staff to respond to the proposal can be one to two weeks.

Also, you'd have a hell of a job to prove the redundancy wasn't a sham to deal with a performance issue in these circumstances. This means you could work through the whole process and still get a personal grievance.

Also, chances are you'd have to pay redundancy compensation. To a cheat, liar and criminal mastermind who obviously rigged the fridge to electrocute the apprentice that was sleeping with his wife....okay I made that last bit up. Still why pay severance to someone you can sack for free?

Any day of the week, disciplinary under these circumstances is a no brainer. Just sayin

[Ocean1]

Just the one. Fair process. Same as you get in the criminal courts.

He has to say: "I resign", and turn up to work for either whatever his contract stipulates is due notice or for the duration of one pay-cycle.

When an employer can say: "You're fired", and pay the employee for whatever the contract stipulates then it'll be a balanced agreement, and not until.

[Woodman]

Never ever accept a resignation during a disciplinary process. Let the process take its course otherwise a PG is very likely siting constructive dismissal or resignation under duress.

nasty

[FJRider]

He has to say: "I resign", and turn up to work for either whatever his contract stipulates is due notice or for the duration of one pay-cycle.

When an employer can say: "You're fired", and pay the employee for whatever the contract stipulates then it'll be a balanced agreement, and not until.

Most Employment contracts state minimum notice of dismissal that can be given. (including wages in lieu of notice clause)

Also reasons for instant dismissal ... and steps that must be followed.


So it could be ... Here's your wages ... don't slam the door on your way out.

[tigertim20]

umm nope.........Definition of redundancy is that the position is surplus and not needed. If you plan to replace the "redundant person" then expect to get challenged.

Also, a genuine redundancy takes consultation which in itself can be a long, drawn out process (nowhere near as short as a disciplinary) and involve and stress out other staff that didn't do anything. You'd need to map it out carefully and just the period for affected staff to respond to the proposal can be one to two weeks.

Also, you'd have a hell of a job to prove the redundancy wasn't a sham to deal with a performance issue in these circumstances. This means you could work through the whole process and still get a personal grievance.

Also, chances are you'd have to pay redundancy compensation. To a cheat, liar and criminal mastermind who obviously rigged the fridge to electrocute the apprentice that was sleeping with his wife....okay I made that last bit up. Still why pay severance to someone you can sack for free?

Any day of the week, disciplinary under these circumstances is a no brainer. Just sayin
easy enough to do, watched it happen more than once.
Just takes a simple, internal 'restructure'

Done right it can happen quickly and effectively, and with no repercussions for the employer. Can be the better option when you know you're dealing with a fuckstain that just wants to cause trouble

[Dangsta]

easy enough to do, watched it happen more than once.
Just takes a simple, internal 'restructure'

Done right it can happen quickly and effectively, and with no repercussions for the employer. Can be the better option when you know you're dealing with a fuckstain that just wants to cause trouble

Hey this is good fun.

I get where you're coming from and I've used the odd "restructure" myself when there's been a toxic employee that's been making people miserable and in terms of big picture, I've either not wanted to replace the role like for like or there hasn't been enough of a performance issue to justify termination. Generally I've been faced with either 3 weeks doing a restructure or 6 months of performance management......and the restructure won. However, no way in the circumstances of what we're discussing would I do anything but kick off a disciplinary. It'd be over quicker, I wouldn't have to pay the employee a cent, I'd be seen by other staff to have a zero tolerance for that kind of thing and I wouldn't feel to worried about a PG. You're right though that done right it can happen quickly and effectively. Each issue turns on its own merits. If its easier and less risky to the organisation then I'd restructure. Just not in this case.

[Dangsta]

He has to say: "I resign", and turn up to work for either whatever his contract stipulates is due notice or for the duration of one pay-cycle.

When an employer can say: "You're fired", and pay the employee for whatever the contract stipulates then it'll be a balanced agreement, and not until.

You're the guy in the newspaper story right? Sorry for calling you an idiot in my earlier post. I didn't think you were following the story.

So if you turned up for work and your boss called you into his office and said "you're fired". You'd think that's fair?:no:
Cos I can turn up in my boss's office and say "I resign" and everything would be sweet as. He'd probably even write me a nice reference.

[Ocean1]

So if you turned up for work and your boss called you into his office and said "you're fired". You'd think that's fair?:no:


If my performance was such that he wasn't making enough to cover the cost of employing me then absolutely, the only way I could stay is by relying on others in the business to cover my arse. If an employer / employee relationship is to be fair it has to be a joint venture, we both have to try to make sure he's getting enough value from me to at least cover my wages and his overheads.



Cos I can turn up in my boss's office and say "I resign" and everything would be sweet as. He'd probably even write me a nice reference.

And, as I said, if you can walk away from the agreement that easily then why shouldn't your boss?

[huff3r]

And, as I said, if you can walk away from the agreement that easily then why shouldn't your boss?

Because the whole economy would flop without a little something called "Job Security".

Under your proposal the boss could fire you simply because he was in a bad mood that day, and you happened to bump into him first. Not only is that not fair to anyone involved, but it means that suddenly a large amount of the population, and indeed even those who do work hard and do the right thing, are left fearing for their jobs everyday!

[Ocean1]

Because the whole economy would flop without a little something called "Job Security".

Now, how do you figure that?


Under your proposal the boss could fire you simply because he was in a bad mood that day, and you happened to bump into him first. Not only is that not fair to anyone involved, but it means that suddenly a large amount of the population, and indeed even those who do work hard and do the right thing, are left fearing for their jobs everyday!

It wasn't a proposal, just an observation that the business owner has far more to lose from an under-performing or dishonest employee than any employee has, and yet the terms of any agreement massively favour the employee.

To use your example, it's OK for an employee to walk into work in a bad mood and resign, and the employer has absolutely no say in that, and yet you say that exactly the same option shouldn't be available to the employer, no matter how much the employee is costing the business. The vast majority of kiwi employers are SMEs, businesses employing under 10 people. Those business owners often have their whole net worth tied up in their business, and a bad employee can cost him not just the next few weeks pay but everything he owns. That's pressure few employes are ever aware of, let alone experience every day.

It's well past time legislation reflected that fact, and recognised that every employee needs to be hard working and do the right thing, and that employers have the ethical right to fire those that aren't without fucking around with endless red tape which only ever hurts the business and it's remaining employees.

[huff3r]

Now, how do you figure that?



It wasn't a proposal, just an observation that the business owner has far more to lose from an under-performing or dishonest employee than any employee has, and yet the terms of any agreement massively favour the employee.

To use your example, it's OK for an employee to walk into work in a bad mood and resign, and the employer has absolutely no say in that, and yet you say that exactly the same option shouldn't be available to the employer, no matter how much the employee is costing the business. The vast majority of kiwi employers are SMEs, businesses employing under 10 people. Those business owners often have their whole net worth tied up in their business, and a bad employee can cost him not just the next few weeks pay but everything he owns. That's pressure few employes are ever aware of, let alone experience every day.

It's well past time legislation reflected that fact, and recognised that every employee needs to be hard working and do the right thing, and that employers have the ethical right to fire those that aren't without fucking around with endless red tape which only ever hurts the business and it's remaining employees.


I didn't say that at all. I never said that a useless employee who is not doing their job properly should not be fired, or not be able to be fired. That is why there is a process to follow, to determine whether the employee is actually a problem or the boss is just in a bad mood. The reason an employee can quit anytime they like is because that is unlikely to damage the business, or hurt their employee. Being fired however does some pretty big damage to the other party.

Yes I know it's a prick to have to hire new staff when one quits etc, but the market is favouring the employers at the moment, there are plenty of candidates to replace an employee who quits.

There aren't plenty of jobs for the employee who is fired to move into.

Being fired and quitting are two very different concepts, and as such must be treated very differently. There are many reasons for an employee to quit, and many reasons that are blameless. Firing someone however is an activity driven by blame, the employee is at fault so they are fired. That's why the due process must be followed, as if the employee is to be designated at fault then they deserve a fair hearing to have their say.

Also, when it comes to hiring time the employer has all the power, shouldn't we change that? Shouldn't hard working employees be allowed to choose whether they are hired or not? Otherwise it's just grossly unfair, and through the whole hiring process the potential employee has far more to lose than the business! (Yes, I realise that's ridiculous. So is firing someone without due process).

[Ocean1]

That is why there is a process to follow, to determine whether the employee is actually a problem or the boss is just in a bad mood. The reason an employee can quit anytime they like is because that is unlikely to damage the business, or hurt their employee. Being fired however does some pretty big damage to the other party.

So the employer has to have second opinions in case he's just being a cnut, but the employee doesn't because he never is and besides it doesn't hurt the employer?

I'll take a wild swing at guessing that you've never been responsible for employees.



Yes I know it's a prick to have to hire new staff when one quits etc, but the market is favouring the employers at the moment, there are plenty of candidates to replace an employee who quits.

There aren't plenty of jobs for the employee who is fired to move into.

Being fired and quitting are two very different concepts, and as such must be treated very differently. There are many reasons for an employee to quit, and many reasons that are blameless. Firing someone however is an activity driven by blame, the employee is at fault so they are fired. That's why the due process must be followed, as if the employee is to be designated at fault then they deserve a fair hearing to have their say.

Also, when it comes to hiring time the employer has all the power, shouldn't we change that? Shouldn't hard working employees be allowed to choose whether they are hired or not? Otherwise it's just grossly unfair, and through the whole hiring process the potential employee has far more to lose than the business! (Yes, I realise that's ridiculous. So is firing someone without due process).

No, I'm afraid your ideas about how that shit works are valid only in Lala land. As simply as possible: an agreement to employ someone has two parties, one agrees to provide services and the other agrees to pay for them. There's no ethical reason why the terms and conditions of that agreement should favour either one or the other, and yet they discriminate heavily in favour of employees. No matter what planet you work on that's inequitable.

It's also the reason a lot of small businesses don't hire staff.

[huff3r]

Nobody said it should be equal. There is a difference between equal and fair.

[FJRider]

So the employer has to have second opinions in case he's just being a cnut, but the employee doesn't because he never is and besides it doesn't hurt the employer?



Correct with the first bit ...

However ... on the off chance the employee is not just being a cnut .. they still have the legal right to be heard.

It's the "Legal Right" bit that catches a few employers out ...

[Ocean1]

Nobody said it should be equal. There is a difference between equal and fair.

No. I did say it should be equitable.
characterized by equity or fairness; just and right; fair; reasonable

Does that count?


And fair would be having employees paid in terms of the revenue they can claim to have contributed to generating, same as the employer. We're a loooooong way from that.

[Oakie]

So if you turned up for work and your boss called you into his office and said "you're fired". You'd think that's fair?:no:


If my performance was such that he wasn't making enough to cover the cost of employing me then absolutely,

But what this whole question is about is the scenario where you turn up for work, the boss calls you in and says "you're fired" ... you said you're happy for that to happen if your performance isn't up to it ... but what if the boss thinks your performance isn't up to it but you contend- pick one or all of the following:

A) The boss didn't arrange the training I needed even though he said he would
B) The machine I work on has broken down several times and despite promises, has not been properly fixed so only runs at half speed
C) My foreman has been doing the productivity reports but he's been getting the stats wrong because he can't count
D) Our daily target used to be 100 widgets which I've always met but when the target was changed to 120 a day our section wasn't advised. This is the first I've heard of it.

Etc etc

Sure the boss can make the accusation that your performance isn't up to it BUT he must then give you the opportunity to respond to his accusation. It's natural justice. If he then listens to your contention, considers it with an open mind ... explores the issues you raise such as the examples I gave and THEN fires you, that is just fine.

[Ocean1]

But what this whole question is about is the scenario where you turn up for work, the boss calls you in and says "you're fired" ... you said you're happy for that to happen if your performance isn't up to it ... but what if the boss thinks your performance isn't up to it but you contend- pick one or all of the following:

A) The boss didn't arrange the training I needed even though he said he would
B) The machine I work on has broken down several times and despite promises, has not been properly fixed so only runs at half speed
C) My foreman has been doing the productivity reports but he's been getting the stats wrong because he can't count
D) Our daily target used to be 100 widgets which I've always met but when the target was changed to 120 a day our section wasn't advised. This is the first I've heard of it.

Etc etc

Sure the boss can make the accusation that your performance isn't up to it BUT he must then give you the opportunity to respond to his accusation. It's natural justice. If he then listens to your contention, considers it with an open mind ... explores the issues you raise such as the examples I gave and THEN fires you, that is just fine.

Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. As long as an employer has the same right to maintain an employee on staff under the originally agreed contract terms until such time as they listen to your contentions, considers them with an open mind, explore the issues you raise and THEN be permitted to resign.

That'd be natural justice.

As long as they've not missed some legal minutae.

[FJRider]

pick one or all of the following:

A) The boss didn't arrange the training I needed even though he said he would
B) The machine I work on has broken down several times and despite promises, has not been properly fixed so only runs at half speed
C) My foreman has been doing the productivity reports but he's been getting the stats wrong because he can't count
D) Our daily target used to be 100 widgets which I've always met but when the target was changed to 120 a day our section wasn't advised. This is the first I've heard of it.

Etc etc

Sure the boss can make the accusation that your performance isn't up to it BUT he must then give you the opportunity to respond to his accusation. It's natural justice. If he then listens to your contention, considers it with an open mind ... explores the issues you raise such as the examples I gave and THEN fires you, that is just fine.

What happens if ...

A) Training WAS arranged ... and on each of the days it was held you were "Off sick" ... but not to sick to attend big note sports events/Music concerts (etc) which you were seen at.
B) The machine broke down/malfunctioned because of repeated failure to follow instructions as to its correct use of operation.
C) Stats entered were as supplied. Figures supplied were put in the incorrect order on the forms.
C) Did you not get the Memo/E.mail .. dated ... ???

Two sides to every story.

[Edbear]

No. I did say it should be equitable.

Does that count?


And fair would be having employees paid in terms of the revenue they can claim to have contributed to generating, same as the employer. We're a loooooong way from that.

That is leading to more opting for contracting out. I couldn't afford to employ anyone who couldn't cover their wages plus in increased sales and income. Employees should think about how much the employer has to earn to cover their wages and a rough estimate would be at least double what the employee is getting.

[Oakie]

Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. As long as an employer has the same right to maintain an employee on staff under the originally agreed contract terms until such time as they listen to your contentions, considers them with an open mind, explore the issues you raise and THEN be permitted to resign.

That'd be natural justice. .

Well of course they already have that option and right to resign!

You are pretty close to the mark actually but instead of being 'permitted to resign' they are given the opportunity to improve performance (that's if it's performance related). Absolutely if it's a performance issue the employee needs to listen to the employer, consider what they've been told and then either pull their finger out ... or be sacked.

Other employment problems eg whacking the boss, theft, watching porn - you don't often get the chance 'to improve'. Generally you'll be out after a brief investigation. "Instant dismissal for those" did someone say? No. To be honest there is no such thing as an 'instant' dismissal. Your new salesman punches your best client in the face ... the manager has to at least ask "Why" before sacking him. Who knows ... perhaps the client proposed bottom-sex to the salesman.

[huff3r]

Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. As long as an employer has the same right to maintain an employee on staff under the originally agreed contract terms until such time as they listen to your contentions, considers them with an open mind, explore the issues you raise and THEN be permitted to resign.

That'd be natural justice.

As long as they've not missed some legal minutae.

I'm sorry, but you can't tell me quitting is the same as being fired. As I said before, quitting a job is not attributing blame to anyone, so there is no reason for the employer to be heard. Being fired attributes blame to the employee, so they deserve the right to respond and defend themselves.

If you can't see the difference then there is nothing further to say here.


What happens if ...

A) Training WAS arranged ... and on each of the days it was held you were "Off sick" ... but not to sick to attend big note sports events/Music concerts (etc) which you were seen at.
B) The machine broke down/malfunctioned because of repeated failure to follow instructions as to its correct use of operation.
C) Stats entered were as supplied. Figures supplied were put in the incorrect order on the forms.
C) Did you not get the Memo/E.mail .. dated ... ???

Two sides to every story.

Then due process is followed and you are fired.

[Oakie]

What happens if ...

A) Training WAS arranged ... and on each of the days it was held you were "Off sick" ... but not to sick to attend big note sports events/Music concerts (etc) which you were seen at.
B) The machine broke down/malfunctioned because of repeated failure to follow instructions as to its correct use of operation.
C) Stats entered were as supplied. Figures supplied were put in the incorrect order on the forms.
C) Did you not get the Memo/E.mail .. dated ... ???

Two sides to every story.

Yep, and if the manager can answer to those contentions as you suggest, then fine to move to dismissal ... but he has to at least consider.

People will say all sorts to save a job. You wouldn't believe the story a guy told me during the disciplinary process following him being caught viewing porn for hours at work. Yeah, they bullshit, but they have to be given the opportunity to do so.

[FJRider]

You wouldn't believe the story a guy told me during the disciplinary process following him being caught viewing porn for hours at work. Yeah, they bullshit, but they have to be given the opportunity to do so.

"Security" cameras catch a few ... shit ... some even come on KB in work hours ... :laugh:

How sad is that ... :rolleyes:

[Oakie]

"Security" cameras catch a few ... shit ... some even come on KB in work hours ... :laugh:

How sad is that ... :rolleyes:

Cameras work both ways. We had allegations against a staff member so put a camera in and a week's worth of footage showed the allegations were unfounded. Potentially saved us all a lot of heartache.

[Ocean1]

I'm sorry, but you can't tell me quitting is the same as being fired. As I said before, quitting a job is not attributing blame to anyone, so there is no reason for the employer to be heard. Being fired attributes blame to the employee, so they deserve the right to respond and defend themselves.

In what way does dismissing someone attribute blame? It's simply terminating the contract, exactly the same contract the employee can terminate by resigning, exactly the same result, why would blame enter into consideration for one side and not for the other.

If an employee can resign simply because they have the opportunity to work for better conditions then why shouldn't an employer dismiss an employee because they have an opportunity to hire someone offering better services?

If you see a difference there then you have a clear bias against employers. You could clear that up by hiring someone, does wonders for your perspective.

[Dangsta]

Wow is this still going on?? :weird:

[Oakie]

It'll never end until someone gets the sack from KB ... without due process of course.

[Woodman]

In what way does dismissing someone attribute blame? It's simply terminating the contract, exactly the same contract the employee can terminate by resigning, exactly the same result, why would blame enter into consideration for one side and not for the other.

If an employee can resign simply because they have the opportunity to work for better conditions then why shouldn't an employer dismiss an employee because they have an opportunity to hire someone offering better services?

If you see a difference there then you have a clear bias against employers. You could clear that up by hiring someone, does wonders for your perspective.

Geeez, what an environment that would create. No loyalty whatsoever both ways. Disaster.

I think you should continue working with yourself.

[Gremlin]

It'll never end until someone gets the sack from KB ... without due process of course.
Happens regularly... they join, they spam, they're banned.

Process of course :msn-wink:

[Ocean1]

Geeez, what an environment that would create. No loyalty whatsoever both ways. Disaster.

I think you should continue working with yourself.

So enforced loyalty is only required of an employer? Seriously, how is that an equitable arangement? Nobody has yet come up with a valid ethical reason why summary termination should be OK for one party but not the other.

As long as such attitudes predominate NZ will continue to be short of employers. As for working with myself; I don't work alone.

[oneofsix]

So enforced loyalty is only required of an employer? Seriously, how is that an equitable arangement? Nobody has yet come up with a valid ethical reason why summary termination should be OK for one party but not the other.

As long as such attitudes predominate NZ will continue to be short of employers. As for working with myself; I don't work alone.

"Enforced loyalty is only required of an employer" :rofl: sorry but that is the natural order of things, not an enforcement. If you don't like it opt out. If you want people to work for you and care about what you want to achieve then you have to treat them right, starts at the top and that is the employer. You sound like a typical wally that wants to blame everyone else for your failings. "they should bow down to me just because I am offering them a job", guess that is why you require a high unemployment, to make people that disparate. Sorry but people have feelings and unless you treat them right they will only begrudgingly work for you for the money, the situation unemployment sets up, not out of loyalty. You want loyalty from your staff you have to be loyal to them and most employers aren't where it's all about the money. :rolleyes:

[Oakie]

So enforced loyalty is only required of an employer? Seriously, how is that an equitable arangement? Nobody has yet come up with a valid ethical reason why summary termination should be OK for one party but not the other. .

The argument is nothing to do with loyalty though. It's about fairness.

[Ocean1]

"Enforced loyalty is only required of an employer" :rofl: sorry but that is the natural order of things, not an enforcement. If you don't like it opt out. If you want people to work for you and care about what you want to achieve then you have to treat them right, starts at the top and that is the employer. You sound like a typical wally that wants to blame everyone else for your failings. "they should bow down to me just because I am offering them a job", guess that is why you require a high unemployment, to make people that disparate. Sorry but people have feelings and unless you treat them right they will only begrudgingly work for you for the money, the situation unemployment sets up, not out of loyalty. You want loyalty from your staff you have to be loyal to them and most employers aren't where it's all about the money. :rolleyes:

No, a natural order wouldn’t involve lawyers and contracts, it’d be a handshake, as would any change in that relationship. And if you don’t think the existing employment legislation represents enforcement then I can only suggest that you haven’t read it.

As for my failings, they’re mine, I pay for them, never blamed anyone else for them in my life. I’ve rarely had an employee offer to pay for theirs.

And far from requiring high unemployment I’m pointing out the simple fact that positions vacant are driven by the terms and conditions of employment. Nothing else. If there’s more people unemployed than you personally like then I suggest you hire some of them, because the rest of the country obviously doesn’t see much attraction in the prospect. There's a few expenses along the way, there but I'm sure a man with the conviction of his beliefs wouldn't mind losing a bit of cash in support of such a noble enterprise.

And if your observations about current employers is based on the same prejudice as the rest of your post I’ll take it with a grain of salt.


The argument is nothing to do with loyalty though. It's about fairness.

I was responding to Woodman, below.


Geeez, what an environment that would create. No loyalty whatsoever both ways. Disaster.


And according to most dictionaries fairness equates to equity. Same thing. So yet again, how can summary termination for an individual who’s an employee be fair when it’s not an option available to an individual who’s an employer?

So far you guys have nothing, and it seems that’s related to some fairytale perception of an employer as some nebulous entity with endless resources that’s there to lean on as much as possible.

[Dangsta]

No, a natural order wouldn’t involve lawyers and contracts, it’d be a handshake, as would any change in that relationship. And if you don’t think the existing employment legislation represents enforcement then I can only suggest that you haven’t read it.

As for my failings, they’re mine, I pay for them, never blamed anyone else for them in my life. I’ve rarely had an employee offer to pay for theirs.

And far from requiring high unemployment I’m pointing out the simple fact that positions vacant are driven by the terms and conditions of employment. Nothing else. If there’s more people unemployed than you personally like then I suggest you hire some of them, because the rest of the country obviously doesn’t see much attraction in the prospect. There's a few expenses along the way, there but I'm sure a man with the conviction of his beliefs wouldn't mind losing a bit of cash in support of such a noble enterprise.

And if your observations about current employers is based on the same prejudice as the rest of your post I’ll take it with a grain of salt..


You sir, are the reason that I work in the field of employment law and also the reason why I have an arse-load of disposable income. Don't ever change:niceone:

Keep on trying to convince us all that its okay for an employer to make an arbitrary decision one day and just start sacking people......use big words and "compelling arguments" and then look all confused when you get ass-raped by the Employment Relations Authority for unjustified dismissal:baby:

Also, when you attempt to respond to what I've written here (which no doubt you will), please note that instead of giving this thread (read you) any more time by actually replying, I'll just refer you back I'm writing now. You can cut and paste it below whatever you write from now on, I think it will be an adequate response to anything further you have to say.

[oneofsix]

You sir, are the reason that I work in the field of employment law and also the reason why I have an arse-load of disposable income. Don't ever change:niceone:

Keep on trying to convince us all that its okay for an employer to make an arbitrary decision one day and just start sacking people......use big words and "compelling arguments" and then look all confused when you get ass-raped by the Employment Relations Authority for unjustified dismissal:baby:

Also, when you attempt to respond to what I've written here (which no doubt you will), please note that instead of giving this thread (read you) any more time by actually replying, I'll just refer you back I'm writing now. You can cut and paste it below whatever you write from now on, I think it will be an adequate response to anything further you have to say.

Thanks Dangsta. :laugh: The Ocean is all washed up and doesn't understand what laws are versus natural order, and that law is used to either try to re-enforce or alter the same. However to try to get people actually willing work for you and go the extra mile - refer original post. I think I will follow Dangsta's lead, just refer what he wrote.

[Ocean1]

You sir, are the reason that I work in the field of employment law and also the reason why I have an arse-load of disposable income. Don't ever change:niceone:

I'll take a leaf out of your book and assume you're in HR. I'd as soon admit I was in arftificial insemination, but I guess it takes all sorts, and at least it explains your lack of comprehension.

Just one last clue as to how wrong your assumptions are: I'm not an employer.

Your admission that you've got no adequate answer to my question is also duely noted.

[Oakie]

..........:brick:

10 chars

[pete376403]

In the USA it's described as "at will" employment. Steve Joyce would probably like to see this in place here.

At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can immediately terminate the relationship at any time with or without any advance warning,[1] and with no subsequent liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargaining group (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine:

any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[2]

In an October 2000 decision largely reaffirming employers' rights under the at-will doctrine, the Supreme Court of California explained:

[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment ... The mere existence of an employment relationship affords no expectation, protectable by law, that employment will continue, or will end only on certain conditions, unless the parties have actually adopted such terms.

[Oakie]

Well that explains the workplace killings then ...

[Edbear]

Well that explains the workplace killings then ...

Possibly for a few. My take on this is to have an individual contract drawn up that is agreed to by both parties. This seems ot be the norm here now.

[Scuba_Steve]

Just as a question, has any of those who think it easy for employers to fire useless employees ever been through the process???
I'm not talking about serious misconduct, just people useless at the job or unable to do the job; like the guy in the OG article who was unqualified & unfit for the job.