Sorry mate.

[Biff]

I spent yesterday evening with a group of work colleagues, having an informal chat (read piss up) about work things. During the evening a colleage asked me what I thought of one of her staff*. I told her exactly what I thought of his work, fluffed up with the occassional, "but he's a nice guy".

Just checked my mail - there's a message from her, in the mail she says, " Thanks for your honesty (about *) , you confirmed my own beliefs. I'm going to let him go tomorrow."

Sorry mate. Sorry to your wife and 5 kids, sorry that this will mean the termination of your NZ work to residence visa and you'll all have to return to the UK.

Sorry.

[Gremlin]

jeepers, bit underhanded to do that using stuff from an informal chat...

Can she easily let him go like that?? I was under the impression it was bloody hard to fire people without following process etc. with the Labour govt...

[SPORK]

Sheet. Bugger man.

I mean, forcing someone to go back to the UK... Ouch.

[justsomeguy]

Can she easily let him go like that?? I was under the impression it was bloody hard to fire people without following process etc. with the Labour govt...

Law and Justice are two very different words in the real world Gremlin.

Horrible situation. No idea how to remedy it.

[Gremlin]

Law and Justice are two very different words in the real world Gremlin.
I'm sure, but my dad is a manager, and he's been through bad employees before, HR was involved etc. What a shit fight, employee ended up claiming against the company... :no:

Just surprised it was easy.

[Biff]

I mean, forcing someone to go back to the UK... Ouch.

You think that's bad. It was only a few hundred years ago that people were forced to leave the UK for Oz.....


In all honesty, she can't force him to go back just by sacking him. But to terminate his contract, on which his visa is based, means that he'll be staying here illegaly I guess (I have the same kind of visa). Unless he applies to stay on some other grounds.

Not nice. And yes she can do it, legally, apparently, providing that she makes a good case for him not being suitable for the job in which he is employed.

[justsomeguy]

I'm sure, but my dad is a manager, and he's been through bad employees before, HR was involved etc. What a shit fight, employee ended up claiming against the company... :no:

Just surprised it was easy.

Really?? I was "made redundant" with about 1 minutes notice, bastards changed the company name and location and took off with bout 3K of my earnings. They also had their phones dissconnected and furniture seized by landlords......

Never went bankrupt - just decided to stop investing and paying people. Did the same to the other staff too.

[SPORK]

Well, was he worthwhile to the company?

If he was a dead weight then you could argue that you/she did the right thing.

I wouldn't though.

[Gremlin]

Really?? I was "made redundant" with about 1 minutes notice, bastards changed the company name and location and took off with bout 3K of my earnings. They also had their phones dissconnected and furniture seized by landlords......

Never went bankrupt - just decided to stop investing and paying people. Did the same to the other staff too.
jeez... but then that's the actual company that's at fault. In that instance, yep, definitely a difference between law and reality...

but my dad is the manager of a residential housing company whose name goes back 20+ years, and is part of one of the big housing companies in Auckland... so you can't act illegally.

I hate companies that pack up and change names just to screw people, and legally you can't do a damn thing.

[Ixion]

You think that's bad. It was only a few hundred years ago that people were forced to leave the UK for Oz.....


In all honesty, she can't force him to go back just by sacking him. But to terminate his contract, on which his visa is based, means that he'll be staying here illegaly I guess (I have the same kind of visa). Unless he applies to stay on some other grounds.

Not nice. And yes she can do it, legally, apparently, providing that she makes a good case for him not being suitable for the job in which he is employed.

Oh dear. Not pleasant for anyone concerned.

Unless "she" is very good and has a LOT of supporting documentation (including previous warnings and counselling), I'd be pretty confident (putting on my old union delegate hat - and I was a good 'un) that I'd get him quite a few thousand for unjustified dismissal. In practice, the company would buy him out to avoid the court case.

He has not only to be "unsuitable" (meaningless term actually, the only reason for performance based dismissal is incompetance, which must be objectively demonstrated , with documented examples, and evidence of prior warning, and performance coaching provided) , but the company has to prove (a) that he misled the employer as to his qualifications/suitability and (b) that it is not reasonably practical for the company to provide training and/or counselling and/or other assistance so as to render him "suitable" .

Doesn't really help all that much though.

[Gremlin]

There's the kind of stuff I was thinking about... could never put that into words...

yep, companies don't want the hassle and will normally try to get it out of the way quick... depending on the size of the company, they might have either a law department, or big law firm on the books.

Getting them involved would just about cost more...

[justsomeguy]

There's the kind of stuff I was thinking about... could never put that into words...

yep, companies don't want the hassle and will normally try to get it out of the way quick... depending on the size of the company, they might have either a law department, or big law firm on the books.

Getting them involved would just about cost more...

I think the head of whatever dept is involved and the accountant will put together a small "bribe" that the company secretary/PR person will offer the poor fella.

His biggest prob will be having his work permit cancelled. Any way around that?

[Gremlin]

His biggest prob will be having his work permit cancelled. Any way around that?
yeah, that's the worst bit.

Only way I could see is if he gets an offer from another company. The problem is that a company has to prove it has looked here first, there aren't other suitable people for the job, the job is on that skills shortages list etc.

IIRC

[Ixion]

There's the kind of stuff I was thinking about... could never put that into words...

yep, companies don't want the hassle and will normally try to get it out of the way quick... depending on the size of the company, they might have either a law department, or big law firm on the books.

Getting them involved would just about cost more...

Yep. And if they do it's not too hard to imply that shows vindictiveness, and impute that into the original decision.

Incidentally, nothing to do with Labour government, situation was just the same under earlier governments. Was actually more so prior to the ECA. Only thing that's altered since Labour switched the ECA to the ERA is that the courts have shown a willingness to import the "good faith" requirement of the ERA into disputes generally, which should make it easier in cases such as this where (presumably) the axe strikes out of the blue - ie good faith would argue that talking about the employees performance in such "off the record" circumstances is not acting in good faith.

Be aware Mr Biff that if he DOES take it to court (unlikely) , "she" may use the argument that "other people thought he was no good also, not just me" to bolster her case - and in that event you may have to give evidence as to what you said, and prove it.

A good employment court lawyer (or a good union delegate - not in a union ? you should be) can make tie a knot in most dismissal cases .which is why most companies will settle . Problem is, a few thousand bucks is no substitute for a job

[Lou Girardin]

I guess the moral is to never venture an opinion on your workmates to management.
The growing practice of 360 degree reviews makes me sick. It's a cop-out that lets an indivdual's supervisor avoid justifying their decisions about staff.

[mangell6]

Is the 360degree review making a come back? Cor haven't seen one of those for years.
Especially against managers who take credit for others work, their "peers" and staff can make 'honest' statements.

[ManDownUnder]

Don't sweat it.

They had their mind made up and if it only took a few (beverage lubricated) comments to put them over the edge they need help.

Sounds like they knew what they had to do, and have offloaded some of the guilt they feel about having to do it.

Deindividuation I think it's called... always easier to make a "ugly" decision as a group - that way others can "be blamed too".

Yeah it's unfortunate, in fact I think what the boss did was just no right personally, although you do seem to possibly have their attention and respect when it comes to matters of importance.

Have a beer tonight - have one on me (just just pour it "down there" - the bubbles make me squirm)
MDU

[enigma51]

I will not worry to much about it. Company's are there to make money so that they can pay you so that you can feed your family. If someone is not pulling his weight then it affects everyone.


I am a hartless bastard I know but that is the business world. Its about money and money has no friends

[Beemer]

Jeez, I just hope she doesn't take one of your other workmates aside for a 'chat' about you!

The guy may be on a trial, and if so, she could quite easily say he is not working out and not continue his employment. If he has a contract though, she will have to have a good reason to get rid of him.

I got fired years ago and although devastated at the time (deeply in debt, not expecting to be unemployed!), it was the best thing that could have happened to me. I sorted out what I wanted to do and six years later I'm in a much better position than I would have been if I were still working there.

What's the old saying about when one door closes, another opens? Don't sweat it too much, it's not your problem.

[TonyB]

Bloody hell! I guess you won't be having too many informal chats with her anymore. Shit of a situation to be in Biff. Remember though she said "you confirmed my own beliefs", not "wow, I wasn't aware of any of this..."

[**R1**]

You mean Welsh bastard!!!


na just kidding, fuck him bro... if he cant do the job, I'm sure he is just aware of it as all the rest of you.....In my last job, by the time some one had been bad enough for a formal warning I found that 10 times out of 10 they were already waiting for it....or retarded he's not an equell oportunities employee is he?

[Colapop]

I'm no angel sure, but the reality is for legitimate (ie. good) companies is that they have to carry a lot of baggage they just can't get rid of easily. I'd think that if he's on a fixed term contract there'd be a clause in there about non-performance.
Mr Biff I'd say get some clarification from the manager as to her perception of your comments. Informal situations are the bane of employees these days coz you just can't relax.
Loose lips as they say... take heart Biff, it seems like he was on his way anyway, regardless of your comments. Look at the positive side - this she manager thinks quite highly of your opinion..

[Sniper]

Please dont tell people what you think of me

PT

[enigma51]

Please dont tell people what you think of me

PT


too late for that mate :whistle:

[*sic]

cold.

thats pretty dicey that she rolled him like that.

not cool.

sucks she done that to you.

[Lou Girardin]

I will not worry to much about it. Company's are there to make money so that they can pay you so that you can feed your family. If someone is not pulling his weight then it affects everyone.


I am a hartless bastard I know but that is the business world. Its about money and money has no friends

And how's life back there in 1890?

[El Dopa]

Speaking as someone who came here on a 6-month 'work to residence' visa, and was here for 5 1/2 months beofre finding an appropriate job (sweating it? Who, me?), I'm kinda in two minds about this.

1) If he could do the job he was employed to do properly, he wouldn't be in trouble.

2) That's harsh.

[Biff]

I guess the moral is to never venture an opinion on your workmates to management.

I'm "management", as is "she".

"He" did some work for me - it was crap. In general, his work is crap. He's been asked to sort himself out on several occasions, but never received a written warning. It's more of an attitude problem than an out and out lack of capability.

Unfortunately there comes a time when as 'management' you have to be a heartless bastard in your employers best interest. I could have lied, but then I loose, the company looses, beacause we need someone capable of doing this job. He wasn't.

[Ixion]

I'm "management", as is "she".

"He" did some work for me - it was crap. In general, his work is crap. He's been asked to sort himself out on several occasions, but never received a written warning. It's more of an attitude problem than an out and out lack of capability.

Unfortunately there comes a time when as 'management' you have to be a heartless bastard in your employers best interest. I could have lied, but then I loose, the company looses, beacause we need someone capable of doing this job. He wasn't.

Ah. Never received a written warning. She's toast if he gets a lawyer.

Incidentally, I do hate that weaselly phrase "going to let him go" , meaning "going to sack him". It's as if every sacked worker was actually straining desperately to escape from his job, and the boss is doing him a favour by giving him his freedom. What crap.

If a manager has to sack someone (and I've had to do it many times, with my manager hat on), he should at least have the guts to face up to what he's doing. Sacking the guy. Not "letting him go".

[oldrider]

I spent yesterday evening with a group of work colleagues, having an informal chat (read piss up) about work things. During the evening a colleage asked me what I thought of one of her staff*. I told her exactly what I thought of his work, fluffed up with the occassional, "but he's a nice guy".

Just checked my mail - there's a message from her, in the mail she says, " Thanks for your honesty (about *) , you confirmed my own beliefs. I'm going to let him go tomorrow."

Sorry mate. Sorry to your wife and 5 kids, sorry that this will mean the termination of your NZ work to residence visa and you'll all have to return to the UK.

Sorry.
What have you got to be sorry for? Did you tell lies? If not you were asked, you told the truth. She did the business not you. She was just trying to justify her actions to herself. Gutless bitch. Cheers John.

[Biff]

What have you got to be sorry for? Did you tell lies?

Hell no. I understated what I really thought of his work, I tried to be diplomatic.

[onearmedbandit]

The term 'letting him go' to me has always implied that you were casting him away, not letting him escape. Kind of like holding someone by their wrists from the top of a 20 story building, and 'letting him go'. You're not giving him the opportunity to depart, you're making that decision for him. My understanding of the term anyway.

[Storm]

If he wasnt up to scratch, then he was dead weight to your company. You are management , thats why you get the "big bucks" (TM) to make the hard decisions

[oldrider]

Hell no. I understated what I really thought of his work, I tried to be diplomatic.
I was a Manager myself, I understand your feelings but your associate has a ways to go. Cheers John.

[Pixie]

I'm "management", as is "she".

"He" did some work for me - it was crap. In general, his work is crap. He's been asked to sort himself out on several occasions, but never received a written warning. It's more of an attitude problem than an out and out lack of capability.

Unfortunately there comes a time when as 'management' you have to be a heartless bastard in your employers best interest. I could have lied, but then I loose, the company looses, beacause we need someone capable of doing this job. He wasn't.
But really,you must accept that,having employed him (probably on the basis of an optomistic resume),the company is now obliged to employ him till kindom come,regardless of how he has to be carried by the other employees

[Biff]

But really,you must accept that,having employed him (probably on the basis of an optomistic resume),the company is now obliged to employ him till kindom come,regardless of how he has to be carried by the other employees

No – I don't agree with that. No employer should have to 'carry' anyone. It's up to the employee to demonstrate their worth, as they're paid to do a job. If they’re not capable of doing the job, then they should be moved aside (preferably internally) in order to allow someone that is capable of doing the job, do it. Naturally it's also the companies responsibility to treat the employee well (salary, benefits, working environment etc). So both sides have a responsibility.

[El Dopa]

No – I don't agree with that. No employer should have to 'carry' anyone. It's up to the employee to demonstrate their worth, as they're paid to do a job. If they’re not capable of doing the job, then they should be moved aside (preferably internally) in order to allow someone that is capable of doing the job, do it. Naturally it's also the companies responsibility to treat the employee well (salary, benefits, working environment etc). So both sides have a responsibility.

There are plenty of people doing a job that just isn't a good fit for either employer or employee. If an employee can't do a job, and won't voluntarily leave, they should be strongly encouraged to leave, or forced out, not shifted around like a bad smell from dept to dept.

However, if potentially the rest of their life is at stake, as you originally posted, that's pretty harsh.

Anyway, just out of interest, I'm curious as to their immigration situation, and whether they really have lost out or not. When I came here, I needed a permanent job offer, not a temporary contract. Also, once I was in the job, I could have left after a couple of weeks, as soon as the paperwork/passport came through, without any immigratio worries.

So:

1) You didn't make the decison, it was already made. Don't sweat it.

2) Unless they've changed the rules since I came out here, there was something odd going on anyway.

[Biff]

Anyway, just out of interest, I'm curious as to their immigration situation, and whether they really have lost out or not.


A new category of visa was introduced around 18 months ago (ish?), called a work to residence visa. This visa is issued on the premise that you have a permanent job with a registered (with the immigration service) company. You are not allowed to leave or change jobs within 30 months of arriving here. After 30 months you pretty much automatically gain residency (not citizenship). Leaving the job/employer shown on your visa voids your visa. However, if you do leave the job indicated on your visa there is some leniency allowing you to stay here while applying for another job. But the immigration service can ask you to leave at any time.