Hell no. I understated what I really thought of his work, I tried to be diplomatic.Originally Posted by oldrider
Hell no. I understated what I really thought of his work, I tried to be diplomatic.Originally Posted by oldrider
This weeks international insult is in Malayalam:
Thavalayolee
You Frog Fucker
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.
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
"Not one day that we are here on this earth has been promised to us, so make the most of every day as if it was your last, and every breath ,as if it were the same"
I was a Manager myself, I understand your feelings but your associate has a ways to go. Cheers John.Originally Posted by 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 employeesOriginally Posted by Biff
Originally Posted by Pixie
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.
This weeks international insult is in Malayalam:
Thavalayolee
You Frog Fucker
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.Originally Posted by Biff
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.
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.Originally Posted by El Dopa
This weeks international insult is in Malayalam:
Thavalayolee
You Frog Fucker
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks