you have to admire the filthy tube scum/drivers

discoass

ILW wrote: »

A contract would not be worded like that, but may have strict levels of performance required. If these levels are not achieved for whatever reason, I believe the employer should have the right to let the person go. Is that really so unreasonable.

How would the would be employee know if the performance levels were acheivable?

Whats to stop unachievable Targets been written into the ("unlawful" because we don`t like laws) contract?

chewmylegoff

ILW wrote: »

A contract would not be worded like that, but may have strict levels of performance required. If these levels are not achieved for whatever reason, I believe the employer should have the right to let the person go. Is that really so unreasonable.

You can sack someone for any reason in the first year of their employment so that gives you ample opportunity to get rid of anyone you employ who isn't up to the task.

Also I don't see why you couldn't insert performance criteria into a contract as long as the terms were fair and reasonably achievable. Presumably some sales staff have contractual targets and can be dismissed if they fail to meet the targets over a certain period - not that I've ever worked in sales but it seems logical.

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

A contract would not be worded like that, but may have strict levels of performance required. If these levels are not achieved for whatever reason, I believe the employer should have the right to let the person go. Is that really so unreasonable.

Eh? That's what we currently have isn't it? You sign a contract stating that you perform in the job. If you don't, you get sacked. So no, that's completely reasonable and what is currently in place.

You previously said that an employer should be able to sack for any reason, i.e. getting pregnant. That's nothing to do with your level of performance. Are you following this thread okay?

Cleaver

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Also I don't see why you couldn't insert performance criteria into a contract as long as the terms were fair and reasonably achievable. Presumably some sales staff have contractual targets and can be dismissed if they fail to meet the targets over a certain period - not that I've ever worked in sales but it seems logical.

I don't think I've ever had a job where my performance wasn't a part of the deal. There's always along the lines of 'performing the tasks of the job as per the job description to a standard required by the company' or somthing along those lines. I.e., if we're not happy with how you're performing and you don't do anything about it we'll sack you. Which is fine.

ILW

Cleaver wrote: »

Eh? That's what we currently have isn't it? You sign a contract stating that you perform in the job. If you don't, you get sacked. So no, that's completely reasonable and what is currently in place.

You previously said that an employer should be able to sack for any reason, i.e. getting pregnant. That's nothing to do with your level of performance. Are you following this thread okay?

If an employee fails to perform the job due to pregnancy, you cannot let them go. Or in the murky world of employment tribunals. if an employee is not performing and then gets pregnant you still cannot get rid.

discoass

ILW wrote: »

If an employee fails to perform the job due to pregnancy, you cannot let them go. Or in the murky world of employment tribunals. if an employee is not performing and then gets pregnant you still cannot get rid.

unbelievable...been pregnant is not an illness ,so they`re off for maternity which in this day and age is often not for the full year as £128 doesnt stretch very far if u have bills and a mortgage meaning the women will return before the year is up.
This is of no cost to the buisness other than employing somebody else on lower terms/temp worker .

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

If an employee fails to perform the job due to pregnancy, you cannot let them go.

Read that back again. How, on earth, is your performance in a job related to whether you are pregnant or not?

ILW wrote: »

Or in the murky world of employment tribunals. if an employee is not performing and then gets pregnant you still cannot get rid.

Of course you can. If you've been performance managing an employee against objectives and they've not been performing then you can sack them. I manage people and, unfortunately, I've sacked people for poor peformance.

Have you honestly employed people in the past?

ILW

discoass wrote: »

This is of no cost to the buisness other than employing somebody else on lower terms/temp worker .

You truly do not understand.

discoass

ILW wrote: »

You truly do not understand.

explain to me then.
why is having somebody pregnant such a burden?
whats the difference in getting a temp to hiring and firing at will which is what u want,both need training .?

ILW

Cleaver wrote: »

Read that back again. How, on earth, is your performance in a job related to whether you are pregnant or not?

For example, cannot drive long distances, cannot carry displays, demo kit etc. We were advised that pregnancy needs to be taken into account and targets adjusted accordingly.

You cannot just say "targets missed, heres the door" without taking mitigating factors into account. meanwhile your competition is taking your clients.