you have to admire the filthy tube scum/drivers

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

You are now contradicting yourself, earlier you said it was OK to dismiss someone for not achieving set targets, now you are saying this only applies in some cases.

I'm not.

A work objective is something you need to achieve as part of your job. That objective needs to be reasonable in terms of your sex, gender, race, disability.

For example, an acceptable and measurable objective would be to produce a project report once a week on all of the current projects they are managing.

You could sack someone on the basis that they they couldn't be bothered to do that. For example, there was a weekly hand-written project log they had to fill out and send to you and they simply couldn't be a*sed to do it. Or it was always filled in to a poor standard, despite you telling them so and trying to show them how it should be done. Then you can sack them. What you can't do is sack someone because they've lost their writing arm in an accident and you didn't work with them to find an alternative way of them filling out the project log other than a hand-written paper form.

Do you see the dinstinction?

ILW

Cleaver wrote: »

I'm not.

A work objective is something you need to achieve as part of your job. That objective needs to be reasonable in terms of your sex, gender, race, disability.

For example, an acceptable and measurable objective would be to produce a project report once a week on all of the current projects they are managing.

You could sack someone on the basis that they they couldn't be bothered to do that. For example, there was a weekly hand-written project log they had to fill out and send to you and they simply couldn't be a*sed to do it. Or it was always filled in to a poor standard, despite you telling them so and trying to show them how it should be done. Then you can sack them. What you can't do is sack someone because they've lost their writing arm in an accident and you didn't work with them to find an alternative way of them filling out the project log other than a hand-written paper form.

Do you see the dinstinction?

That is probably fine in an admin job, but to give another example:

Small co takes on a sales rep on £2000 per month. With car costs the employer £2500 per month.

Minimum performance is to sell 10 units per month each producing £300 profit, thereafter extra commission paid on extra sales.

Due to pregnancy restricting travel, not being able to carry samples etc, rep can only sell 5 per month and employer needs to allow for this.

The employee is now losing the employer £1000 per month.

This is fine for a company with 50 or so employees, but for one with only two or three it could be a death blow.

nearlynew

Cleaver wrote: »

I'm not.

A work objective is something you need to achieve as part of your job. That objective needs to be reasonable in terms of your sex, gender, race, disability.

For example, an acceptable and measurable objective would be to produce a project report once a week on all of the current projects they are managing.

You could sack someone on the basis that they they couldn't be bothered to do that. For example, there was a weekly hand-written project log they had to fill out and send to you and they simply couldn't be a*sed to do it. Or it was always filled in to a poor standard, despite you telling them so and trying to show them how it should be done. Then you can sack them. What you can't do is sack someone because they've lost their writing arm in an accident and you didn't work with them to find an alternative way of them filling out the project log other than a hand-written paper form.

Do you see the dinstinction?

Or you could try to pass it off as a bit of 'armless fun.

discoass

ILW wrote: »

That is probably fine in an admin job, but to give another example:

Small co takes on a sales rep on £2000 per month. With car costs the employer £2500 per month.

Minimum performance is to sell 10 units per month each producing £300 profit, thereafter extra commission paid on extra sales.

Due to pregnancy restricting travel, not being able to carry samples etc, rep can only sell 5 per month and employer needs to allow for this.

The employee is now losing the employer £1000 per month.

This is fine for a company with 50 or so employees, but for one with only two or three it could be a death blow.

i would say travel restrictions only apply to late pregnancy,on the lifting part employ a 16-17 y old on min wage to go with her and help.

ILW

discoass wrote: »

i would say travel restrictions only apply to late pregnancy,on the lifting part employ a 16-17 y old on min wage to go with her and help.

The sixteen year old would cost £1000 per month.

I know it is a blunt example, but it is what can happen.

discoass

ILW wrote: »

The sixteen year old would cost £1000 per month.

I know it is a blunt example, but it is what can happen.

what on £4 an hour,u could also use them as off junior/and learn the trade

ILW

discoass wrote: »

what on £4 an hour,u could also use them as off junior/and learn the trade

40 hours x £4.00 is 160 quid or around £700 per month, plus daily food allowance of as £5.00 a day and possible hotel bills would easily be over £1000 per month.

In the early days of a small business, office juniors and trainees are a luxury that cannot always be afforded. Most do not even survive the first few years.

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

That is probably fine in an admin job, but to give another example:

Small co takes on a sales rep on £2000 per month. With car costs the employer £2500 per month.

Minimum performance is to sell 10 units per month each producing £300 profit, thereafter extra commission paid on extra sales.

Due to pregnancy restricting travel, not being able to carry samples etc, rep can only sell 5 per month and employer needs to allow for this.

There is no performance to measure when someone isn't working. Maternity leave means that they are absent from work, hence their performace cannot be measured.

ILW

Cleaver wrote: »

There is no performance to measure when someone isn't working. Maternity leave means that they are absent from work, hence their performace cannot be measured.

Prior to maternity leave you have said that the employers needs to make allowances for the pregnancy, and adjust targets accordingly.

bendix

somethingcorporate wrote: »

I did have a good laugh when I read about the tube drivers going on strike again and am so thankful I left London a few years ago.

No standards at all. Tube drivers are their own worse enemies and they will only hold the country to ransom so many times.

It costs about £100m a year to fund the tube drivers, it cannot take too many years payback to replace them all with an automated system.

True. It is a truly awful system. When I lived in London recently the journey from Royal Oak to Liverpool Street NEVER once happened without delays (usually while drivers changed shifts or went on tea breaks at Edgeware Road), completely oblivious to the passengers.

I compare the tube system in London to similar systems in Hong Kong (where I work), Singapore (where i visit regularly) or Bangkok (where I work) and it's like comparing chalk with cheese.

Beautifully clean, efficient, reliable, cheap and a joy to use, all of them.