No 10 Adviser Attacks 'Socialist' Vince Cable

Fella

pqrdef wrote: »

Of course they don't. They're not allowed to.

Why would they want to?

Bored with you now, it's like arguing with a whining 6-y-old who doesn't understand why he can't eat nothing but sweets. You have no idea how the world actually works.

pqrdef

Fella wrote: »

Why would they want to?

I can't imagine, given that all employees are perfect.

But I've known a number of people get eased out of their jobs because their faces didn't fit. They were all bribed, one way or another. The most awkward of them was offered three years' salary as a "mobility incentive".

heathcote123

Fella wrote: »

Exactly. All this utter garbage that employers would be able to fire someone "because they didn't like the look of them" blah blah is nonsense & anyone who's actually run a business knows that. The problem is most people saying it have never run a business & know nothing.

I think in many cases it's because an employer might be a bit scared to tell the employee the real reason - eg 'you're just a bit crap at getting the job done','you dont work well under pressure', 'you rub the customers up the wrong way', 'you've become complacent and lazy' - all stuff that may not be apparent immediately and may change as employees do or dont adapt well to business or personal changes, and the employee fabricates all kinds of alternate reasons in their heads - ie face not fitting.

I do appreciate though that for very low skilled/easily replaceable skills there is far less security with an employer.

I speak from the viewpoint of a small employer, and getting the right people for the job is hugely difficult, we tend to go through a few 3 month trials before finding the right person. When they are in, trained and working well, it would be stupid to lose them on a whim, they are a hugely valuable asset. It's a two-way street & we have enough to contend with without becoming social workers.

StevieJ

heathcote123 wrote: »

I think in many cases it's because an employer might be a bit scared to tell the employee the real reason - eg 'you're just a bit crap at getting the job done','you dont work well under pressure', 'you rub the customers up the wrong way', 'you've become complacent and lazy' - all stuff that may not be apparent immediately and may change as employees do or dont adapt well to business or personal changes, and the employee fabricates all kinds of alternate reasons in their heads - ie face not fitting.

I do appreciate though that for very low skilled/easily replaceable skills there is far less security with an employer.

I speak from the viewpoint of a small employer, and getting the right people for the job is hugely difficult, we tend to go through a few 3 month trials before finding the right person. When they are in, trained and working well, it would be stupid to lose them on a whim, they are a hugely valuable asset. It's a two-way street & we have enough to contend with without becoming social workers.

You forgot, 'I can get one in cheaper now there are 5 million unemployed, and the govt have also provided a nice stream of cheap immigrant labour' I am not sure you could describe that as a whim but it is still relevant. Don't get me wrong there are many good employers as there were some in the 19th century (Robert Owen?) but there are those who would skin their own granny if they thought they could improve their profit by a smidgin.

The_White_Horse

no one should be forced to employee (or rather keep employed) someone they don't want to - for any reason. it's a disgrace and an affront to freedom. If the employee doesn't like it, he or she should start their own business and do it their way.

pqrdef

Small businesses aren't the only employers. Many organisations employ career managers who can talk the talk with their bosses but actually know very little about the work they are supposedly managing and have no idea who's any good at it.

I remember one case where they promoted a useless bluffer and then they had to lose the guy who was indispensable, because he couldn't work with his new boss. He was retired on health grounds ("stress"), on a pension, in his thirties. Very expensive, but organisationally necessary, because they couldn't admit that the promotion was a mistake.

People take it for granted that the boss knows what he's doing, but most organisations are more or less incompetently managed, from the top down.

StevieJ

The_White_Horse wrote: »

no one should be forced to employee (or rather keep employed) someone they don't want to - for any reason. it's a disgrace and an affront to freedom. If the employee doesn't like it, he or she should start their own business and do it their way.

I bet you would be first for the knackers yard

heathcote123

StevieJ wrote: »

You forgot, 'I can get one in cheaper now there are 5 million unemployed, and the govt have also provided a nice stream of cheap immigrant labour' I am not sure you could describe that as a whim but it is still relevant. Don't get me wrong there are many good employers as there were some in the 19th century (Robert Owen?) but there are those who would skin their own granny if they thought they could improve their profit by a smidgin.

I don't think you need to sack someone for that reason - surely if thats the case you can give them a pay cut or pay freeze?

While it may not be a particularly nice thing to do, employers have to make the decisions that benefit the company - if the going rate for a specific job has changed, the employer will make himself uncompetitive by continuing to pay at the old rate, which is likely to make for no job at all in the long run.

Which is better, the market rate or no job at all?

Unfortunately employees do not work in a vacuum. Their rewards reflect a myriad of variables. A business that isnt flexible to market inputs will fail.

grizzly1911

heathcote123 wrote: »

I think in many cases it's because an employer might be a bit scared to tell the employee the real reason - eg 'you're just a bit crap at getting the job done','you dont work well under pressure', 'you rub the customers up the wrong way', 'you've become complacent and lazy' - all stuff that may not be apparent immediately and may change as employees do or dont adapt well to business or personal changes, and the employee fabricates all kinds of alternate reasons in their heads - ie face not fitting.

Whilst the employee may get become paranoid quite often in larger establishments the managers aren't always the best people to manage.

In smaller ones the passion and enthusiasm of the owner may mean make them autocratic, which may need much closer matching of employees to their style.

In both case the employer may realise it isn't just the lower ranking employee that is at fault but a mix of issues which introduces shades of grey.

you're just a bit crap at getting the job done' = you haven't clearly specified what, when, why, how, where you want something doing. You have provided insufficient training or by poor recruitment policy have brought some one in who wasn't capable.

you dont work well under pressure = because of PP communication and the employer constantly changing their mind or not employing enough resources,

'you've become complacent and lazy'= you don't stretch, develop, train, motivate, incentivise and monitor the employee

I do accept that employers can make poor recruitment decisions. I also accept that potential employees can misrepresent themselves and not be capable of doing a job.

If employees go off the boil it is just as likely to be poor communication and poor change management processes that is at fault. The employee may also be going through problems outside the work environment, which aren't the employers responsibility, but a little forbearance and support may help all sides.

noodle_doodle

as long as there are more employees than employers and its one person one vote the workers will still have the ultimate protection against right-wing nutterdom