being dismissed for poor performance

ILW

happenstance wrote: »

Well management do love the people that brown nose, I always think whats in it for me. It got to the point working 6 days a week and on the one day off just resting and not doing any hobbies just seamed like a waste of a life.

It's like they all want hard worker bees, they dislike any individuality or creativity.

He who pays the piper etc.

happenstance

ILW wrote: »

He who pays the piper etc.

Should dictate what facial hair the piper has?

Takeaway_Addict

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

This is exactly what the new tribunal edict wants potential claimants to think, so the rules are obviously working.

When you say telecoms, is it call centre because I worked in IT.

But leaving now, rather than later, may not keep references intact, since they already have a low opinion on you. One poster is suggesting that your reference will "degrade" simply because you're taking them to a tribunal, that is simply illegal. Your reference should only be based your 5 year record, not about the mere fact they are being sued for being a sh1teh0le employer.

Where is it illegal to change your reference based on taking an employer to a tribunal.

You can still be truthful and damming without mentioning a tribunal and that is all that matters in a reference.

Edited to add: To be most damming the employer could just refuse to provide a reference, there is no legal requirement to do so.

timbo58

I can see both sides: but to be honest IME as both an employee and employer the contract should be read several times (even asking for a copy before agreeing to take the job if you have been offered a position.

Why? Because some companies WILL have either specific or implied 'appearance standards' -i.e. if an office has regular visits from important clients even if your job doesn't involve direct contact you may have to be clean shaven & smartly dressed.
If the contract has never mentioned it, especially if this seems to be a 'bar' that has only recently been raised or (even more ominously) only applies to you, then this does seem to be a bad omen.

There are plenty of employers who will take take take and give nothing in return, however, take a really good unbiased look around you, familiarise yourself with how others in the company have 'got on' -have they had pay rises or promotion in their past: how long did it take, how much extra did they have to do to get 'noticed'?

-Most good/great companies aren't going to come to you with a 'deal' that says: work your socks off/be truly innovative and show your dedication and we'll pay you £xxx extra and make you a director/manager in xxx years/months, I know mine does, I've seen staff get 3 pay rises in a year before now, although we are a very fast growing company to be fair and in a new marketplace.

Any right minded company are going to expect YOU to make those strides and reward you when they are convinced YOU are adding value IME.

OK if your colleagues are ALL expected to work unpaid overtime and driven hard and NO ONE has ever been given rewards for such -you're in the wrong job with the wrong company, get out asap.

Don't dismiss those who have 'improved their lot' as 'brown nosers' just because they learnt how to fit in and play the game.

It may well be, based on your input here, you've already made the wrong impression or they are a terrible company, so that advice can wait for another time another company.

As for references, I've had to refuse a reference recently as the person concerned was so poor at time keeping/attendance I had to be reminded who they were by HR!
It seemed fairest to just state we couldn't provide a reference except to confirm that Mr xxxx was employed for the company between xxxx date and xxxx date and had resigned.

The fact he hadn't been paid for 25% of the time he was 'employed' as he'd gone well behind sick pay/holiday pay and SSP was neither here nor there!

happenstance

timbo58 wrote: »

Why? Because some companies WILL have either specific or implied 'appearance standards' -i.e. if an office has regular visits from important clients even if your job doesn't involve direct contact you may have to be clean shaven & smartly dressed.
If the contract has never mentioned it, especially if this seems to be a 'bar' that has only recently been raised or (even more ominously) only applies to you, then this does seem to be a bad omen.

I just personally think its worrying that an employer feels they can dictate if I have facial hair or not. It's something I have no control over happening.

Other people in the office have awful skin and are obse due to a diet largely of energy drinks and high fat / sugar junk food. Yet they are seen as more professional looking as they shave daily.

Thanks for your post though, trying to see it from employers point of view. Not putting down people that brown nose, but for me the cost is to high for the benefit.

Takeaway_Addict

happenstance wrote: »

I just personally think its worrying that an employer feels they can dictate if I have facial hair or not. It's something I have no control over happening.

Other people in the office have awful skin and are obse due to a diet largely of energy drinks and high fat / sugar junk food. Yet they are seen as more professional looking as they shave daily.

Thanks for your post though, trying to see it from employers point of view. Not putting down people that brown nose, but for me the cost is to high for the benefit.

You have no control over whether you shave or not? Really? If so, goto the Dr's and get a medical certificate stating this and take it to the employer!

In all seriousness, you do raise a valid point regards obesity issues as well and some companies do have clauses in place I believe for this but its generally more accepted that people will be fat over scruffy facial hair.

The skin issue is slightly different as I would expect most to be a medical issue but if its hygiene issues that affect other staff or customers the employer should act once aware.

reason2

if someone told me to shave daily i would categorically say no.. when management think they can didctate your look, its ridiculous.

Who decides what hair cut is acceptable? should women have hair legths that are management agreed only.. too short could be unprofessional, too long could be careless, to puffy could seem lazy..

on my first day at my current job, where i frequently deal with COO'S, CEO'S And CFO's my boss asked if i would remove my lip stud as she wasnt too keen on them.. i said im not too keen on that floral casual top which was not smart casual, it was saturday wear and that was the end of that matter..

my cfo doesnt mind i have stubble - tattoos or a lip stud.. and why? because my work is solid.

Tenyearstogo

ILW wrote: »

Your attitude really is not doing you any favours.
I would look for something in the public sector.

I agree with the first part.

Not sure why you'd think the OP would fit it well in the public sector. He wouldn't last five minutes in my department.

ChopperST

Tenyearstogo wrote: »

Not sure why you'd think the OP would fit it well in the public sector. He wouldn't last five minutes in my department.

Totally agree.

What a strange and frankly inflammatory post!

happenstance

Tenyearstogo wrote: »

I agree with the first part.

Not sure why you'd think the OP would fit it well in the public sector. He wouldn't last five minutes in my department.

Care to explain why I wouldn't last five minutes?