We are a clever lot.

[BayView]

Had some friends over yesterday for a bbq and a few beers down at the foreshore.

He is a business owner like me; but his is installation and maintenance of fire protection systems.

He was telling me about a few of the staff (they have 17 staff) who are blatantly lazy, don't turn up for maintenance inspections, but log them as being done and other forms of low productivity etc. They are the "smart" ones who have learned to wrought the system in this company.

They have even put tracking devices on some employees' work vans to monitor their movements. The employees are aware of this, and it hasn't made a difference.

I was telling him to sack their a.r.s.e.s, and he informed me that it is almost impossible to do this now. The best he can do is make their life hell at work by giving them awful assignments, make them report into the office after each call etc and hope they will get fed up and leave - as well as the usual three written warnings etc.

This is all Union protected of course - a very clever lot we are in this Country now. Yep; chalk up another one to the workers over the bosses.

But what's clever?

This friend are now not hiring anymore staff (and need to) and are in the throws of changing over the existing staff and any future workers to contractors.

So, now there are around 5 very good jobs which will not be filled, and 17 other jobs which now have become at best; permanent casual.

This is not what they want to do - permanent staff is their preferred option, but they have had enough.

The Gubbermint can bleat on all they like about "unfair dismissal", unemployment and worker's rights.

While a climate exists where you virtually can't sack a dog, jobs will always suffer and the bigger companies will go and play in a friendlier (for them) park.

 

[moyjos]

While a climate exists where you virtually can't sack a dog, jobs will always suffer and the bigger companies will go and play in a friendlier (for them) park

Agree Mark. I have not (and will not) employed staff in over 10 years. Woke up to that one years ago All our people are subbies with their own ABN.
Certainly this is easier now in the security/blinds business that it was in my retail store. But even in retail none of my 5 girls were full time. they were all casual so at least I could set rosters on my terms. Also by having more staff on the books than I actually needed for the 55 hour opening times...it meant that there was someone to cover the "slackness" when they didn't turn up.

I had a business friend say to me once.."You will never get staff to do as much as you want them to" To which my answer was "Bull$h!t !! All I ask is for my staff to work as hard for me as I did for a boss!!! "
But actually turning up and doing 8 hours for 5 days straight is WAYY too much to ask..

Rant over!!

 

[Perp]

Marc, can't he sack those people after he's given the three written warnings?

And my understanding is that even casual employees can only be dismissed for a valid reason. It's a myth that you can just cut their hours back to zero and that you haven't really "sacked" them.

Casuals have advantages in terms of flexibility of rostering, not having to plan for annual leave and sick pay etc, but they're no easier to sack.

 

[BayView]

Marc, can't he sack those people after he's given the three written warnings?

Yes.
They have already done this, but it's not a quick and easy process though, and the flack during is unsavoury as you could imagine. When you've got a dud, you just want the loser gone NOW.

And my understanding is that even casual employees can only be dismissed for a valid reason.

I would call dodging work, and lying about having done it a valid reason as an employer. Especially if it's a pattern. Anyone who has to have their car monitored to make sure they do an honest day's work is a dud in my book, and should be fired. You shouldn't continually have to be "counciling" and "retraining" these dimwits to do a decent job. They are supposedly intelligent, adult humans.

It's a myth that you can just cut their hours back to zero and that you haven't really "sacked" them.

They're not cutting their hours back to zero; they are changing their status to contractor. THEN they cut the hours to zero if they are duds - as you should.

Casuals have advantages in terms of flexibility of rostering, not having to plan for annual leave and sick pay etc, but they're no easier to sack.

You don't have to sack them; you simply have no hours available for them. Work is very quiet at the moment.

Look Trace, I can see your employee's viewpoint aspect of this, but at the end of the day, the boss is taking all the risks, and is supposedly paying the employee to do a required job. The employee has an obligation too.

Now, if that employee continues to not perform his/her job, they should be let go and as soon as possible.

 

[willair]

This is all Union protected of course - a very clever lot we are in this Country now. Yep; chalk up another one to the workers over the bosses.


quote]
They come under the plumbers union,and i know from experience they are a very "Hard Lot",and the numbers of trades people in that union is very low,the books are always closed, a bit like trying to join the painters and dockers when they had full control of everything, most in that trade not all in Qld work under the ABN banner,and sub out the work,massive amount of money in that business if you have the right set-up..imho..willair..

 

[Perp]

I would call dodging work, and lying about having done it a valid reason as an employer.

Heck yeah! My point is that you still have to go through three written warnings etc, even if they're a casual, and probably even if they're a contract employee.

They're not cutting their hours back to zero; they are changing their status to contractor.

Just calling them a contractor and giving them an ABN doesn't negate an employee-employer relationship. If the boss tells them to achieve a certain amount of work this week and pays them for that work, then they're more likely a contractor. But if they're told what hours to work, use the boss's vehicles, and are paid by the hour, they're likely to be considered a contract employee and have all the same protections as any other employee.

THEN they cut the hours to zero if they are duds - as you should.

You don't have to sack them; you simply have no hours available for them. Work is very quiet at the moment.

That's my point; it's a myth that this is lawful. If you're cutting back everybody's hours, then you're probably fine, but if you keep everybody else on full hours - or worse, take on more contractors - then it would be what they call "constructive dismissal". ie The boss isn't saying that they've sacked the person, but the Court will look at the boss's behaviour and say that they've effectively sacked the person.

Look Trace, I can see your employee's viewpoint aspect of this

Heck, you got me wrong! I'm about as far on the employer's side of this equation as you can get; I just query whether your friend's proposed mechanism is really going to solve his problem. I'd love to see his problem solved, but it seems that his intent is to ensure that he avoids unfair dismissal implications, but I don't believe making them contract employees will achieve this.

 

[Fudge]

I feel for your friend Bayview, but there is an underlying problem which needs to be mentioned, and acted upon with this in mind......

....if his business is jeapordised due to the incompetant work force, whose is esponsible for this....and who will be going to court to pay for the damage if it is found that the fire system wasn't maintained as per manufacturers recs....

I guess it depends on what industry you are in, but working in the construction industry and pharmaceutical industry, it could all come down to gross misconduct.

We have instant dismals to not only casuals but also staff depending on the breach (unethical act / behaviour / misrepresentation...etc, etc.)

I would have thought, provided the 3 strike verbal and written warning is carried out, and that you have a meeting with the person in question after each warning (actual meeting), then I can't see why not that wouldn't be considered fair in the eyes of the courts, no matter whether the employee (Full time or not) was belonging to a particular union.

I suggest he should speak with a good 'legal eagle' and act promptly on his / her recommendations.

My thoughts only (and don't know about plumber's union).

Cheers

F

 

[cu@thetop]

Currently I have only 1 full time employee but I may need to ramp that up. Most of my adult life I was the ideal employee- shut up, did my job, cleaned up the boss's stuff ups etc.

I found that across a number of employers this was taken for granted- no reward despite at times effectively running the business in the absence of lazy dis interested bosses. YouR wage is your reward I hear you say but if there is no long term future and pay reviews are like pulling teeth I am not going to be overly motivated.

I made the point when I started my business that I would treat my staff with respect. Auto yearly wage rises CPI without asking, regular RDO no matter how heavy the workload is, Facebook/internet access during work hours and quality biscuits in the fridge.

I pay well above award, but you must pay well for good staff. Many people talk of win/win scenarios on this forum and I think giving a bit extra works both ways.

Having said that I am innundated with people trying to get in on my perceived success/wealth/action. I think the secret is to vet them before you get them through the door- if they turn out to be duds then it is your fault at the end of the day.

Some of these "attitude" workers may not have always been like that- the employer should perhaps ask "what was my part in creating this problem?".

 

[Piston Broke]

This friend are now not hiring anymore staff (and need to) and are in the throws of changing over the existing staff and any future workers to contractors.

This is the same point I was making in that other thread BV.
And btw having ABNs does'nt automatically make the subbies.
But having PTY LTDs is a different ball game, and the only way to do it.

 

[craigb]

we work our asses of we give and recieve bonuses, to our boys , we do golf days and BBQs and family stuff, we pay fuel and the productivity is incredable, we are all in the team , and cover each other like brothers , try some other tactics, and all of the above is just small $$ compared to the returns, next year we might surprise them with a melbourn cup two day off week , they like what they doo and this is how it works , BUT if one of them cheats on the time sheet ! GONE!!!! see ya later charlie! and hey know this !

Its been said before , your staff are you best asset , treat them as so, they can bring in work , excite clients, or **** them off, you are in control of this aspect of it , if they are not appreciated then they will always do the later,

 

[THEHEATH]

Yes.
They have already done this, but it's not a quick and easy process though, and the flack during is unsavoury as you could imagine. When you've got a dud, you just want the loser gone NOW.

So basically your mate doesn't like the rules? Three strikes is there as a protection for the employee to guard against unfair bosses. Sucks that you get stuck with the odd dud but much better than the alternative imo.

 

[yadreamin]

I was once involved with a company that had quite a few duds and it was difficult to sack them.
So the owners of the business held a meeting and told all staff that a restructure of the workplace urgently needed to take place.
There fore unfortunately some positions would dissolve.
They informed all staff that they welcomed all current staff to re-apply for the positions now available.
the duds were out the door nice neat and tidy.
In the next few weeks new positions appeared and new staff were employed with a very well worded contract of employment.

There are ways to do this to the employers advantage.
I think your friend BV just needs to think a little harder about it.
cheers
yadreamin

 

[Rooster]

So basically your mate doesn't like the rules? Three strikes is there as a protection for the employee to guard against unfair bosses. Sucks that you get stuck with the odd dud but much better than the alternative imo.

I quite agree with this. There is a fine line between an over zealous union and the very real need to protect workers rights.

There are always going to be 'dud" employers and employees.

It seems that as well as ridding the business of underperforming employees, your friend really needs to fine tune the systems and quality control checks that he utilises in the running of his business.

If he knows full well that employees are booking jobs without actually going to site, then he needs to implement some form of control or safeguard to stop this.

Cheers

Rooster

 

[Aaron Sice]

did you say his company has gone into liquidation? or was it voluntary administration?

gee that's sad, i'll bet the creditors leave about 0.01c to the dollar when they'r edone.

whos' the creditor? some other fire safety system company? really? wow - what are the odds...! fancy that.

oh! AND you say they have the same director? geez!

 

[HiEquity]

Let's not get carried away here.

If you know what you are doing and do it well, it is easy enough to sack someone for lack of performance, if they really aren't performing. Just have to know the law and follow it by the letter. Three warnings, properly given and documented. Do that and the judge will come down on your side if it came to that, which it wouldn't because the employee's lawyer will let them know they haven't got a case.

The main problem is employers who think they should just be able to sack someone "now". It doesn't work like that - either play the game by the rules or don't play it at all. There are difficult personal issues involved in negative performance reviews and most employers try to avoid them as much as possible to their own detriment. That is the main problem - the difficulty people have in confronting poor performance - it happens everywhere and I've experienced it myself. Just have to do it and the sooner the better...

As for contracting, the solution is simple. Pay a lump sum for the work completed - tell them it just has to be done by a deadline rather than direct their hours, get them to provide their own tools and vehicle, make sure you don't give them full time workload. Do all those things and you are pretty safe from them being called employees. Again, know the rules and apply them - if one doesn't perform then don't give them anymore work. A history of doing that will only strengthen your protection against them being found to be employees as all work is "at their risk" rather than "guaranteed".

 

[stumunro]

Keep voting in labour and this problem will only get worst

 

[Rooster]

Keep voting in labour and this problem will only get worst

Thats a cop out if ever i've heard one.

To label the inability of a person to deal with the issues in his business as a symptom of a labour government is a bit of a stretch!

Systems and controls need to be addressed first and foremost. The rules regarding terminating an employees role is clear cut. Either follow them if you need to hire staff or don't hire staff.

I believe all employees deserve some form of protection in the workplace and in no way do i support militant style unionism.

 

[BayView]

I feel for your friend Bayview, but there is an underlying problem which needs to be mentioned, and acted upon with this in mind......

....if his business is jeapordised due to the incompetant work force, whose is esponsible for this....and who will be going to court to pay for the damage if it is found that the fire system wasn't maintained as per manufacturers recs....

I guess it depends on what industry you are in, but working in the construction industry and pharmaceutical industry, it could all come down to gross misconduct.

We have instant dismals to not only casuals but also staff depending on the breach (unethical act / behaviour / misrepresentation...etc, etc.)

I would have thought, provided the 3 strike verbal and written warning is carried out, and that you have a meeting with the person in question after each warning (actual meeting), then I can't see why not that wouldn't be considered fair in the eyes of the courts, no matter whether the employee (Full time or not) was belonging to a particular union.

I suggest he should speak with a good 'legal eagle' and act promptly on his / her recommendations.

My thoughts only (and don't know about plumber's union).

Cheers

F

The business is not in jeopardy; just the opposite. They are growing and things are good. Just a few annoying drop kicks that are unemployable, and they have unfortunately got them for a while longer.

They have also sacked one of them, but the gripe was about the lack of instantaneousness about it all.

My point is about how clever all the unions and employees think they are that they can slack off with no consequences, but they have failed to realise the big picture; long term there will be less jobs for all.

 

[Aaron Sice]

especially because people are now inventing robots and machines to take the slacker's workload.

 

[BayView]

So basically your mate doesn't like the rules? Three strikes is there as a protection for the employee to guard against unfair bosses. Sucks that you get stuck with the odd dud but much better than the alternative imo.

It's not that at all.

He knows the rules and like any employer he doesn't like them because he can't get rid of losers immediately, but he has to abide by them. Fair enough. That's the cost of business at the moment.

Like all employers, all he expects is for the employees to come in and do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.

Incidentally, I've been both an employer and an employee, and have never been sacked. No trumpet blowing; just illustrating the scenario.

Why never been sacked?

Because I do what is asked of me - and then some. And don't have the hand out for pay rises every 5 minutes because of it. There is no reason for the boss to want me gone. I make myself an asset to his/her business and make it grow. Job security is the result as a rule..

Trouble is, I'd rather be the boss, so I never last as the hired help.

Now, if I go the extra yard and I still get let go due to a downturn in the business/economy/whatever, then stiff cheese. Get over it and move on. You did your best.

But if we all worked harder at making the boss more money and the business grow; we wouldn't be made redundant/laid off.

If everyone had the same work ethic, or at least something nearer to it, we wouldn't need the "3 strikes and your out with the re-enstatement case to come in the near future scenario for wrongful dismissal that costs average Aussies' jobs" climate we enjoy now.