Re: Drivers and guards to be sacked.

["Tony Gatt" <baulko@tig.com.au>]

>
> Come into the 20th century and reward him properly for a job well done and
> he may just take more pride in his appearance> .

But it isn't a job well done. If it was a job well done, he would have been
wearing his full uniform to relay the positive company approach.

You just don't get it. I have been reading down the posts, and the one thing
sticks out like dogs nuts in your posts is "Its someone elses fault!"

Running by this theory, the level of incompetence runs all the way to the
top, and that is transposed back to the bottom, where it starts a nasty
resurgence back to the top. The final outcome of this is that No-one knows
or cares about what they are doing, cos someone else is responsible.

> > Fred has not heeded multiple warnings
> > regarding his conduct, and ignores the instructions of you the employer.
>
> The guard got 2 warnings. The employer, in the case in question should
sack
> the lower/middle management and get someone in who can raise morale.

No, sack the person who's not doing the job, and employ someone who will do
the job properly.
When the place runs well, morale will be high because "some" people take
pride in their work. Others sit back, and "fire off" cos they are getting a
bad deal.

Employees rights (ie: work performance letters, counselling, warnings,
counselling) has gotten out of hand. If you are doing your job properly and
as required, there wouldn't be a need to be jumping up and down. Sure there
is a need for it at times(the employees right of reply that is), but if it
constant "screwing up" on the employees behalf, then that employee is
costing you business.

Why should I as a business operator spend more of my money training someone
who is obviously not up to the standard required by  my company?

And when that employee costs me business by failing to carry out his job
correctly (after I have instructed him via perfomance letter and
'counselling' and training), I have to spend more money by not only keeping
him on the payroll, but by "paying" for his screwups.

And who do I get to turn to to help me?? No-one!! and now, Me, the employer,
who is going broke due to failing business is asked to feel for the poor
buggers livelihood that I am about to remove (by termination) when he is the
overall reason my businees is not performing.

I think not!



Tony.
(Flame proof vest attached)