Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
missing employee
Options
Comments
-
Realise that the employer-employee relationship isn't equal and that most abuse comes down the line, not up.
Sorry Victor I have to disagree, the odds are stacked in favour of the employee. once the employee is there a year, it very hard to make any changes no matter how reasonable they are.
My main gripe is that its very hard to sack someone that deserves it, yet they can just walk out of the job if they want to.
In the same way, if i take someone on for summer work and contracts are signed they can up and leave yet i would be expected to honour the contract- it should work both ways.0 -
This is a joke really, Eoin is correct, but the fact that an employee can up and leave with in effect no punishment yet if an employer was to tell the employee that they were no longer wanted they would end up in court.
We had a situation a few years ago where we didnt trust an employee and working with her was stressful to say the least, we couldnt just give her a weeks notice and say good luck, yet she could have done this at any stage.
Its crap like this that makes it hard to be an employer.
And I suppose next you're going to say you were paying this employee more than yourself.
I've had more than my fair share of working for employers who were very stressful to work for. And very deliberately created an air of constant stress. Constant lying, sleaziness, and bullying.
When you're working for a small employer, you have to put up with the eccentricities of your boss. When you're working for a large employer you have to put up with the politics. And the eccentricities of your boss. How stressful do you think it is to have someone "managing" you who doesn't have a clue how to do their job.0 -
And I suppose next you're going to say you were paying this employee more than yourself.
I've had more than my fair share of working for employers who were very stressful to work for. And very deliberately created an air of constant stress. Constant lying, sleaziness, and bullying.
When you're working for a small employer, you have to put up with the eccentricities of your boss. When you're working for a large employer you have to put up with the politics. And the eccentricities of your boss. How stressful do you think it is to have someone "managing" you who doesn't have a clue how to do their job.
krd having been on both sides of the fence I know exactly what you are talking about, do I as an employer have my quirks and foibles? of course I do, every one does.
I try to keep my staff happy as i believe that a happy worker is a good worker, many times ive put myself out in order to accomadate employees and i believe that its a two way street.
In my case, the employee was dishonest, untrustworthy, a liar,a thief and created an atmosphere where myself and my wife didnt want to go to work in our own business. we had to jump through hoops in order to satisfy the legal requirements of her dismissal.
On the other hand if an employee decides that they dont like working her anymore they can just up and go, we on the otherhand had to suffer her for 3 months while she made our life hell.
How is that fair?0 -
I can see both krd and Shelflife's sides of the debate.
I suppose it all comes down to self awareness - lots of dreadful employees think they are great workers and that the boss should be endebted to them for deigning to work there, and its all the bosses fault and on the flip side lots of managers/bosses are pure crap, don't know the regulations and don't behave in a fair manner and yet they think they are the best boss in the world and the staff member should count themselves lucky to have a job.
If only people didn't act like people things would run so much smoother!0 -
How is that fair?
If you look at the cases we hear about in this forum, it's for the most part the employee who is abused, and because they're a single individual vs a wealthier company they are relatively powerless: bosses being abusive in all sorts of ways, employees have to put up or get fired.
I agree that it's particularly hard in small businesses, where the relative power imbalance is smaller.0 -
Advertisement
-
In my case, the employee was dishonest, untrustworthy, a liar,a thief and created an atmosphere where myself and my wife didnt want to go to work in our own business. we had to jump through hoops in order to satisfy the legal requirements of her dismissal.
It can be harder in smaller companies with these situations. They can get very personal.
It's funny though. Some places I have worked, the person you just described would be considered a perfect employee - management material. And I'm deadly serious.On the other hand if an employee decides that they dont like working her anymore they can just up and go, we on the otherhand had to suffer her for 3 months while she made our life hell.
How is that fair?
Really what it comes down to is the employee is always more vulnerable than the employer.
A lot of larger companies - what they do - and I would hate to ever go through this again. They like to be able to dismiss people at will. So from the moment you enter the building, they're trying to get you on your final written warning. It's not about your performance or attendance, they just want to be able to sack you without notice. Even if you're trying to dodge every bullet their trying to get you with - they may just make something up. I once accepted a written warning where I wasn't told what I was being warned for - and on the letter it just says I had received a warning. I felt pressurized into to signing it. If I refused, they'd make up something and go through some amateur dramatics.0 -
My experience in Ireland is that there are more poor employees taking advantage of the difficulty in firing them than there are companies who take advantage of their employees.
The very nature of the market is that if an employer is paying less than the market or providing worse conditions than the market then the employee either leaves or performs badly enough that the company suffers.
Employees also have a unusually high success rate in court as the onus in Ireland is for the company to prove beyond doubt that any action taken was necessary.
Regards the Op ,I would see a solicitor or professional HR company to dot your i's and cross your t's but it seems fairly open and shut that you can fire this guy now.0 -
Really what it comes down to is the employee is always more vulnerable than the employer.
With regards Ireland I really don't agree with this statement at all.
Employees have one of the largest social security safety nets in the world.
The law is set out to favour the employee,both in likelihood of winning a decision and the penalties on a company when they lose a decision.
Our system is set up so that an employee can break a contract whenever they feels it is no longer beneficial but the employer has to put up with a poor return (poorer than the market*) unless the employee performs a gross misconduct or performance goes far below the market.
*The employer has to prove that the employees performance has deteriorated below previous from that employee and not below the market or what the company can acquire for the same or a lower price !0 -
Bandana boy wrote: »With regards Ireland I really don't agree with this statement at all.
Employees have one of the largest social security safety nets in the world.
If you like living on the dole. Which isn't much of a life. You lose everything, your car, you home, your future, your whole life.The law is set out to favour the employee,both in likelihood of winning a decision and the penalties on a company when they lose a decision.
It's not going to court unless the employer has really screwed up. An unfair dismissal usually happens because someone gets sacked for political or personal reasons.Our system is set up so that an employee can break a contract whenever they feels it is no longer beneficial but the employer has to put up with a poor return (poorer than the market*) unless the employee performs a gross misconduct or performance goes far below the market.
Don't give me this poorer than the market lark. I've seen so much paddy whackery in workplaces, I would say many of the people running them wouldn't have the barest grasp of economics.
The way you go on you'd swear managers and employers were highly educated intellectuals. Many are not.
*The employer has to prove that the employees performance has deteriorated below previous from that employee and not below the market or what the company can acquire for the same or a lower price ![/QUOTE]
Records are kept of the employees performance. If they're performing poorly it's in the records. If they screw up that can be reported.
If people are taking the piss it's fine to sack them.0 -
I don't like living on the dole and I think it would be tough to survive but it is still a substantially better safety net than pretty much anywhere else.If you like living on the dole. Which isn't much of a life. You lose everything, your car, you home, your future, your whole life.
Take the UK for example Employees would be more scared of losing their job as they probably go under trying to subsist on their safety net
You clearly have no experience of what has gone to trial and won in Ireland.It's not going to court unless the employer has really screwed up. An unfair dismissal usually happens because someone gets sacked for political or personal reasons.
Also it goes to court if an employee wants it to go to court not based on any other criteria.And why wouldn't an employee take it to court as they have a ridiculously high win percentage.
My point still stands though ,regardless of your interpretation of your managers ability.Don't give me this poorer than the market lark. I've seen so much paddy whackery in workplaces, I would say many of the people running them wouldn't have the barest grasp of economics.
The way you go on you'd swear managers and employers were highly educated intellectuals. Many are not.
A Company dealing with an employee has to flex up as supply/demand or taxation changes.But Employees do not flex down when the market is the other direction.Our laws protects the employee here but not the employer.
One might ask if they are all so thick ,how come intelligent folk like yourself dont just set up a competing company and replace them ? That is how capitalism and the free market works
Again how our legal system works ,it is based on that employees previous employment not on any standard of the market.Records are kept of the employees performance. If they're performing poorly it's in the records. If they screw up that can be reported.
If people are taking the piss it's fine to sack them.
Your performance can only be rated on what was previously deemed acceptable ,not any standard in the national workplace.
Take an example I am close too.
5 employees perform badly under a badly performing manager.
Said manager should have addressed this performance but did not.
Our Company sacks said manager for poor performance and rightly so but when a new manager takes over he cannot benchmark these 5 employees against the balance of employees but only against what they performed previously in the company.
He cannot move their salary in line with the market unless they agree and if they do the minimum (match last years performance) it is near impossible to move them out of the business.
We have numerous examples of this in the Irish marketplace.
Salaries pretty much only go up despite the market fluctuating up and down.
Employees refusing to train to new methods or increase productivity to keep pace with competitors. (A perfect example would be the old Post and telegraph employees in Eircom ,trained for a defunct piece of technology and refusing to upskill to the current technology)
Any Company has a large and expensive battle to change this.
Again because they are more vulnerable than the employee with our current legislation.
Whether or not the current status is preferable than a full market demand model is not the discussion
Your point was employee was more vulnerable and I am pointing out how this is clearly not the case.0 -
Advertisement
-
krd just basic economics of supply and demand goes against the employer.
when the boom years were around we had a few employees demand substantial pay increases or else they were off somewhere else (cant blame them as labour was a scare commodity).
now even though labour is plentyful we have little leverage in renegotiating pay scales, we cant just cut their wages and we cant replace them with cheaper workers.
It should work both ways. (within reason)0 -
If employers had agreed to some form of profit sharing, this might not have happened.krd just basic economics of supply and demand goes against the employer.
when the boom years were around we had a few employees demand substantial pay increases or else they were off somewhere else (cant blame them as labour was a scare commodity).
now even though labour is plentyful we have little leverage in renegotiating pay scales, we cant just cut their wages and we cant replace them with cheaper workers.
It should work both ways. (within reason)0 -
-
-
Bandana boy wrote: »I don't like living on the dole and I think it would be tough to survive but it is still a substantially better safety net than pretty much anywhere else.
Take the UK for example Employees would be more scared of losing their job as they probably go under trying to subsist on their safety net
It's not good for an economy to have employees too scared of losing their jobs. They don't spend. Consumer confidence goes out the window.My point still stands though ,regardless of your interpretation of your managers ability.
A Company dealing with an employee has to flex up as supply/demand or taxation changes.
But Employees do not flex down when the market is the other direction.Our laws protects the employee here but not the employer.
Excuse me. But many employees have flexed down. Over the last few years many employees have taken pay cuts.One might ask if they are all so thick ,how come intelligent folk like yourself dont just set up a competing company and replace them ? That is how capitalism and the free market works
Ah don't give us that tripe about intelligence. In most economic endeavours there are huge barriers to entry. If the only barrier was intelligence, it would be a completely different world. I have seen millions lost through pure stupidity. Maybe there should be an IQ test before people are allowed a business loan.
How capitalism works is by only allowing a limited number of people have access to capital - so everyone who doesn't is forced to work for them. And really that is all there is to capitalism. It's unfair, but no one has ever thought of an alternative. Even communism is just a different form of capitalism.Again how our legal system works ,it is based on that employees previous employment not on any standard of the market.
Your performance can only be rated on what was previously deemed acceptable ,not any standard in the national workplace.
Take an example I am close too.
5 employees perform badly under a badly performing manager.
Said manager should have addressed this performance but did not.
Our Company sacks said manager for poor performance and rightly so but when a new manager takes over he cannot benchmark these 5 employees against the balance of employees but only against what they performed previously in the company.
He cannot move their salary in line with the market unless they agree and if they do the minimum (match last years performance) it is near impossible to move them out of the business.
I have never heard anything like that. There's nothing to stop private employers from changing targets. As long as individuals are not being singled out for discrimination you do nearly as you like. If you've hired five duds you have to ask about the recruitment ethos of the business.We have numerous examples of this in the Irish marketplace.
Salaries pretty much only go up despite the market fluctuating up and down.
In the last few years very few people have seen pay rises, most have seen pay cuts.Employees refusing to train to new methods or increase productivity to keep pace with competitors. (A perfect example would be the old Post and telegraph employees in Eircom ,trained for a defunct piece of technology and refusing to upskill to the current technology)
Very little of that kind of carry on goes on any more.Any Company has a large and expensive battle to change this.
Again because they are more vulnerable than the employee with our current legislation.
No there not. If a company gets new technology and the employee refuses to train in it. Then they can be made as redundant as the old technology. In semi-state companies it may be a different story because of the unions. But it's a different story. Usually unions use new technology as a bargaining chip.Whether or not the current status is preferable than a full market demand model is not the discussion
Your point was employee was more vulnerable and I am pointing out how this is clearly not the case.
You'd swear. That a little employee can turn around to their boss, shout "You're sacked, get out of here" and grab the business from them.0 -
-
krd and Victor , i feel that both of you may be talking mainly about large corporations whereas im talking about smaller retail/businesses.
My main beefs are
Employee can just up and go if not happy without penalty,
employer has to go through serious protocols in order to dismiss an employee and even in the case where an employee is caught stealing red handed, if procedures are not followed the employer will be fined.
If i underpay the employee (below min wage) i will have to backdate the difference
when the jlcs were deemed illegal, there was never a suggestion that the employees should repay the difference (not that i think they should have)but it was never even considered.
On top of that we werent even allowed to reduce the wages to what should have been the legal requirements.
wage cuts can only be allowed with the express consent of the employee.
shift changes can only be allowed with the consent of the employee.
In the boom times the employee can easily look for pay rises and if they dont get them they can leave, but in the hard times the employer cant do the same thing ie replace the employee with cheaper alternatives.
krd if my business goes belly up, i lose everything, and im not entitled to any social welfare or sick pay or maternity leave whereas all these options are open to the employee.
Im not saying that employers should be allowed to sack people at will, but there should be some simpler way of removing employees where its just not working out anymore.
Not all employers are ogres, some of us work very hard at the job and keeping staff happy. but to me its totally stacked in favour of the employee to the point that it makes life very difficult for the small employer.0 -
krd and Victor , i feel that both of you may be talking mainly about large corporations whereas im talking about smaller retail/businesses.
The way they handle this in the US, in many states, is different rules apply to smaller companies. Because really small companies can't carry the costs in the same way as large corporations.Im not saying that employers should be allowed to sack people at will, but there should be some simpler way of removing employees where its just not working out anymore.
There should be a lesser burden on smaller companies......butNot all employers are ogres, some of us work very hard at the job and keeping staff happy. but to me its totally stacked in favour of the employee to the point that it makes life very difficult for the small employer.
No, not all employers are ogres, but some will take the piss. 2004/2005 I knew a surprising number of young Polish people who had come to Ireland, they were working under minimum wage - and being made to work hours for free. And this was for some small retailers. Some of the stuff was ridiculous. i knew a Polish teenager and the small shop she worked at - they were making her sleep in the shop at night as security - this is after working a whole day at the shop and having a place to live. They weren't paying her for that - they thought she was a dog.
That wasn't a once off. I heard several similar stories.
I even know of a large retailer who were making their staff work a full 40 hours when they were only paying them for 20. And the staff - mostly young East Europeans were told either take it or leave it. At the time, most of these young people had turned up in Ireland, with f'all money, and just a suitcase full of cheap East European cigarettes. And that's how they set themselves up in the country.
But the worst people I know of, were farmers. They had people sleeping in sheds working for next to nothing.krd if my business goes belly up, i lose everything, and im not entitled to any social welfare or sick pay or maternity leave whereas all these options are open to the employee.
If your business goes belly up, you are entitled to social welfare. I don't know where the myth gets started people with businesses aren't. It could be people who have voluntarily liquidated their businesses and are sitting on asset piles but don't think the market is right to sell. I do know of a professional property speculating couple, who gave up really good jobs to become property speculators who are now being denied dole because they won't sell the houses the "own" - most of which are empty (they would be bankrupt if they did).
Small business owners should have lighter rules - but some people will take the piss. With fire-at-will, some people will force their employees to work 40 hours for 20 hours pay, and making them sleep on the floor of their shop.
There has to be balance. If small business owners need it, they should push for it. But there has to be some way of stopping abuses.0 -
If your business goes belly up, you are entitled to social welfare. I don't know where the myth gets started people with businesses aren't.
You are totally incorrect here. Self employed people often contribute to a different rate of PRSI - usually Class S. As a result, if their business folds, they are not in the same position as an employee - they can not just arrive at a social welfare office and request jobseekers benefit. They instead have to apply for jobseekers allowance which is means tested. The problem is, unless you have become bankrupt, the value of your (now defunct) business can be held against you in the means test. It has happened to hundreds of self employed small business people.www.selfemployedsupport.ie wrote:In most cases self-employed people will have paid Class S PRSI contributions. Class S contributions only cover you for a limited number of payments. In general they do not cover you for any short-term payments – including Jobseeker’s Benefit, illness and disability payments which are based on Class A contributions.
more information here0 -
Hi all ,just to let you know the situation resolved itself this morning .The employee sent an email to say he would not be back to work due to personal problems and asked for his p45 so he could claim welfare.It suits me, I already had a self employed person in doing the job on contract who will now be offered a full time job which he really wants .Thanks for all the replies0
-
Advertisement
-
Little Ted wrote: »You are totally incorrect here. Self employed people often contribute to a different rate of PRSI - usually Class S. As a result, if their business folds, they are not in the same position as an employee - they can not just arrive at a social welfare office and request jobseekers benefit. They instead have to apply for jobseekers allowance which is means tested.
No. Not every employee is automatically entitled to jobseekers benefit. If they're in receipt of rents or have assets beyond a certain level they may not be eligible for jobseekers allowance or benefit.
This is a situation where people who bought several investment properties are in. They receive rents and they technically own these assets.
I know people in this situation. They bought a load of investment properties, and gave up their jobs, did crazy things like taking out loans on top of the loans to live. And then they've been refused jobseekers.
I would say, that thousands of those mortgages that are in default, what's going on is the landlords are living off the rents and not paying the mortgage. Because they are likely not to be eligible for the receipt of any allowance.The problem is, unless you have become bankrupt, the value of your (now defunct) business can be held against you in the means test. It has happened to hundreds of self employed small business people.
Because it would be ridiculous to have someone voluntarily liquidate a business, sit on cash and assets and then turn up looking for the dole. And it's the same if an employee turns up at the dole office and they have a million in the bank. On the non means tested benefit they don't force you to run through your savings, but if they're above a certain amount they expect you to.
If someone is in desperate need. Say if they're business has suddenly failed very badly and they need cash, they can go to the health board and receive an emergency payment.0 -
The way they handle this in the US, in many states, is different rules apply to smaller companies. Because really small companies can't carry the costs in the same way as large corporations.
There should be a lesser burden on smaller companies......but
No, not all employers are ogres, but some will take the piss. 2004/2005 I knew a surprising number of young Polish people who had come to Ireland, they were working under minimum wage - and being made to work hours for free. And this was for some small retailers. Some of the stuff was ridiculous. i knew a Polish teenager and the small shop she worked at - they were making her sleep in the shop at night as security - this is after working a whole day at the shop and having a place to live. They weren't paying her for that - they thought she was a dog.
That wasn't a once off. I heard several similar stories.
I even know of a large retailer who were making their staff work a full 40 hours when they were only paying them for 20. And the staff - mostly young East Europeans were told either take it or leave it. At the time, most of these young people had turned up in Ireland, with f'all money, and just a suitcase full of cheap East European cigarettes. And that's how they set themselves up in the country.
But the worst people I know of, were farmers. They had people sleeping in sheds working for next to nothing.
If your business goes belly up, you are entitled to social welfare. I don't know where the myth gets started people with businesses aren't. It could be people who have voluntarily liquidated their businesses and are sitting on asset piles but don't think the market is right to sell. I do know of a professional property speculating couple, who gave up really good jobs to become property speculators who are now being denied dole because they won't sell the houses the "own" - most of which are empty (they would be bankrupt if they did).
Small business owners should have lighter rules - but some people will take the piss. With fire-at-will, some people will force their employees to work 40 hours for 20 hours pay, and making them sleep on the floor of their shop.
There has to be balance. If small business owners need it, they should push for it. But there has to be some way of stopping abuses.
krd there will always be a small number who will abuse any situation, in the same way I know of numerous instances where employees have stolen 10s of thousands off employers, deliberatly broken equipment so that they wouldnt be able to to a particular job, lost vast amounts of data on purpose and generally tried to sabotage the same business that that paid their wages.
All i would ask for is a mechanism where employers and employees can go their separate ways without need for a sacking or redundancy.
Its just crazy that you can have someone you dont like,trust and is a cancer in the workplace and its exceptionally hard to get rid of them. yet they can just not come in anymore.0 -
You have things a bit mixed up here.
I never said they were, I was just pointing out that as a self employed person you do not have the same entitlement to JB as an employee who has been paying class A PRSI.No. Not every employee is automatically entitled to jobseekers benefit.
they are not being refused JB because of their level of income per se, they are not getting JB because if they are in receipt of rent, they are in receipt of income. In order to be set up correctly as a landlord you need to register with the tax office as self employed regarding this income and you need to make a tax return at the end of the year. The problem is not simply because they have 'assets' its because they are self employed.If they're in receipt of rents or have assets beyond a certain level they may not be eligible for jobseekers allowance or benefit.
This is a situation where people who bought several investment properties are in. They receive rents and they technically own these assets.
this is the relevant part - once they gave up jobs and make a living on being a landlord/propery developer/speculator, then they because self employed and were most likely on class S PRSI.I know people in this situation. They bought a load of investment properties, and gave up their jobs, did crazy things like taking out loans on top of the loans to live. And then they've been refused jobseekers.
I am not suggesting this is what would be done, you miss the point.Because it would be ridiculous to have someone voluntarily liquidate a business, sit on cash and assets and then turn up looking for the dole. And it's the same if an employee turns up at the dole office and they have a million in the bank. On the non means tested benefit they don't force you to run through your savings, but if they're above a certain amount they expect you to.
If only it were that straight forward - first thing a Community Welfare officer will ask you is if you have a claim in with SW. The emergency payment is usually only granted if they think you can pay it back - it is a loan of sorts not a weekly payment. As soon as you get your backdated dole you need to pay the HSE back. So if you are not likely to get SW then you are not likely to get any money from the relieving officer.If someone is in desperate need. Say if they're business has suddenly failed very badly and they need cash, they can go to the health board and receive an emergency payment.0 -
Ok, the OP has got his/her advice. And this isn't the state-benefits forum. So I think we'll leave it there, rather than have any more mis-information spread.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement