@shavixmir saidI agree with you.
I don’t disagree with firing dysfunctional employees.
Obviously it would be good to know why they’re dysfunctional. Maybe it’s systemic and you need to change something.
And if it’s an employee who before was immensely productive, perhaps find out what’s going on. Would be a waste to fire someone who’s in a rough patch, when if that’s sorted out, he can add to your business.
But I have no qualms firing someone.
Firing someone should be with cause and that requires more than some mishap or conflict. Some issues can be due to poor training either inconsistency or different priorities are set causing conflicts and confusion, along with unclear instructions. Management styles also that promote individual achievement over teamwork where some can be made to feel making someone else look bad makes them look good.
A work environment either fosters success through teamwork and individual excellence with integrity and accountability or not. Finding good people that fit the mold can be a challenge and somethings they can get better the longer they are there, or it becomes clear due to trends it is not working out.
2 edits
@averagejoe1 saidIt is wonderful to go through the day and never think about the presence of government. THAT is Freedom.
I think I made that clear, and cemented it with maybe firing the OTHER guy. I want employees who will make my business thrive ,so that I and my biz are productive. And so i can pay them more salary so that we can ALL get rich. That is why I love capitalism. I can compete and be my own man without govt intervention, and be self reliant.
It is wonderful to go through the day and never think about the presence of government. THAT is Freedom.
You may not think about government Joe, but it's all around you.
It's government that guarantees your savings in case your bank fails. It's government that provides police, courts of law and a justice system. It's government that enforces fair hiring practices. It's government that produces and maintains a stable currency. It's government that provides for a minimum wage. It's government that enacts land use laws and zoning for the benefit of business and landowners. It's government that provides an Army and Navy to protect you. It's government that provides the roads and bridges you take for granted. It's government that enacts and enforces fair trade and consumer protection laws to protect citizens from fraud, and so forth.
You love to bad mouth government, but never acknowledge what it does for you.
@metal-brain saidAre you fukk!
I am a communist.
You wouldn’t know a communist if he was nationalising your cock and unionising your balls.
@mchill saidThe best government is the one that keeps our lives on a level playing field with minimal interference. Of course that requires citizens who are all playing by the rules too. When favorites are picked, favors are given there are issues. If there are no checks and balances power tends to congeal at the top 🔝 making everything working towards the tops best interest not the whole.
It is wonderful to go through the day and never think about the presence of government. THAT is Freedom.
You may not think about government Joe, but it's all around you.
It's government that guarantees your savings in case your bank fails. It's government that provides police, courts of law and a justice system. It's government that enforces fair hiring practices. It's g ...[text shortened]... aud, and so forth.
You love to bad mouth government, but never acknowledge what it does for you.
@mchill saidYou are quite naive. A small, but big example, Biden wants the govt to get into things that free enterprise should handle. He wants to dictate to home builders, this is not the business of government. He wants to have those tech chips ( I dont know exact part name) created by govt! They are making our poorer citizens depending on government. Your govt is flooding us with aliens and drugs at the border.
It is wonderful to go through the day and never think about the presence of government. THAT is Freedom.
You may not think about government Joe, but it's all around you.
It's government that guarantees your savings in case your bank fails. It's government that provides police, courts of law and a justice system. It's government that enforces fair hiring practices. It's g ...[text shortened]... aud, and so forth.
You love to bad mouth government, but never acknowledge what it does for you.
I could go on. Libs leave out things, Why did you leave that out, McHill.
All the stuff you wrote above is standard operating procedure,,,,,why, those roads you speak of made me a bit wealthier!!! Govt has to build roads. And their FIRST job is to protect our country. Why write all that?
You mention 'provides police",,,,,hahahah . You fellers are defunding them last time I heard.
You might want to see what the libs ARE up to.
@kellyjay saidFiring someone just means that you, as the person whose capital is at risk or whose responsibility it is to accomplish something, no longer think that working with that person is the best means to achieve your business objectives. It's not an indictment on the person (necessarily).
I agree with you.
Firing someone should be with cause and that requires more than some mishap or conflict. Some issues can be due to poor training either inconsistency or different priorities are set causing conflicts and confusion, along with unclear instructions. Management styles also that promote individual achievement over teamwork where some can be made to feel maki ...[text shortened]... y can get better the longer they are there, or it becomes clear due to trends it is not working out.
Of course if the person has a contract or it's a for-cause position going in, you can't change the rules in the middle of the game, but without law or agreement that states otherwise, all employment relationships should be at-will of both parties.
1 edit
McHill. The govt just this week, in an effort to make us think they can correct all outr problems, are saying they are going to implement govt controls and regs to get more houses built.
Hey, McHill. Is that the govt's job?
You see, the items you listed, all rote, are but a few of the things that they are doing, and they want to do more. The MORE is not their jobs. and want to do Thousands more of things to get into our lives. Let the builders build and the chip makers make chips.....just get out of the way. How do you think we became the world's best?
Check out all the programs that are simply not govt responsibilites. Let them build roads. Jesus. You are just so dependent that you want them to do stuff for you. Gimme it!!
And yes, I know you think about govt all the time. I never do. You dont believe me, but why would someone who does not know someone not tell the truth to that someone? We are discussing issues here, you are dependent, I am not, and that is the way it is.
@sh76 saidOf course, gray areas abound with liberals. I would hire a guy with a nose ring if he is a good worker, and I have a place for him that would not raise eyebrows of my clients. But, as a receptionist? Naaaa. In a way, it is their choice, limiting themselves to opportunities .
Firing someone just means that you, as the person whose capital is at risk or whose responsibility it is to accomplish something, no longer think that working with that person is the best means to achieve your business objectives. It's not an indictment on the person (necessarily).
Of course if the person has a contract or it's a for-cause position going in, you can't change ...[text shortened]... or agreement that states otherwise, all employment relationships should be at-will of both parties.
@sh76 saidNo argument from me. Business needs are the bottom line, doing more with less is always the goal to keep costs down.
Firing someone just means that you, as the person whose capital is at risk or whose responsibility it is to accomplish something, no longer think that working with that person is the best means to achieve your business objectives. It's not an indictment on the person (necessarily).
Of course if the person has a contract or it's a for-cause position going in, you can't change ...[text shortened]... or agreement that states otherwise, all employment relationships should be at-will of both parties.
@averagejoe1 saidA communist government would incentivize that OTHER guy to support profits for the business since he would have a profit share in the business. In other words, your rejection of communism is part of the problem. Your employees have no incentive to look after profits since he gets no share under you.
I think I made that clear, and cemented it with maybe firing the OTHER guy. I want employees who will make my business thrive ,so that I and my biz are productive. And so i can pay them more salary so that we can ALL get rich. That is why I love capitalism. I can compete and be my own man without govt intervention, and be self reliant.
It is wonderful to go through the day and never think about the presence of government. THAT is Freedom.
@sh76 saidAbsolutely right. You should be a professor at Kellogg.
Firing someone just means that you, as the person whose capital is at risk or whose responsibility it is to accomplish something, no longer think that working with that person is the best means to achieve your business objectives. It's not an indictment on the person (necessarily).
Of course if the person has a contract or it's a for-cause position going in, you can't change ...[text shortened]... or agreement that states otherwise, all employment relationships should be at-will of both parties.
@metal-brain saidEmployee looks after profits? You think the Amazon assembly line guy is thinking about the profits to be made that day by Amazon?? Metal, let us start a thread on civilized discussion on Communism as you have remarked about. It could be that you meant that said employee has an ownership in Amazon, so we will thresh that out. One idea a few months ago from our libs is to have assembly line workers on the board.
A communist government would incentivize that OTHER guy to support profits for the business since he would have a profit share in the business. In other words, your rejection of communism is part of the problem. Your employees have no incentive to look after profits since he gets no share under you.
I'll start it tomorrow. Would it be discriminatory to say that certain people not participate ? They will know who they are.
@averagejoe1 saidNot if they have no profit share of the business. That is why most employees don't care. Give them a profit share and they will care. Would you kill the goose if it laid golden eggs? That is why they would care.
Employee looks after profits? You think the Amazon assembly line guy is thinking about the profits to be made that day by Amazon?? Metal, let us start a thread on civilized discussion on Communism as you have remarked about. It could be that you meant that said employee has an ownership in Amazon, so we will thresh that out. One idea a few months ago from our libs is to ...[text shortened]... ould it be discriminatory to say that certain people not participate ? They will know who they are.
Your employees care about you as much as you care about them. Very little. If they get no share of the golden eggs they could care less of the goose dies. That is your problem.