Lame reasons to sack a staff
-
1. You do work very slow. I can do the work myself which is faster or employ someone who can do the work faster than you. So I am going to sack you.
2. You make mistakes. Although it is not serious mistakes and not much mistakes too, but I need to check your work after you finish it. In that case it is better for me to do the work myself. So I am going to sack you.
3. You learn things very slow. I want to sack you and employ a fast learner.
These are some of the lame reasons that I heard before that is used by the company to sack a staff.
Anyone have heard of any other lame reasons?
-
What's lame about those reasons? All three, if persistent, are valid performance issues that justify sacking.
-
i dont find them lame.. they are reasonable.
TS, were you sacked becos of one or more reasons?
all 3 reasons, i think u incur more costs to the company than contributing. -
Originally posted by 105090:
i dont find them lame.. they are reasonable.
TS, were you sacked becos of one or more reasons?
all 3 reasons, i think u incur more costs to the company than contributing.agreed, they are reasonable grounds for firing. it's like giving the person free money to just sit there shake leg.
-
Let me explain why the 3 reasons are lame.
1. When a new staff join in the company, he/she is not familar with the work so it is natural that he/she does the work slow. Once he/she is familar with the work, than he/she will be able to do the work fast.
So to sack a new staff who do work slow is lame.
2. When a new staff comes in to work, he/she is not familar with the work so it is natural that he/she makes mistakes. Once he/she is familar with the work, than he/she will not make mistakes anymore.
Btw, who doesn't make mistakes?
To sack a staff because he/she makes mistakes is lame.
3. Same as point 1. A new staff who is not familar with the work will learn things slow. This is very natural.
To sack a new staff for learning slow is lame
-
Originally posted by ThunderFbolt:
agreed, they are reasonable grounds for firing. it's like giving the person free money to just sit there shake leg.
That person is still doing his/her job. Just that because he/she is a new staff he/she does work slow, learn things slow, make mistakes etc.It is not giving them money to shake leg
-
Originally posted by 105090:
i dont find them lame.. they are reasonable.
TS, were you sacked becos of one or more reasons?
all 3 reasons, i think u incur more costs to the company than contributing.
If you are a new staff who just join the company and is not familar with the work and so do things slow, learn slow etc and they sack you because of these reasons, do you find it reasonable?Just to answer your question, I did not get sacked for these reasons but I know of people who get sacked for these reasons
-
Not lame. Not funny. =X
-
hey ts. your thread name is Lame reasons to sack a staff not Lame reasons to sack a new staff.
so if you say staffs in general it may include the veterans too. just fyi. -
Originally posted by ASKL!:
hey ts. your thread name is Lame reasons to sack a staff not Lame reasons to sack a new staff.
so if you say staffs in general it may include the veterans too. just fyi.
Ok. What I mean is to sack a new staff during his/her probation period with these 3 reasons are lame.Btw, I can't edit the title..
-
if you are a vet and fired from the company for these reasons, it's because you suck.
if you are a noob and fired from the company for these reasons, do you seriously want to work in such a company?
-
I can think of one very good lame reason.
You surf the internet using company time and Sgforum is not paying you but I am>
-
you must be fast, cheap and no mistakes/error free
also must obey, cannot talk back
陳雷-風真� (�湾SONG)
-
More lame reasons used to sack a staff
4. Although you are very polite to customers but you don't smile at them. So you are not suitable for the job.
5. You surf net during office hours.
6. You do not talk to your collegues. You do not fit in socially
-
why can be polite but cant smile meh? Got inject botox into face ar not?
-
Some people don't have the habit of smiling lor
-
tell you something that is real. Any1 caught logging on to facebook will be SACKED in the office.
-
Originally posted by Lokey:
tell you something that is real. Any1 caught logging on to facebook will be SACKED in the office.
This happen in your office? -
Originally posted by Lokey:
tell you something that is real. Any1 caught logging on to facebook will be SACKED in the office.
why facebook and not MSN? if co dun want its staff to surf FB, why not block the website and out of bounds to staff I wonder.
-
all valid wat.
-
Originally posted by Lokey:
tell you something that is real. Any1 caught logging on to facebook will be SACKED in the office.
Well, if the estimated cost of Facebook to business is to be believed, it's perfectly reasonable.
-
So.. how "new" is new? 1 month? 3 months? After a certain time frame and there is still little/no improvement, is the company allowed to sack the under-performing employee now?
Its completely ridiculous to assume that the employee have the right to surf facebook/the net while working. The company is paying you money for your time, so they own your time completely under the conditions stiputated in your contract.
Originally posted by Rooney9:why facebook and not MSN? if co dun want its staff to surf FB, why not block the website and out of bounds to staff I wonder.
So the company is expected to spend money to craft the workplace into an idiot-proof environment where the employees are forced to do exactly what they're employed for? Where are the extra funds going to come from, deducted from the employee's pay?
Originally posted by keeptouch:Some people don't have the habit of smiling lor
So some employers have the habit for firing unfriendly employees. How unfortunate for the employee. It is within the employer's prerogative to do that, especially if the employee has to deal with customers.Lets face it. If a person doesn't smile, he'll look unfriendly and sullen. Nobody likes to buy something from such a person.
You may think that its unfair to sack an employee within the 3 months probation since the employee is not ' given enough time to shine '. However 3 months is a very long time, enough to clear show that the person is not suited for the job. Part-time employees in event/roadshows etc are given learning curves of mere hours and you don't see them screwing up as much. The probation period is meant to weed out undesirable employees, or else whats the point of "probation"
-
So judging from Kristovorus post, I can say that he will not feel that it is unfair if he get sacks during the 3 months probation if he does work slow, learn things slow etc.
Than I wish him good luck.
-
I fully agree to the injustice done to staff in 3-months probation for working slow and trying to make them work as if they are working in the new office for 3 years. I have been removed from my last office due to the same reason. sighzzz
-
i encounter many such scenes very funny.
(1) the china man supervisor say you go in do this. so the chap also go in and do as told. then the china sup say did you do it. the guy really did as told then the sup just twist around say he never do. in the sack letter never mention details just say failure to complile. the HR never give a report on the details, just say a few sentence like that. then at the coffee tshop and around company can cook a lot of disjhes on what happened but still non documented on details of how the employee fail to comply
(2) another case the superior see the report then always ask why why why anymore anymore anymore details when the report clearly states everything. tell you change this change that then change everything back again. then ask why this why that and say oh i cannot work with you. "i resign lah bloody hell" the employee did.
but really no point in those cases. that gu can do for a while without job but the chinas and the whywhy men they can't, not a day without job to finance the condonminium and they punick employment passes