Advice for first time employing staff?

[JLA1990]

Somewhat of a sad truth as you can work hard for somebody from day one but no redundancy / reason is needed for letting somebody go if they have under two years service (just need to pay their notice period). 

[Squaredy]

22 hours ago, JLA1990 said:

Somewhat of a sad truth as you can work hard for somebody from day one but no redundancy / reason is needed for letting somebody go if they have under two years service (just need to pay their notice period). 

I have to admit that when I left permanent employment to become a freelancer in the nineties I missed the security not one bit.  I was better treated by my "employers", properly equipped and trained for the job, and never had any expectation that I would be kept on beyond the immediate need. 

 

If you are a passenger and just want to get on the train and relax and never try your best I can see the attraction of a "secure" job.  But if you have self-belief and always try to make yourself more and more useful and capable you will always be highly employable, and ready to move on when circumstances change.  

 

Most important I think is that the employer is honest with the employee.  If things are not working out or needs have changed staff may have to go; but treat them properly, follow correct procedures and let them use their notice period to look for their next move. 

 

I don't believe employer's should feel duty bound to keep someone on for ever if they no longer need them.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Squaredy

[Mick Dempsey]

13 minutes ago, Squaredy said:

I have to admit that when I left permanent employment to become a freelancer in the nineties I missed the security not one bit.  I was better treated by my employers, properly equipped and trained for the job, and never had any expectation that my employer would keep me on beyond the immediate need. 

 

If you are a passenger and just want to get on the train and relax and never try your best I can see the attraction of a "secure" job.  But if you have self-belief and always try to make yourself more and more useful and capable you will always be highly employable, and ready to move on when circumstances change.  

 

Most important I think is that the employer is honest with the employee.  If things are not working out or needs have changed staff may have to go; but treat them properly, follow correct procedures and let them use their notice period to look for their next move. 

 

I don't believe employer's should feel duty bound to keep someone on for ever if they no longer need them.

This post confuses me.
You keep using the word employable and employer when you’re discussing free lancing and subcontracting.

[Squaredy]

8 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

You keep using the word employable and employer when you’re discussing free lancing and subcontracting.

Yes I totally get the confusion sorry. 

 

I was using the word "Employer" in a very general sense.  In a similar way to when I employ a specialist to look at a blocked drain - I don't put them on the books as a member of my workforce - but I am still employing their services.

[Mick Dempsey]

I’m still unsure of the point you’re making tbh.

[doobin]

I think you mean 'client' rather than 'employer'

[Jon A]

1 hour ago, Squaredy said:

I have to admit that when I left permanent employment to become a freelancer in the nineties I missed the security not one bit.  I was better treated by my "employers", properly equipped and trained for the job, and never had any expectation that I would be kept on beyond the immediate need. 

 

If you are a passenger and just want to get on the train and relax and never try your best I can see the attraction of a "secure" job.  But if you have self-belief and always try to make yourself more and more useful and capable you will always be highly employable, and ready to move on when circumstances change.  

 

Most important I think is that the employer is honest with the employee.  If things are not working out or needs have changed staff may have to go; but treat them properly, follow correct procedures and let them use their notice period to look for their next move. 

 

I don't believe employer's should feel duty bound to keep someone on for ever if they no longer need them.

Not sure how my comment led to this response (calling all employee's passenger's is somewhat derogatory)  but I wholeheartedly disagree I feel an employer should be duty bound to his employee's till the end.. even if that ends up in bankruptcy.

[eggsarascal]

9 minutes ago, Jon A said:

Not sure how my comment led to this response (calling all employee's passenger's is somewhat derogatory)  but I wholeheartedly disagree I feel an employer should be duty bound to his employee's till the end.. even if that ends up in bankruptcy.

Really, and I thought me and Mark

were the lefty union folk of this parish, wrong again @Mark J

 

[doobin]

14 minutes ago, Jon A said:

Not sure how my comment led to this response (calling all employee's passenger's is somewhat derogatory)  but I wholeheartedly disagree I feel an employer should be duty bound to his employee's till the end.. even if that ends up in bankruptcy.

Glad I don’t employ you mate. 

[Squaredy]

11 minutes ago, Jon A said:

Not sure how my comment led to this response (calling all employee's passenger's is somewhat derogatory)  but I wholeheartedly disagree I feel an employer should be duty bound to his employee's till the end.. even if that ends up in bankruptcy.

I did not suggest all employees are passengers.