Dealing with problem staff that don't listen

[trigger_andy]

16 minutes ago, Steve Bullman said:

Needs? Everyones expendable whether they want to believe it or not. Pain in the backside having to replace staff who are otherwise decent though for sure.

 

Everyone is expendable. Be it the company owner or the employee. Who needs who more? 
 

In my humble line of work the initial years of an employee working for the company sees the employees training costs equal their yearly wage. 

[Mull]

Just now, trigger_andy said:

Who needs who more? 
 

 

It can’t work without both🤷‍♂️

[trigger_andy]

12 minutes ago, Steve Bullman said:

I've heard time and time again over the years workers boasting how the companies will be screwed when they leave. Well guess what, they leave and the companies carry on just fine.

I’ve heard the same with multi-billion dollar oil service companies only to watch them shrink to insignificance then a total withdrawal from the shelf or at best suffer a very marginal market share. I’m witnessing this very problem right now. 
 

Who needs who more?

[Doug Tait]

The problem staff that don't listen. Rather than sack everyone on Monday morning, my first thought is speak to the whole team together and leave them in no doubt how you expect them to conduct themselves, and next time they're out of line then they lose "job and finish" privilege for a month.

[trigger_andy]

6 minutes ago, Mull said:

It can’t work without both🤷‍♂️

I’m not denying that. But there is always a balance of power. If there is scant companies offering work then the lads can be told to sort their shit on their own dime or GTFO. 
 

Conversely, if there is money and work sloshing around then the ball is in the employees court. If the employer does not bend the rules (if forced into it) then the employee holds the cards. 
 

This is economics 101 Mull, you know this as much as anyone. 

[trigger_andy]

1 minute ago, Doug Tait said:

The problem staff that don't listen. Rather than sack everyone on Monday morning, my first thought is speak to the whole team together and leave them in no doubt how you expect them to conduct themselves, and next time they're out of line then they lose "job and finish" privilege for a month.

The word decimate comes from the Roman times. In short when serious reprimand was in order one in ten of the enlisted men where killed.
 

Now killing one of the lads might be going a tad far would a sacrificial culling of the worst offenders be out of order? Sends a strong message and gets rid of the vocal trouble maker. 

 

[Mull]

3 minutes ago, trigger_andy said:

 

This is economics 101 Mull, you know this as much as anyone. 

I was self employed for 30 yrs, now employed by someone I’ve known for about the same amount of time, can’t be arsed with big shot business owners thinking they are “all that”, they are **************** all without the workers, and the workers are **************** all without them. Fairly simple.

[Mull]

52 minutes ago, Steve Bullman said:

I've heard time and time again over the years workers boasting how the companies will be screwed when they leave. Well guess what, they leave and the companies carry on just fine.

Surprised you’d make that kind of comment, very surprised.

[Dan Maynard]

On the flip side, I might say if they were done by 2 then that doesn't necessarily prove there was time to dice everything up - if that process took twice as long then you'd be on a late finish. As a worker you're always balancing the different incentives and generally find the path of least resistance, and finishing late on a Friday vs a bit of green on the wall its understandable to choose the green.

 

Could you change the process -  board the side of the house to prevent marking? Or mini-chipper and shift out chip (works for me)?  Or something else?

 

If you're not there when the job is carried out I'd also have to ask if you have a clear team leader on site with responsibility for how the job is carried out? If you want everything diced and it overruns who would be in trouble?

[trigger_andy]

9 minutes ago, Mull said:

I was self employed for 30 yrs, now employed by someone I’ve known for about the same amount of time, can’t be arsed with big shot business owners thinking they are “all that”, they are **************** all without the workers, and the workers are **************** all without them. Fairly simple.

You’ve yet again missed the point Mull. The balance of power swings in both directions. It really matters not the size of the business nor the number of employees. Sooner or later the balance of power will tilt in either direction. As an employer you need to be astute enough to gauge to market closely enough to feel of you have the scope to punish minor infringements severely enough end them or see the disciplinary action have an unexpected detrimental effect on the company.
 

It’s a fine line HR, Managers and Legal tread in big boy works. Small potatoes could grab their coattails for free, 

 

Its an interesting side note to how your career of 30 years was so ineffectual (inefficient?) that at the point of when it’s generally expected of someone to have run their own business for so long that retirement and a daily fat cigar is expected. 
 

Fore give me  for preempting your retort of “ I do this because I want to” because we both know it’s BS. So with that excuse out if the way why do you think that after 30 years of working for yourself and now having to be someone’s bitch do you think you have any authority to voice your opinion? it has to be the drink talking?