3 ms·
I don't like the idea/law because all it's doing is protecting bad employees from getting fired quickly. I'm going to hate myself for using him as an example, b
by Jormundir 13y ago
I don't like the idea/law because all it's doing is protecting bad employees from getting fired quickly. I'm going to hate myself for using him as an example, but Steve Jobs was famous for firing people in elevator rides if they couldn't clearly explain what they did at the company. I agree not because it's steve jobs, but because it is important to get bad employees out as quickly as possible. Negative employees tend to make the people around them more negative, lazy employees tend the make the people around them lazier. If you're not firing them for being lazy, you're implicitly telling other employees that it's somewhat okay to be lazy. The longer you keep them around, the longer you're letting your team absorb the negative behavior. I'll let the employees go have their second and third chances at competitors, who will be weighed down wasting time and energy rehabilitating bad employees.
- smtddr 13y agoAh, so the problem we have here is defining what "bad" is. You don't know an employee is bad without talking to them about the problem first to make sure they're aware of the problem and giving them at least 1 chance to correct it. Even in jobs where lives are directly at risk, like an air-traffic-controller, get 1 warning. No company is so important that you're justified on firing people for performance issues without at least 1 warning. Also, I'm going to put some of the blame on the employer. The employer needs to improve their interview process if they really have such a problem with bad performers, not make firing easier.