Fat Cat bosses want to sack 5% of workers each year

BillieTheBot

Story.

Apparently a scheme such as this will have benefits, both in terms of productivity and finances for the company.

Already the long-hours culture destroys family life, and now bosses think the best way of creating a good company is to sack the people at the bottom. Presumably the ones at the bottom are those who refuse to work the unpaid overtime, the ones who refuse to "go the extra mile" so the managers and shareholders can get that second yacht.

Yes, itys pie-in-the-sky, because even these fat cats aren't stupid enough to do that, but they are thinking it would be a good idea- it apparently wouldn't damage morale (ha) and, after all, the bottom employees would "further their career out of the firm".

Lovely people, aren't they? Wouldn't it be awful if they all got put against a wall and shot.

Former Member

I read this, it's dispicable really. Yeah perhaps sacking people when they deserve it is acceptable, but sacking people for the sake of it in order to keep the rest of the employees on their toes is wrong in my mind.

Former Member

I think we should bring in a similar scheme for bosses.

The greediest 99% get executed each year :yippe:

Former Member

Its a bit of a none story though isn't it? Most mangers think getting rid of your underperforming staff will help the company improve performance (which is hardly rocket performance), but won't do it because they think it will damage staff morale.

A better headline would be bosses don't sack underperformers for fear of pissing off the 95% who do their work.

Former Member

Getting managers to proper invest in and actually manage properly the staff they have would be a better idea. We are generally speaking crap workers, virtually every other country in the EU work shorter hours than us and produce just the same amount.

Former Member

That's what Enron used to do.

Former Member

budda wrote:

We are generally speaking crap workers, virtually every other country in the EU work shorter hours than us and produce just the same amount.

I'd say that failing to get the same productivity with workers that are essentially the same in terms of skill levels, is a result of poor management rather than poor workers.

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote:

I'd say that failing to get the same productivity with workers that are essentially the same in terms of skill levels, is a result of poor management rather than poor workers.

It is poor management, but its not just because they dont know how to manage its about staff training and investing in staff. If you compare the average French or German employee they will have much better on the job training than us. In Norway they only work a 24 hour week, yet produce per week about the same as us, it is things like this we should be concentrating on, not just getting workers to work longer hours.

Former Member

Tbh the leisure company I work for would do well to sack the bottom 5% of their staff. Almost all of us work to timesheets so unpaid overtime isn't really relevant (claiming extra by some that do no work even when they are there is another story).

There are some atrocious attitudes among some of the staff, partly because they don't think anyone would ever bother to sack them. In some companies I think making people realise their job isn't completely safe and they actually have to put some effort in would do the world of good.

Former Member

Did anyone hear about everyone getting bank holidays off now, and not having to use one of their allocated holidays to get it off? I was wondering, if you work for a company where bank holidays are a business day, do you get an extra 8 days off, or are you fucked over as usual?

Former Member

Flashman's Ghost wrote:

Its a bit of a none story though isn't it? Most mangers think getting rid of your underperforming staff will help the company improve performance (which is hardly rocket performance), but won't do it because they think it will damage staff morale.

A better headline would be bosses don't sack underperformers for fear of pissing off the 95% who do their work.

But that's not what they're saying is it? They're saying they would like to get rid of 5% of their workforce to get extra mileage out of the rest.

Since workers are individuals not machines it is impossible that they would all perform identically. Therefore somebody will have to be at the bottom of the performance list. That doesn't mean they are underperforming. Does it?

The much-hated Foxtons estage agents are said to get rid of one of their employees per month in every branch. So even if a bloke sells shit loads of properties but his colleagues sell one more, he'd still be fired.

It'd be an outrage if it weren't for the fact that it is quite difficult to feel sorry for estate agents.

Former Member

It's bullshit really. It'd be like passing a certain percentage of people in driving tests, rather than passing the ones that can drive to the required standard, no matter how many that might be.

Former Member

A certain turnover rate is healthy, but it's one of the things that should not be forced if there is no need. You don't fire a person that is performing well just because it's your goal to fire x-amount of people per year.

My dad is a manager for a government run company that pretty much can't fire anybody. It's amazing how much stress and ill feeling it causes when people that can't be fired behave like idiots. The times my dad comes fuming because they need to give out really badly done assignments that other people have had to try to sort out for the bad apples are numerous. In these cases it WOULD solve to fire. I would be really displeased if somebody else's work was being passed on to me while the other got away with doing fuck all.

If they do kick out the people that don't work well enough, eventually (in theory, at least) they will end up with people that perform to a standard that would be hard to replace and costly. Then they'd hire less if the management is functional.

I don't really see the fuss.

Former Member

I agree with some of the above.

If people under-perform consistently.. fire them.

People should do what they get paid for or someone else should have the job!

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

But that's not what they're saying is it? They're saying they would like to get rid of 5% of their workforce to get extra mileage out of the rest.

Since workers are individuals not machines it is impossible that they would all perform identically. Therefore somebody will have to be at the bottom of the performance list. That doesn't mean they are underperforming. Does it?

The much-hated Foxtons estage agents are said to get rid of one of their employees per month in every branch. So even if a bloke sells shit loads of properties but his colleagues sell one more, he'd still be fired.

It'd be an outrage if it weren't for the fact that it is quite difficult to feel sorry for estate agents.

Any organisation which has as many as 95% of their staff deliverying ought to earn firm of the year.