Bye bye Starmer

[MikeHunt]

So workers to benefit by £400 per year?

[V8Granite]

Considering it’s so hard to get rid of someone who is just shit at their job, how do they get rid of someone who interviews well but is useless, now they have full rights from day one ?

It’s been so long since I had a normal job I don’t know what the norm is anymore. For me normal probationary has been 3 months to 6 months.

Dave!

[ZedLeg]

This is me being a communist again but companies shouldn’t be able to just fire people because they don’t like them.

Every company has a legal dismissal process, you’ll just use that from the start.

[Gavster]

Considering it’s so hard to get rid of someone who is just shit at their job, how do they get rid of someone who interviews well but is useless, now they have full rights from day one ?

It’s been so long since I had a normal job I don’t know what the norm is anymore. For me normal probationary has been 3 months to 6 months.

Dave!

The new rules have outlined a nine month probation period where it’s easier to let the employee go. So employees will have more rights, sooner, but they’re also making it easier for companies to adequately ensure the employee is the right person for the job.

[V8Granite]

This is me being a communist again but companies shouldn’t be able to just fire people because they don’t like them.

Every company has a legal dismissal process, you’ll just use that from the start.

It’s incredibly hard to though with an employee that knows the system. We had a guy drive drunk to a disciplinary meeting in a works van and the union got him off.

A probationary period is hugely important for a small business especially.

Dave!

[V8Granite]

Considering it’s so hard to get rid of someone who is just shit at their job, how do they get rid of someone who interviews well but is useless, now they have full rights from day one ?

It’s been so long since I had a normal job I don’t know what the norm is anymore. For me normal probationary has been 3 months to 6 months.

Dave!

The new rules have outlined a nine month probation period where it’s easier to let the employee go. So employees will have more rights, sooner, but they’re also making it easier for companies to adequately ensure the employee is the right person for the job.

That makes logical sense then.

Dave!

[ZedLeg]

This is me being a communist again but companies shouldn’t be able to just fire people because they don’t like them.

Every company has a legal dismissal process, you’ll just use that from the start.

It’s incredibly hard to though with an employee that knows the system. We had a guy drive drunk to a disciplinary meeting in a works van and the union got him off.

A probationary period is hugely important for a small business especially.

Dave!

That’s clearly very different from someone underperforming during probation.

[240PP]

What should happen if someone underperforms during a probationary period?

I seem to recall exiges having a problem getting rid of someone who was shit at their job but outside of the probationary period. Think one semi-serious solution offered was to plant drugs in her desk

[ZedLeg]

Performance review and if they don’t pick up go through the disciplinary process.

[240PP]

Isn’t that what would happen with any employee of any duration? What’s the probationary period for then?

[Beany]

During probation you can have different expectations for someone than a normal staffer - IE tighter or looser disciplinary processes depending on the role and how much learning is required, typically there'll be short shrift for taking days off at short notice, work ethic and general timekeeping would be more closely watched, you'd want to have regular catch ups to see if the onboarding process and training is working etc.

At the end of all that (or during it) if the employer or employee feel things aren't working out, then the process to leave is usually way easier/faster - it could be as little as statutory notice on both sides depending on the role, or it might be a stripped back disciplinary process, but generally as an employee, from a practical (but not legal/financial, obviously) perspective you should consider yourself a 'contractor' during probation - you have less rights and perks and should be on 'best behaviour', but also you don't necessarily have to be there forever and have the option to just leave at the end of it if it's not for you.

As an employer, as long as you can reasonably evidence unsuitability for the role after feedback meetings and training, you can let them go without any real problems. If you're not capable of doing that, you shouldn't be managing anyone, period. Obviously if they're good people, then you won't need to worry about that, but you should still be taking feedback etc.

If you do stick around after probation, you'll get full employment perks (pension, private health, car allowance, full notice periods, whatever) that you likely didn't have during probation and carry on as per everyone else on the regular disciplinary process which will likely be a bit longer and a bit more lenient/formal than it would be during probation.

IE my 'minimum' notice for my employment to be terminated during probation was one week, beyond that until two years it's one month, beyond that add a week per year after the first year, unless I do something breathtakingly stupid in which case summary dismissal is an option.

Certainly, that's broadly similar to how all the probation periods I've done have been. Am I the only person who reads their job offers and employment contracts?

[ZedLeg]

Considering the absolute ballache that is getting a job these days. I think that if a new start doesn’t work out it should be the manager that gets a talking to, they clearly aren’t interviewing people properly

[Rich B]

Prepare for 5 stage interview processes, with massive amounts of sample work expected before hiring then…

[Gavster]

Yep, hiring good people is very difficult.

[Beany]

Considering the absolute ballache that is getting a job these days. I think that if a new start doesn’t work out it should be the manager that gets a talking to, they clearly aren’t interviewing people properly

Legit my biggest fear about being a manager is hiring the wrong person. The rest of it (with the small team I have) is fairly straightforward, but you can't hide hiring a fuckwit

Thankfully my most recent hire seems to be the right sort

[Mito Man]

I have an old mate (I use that term loosely, we were best friends in school but just send the odd text now) that has made his whole career out of suing his employers. He's out of private sector victims now so got a PCGE and is now starting his career in teaching...
Based on him alone I decided I can never be responsible for hiring someone. He's a professional twat.

[240PP]

[dan]

Awful lot of posting during work hours going on here, although I guess you're all safe in the knowledge its really hard to sack you...

[ZedLeg]

[ZedLeg]

Prepare for 5 stage interview processes, with massive amounts of sample work expected before hiring then…

That’s kind of my point though, so much of the process is algorithmic or passed over to agencies now, how much involvement do team managers have in the hiring process?

I remember at my last work they kept sending me people without giving me the chance to talk to them until I asked them to stop.