Forum Moderators: buckworks
Isn't it legal (California for example) to fire someone on the spot?
not in the uk, warnings are a legal requirement for all.
not in the uk, warnings are a legal requirement for all.
if you hadn't picked up the poor performance before it got to this stage then you really do need to review your own management style.
But if you make them mad, that gives them two weeks to storm out with an "I quit!" and then you're off the hook because they left before your notice ran out.
But in any case you're not personally, out of your own pocket paying their unemployment.
(Uh... you have been paying into unemployment insurance haven't you? I though employers were required to. Like disability. Self-insurance is for huge companies with hundreds or thousands of workers.*)
Legal matters aside, if you hadn't picked up the poor performance before it got to this stage then you really do need to review your own management style.
When we've let people go, whether they've been on corrective action or not, we give two weeks pay and send them on their way (don't want someone in-house who knows the end is near).
3-6 months is a long time to wait for a small business, and they can still file (and you would have to contest their claim - sometimes a lengthy process.
For us, the first claim was fine - the second one, however, was the painful one.
Does the employee have a contract (written or implied)? If so, is the employer/employee relationship specified as at-will?
Where do the two weeks come from?
Is the two weeks pay a requirement or do you do it to be nice?
Where does 3-6 months come from?
employment is at-will as we're a US company.
Then if I fire him and he claims unemployment, I will have documentation with which to dispute the claim. What do you guys think?
How soon after hiring someone would you subject them to the possibility of a written warning?
So, for example, if you offered them 4 or 6 weeks pay (you would need to pay at regular payroll intervals instead of a lump sum), you would push out the timeframe they could apply for unemployment by 4 or 6 weeks, respectively.
I don't know Tonearm. If you made a bad hiring decision to begin with you might want to take the high road, recognize it and release the guy on good terms.
The soap opera of baiting a guy into quitting or trying to play cat and mouse with warnings, etc are bound to have a negative impact on your operation (morale, production, etc), probably more so than any UE claims he might make. It sounds like the guy actively seeks employment, you hired him right? Why assume he is heading straight for UE to somehow milk you?
It sounds like both of you would be better served with a friendly (as possible) termination.
How soon after hiring someone would you subject them to the possibility of a written warning?
Less than 1 microsecond. Once you're hired, you fall under all the company rules. Which, of course, should be well defined in the employee handbook.
Sometimes new employees will be on probation for a while, meaning that you can dismiss them for any reason. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to go through several months of warnings if it was obvious within three days that they're not going to work out.
I appreciate what you're saying, and you may be right with this guy, but it sounds like you wouldn't bother with warnings in any scenario. Is that the case?
How soon after hiring someone would you subject them to the possibility of a written warning?
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to go through several months of warnings if it was obvious within three days that they're not going to work out.
You're molding me into something that might one day begin to resemble a manager.
California’s Labor Code specifies that an employment relationship with no specified duration is presumed to be employment “at-will.” This means, at least in theory, that the employer or employee may terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without cause. There are exceptions to the at-will rule created by statute, the courts or public policy.
This brings up an interesting point - we don't hire anyone directly, we go through a placement agency for (almost all) of our hires, so we "try before you buy" on almost all hourly/picking/packing/production type positions. We are a decent size, but not too big (not enough to constitute an hr person) so the whole hiring/firing/corrective action is a big PITA and done sparingly. We've migrated to the whole temp-to-hire placement model (the agencies will administer lots of tests - dexterity, typing, software skills, whatever you need) and they might cost a buck or two apiece for each employee you specify is up to snuff and that you'd like to interview.
It's pretty much an "employer's market" right now and we are getting surprisingly qualified and competent candidates through placement and temp agencies. We usually do 3 months before we decide if we are a right fit for each other (them for us, us for them). It's a higher rate of pay since the agency gets a percent, but much easier to let people go if they are simply not working. We've had people who seemed GREAT at first, but once they settled in after a month or so, simply weren't a good fit. We like to see how people behave past the "honeymoon phase", and going through a temp agency allows us to do that.
I talked to an owner of a 10m internet company who used nothing but temps. Permanently. Once they've gone past the 90 days, we bring them on, do benefits and all that good stuff, but he did not want any employees - had been burned in the past and didn't want anything to do with hr-type stuff. Even his president(!) of several years had a phd and was still an agency employee.
I've never thought of this but it's extremely interesting. What practical items change if you use an employment agency? It sounds like they filter your applicants for you. What does the agency handle after the employee starts working for you?
Depending on the situation I may or may not pay them out for 2 weeks pay.
I expect the courtesy of a two week notice when someone quits
