Immediate termination doesen't sound like a morale winner in a corporate environment. Giving special treatment to other employees over others doubly so. HR procedures like these should be equal to all employees in the same position
Pretty much any where I live (finland), can't fire people at will. It requires constant effort to not show up and get warnings to get fired. I believe this is a lot better approach, because it allows for correction and dialogue between employye and the employer without any burnt bridges
I think you should attempt to retain everyone. Option 2 for a low performer sounds better to me: “The other path is document the violation and give an opportunity to improve”.
A few months into one of my first jobs after college I was given a stern lecture from my manager “we don’t mind you leaving early on Friday if your work is getting done, but it’s not”. That was the wake up call I needed and I worked for the company for another 8 years, becoming, I’d like to think, a valuable high performer.
If they remain a low performer, then that’s another story…
Giving special treatment to other employees over others doubly so.
This is how almost all companies work, although it's rarely spelled out in a written policy.
I'm not even sure it's necessarily immoral (as long as it doesn't involve special treatment for extreme cases like SA), companies want to retain high performers so giving them perks like more leniency around attendance policies is one way to do that.
Comments
https://archive.is/2ZGQZ
Immediate termination doesen't sound like a morale winner in a corporate environment. Giving special treatment to other employees over others doubly so. HR procedures like these should be equal to all employees in the same position
What job can you not show up, still get paid, and not expect to get fired?
Pretty much any where I live (finland), can't fire people at will. It requires constant effort to not show up and get warnings to get fired. I believe this is a lot better approach, because it allows for correction and dialogue between employye and the employer without any burnt bridges
It is interesting to see the double standard for “high performers” explicitly called out.
Most of their points seemed reasonable to me, until the end “if they aren’t a high performer, fire them immediately”.
Sounds reasonable? You'd attempt to retain a high performer
I think you should attempt to retain everyone. Option 2 for a low performer sounds better to me: “The other path is document the violation and give an opportunity to improve”.
A few months into one of my first jobs after college I was given a stern lecture from my manager “we don’t mind you leaving early on Friday if your work is getting done, but it’s not”. That was the wake up call I needed and I worked for the company for another 8 years, becoming, I’d like to think, a valuable high performer.
If they remain a low performer, then that’s another story…
This is how almost all companies work, although it's rarely spelled out in a written policy.
I'm not even sure it's necessarily immoral (as long as it doesn't involve special treatment for extreme cases like SA), companies want to retain high performers so giving them perks like more leniency around attendance policies is one way to do that.