Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 25
Page 1 of 3

« Previous | Next »

Dealing With the Unacceptable Employee (Part Two)

Flawed Article

ER Spec pretending to be an Accountant
Oaklandon Road
Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:53 AM

Post Reply

Article is flawed. One, author gives way too much credit to union help. Most union reps are not as cooperative as author suggests and they also rarely know the job the employee is failing in. They are generally either confused, obstructionists, and/or time wasters that a supe would unnecessarily need to hurdle. Second, most employees will not admit to the supe that they are failing in their jobs making one of the proposed solutions impractical. That leaves plan C; the dreaded PIP. PIPs are not as horrible as author leads reader to believe. Do they take work and time? Of course, it starts with getting the standards up to snuff. [Sometimes when the poor performers ses that work being done the message is received.] My take is that if supe and the MER advisor Supe has chosen are afraid of the work, maybe he/she/they need to be PIPed also. PIP PIP POORAY!!!

Re: Flawed Article

union rep
psns
Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:41 PM
what the hell are you talking about? It's back woods
thinking people like that make unions needed

PIP

Prof
Small College
Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:07 AM

Post Reply

Excellent comments.

those who can't perform acceptably

Retired as of 9/07
US Department of Education
Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:11 AM

Post Reply

Many of those that I remember in my former agency
who could not perform acceptably, were un-intelligent,
below-par people to begin with. They had not had
good up-bringing and simply would spend the rest
of their earthly days in mediocrity.

But, if they continued to perform badly in the agency
and did not respond to remedial work, then they
should have been weeded out. My agency never
weeded out bad workers - they simply let them
drift on until they retired.

Re: those who can't perform acceptably

Civil Engineer
VA
Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:35 AM
Unintelligent and below par to begin with....let's stop for a minute and ask the question "Who hired these people?" If we grant your premise that they were unintelligent and sub-par before they were hired, then how can you be disappointed in their performance AFTER you've hired them? Sounds to me like someone had some extremely unreal expectations! (Of course that's unless the hiring official was unintelligent and sub-par.....hey....maybe we're on to something here!

Economic Capital Punishment?

Consultant
Retired
Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:28 AM

Post Reply

Yes, one will sometimes read of arbitrators or union reps refer to firing as an equivalent of "capital punishment." That is untrue and pernicious.

It is untrue, because it is a divorce, not a death. The employee is NOT forever enjoined from earning income while on this earth--and it is absurd to suggest so.

It is pernicious, because the tax payers pick up the tab for such a view. It occasionally happens that the employee/employer fit is spectacularly terrible & simply can't last. The agency can't go away. Clearly a divorce is necessary, but such is the perversity of human nature that Harry or Sally will sometimes refuse to leave situation that makes them terribly unhappy. When it is necessary to force such an employee out, the view that the employee is getting killed, rather than divorced, suggests that the poor tax payer should subsidize endless litigation to insure that there really is no POSSIBLE alternative. (Most tax payers have so such endless rights themselves.)

Cants

Civil Engineer
VA
Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:33 AM

Post Reply

The article makes some valid points - however in the end much of the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the employee's supervisors.

How many times have we all seen it? An employee doing a poor job, a new supervisor that wants to change things, the confrontation. Then it goes to Human Resources - the employee points out that he's been in this job for 12 years, this is the way he's always done it and has a string of "excellent (and inflated) appraisals.

Although we don't often look at it in this light, the employee has a "right" to a fair and objective appraisal, and the supervisor has a "duty" to write it that way. I would venture to guess that lazy supervisors have ruined far more employees than they've helped.

Performance

Union Guy
NFFE
Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:07 AM

Post Reply

I thought you just dealt with them like always...promoted them up into management positions...

Re: Performance

Emp
DoD
Fri Aug 29, 2008 6:25 AM
I thought they became union stewards, so they could wear the cape of ulitimate protection.

Re: Performance

Union Officer
BLM
Wed Sep 3, 2008 7:14 AM
Ultimate Protection? Now THAT's an uniformed reader! I have taken on more stress and lost more nights sleep over issues that would turn your stomach than you will ever know. I could have minded my own business and gone about my days just fine, but instead I think my agency (and my world) is better off when we all roll up our sleves and fight for justice. I lead by example and expect that from the employees I represent. The problems usually stems from lack of labor laws on the part of the Supervisor and Managers- they come out shooting from the hip! There are some faults on the employees side as well. There are some cases where the employees has done NOTHING to deserve what is happening to them at all!

People like you making sterotype statements like that about good, honest - hard working people who do collateral duty helping people through their problems and try to get back to work, protecting the rights YOU take for granted every day, make me sick.

Re: Performance

Civilian
Navy
Wed Sep 3, 2008 9:39 AM
Why is it that when unions damn managers and infer that all that is wrong with world is solely mgts fault, that it must be so. But, when there is a differing opinion, how dare it be stated? You can't take what you dish out?

The incompetent worker

irs
examiner
Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:24 AM

Post Reply

Before you start aything, how about management looking at itself. Does the manager treat the employee fairly because he is competent? or does the manager try to cover up his incompetence by blaming the employee? Does management read and properly consider the emplloyee's responses to management's critisism's or does management ignore it? Does the manager's manager look for a way to support the subordinate even if the reasoning is stupid, or does the manager's manager take a good look at what is going on? Does the manager give oral direction, but not put the same direction in writing because he knows it violates the law?
I am writing from live experience. I expect to have a case that will go to arbitration among other places. It will be very embarrassing.

Re: The incompetent worker

Peon
VA
Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:35 AM
Your case sounds eerily familiar...I hope it goes well for you. Where has all the integrity gone??
Total Comments: 25
Page 1 of 3

« Previous | Next »

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.