[Rules p.1] Things that annoy you guys. 100 percent. Not gonna lie

All I can say for sure is that managing people is very difficult. Some people think their salary is an attendance fee and they should be rewarded for everything they do, some are so enthusiastic and would probably work for free and a whole load in the middle just want to turn up, do their work and go home.

Frank wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:You're assuming the people who only work the hours they're meant to aren't the hardest working. How do you know that the people who say they're working 40+ hour weeks aren't only doing 30 hours of work but taking long coffee breaks and chatting gooseberry fool about the football instead of working? Hours put down on a sheet in no way shape or form relate to how hard somebody works. You'd think, as a manager, they'd have taught you that

EDIT: Also, if you did have to lay people off and used that as your sole reasoning wouldn't you be opening yourself up to a whole load of unfair dismissal lawsuits?

Frank, I've worked with these people for years. It is a little silly of you to make assumptions based on nothing.

As for your edit, no. If the company is not profitable they have the right to take measures to make it so.

It's a little silly of you to expect people to work for free, too

How many hours do you work, as well? How many are you contracted for?

This is how the real world operates (at least in some companies). I just don't expect people to do the absolute minimum.

My original contract was 37.5 hours per week. I probably do 42-45 per week.

I would have thought it would count as unfair dismissal. Sure the company has to remain profitable but you can't make someone redundant because they didn't give you free work. if they aren't under performing and al do. similar roles they they would have to compete for the remaining roles and to. pick one over another just because they are a workaholic no life cant be legal.

Hime wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Hime wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Hime wrote:So, these better solutions for sickness at work...

I came up with some, but you dismissed them as not “genuine”. I can’t be arsed coming up with more.

they weren't just dismissed, I gave you very clear reasons why they wouldn't be an improvement.

Yeah you didn’t really. You said the Bradford Factor does some of it and then said spending a day in the pub is recommended for stress (I paraphrase).

My point is a rigid numeric formula is not a good way of dealing with it. Things have to be more personal as everyone is different and has different medical needs.

And you also need to prove that there is actually a problem with sickness levels. Most of the time it appears to just be something a company says in order to force people into work sick.

Yeah but I actually did, your obnoxiously paraphrasing because you don't have a decent response. I pointed out that your solution passes on a generic, impartial system to a person who may be influenced, manipulated, biased and makes it almost impossible for everyone in an organisation to be treated fairly. This isn't objectively better.

I wasn’t being obnoxious, I was being lighthearted.

My post:

I don’t think a blanket system really works. Some people have health issues that will mean they have more time off than others, that sort of thing can be proven with doctors notes.

Otherwise, a general look at patterns of behaviour would work better. Is somebody mostly off on Mondays? Has somebody taken 15 days off in the year with “headaches”. Did somebody come back into the office with a lovely suntan? Did their social media show them in a pub all day?

I think companies should trust their employees. If it looks like somebody is taking the piss, then look into it, call then into an informal meeting to discuss it. Put them on an improvement plan. Ask them to bring doctors notes for their next period of sickness. See if anything in the workplace is causing it (lights causing migraines for example).

Treating everybody like a banana split kills morale, encourages additional time off and spreads diseases around more people. It’s gooseberry fool from every angle.

None of that puts it all on a biased/manipulated person who is unable to make a fair decision. I never even said it should be on one person only.

I am not saying any of my suggestions are perfect, but they are better than a rigid, numeric based system that hands out official warnings for people that have had hospital operations.

And again, very few workplaces have an actual problem with staff sickness levels (as a whole, not one or two individuals), but lots of companies want to force people into work while they are sick.

Edit: if a workplace has a genuine problem with lots of staff taking sickies, I would imagine that company has underlying problems with staff morale. Treat people horribly and they will not work at their best levels and they will take the piss back.

Love me some Bradford chat

I am far, far too lenient with my lot and they are absolute angels in return. I'm very lucky to have such a great bunch of people that make up my team. This is not the norm.

I've managed teams before that are packed full of banana splits. You absolutely need rigid systems in place to manage things like sickness absence and no you cannot tailor it to individuals rather than treat everyone the same because that will give you a one way ticket to a tribunal and anything you put forward to HR will collapse very quickly.

The working over thing is a bit of a dead end. Again, at the moment I am lucky to have people who will work literally hours and hours over their contracts to get the job done, because they're fantastic team members. If someone doesn't want to do that, I don't feel there is really much I can do other than try to motivate them to a point where they do want to sacrifice their own time. I certainly don't think they should be punished for it.

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:You're assuming the people who only work the hours they're meant to aren't the hardest working. How do you know that the people who say they're working 40+ hour weeks aren't only doing 30 hours of work but taking long coffee breaks and chatting gooseberry fool about the football instead of working? Hours put down on a sheet in no way shape or form relate to how hard somebody works. You'd think, as a manager, they'd have taught you that

EDIT: Also, if you did have to lay people off and used that as your sole reasoning wouldn't you be opening yourself up to a whole load of unfair dismissal lawsuits?

Frank, I've worked with these people for years. It is a little silly of you to make assumptions based on nothing.

As for your edit, no. If the company is not profitable they have the right to take measures to make it so.

It's a little silly of you to expect people to work for free, too

How many hours do you work, as well? How many are you contracted for?

This is how the real world operates (at least in some companies). I just don't expect people to do the absolute minimum.

My original contract was 37.5 hours per week. I probably do 42-45 per week.

It might be how the real world operates, but it’s not how it should operate.

Moggy wrote:

Hime wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Hime wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Hime wrote:So, these better solutions for sickness at work...

I came up with some, but you dismissed them as not “genuine”. I can’t be arsed coming up with more.

they weren't just dismissed, I gave you very clear reasons why they wouldn't be an improvement.

Yeah you didn’t really. You said the Bradford Factor does some of it and then said spending a day in the pub is recommended for stress (I paraphrase).

My point is a rigid numeric formula is not a good way of dealing with it. Things have to be more personal as everyone is different and has different medical needs.

And you also need to prove that there is actually a problem with sickness levels. Most of the time it appears to just be something a company says in order to force people into work sick.

Yeah but I actually did, your obnoxiously paraphrasing because you don't have a decent response. I pointed out that your solution passes on a generic, impartial system to a person who may be influenced, manipulated, biased and makes it almost impossible for everyone in an organisation to be treated fairly. This isn't objectively better.

I wasn’t being obnoxious, I was being lighthearted.

My post:

I don’t think a blanket system really works. Some people have health issues that will mean they have more time off than others, that sort of thing can be proven with doctors notes.

Otherwise, a general look at patterns of behaviour would work better. Is somebody mostly off on Mondays? Has somebody taken 15 days off in the year with “headaches”. Did somebody come back into the office with a lovely suntan? Did their social media show them in a pub all day?

I think companies should trust their employees. If it looks like somebody is taking the piss, then look into it, call then into an informal meeting to discuss it. Put them on an improvement plan. Ask them to bring doctors notes for their next period of sickness. See if anything in the workplace is causing it (lights causing migraines for example).

Treating everybody like a banana split kills morale, encourages additional time off and spreads diseases around more people. It’s gooseberry fool from every angle.

None of that puts it all on a biased/manipulated person who is unable to make a fair decision. I never even said it should be on one person only.

I am not saying any of my suggestions are perfect, but they are better than a rigid, numeric based system that hands out official warnings for people that have had hospital operations.

And again, very few workplaces have an actual problem with staff sickness levels (as a whole, not one or two individuals), but lots of companies want to force people into work while they are sick.

Edit: if a workplace has a genuine problem with lots of staff taking sickies, I would imagine that company has underlying problems with staff morale. Treat people horribly and they will not work at their best levels and they will take the piss back.

Sorry man, I've been battered today because I'd this strawberry floater not doing anything

I should point out again that I do agree with you. Treat people better and their performance will improve is almost always true, I just understand why companies choose the easy route to ensure everyone is treated equally and they can prove it. I actually hate what the Bradford Factor has done to me personally as it does make you think that you better make sure you're 100% because you'd be strawberry floated if you needed to go off again.

Hime wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Hime wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Hime wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Hime wrote:So, these better solutions for sickness at work...

I came up with some, but you dismissed them as not “genuine”. I can’t be arsed coming up with more.

they weren't just dismissed, I gave you very clear reasons why they wouldn't be an improvement.

Yeah you didn’t really. You said the Bradford Factor does some of it and then said spending a day in the pub is recommended for stress (I paraphrase).

My point is a rigid numeric formula is not a good way of dealing with it. Things have to be more personal as everyone is different and has different medical needs.

And you also need to prove that there is actually a problem with sickness levels. Most of the time it appears to just be something a company says in order to force people into work sick.

Yeah but I actually did, your obnoxiously paraphrasing because you don't have a decent response. I pointed out that your solution passes on a generic, impartial system to a person who may be influenced, manipulated, biased and makes it almost impossible for everyone in an organisation to be treated fairly. This isn't objectively better.

I wasn’t being obnoxious, I was being lighthearted.

My post:

I don’t think a blanket system really works. Some people have health issues that will mean they have more time off than others, that sort of thing can be proven with doctors notes.

Otherwise, a general look at patterns of behaviour would work better. Is somebody mostly off on Mondays? Has somebody taken 15 days off in the year with “headaches”. Did somebody come back into the office with a lovely suntan? Did their social media show them in a pub all day?

I think companies should trust their employees. If it looks like somebody is taking the piss, then look into it, call then into an informal meeting to discuss it. Put them on an improvement plan. Ask them to bring doctors notes for their next period of sickness. See if anything in the workplace is causing it (lights causing migraines for example).

Treating everybody like a banana split kills morale, encourages additional time off and spreads diseases around more people. It’s gooseberry fool from every angle.

None of that puts it all on a biased/manipulated person who is unable to make a fair decision. I never even said it should be on one person only.

I am not saying any of my suggestions are perfect, but they are better than a rigid, numeric based system that hands out official warnings for people that have had hospital operations.

And again, very few workplaces have an actual problem with staff sickness levels (as a whole, not one or two individuals), but lots of companies want to force people into work while they are sick.

Edit: if a workplace has a genuine problem with lots of staff taking sickies, I would imagine that company has underlying problems with staff morale. Treat people horribly and they will not work at their best levels and they will take the piss back.

Sorry man, I've been battered today because I'd this strawberry floater not doing anything

I should point out again that I do agree with you. Treat people better and their performance will improve is almost always true, I just understand why companies choose the easy route to ensure everyone is treated equally and they can prove it. I actually hate what the Bradford Factor has done to me personally as it does make you think that you better make sure you're 100% because you'd be strawberry floated if you needed to go off again.

No need to apologise. You’re a boss so I expect a banana splitish attitude.

Errkal wrote:I would have thought it would count as unfair dismissal. Sure the company has to remain profitable but you can't make someone redundant because they didn't give you free work. if they aren't under performing and al do. similar roles they they would have to compete for the remaining roles and to. pick one over another just because they are a workaholic no life cant be legal.

Unfortunately the way things work is that you pick the people who have least impact and HR does their magic to smooth it all over.

Still doesn't *stop* them from suing you, though. If they're angry enough to put a case together they could.

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:You're assuming the people who only work the hours they're meant to aren't the hardest working. How do you know that the people who say they're working 40+ hour weeks aren't only doing 30 hours of work but taking long coffee breaks and chatting gooseberry fool about the football instead of working? Hours put down on a sheet in no way shape or form relate to how hard somebody works. You'd think, as a manager, they'd have taught you that

EDIT: Also, if you did have to lay people off and used that as your sole reasoning wouldn't you be opening yourself up to a whole load of unfair dismissal lawsuits?

Frank, I've worked with these people for years. It is a little silly of you to make assumptions based on nothing.

As for your edit, no. If the company is not profitable they have the right to take measures to make it so.

It's a little silly of you to expect people to work for free, too

How many hours do you work, as well? How many are you contracted for?

This is how the real world operates (at least in some companies). I just don't expect people to do the absolute minimum.

My original contract was 37.5 hours per week. I probably do 42-45 per week.

It might be how the real world operates, but it’s not how it should operate.

Totally agree, but in the world of cost cutting we live in, that will never happen. Brexit is a good example of this. Some companies complain that they will struggle or go out of business due to reduced access to cheaper labour. Here is an idea, pay the people you can get more!

Frank wrote:Still doesn't *stop* them from suing you, though. If they're angry enough to put a case together they could.

I very much doubt it. Large companies are very proficient at laying off people and defending their position.

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:You're assuming the people who only work the hours they're meant to aren't the hardest working. How do you know that the people who say they're working 40+ hour weeks aren't only doing 30 hours of work but taking long coffee breaks and chatting gooseberry fool about the football instead of working? Hours put down on a sheet in no way shape or form relate to how hard somebody works. You'd think, as a manager, they'd have taught you that

EDIT: Also, if you did have to lay people off and used that as your sole reasoning wouldn't you be opening yourself up to a whole load of unfair dismissal lawsuits?

Frank, I've worked with these people for years. It is a little silly of you to make assumptions based on nothing.

As for your edit, no. If the company is not profitable they have the right to take measures to make it so.

It's a little silly of you to expect people to work for free, too

How many hours do you work, as well? How many are you contracted for?

This is how the real world operates (at least in some companies). I just don't expect people to do the absolute minimum.

My original contract was 37.5 hours per week. I probably do 42-45 per week.

It might be how the real world operates, but it’s not how it should operate.

Totally agree, but in the world of cost cutting we live in, that will never happen. Brexit is a good example of this. Some companies complain that they will struggle or go out of business due to reduced access to cheaper labour. Here is an idea, pay the people you can get more!

Pay more? Good luck with getting companies to do that.

Judging people on hours worked is poor though. I get more done in 35 hours (more like 15 with GR time ) than most people at my place do in 45.

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:You're assuming the people who only work the hours they're meant to aren't the hardest working. How do you know that the people who say they're working 40+ hour weeks aren't only doing 30 hours of work but taking long coffee breaks and chatting gooseberry fool about the football instead of working? Hours put down on a sheet in no way shape or form relate to how hard somebody works. You'd think, as a manager, they'd have taught you that

EDIT: Also, if you did have to lay people off and used that as your sole reasoning wouldn't you be opening yourself up to a whole load of unfair dismissal lawsuits?

Frank, I've worked with these people for years. It is a little silly of you to make assumptions based on nothing.

As for your edit, no. If the company is not profitable they have the right to take measures to make it so.

It's a little silly of you to expect people to work for free, too

How many hours do you work, as well? How many are you contracted for?

This is how the real world operates (at least in some companies). I just don't expect people to do the absolute minimum.

My original contract was 37.5 hours per week. I probably do 42-45 per week.

It might be how the real world operates, but it’s not how it should operate.

Totally agree, but in the world of cost cutting we live in, that will never happen. Brexit is a good example of this. Some companies complain that they will struggle or go out of business due to reduced access to cheaper labour. Here is an idea, pay the people you can get more!

It will happen if people like you stop expecting your employees to work more than you pay them. You're part of the problem and you could work towards making a better situation for your employees but no strawberry float em they should all burn too.

I don't understand it. Scientific studies have proven people are only productive about 4 hours a day working. Why force people to work more hours? Why not just make it so things are more efficient during the normal 8 hours so everything gets done.

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:Still doesn't *stop* them from suing you, though. If they're angry enough to put a case together they could.

I very much doubt it. Large companies are very proficient at laying off people and defending their position.

Fire someone for only working their hours and we can find out pls

Frank wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:Still doesn't *stop* them from suing you, though. If they're angry enough to put a case together they could.

I very much doubt it. Large companies are very proficient at laying off people and defending their position.

Fire someone for only working their hours and we can find out pls

That is not how it will be presented. It will be redundancy with justifiable reasons why one person was chosen over another.

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:You're assuming the people who only work the hours they're meant to aren't the hardest working. How do you know that the people who say they're working 40+ hour weeks aren't only doing 30 hours of work but taking long coffee breaks and chatting gooseberry fool about the football instead of working? Hours put down on a sheet in no way shape or form relate to how hard somebody works. You'd think, as a manager, they'd have taught you that

EDIT: Also, if you did have to lay people off and used that as your sole reasoning wouldn't you be opening yourself up to a whole load of unfair dismissal lawsuits?

Frank, I've worked with these people for years. It is a little silly of you to make assumptions based on nothing.

As for your edit, no. If the company is not profitable they have the right to take measures to make it so.

It's a little silly of you to expect people to work for free, too

How many hours do you work, as well? How many are you contracted for?

This is how the real world operates (at least in some companies). I just don't expect people to do the absolute minimum.

My original contract was 37.5 hours per week. I probably do 42-45 per week.

It might be how the real world operates, but it’s not how it should operate.

Totally agree, but in the world of cost cutting we live in, that will never happen. Brexit is a good example of this. Some companies complain that they will struggle or go out of business due to reduced access to cheaper labour. Here is an idea, pay the people you can get more!

Pay more? Good luck with getting companies to do that.

Judging people on hours worked is poor though. I get more done in 35 hours (more like 15 with GR time ) than most people at my place do in 45.

Imagine what you could do with a full day of work!

Qikz wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:You're assuming the people who only work the hours they're meant to aren't the hardest working. How do you know that the people who say they're working 40+ hour weeks aren't only doing 30 hours of work but taking long coffee breaks and chatting gooseberry fool about the football instead of working? Hours put down on a sheet in no way shape or form relate to how hard somebody works. You'd think, as a manager, they'd have taught you that

EDIT: Also, if you did have to lay people off and used that as your sole reasoning wouldn't you be opening yourself up to a whole load of unfair dismissal lawsuits?

Frank, I've worked with these people for years. It is a little silly of you to make assumptions based on nothing.

As for your edit, no. If the company is not profitable they have the right to take measures to make it so.

It's a little silly of you to expect people to work for free, too

How many hours do you work, as well? How many are you contracted for?

This is how the real world operates (at least in some companies). I just don't expect people to do the absolute minimum.

My original contract was 37.5 hours per week. I probably do 42-45 per week.

It might be how the real world operates, but it’s not how it should operate.

Totally agree, but in the world of cost cutting we live in, that will never happen. Brexit is a good example of this. Some companies complain that they will struggle or go out of business due to reduced access to cheaper labour. Here is an idea, pay the people you can get more!

It will happen if people like you stop expecting your employees to work more than you pay them. You're part of the problem and you could work towards making a better situation for your employees but no strawberry float em they should all burn too.

I don't understand it. Scientific studies have proven people are only productive about 4 hours a day working. Why force people to work more hours? Why not just make it so things are more efficient during the normal 8 hours so everything gets done.

*plays John Lennon's Imagine*

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:You're assuming the people who only work the hours they're meant to aren't the hardest working. How do you know that the people who say they're working 40+ hour weeks aren't only doing 30 hours of work but taking long coffee breaks and chatting gooseberry fool about the football instead of working? Hours put down on a sheet in no way shape or form relate to how hard somebody works. You'd think, as a manager, they'd have taught you that

EDIT: Also, if you did have to lay people off and used that as your sole reasoning wouldn't you be opening yourself up to a whole load of unfair dismissal lawsuits?

Frank, I've worked with these people for years. It is a little silly of you to make assumptions based on nothing.

As for your edit, no. If the company is not profitable they have the right to take measures to make it so.

It's a little silly of you to expect people to work for free, too

How many hours do you work, as well? How many are you contracted for?

This is how the real world operates (at least in some companies). I just don't expect people to do the absolute minimum.

My original contract was 37.5 hours per week. I probably do 42-45 per week.

It might be how the real world operates, but it’s not how it should operate.

Totally agree, but in the world of cost cutting we live in, that will never happen. Brexit is a good example of this. Some companies complain that they will struggle or go out of business due to reduced access to cheaper labour. Here is an idea, pay the people you can get more!

Pay more? Good luck with getting companies to do that.

Judging people on hours worked is poor though. I get more done in 35 hours (more like 15 with GR time ) than most people at my place do in 45.

Imagine what you could do with a full day of work!

Imagine what I could do if I was properly motivated and didn’t have to put up with spreadsheet wielding middle managers!

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:You're assuming the people who only work the hours they're meant to aren't the hardest working. How do you know that the people who say they're working 40+ hour weeks aren't only doing 30 hours of work but taking long coffee breaks and chatting gooseberry fool about the football instead of working? Hours put down on a sheet in no way shape or form relate to how hard somebody works. You'd think, as a manager, they'd have taught you that

EDIT: Also, if you did have to lay people off and used that as your sole reasoning wouldn't you be opening yourself up to a whole load of unfair dismissal lawsuits?

Frank, I've worked with these people for years. It is a little silly of you to make assumptions based on nothing.

As for your edit, no. If the company is not profitable they have the right to take measures to make it so.

It's a little silly of you to expect people to work for free, too

How many hours do you work, as well? How many are you contracted for?

This is how the real world operates (at least in some companies). I just don't expect people to do the absolute minimum.

My original contract was 37.5 hours per week. I probably do 42-45 per week.

It might be how the real world operates, but it’s not how it should operate.

Totally agree, but in the world of cost cutting we live in, that will never happen. Brexit is a good example of this. Some companies complain that they will struggle or go out of business due to reduced access to cheaper labour. Here is an idea, pay the people you can get more!

Pay more? Good luck with getting companies to do that.

Judging people on hours worked is poor though. I get more done in 35 hours (more like 15 with GR time ) than most people at my place do in 45.

Imagine what you could do with a full day of work!

Imagine what I could do if I was properly motivated and didn’t have to put up with spreadsheet wielding middle managers!

More posts here?