Lawns 'R' Us <
nob...@nowhere.example.com> writes:
> It is also not uncommon for some larger companies to do the "six month
> contract to permanent" option - ie, take somebody in for a six month
> contract; if their work is good enough, and they fit in, give them a
> permanent position. That makes booting out somebody who doesn't suit
> (for whatever reason) a lot easier.
Here (.de) we have a six-month period before legal dismissal
protection kicks in. During these six months you can easily get rid
of an employee who doesn't meet expectations or doesn't fit in.
But then there are those bosses who haven't said a thing for six
months and on the last day say "we don't like what you did, so
you're fired", while the employee rightfully "I could have done what
you want if you had told me", and HR says "if we don't fire them
now, they have dismissal protection", so the employee gets fired
because they didn't have the *opportunity* to prove themselves. I
have seen this in cases.
Can be fixed by mandating a feedback talk between boss and employee
after three months latest.
And then there are those bosses who are unhappy with an employees
performance, but notice too late, and HR says "couldn't have fscking
told us before six months were over?", and the employee keeps his
job, so the boss stays unhappy, and the employee is unhappy because
they cannot do the job well and because the boss is unhappy. I have
seen cases of this, too.
Can be fixed by the HR explicitly asking the before the end of the
six months if the boss wants to keep that person.
Kudos to the company where I have seen these cases -- they
implemented both fixes.
--
Var48657=Nur GIF-, png-, Jpg- und JPEG-Bilder können Antriebskraft. Überprüfen Sie bitte das Bild, das Sie vorgewählt haben.