Originally Posted by Slug71
Yes I agree.
Warning as in, 'You can't do this again for what ever reason OR I'm not happy with your performance...blah blah blah.......if I don't see any improvement I have no choice but to replace you'.....
A point I think many people miss is that this also creates a paper trail PROTECTING a employer against liability.
Sometimes you need to get rid of a few people because business is down - it has nothing to do with performance.
In some countries it is almost impossible to do this - the result is companies don't expand for fear that the potential business will not pan out and they will then be stuck with extra staff and no way to get rid of them.
But this is sort of the point - a company should not need a paper trail - they should be able to say - we no longer wish for you to work here -
The paper trail is only required to protect yourself from legal action - the EEOC can also be a major PITA - I am pretty sure that their efforts - as noble as they may be - tying to keep employers from firing someone unfairly - have actually reduced the number of jobs by millions of positions.
What is better - having 25,000 people per year fired for no valid - supported - legal - reason - COMPLETELY UNFAIR -
But increase the total jobs by 500,000?
Are protecting these 25K people worth the 500K lost jobs?
(I am making up numbers - but no doubt the additional new jobs created would be X times the number of people fired unfairly)