6th January 2012, 02:07 PM
Kel Wrote:I was responding to your suggestion that "if you weren't good enough, you'd be asked to leave". My point was that there's no legal way of "asking someone to leave" employment. If they decide to stay put and decline your request, then you can only sack them - and you need more grounds than them just not being good enough. I guess if you ask them to leave and they go without a fight, then you're fine. It's a bit of a gamble though.
I have no issue with trying to raise standards in archaeology - you make excellent suggestions.
Raising standards in archaeology is always a worthy cause!
In my experience the issue of 'getting rid of' lazy/useless people is all down to the structure of employment and wording of contracts. Several contracts I've had, had a probation period during which both the employee and employer could negate the contract. Seemed sensible to me as long as the probation period was long enough to find out if either the company was ok and the employee wasn't lying about their skills etc.
However, its far better to point out to the said worker their failings - you never know, it might galvanise them to do better! Also not everyone is equally skilled, some are better at some things than others. Its better to use people in situations where they can shine rather than trying to squeeze them into a task that doesn't fit. Of course that's a luxury not always available on a site.......there are always cruddy jobs that no one wants to do though}
But am guessing your talking about entrenched (ho ho) employees with long-term contracts who refuse to leave or change their lazy ways. Your only way forward then is playing the rules game....which can be twisty turny and fraught with grief and hassle.
One option (if your supervising a troublesome/lazy worker) is to take them to task on their shoddy work and/or lazy attitude. You don't have to be nasty, in fact it works best to be polite, accurate and succinct. Then watch and log (in a notebook if your company doesn't have the appropriate paperwork) every infringement the problem person does. You then have a record of the person not following instruction and maybe safety procedures, etc. etc.
Obviously anything after this would rely on the support of your managers
Also, if the problem person makes the mistake of being aggressive (verbally or physically) towards you, then you are usually within your rights to ask them to leave site due to their inappropriate behavior.
The final option is to put said worker on 'punishment detail', and only give them cruddy jobs to do. You can immediately knock back any claims of 'discrimination' by stating that in your opinion you are merely matching people with the jobs that they are best skilled to perform. After all, you wouldn't ask an inexperienced newby to excavate and record a cart burial.
As to a 'black list' whats wrong with having a list of people skill levels? Surely this is the purpose of the skills passport. It just happens that said peoples skill level is 'useless' or 'unemployable.'
As far as I'm aware, it only becomes dodgy and potentially illegal if you infringe on the workers human rights (e.g. legal right to a private life) and if you pass on personal data (covered by the data protection act) to a third party without consent. Or am I wrong here?