____ wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:09am:



I agree. A strong position on IR is very important ** following an election.
Australia is not a particularly good example on productivity metric comparison right now.

There is far too much red tape in removing a poorly performing worker.
There is a lack of ability to respond to market economics for the smaller and middle businesses.
There is a built-in mindset of entitlement in Australia that doesn't exist elsewhere.

I have mentioned elsewhere on here, when we ran a company wide productivity metric analysis across the world, Australia was worse performer in Asia Pacific and in the bottom 10 worldwide behind some of the European socialist minded nations.

Best performers were
United States (honestly)
Singapore
China
Japan
Saudi Arabia

They have a strong work ethic and a "no bullsh*t" attitude on poor performing employees.

In Saudi, a guy who performs badly can be fired that day, no matter how long his service.
In Australia, even if he has been there 3 months, we have to go down a 'oerformance plan', ' several warnings', 'has he been equipped with the tools necessary etc etc'.

It can be 4-5 months before we remove the Aussie in comparison.
Meanwhile his co-workers pick up the slack, frustration increases and productivity heads down the toilet.

That's how we see it in head office anyway.


** Edited to add a bit more clarity on my view.

Quote:

Yep ,slide in and then hit the workers, sooooooooooooooooooo Liberal, bloody ass holes.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:17am:




Not of relevance to the discussion.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:16am:




So in the same vein as no carbon tax of the government I lead. You suggest the neo cons going to an election with an agenda of lying.

Andrei
Quote:


One of the problems I have had with this is that I have found management to be atrocious at identifying poor performance.

They tend to label someone they do not like as a poor performer and will more likely promote an awful performer that they like.

Most staff reductions have no relationship to performance and in fact I find that the biggest driver of poor performance is very often management them self. When overall performance drops it is mostly due to managemant interference or changes.

They tend to label someone they do not like as a poor performer and will more likely promote an awful performer that they like.


Oh, you poor possum.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:28am:



There's obviously cases of that I have no doubt but on the whole companies and management look to remove an employee based purely on poor performance.

I took over 3 months trying to remove an employee and in the end we had to re-structure and pay him out for retrenchment.
Handing that clown 2 weeks pay for every year service grates with me to this day.

So what happens in Australia is the way around it is to re-structure and re-hire in a different* role.
So you end up effectively rewarding poor performance.
See how it becomes a nonsense?