Questions to Employers?

At most workplaces, there is this "Office Politic" or "Politic Game". I am aware that some employers think firing employee can be the most expensive thing they can do. On little reflection, I can understand why. This would be more the case with entry/junior level positions. Employees are investment that employers invest on by giving them salary, benefits, and keeping them around. You fire them, and you lose what you invested on them without really getting your returns. Another thing is employers will have to re-do the whole process of searching for suitable candiates again which is a hassle, times-taking, and there's no guarantee that hiring someone else will be any better than the one they fired. Any more thoughts or reasons?

What has the SMALL United States got to do with my question? Cost and loss analysis in employee/employer relationship is the same in all countries on earth.

Hey H.K. Man,

As we near our November elections, Politics will always play a part in any "Social situation", and Yes, work is a social situation. There will always be the person that is the center of attention. If we are lucky, in the workplace, that person will be the boss. That, however, is not always the case.

Ideally, we would like to think, it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game -- BUT, in today's world, plays are rarely noticed -- WINS always are! (The company your work for, unless it is some social service agency, pays their bills by winning, not by placing in the top 5).

Sometimes, there are situations where you have two equally "qualified" employees; Let's say Joe and Diane. Joe spends his off time schmoozing with the boss, Diane spends her off time researching the competition. Diane is obviously the harder worker, right? Not always --! Joe may be making contacts with others in the industry or at least appear to, when he is spending time with the boss. In today's world, appearances ARE EVERYTHING! If they weren't, we wouldn't need the latest cell phone, the sportiest/classiest car or even the membership to ???

I am usually Diane! Sadly, I know that the other Diane's out there, when we make a success, we don't feel it is as well noticed. So we have a tendency to try to toot our own horn -- we also look desperate when we do this.

Firing is a very tenuous proposition. It is an aggressive move, and a move even if followed by the letter of the law, is still subject to litigation (I fired a Bartender for selling an alcoholic drink TO-GO, I and my employer were sued from here to eternity, with allegations of everything from sexism to sexual harassment to racism -- The lawsuit took 2 years and in the end, it was cheaper to settle than to pay to take it to a judge or jury trial) So investment isn't always the reason that an employer won't terminate someone. It may be easier to get the "Squeaky Wheel" to quit and hope that the "Family" in the office will get over any turmoil.

My advise, in most cases, if you are in a situation where a "Joe" is getting all the perks and you are a Diane, is to either become a "Joe" or look for an employer who fosters a more even playing field in the workplace.

Hope I added something of value to the other comments!

James in San Diego

In the USA, if your job isn't done I will fire you. Otherwise I don't care what is going on in you small life!

I am retired... old school!

It they're smart, they understand this and the same rule applies to their customers as you've described with employees.

In order to run a successful business , your employees have to be happy and know that they are treated equally in terms of discipline and benefits. That is why unions were formed. Investing time to train and teach a employee is part of business cost. A employee that is not performing to the standards of others hurts the whole business, it is a cancer waiting to grow and must be removed.

When you invest in your employee you expect returns just like investing in anything else. If you don't get the returns it is time to sell the stock or fire the employee instead of investing in that person further. Cut the losses. If the performance doesn't meet expectations of the company it is time for that employee to go. It is not politics or a game. It is reality. Keeping a non-performing or under-performing employee around is hazardous to the company. It lowers morale and creates a whole lot of issues. Hiring someone is a chance you take.

It is not a game. Office politics are a social phenomenom, a very real thing that exists in every office in the world, be it military, civilian, educational, etc.

It is always there, most people are so used to it that to them it is normal. Why do you think Dilbert is so funny? Because of the stupid crap that happens to him? Or because 99% of the crap that happens in Dilbert is something you have seen in person or has happened to somebody that you know?

Firing people is no game either. It is a very traumatic event for the person losing his job, the coworkers and even the manager. During the dot com days I was consistently ordered to lay off one of my employees every 90 days because the company was bleeding money like crazy. It was horrible.

Because of this it is very rare to see a person getting summarily terminated unless there is a criminal offense involved. By the time somebody gets fired there is a lot of paperwork involved.