Legal Analyst, Hrm
Hr & Administration
Employee Engagement And Retention, Day To
Ir & Hr
Finance, Hr, Sectarial Practices, Law And
Asst. General Manager - Hr
Professionally - Expertise On Generic Hr/
Manager - Hrm - Charis Lifesciences Ltd.
Thank you for clarification, i get one more doubt here as to, during the probation period company holds right to terminate without notice at its discretion, so y to waste so much of efforts and penny... y not direct termination, ur terms shall feel good, if at all the employee stays with the company at least till the time he gets confirmed.
Can this be ruled on.
otherwise termination can be challaged in the Labour Court and will be miscarrage of law. Regard Mohamad Rafq.
BUT, never take any hasty step just on presumption basis unless you are really sure that the employee/probationer is absenting willingly and unauthorizedly. Humanitarian grounds should never be lost sight of if you want loyalty and sincerity of employees. There may be some compulsion with the probationer, like accident of self or a family member, death of any near relative, sudden serious illness of self or family member.
If the candidate has a contact number, must try to contact him or his family members on phone or through some messenger. If you find some evasive response, only then you can be sure to some extent that the candidate does not want to serve your organization. Get the outcome of contact recorded and bring that to the notice of the competent authority. Only then decide whether to serve him a notice for unauthorized absence or terminate without notice upon getting a formal decision of the competent authority.
Management & Vigilance Consultant
Dhingra Group of Consultants
The safest way is the option given by Riah.
But Rajkumar has provided a food for thought. I am reminded of a story which was quoted to me long time back.
It was announced by God to the dead people when they went up to him to choose between Heaven and Hell (choice was left to them)
They were given opportunity to visit both Heaven and Hell. Surprisingly when they visited Heaven they observed that people were is agony pain and were tortured, but the scene in Hell was quite opposite, people were enjoying, having fun etc.,
Finally when they all went up to God most of chose to go to Hell. God agreed and sent them accordingly. But the scene in Hell had changed. In short what they observed in Heaven was transformed to Hell and vice versa. (The scenes were what we have heard from our elders - Original Heaven and Hell)
So it is important for HR professionals like us to really project what our organisation's culture is right from the day one and not to paint a rosy picture to the candidate prior to his joining or immediately after he joins. If you don't give him the real picture you are bound to face such surprises.
But I would not blame the culture that exists in your organisation. Each organisation has its own culture, the point I am trying to make is, explain it to the new entrants so that they are not taken by surprise. Also try and create an atmosphere/ culture that will retain candidates. Retain good practices in your current organisation and try and minimise the harsh/ impractical practices and replace it with positive practices for better employee retention. This suggestion is because employee retention is the biggest challenge we face these days.
It is very very clear that he is not interested in his job or your company. He might have had another offer. Having worked for ONE DAY what an employee expects? The principles of natural justice, and opportunity to be heard,etc. are to be considered only when someone puts in a considerble no.of years of service in an organization. In this case, we are not violating any law. A person before joining, made effort to go to company's website and tried to understand the company's background, etc., can't he have courtesy to inform the auhtories that because of such and such reason he could not turn up for duty? Does he not have phone no. of the company? If this is what the attitude he exhibites, that too the very next day of having joined the company, what kind of commitment you can expect from from?
You know something. There are a lot of people suddenly disappear without any information, and work in some other oraganization with an offer. They work for 10 - 15 days or so and if they like the job, they stay back, and if they don't, come back saying that they had jaundice, one of their close relatives died, they met with accident, etc. and bring one (false) doctor's certificate. What do you say for this attitude? Establishing their claim whether it is genuine or not is different issue.
In your case, you do not have to initiate any letter to be sent to him. Just keep quite. Don't even load his data onto the payroll master for processing salary. Don't even consider him as an employee. if at all he turns up later, depending on the merits of the case, you can decide to have him (as new joinee) or otherwise.
I am not for this attitude.
With all respect to Mr. Balaji and other out here who have posted the views,
If the company have issued the candidate the appointment letter then its better to go safe ( Company and as per law) and send him warning letters as advised by Riah. pls be sure to keep a copy of it and the letter should be sent by Govt. Registered post only with AD. and finally the tarmination letter.
In case, if Company has not issued him the appintment letter then as advised by Mr. Balaji no action is required and company can show the case that offer has been made to him however the candidate has not joined.
in this circumstances u should refer the standing order/laws of the company.defntly absconding without intimation for more than 7 days is a misconduct and he is a probationer also.so u can terminate him without intimation.i hope u provided him with employee handbook (where it is clearly mentioned).
secondly there is no need for any humanitarian steps here.Nowadays there are so many means to communicate any accident, death etc.
No disciolinary action or natural justice is required to be followed for an employee who was just stayed for a single day just to desert the job/company.
1. Why he should give reason for leave ? Is it mandatory ?
2. If a probationer applies leave by giving right reason it was not considered.
what is the remedy ?
Having been dealing with vigilance and disciplinary cases for about 45 years in the past, I could rather have been expected to be more of a negative attitude, but I find negative attitude more in the HR executives dealing with general administration.
The point has not to be lost sight of that HR does not only literally represent human resources, but also represents human relations in the form of staff relations or employee relations. HR, neither also allows to adopt only negative attitude without going in to detailed analysis. Negative attitude, sometimes, costs very dearly in the life of a person, particularly the HR personnel.
In fact HR is a very important link between the management as a whole and the employees and to keep balance on both the sides is the prime responsibility of the HR. Positive attitude in human relations is a must, unless you are sure that the other side is wrong.
The need is first to analyse the issue keeping an impartial attitude. So, the reasons attributed to the absence of the employee are necessary to be investigated and analysed, before taking any stringent action. Even otherwise also, if the employee is proved to be at fault the management has the discretion to take even more strict action of dismissal due to his unauthorized absence from duty in the organization and taking another employment without formally getting relieved from the present employment, but only if the employee is proved to be at fault for the reasons not beyond his control.
SHORTCUTS IN THE HR PROCESSES CAN PROVE TO BE DANGEROUS NOT ONLY FOR THE EMPLOYEES, BUT ALSO FOR THE REPUTATION AND TRUST OF THE ORGANIZATION, WHICH IT ENJOYS WITH ALL OF ITS EMPLOYEES.
The actions could be many fold,like
Action to be taken, if no appointment letter has not been issued-no action.
Action to be taken, if appointment letter has not been issued,but the employees has not signed in the attendance register- he is a probationer and action to be taken will be as applicable for employees on probation as suggested by Rhea and others.
Finance action is to credit him with one day salary and allow to to come collect this amount and use that as an opportunity to have a terminal interview with him to find out the reasons for discontinuing the employment after serving for one day.Apart from legal procedures.
In any case such cases generally throw out lot of questions.-1. Are our recruitment methods proper? Did we select the right man?Did we assess the candidate properly.
2. How dose an outsider see us? How are we when compared to other employers?.
We must do self Analysis by answering theses questions and find initate corrective actions in the interest of the organisation and to protect the morale of existing employees.
FAPCCI , Hyd
First you have to verify the cause. If there are others who have joined with him (group recruitment), then one of them will surely know whats happening. Else contact him at his address. Chances are that either he has met an emergency (in that case he would have left a message with someone) or he has used your orgn as a 'filler' while waiting for another opportunity.
In the latter case, you know he has gone for good. U can ask for an explanation via registered mail (and acknowledgement) and in case you dont get a reply or a suitable reply the concerend disciplinnary authority can take the decision. There will be no use trying to get him to honour the 'bond' if any, (except if u know where he has joined).
After this dust settles down and you know that he has left for a better opportunity, u need to analyse if he has left out of- dis-illusionment or it was planned action (filler concept). Take corrective action.
Greetings for the day. . .
Well if I give insight into the issue there might be major three issues that may have arised.
1. False comminttments / promises given at the time of selection - leter on not seen by a new joinee.
2. Withdrawal of interest from a new assignment - may be because of comfort / interest or any other reason in new job.
3. He/she must have something really very serious and could not get connected (very thin chances), as a benefit of doubt.
Whatever is the situation, you have faced candidate lost after joining. This is now a days getting common issue. Please verify your processes not only at HR level but also at the dept. level. As people generally blame HR only that - there is no "Walk the Talk" approach by HR. Showing big picture and getting penny out of it.
This is a situation that is new joinee has not yet connected you then he will not revert back. Start searching a new candidate.
Atleast you must be thankful that he has gone in one day otherwise this could have happen may be after a week or a month where in he will get a lot of information about your org., get the induction and then gone.
Keep the things moving.
Go ahead and hire a new one.
Please calm down and read the story just above your post. Many times or an employee is been told the highlights of the company and not the hardship he will be following Like the transport problem, or too much work load or expectation. if you think that on probation a company is at its will to terminate an employee on any misconduct whether grave or small one you are mistaking my friend. the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down rulings saying that even if you want to terminate any probationer on ground of misconduct you will have to conduct an enquiry. the Supreme Court Direction is also the Law of Land so there will be a breach of law if you terminate an employee this way.
this was the Legal aspect of the problem. other part is i agree to most of the people there could be any situation with the employee. Even if there is any misunderstsnding please try to take feedback from the employee and try to solve his problem. you will not only gain the respect the employee but also motivate him to give his best for the company. we should think in a positive way.
Let me quote a relevant case here. One of the IT company (my friend is HR head there) similar case happened. After attending two-day induction program, a Software Engineer did not turn up from the third day. He was completed all joining formalities including issuance of appointment letter and its acceptance. He also signed a service agreement to serve the company for two years. My friend succeeded to contact him over phone and to his surprise the following were the reason of his discontinuation:
(1) The JD discussed by HR at the time of recruitment was not matching with that JD discussed/given by his HoD upon joining.
(2) There was a mismatch with the position offered and that of the hierarchy conveyed in the deptt.
(3) Perception developed during induction about the culture of the organization (the reason quoted was that during the introduction, one of the employee did not bother either to look into him or wish him)
There was nothing much my friend could do to retain the person. He felt no need to send any warning letter / termination letter etc., as one of the clauses in the appointment letter on automatic termination of services in case of continuous absenteeism for 7 days and above, addressed the same. My friend took the feed back in a positive manner and made necessary process in place to improve the gray areas to prevent employee churn on such grounds in future.
You may also try to find out the reason for his churn and take corrective measures. "Prevention is better than cure."
Contribute as a "Change Agent" and bring changes in the organization culture, if need be.
All the best,
- I fully agree and endorse views expressed by Mr. V Balaji.
- In short what Mr. Balaji suggesting is, there is no need to issue show cause to employee who has worked only for a day and is absconding without giving any intimation or reason from the very second day of his joining the new employment. So keep aside the procedure no need to call for reason and explanation from absconding employee, simply treat his/her case as someone who never joined your company. Mr. Balaji has also added that, in case employee turns up after few days with some genuine reason for absconding, you may consider his/her rejoining on merits.
- I agree with the views of other citehr members that one needs to find out internal and external reasons for such behavior by new joinees and corrective action need to be taken. But that dose not mean that you need to send show cause to such employees. Your show cause is not going to get any reply and it is sheer waste.
- I do not find any negative attitude in the suggestions of Mr. Balaji. His attitude appears to be very proactive to me.
- Mark my words, a person who is absconding from the very second day of his/her joining without any reason is already having employment offer/s from other employer/s and has jumped to another company and he/she has no commitment, ethics or a heart to inform you about his decision. So simply ignore him/her.
Both Balaji and you seem to be advising to adopt shortcuts to a person, who has sought a sincere advice from community members, so that he may not be wrong in taking any action as a part of his duty. But the advice of both Balaji and you clearly seem to forbidding him from discharging his genuine duties as an HR personnel.
I am not at all surprised with your presumption also, "Mark my words, a person who is absconding from the very second day of his/her joining without any reason is already having employment offer/s from other employer/s and has jumped to another company and he/she has no commitment, ethics or a heart to inform you about his decision." without resorting to any investigation or trying to know the full background of the case, as many people prefer to do work on presumption basis rather than observing any laid down processes, formalities and HR ethics.
Your another advice "so simply ignore him/her" is also like advising the poster of the question to shirk from his genuine duties.
As an HR personnel, your firm conviction like presumption is totally uncalled for in view of the fact that neither the poster of the question has stated that the absentee has joined another post, nor he has mentioned that there is any clause of termination in the appointment letter or the agreement with the absentee employee.
It is a matter of commonsense, if a formality of recruitment has been done by the organization, it also is obliged to complete necessary formalities for the discharge of the employee taking all necessary steps to terminate, remove or dismiss from the organization only by observing due formal processes laid down by the organization. OTHERWISE, THE EMPLOYEE WOULD STILL REMAIN ON ROLLS OF THE ORGANIZATION AND CAN PUT FORWARD HIS CLAIM ANY TIME IF NO FORMAL ACTION IS TAKEN TO REMOVE HIM BY OBSERVING DUE PROCESS.
So, if you prefer to adopt shortcuts or presumptions in doing your duty, at least don't advise others not to observe due policies and formalities of HR.
Let's see the case carefully. The question was "what to do with the absonding employee on the second day?". What I am suggesting is that there is no need to do anything big, like issuing show cause notice, conducting domestic enquiry and terminating him.
All these formalities apply only when someone works for the organization and also the organization intends to initiate disciplinary proceedings. What do we suggest here? Do we think that a person was present for only a day, can go for conciliation proceedings what is his locus standi? If at all he goes, what is company's stance? In what section of ID Act he can invoke? (2A cannot be invoked as company did not discharge/dismiss him) it is not that company terminated him or wanting to terminate, but it is he the one absconding the next day.
Finding reason for his disinterest, etc. are totally internal issues that can be addressed always. I knew some people joined in the morning and went for lunch and never turned back thereafter. People normally come with preconceived notiions, big organization set up, expectations, etc. Once they joined the organization, things appear to be different than what they perceived. When things do not seem to be in their taste, they simply vanish without telling the employer. This is exactly what has happened in this case.
If you suggest to initiate disciplinary proceedings for those who had shown their faces for 2 hrs, 1/2 day and one day and sincerely adopt the procedures to be followed as per the law, I have no problem in your spending time on this.
in such situation, we only tried to contact the person on phone, if he answers then we tried n ask for the reason. if found genuine he is asked to come after sometime, if not then on the phn only we used to tell him that as per his appointment letter absenting from duty without information is misconduct n if he is not willing to come back n join then witin 3 days a termination letter is sent to his place mentioning the conversation n espectially that he said he is nt willing to come back
if person doesnt answer even the calls & mails then after a week a show cause letter is sent and if unanswered after 10th day termination letter is sent to him stating that despite various efforts to contact from our side have failed n the person has been absenting without information so he is being terminated.
after 5 days or so we start searching a new person becoz normally one who hasnt turned out in 5-7 days will not come
- Myself and Mr. Balaji have offered a solution to a common problem faced by many of us from HR fraternity. I am facing this situation for almost 2 times every month and I am sure there are many others who are facing it at even higher frequency. Solution offered by Mr. Balaji is practiced by me and I have not faced any problem so far, as feared by you.
- You are at liberty to label our practice as a ‘shortcut’ but I feel it is a practical solution tried and tested by me.
- We are not forbidding anybody from discharging their duties. We have given a advice and you and some others have also given a advice. It is upto the advice seeker to carefully choose from the many alternatives available keeping in view the actual reality and situation, best known to him/her.
- I am not presuming anything. But I do not understand what makes you presume that a person who has joined just a day before dares to abscond from the new job on a very second day and who is not bothered to inform anyone in office, has a intention and seriousness to continue to work with you?
- My commonsense will never allow someone to remain on rolls, who has joined and absconded from 2nd day, as feared by you. I think most organizations have a very basic function of Attendance & Time Office in place.
I am surprised that HR people get this much time to spend on a new person, whose trustworthiness towards the organization or continuity is under a big question mark! You should do a PONC to find out the cost implication on the organization on such issues. In the modern HR context, Personnel Management has a limited role to play.
I am 100% in agreement with what V. Balaji commented in third para, above. In my view, if there is no positive results on the initial probing, one should not spend much time on such non productive activities.
Mr. Dhingra, in response to the last para (highlighted in Red) of your reply to V. Balaji, I would suggest that if you could quote any relevant rulings of any learned court in India, ordering for reinstatement of an employee whose services were terminated on similar ground under the subject matter in discussion.
With your latest post you have clearly exposed yourself and your arbitrary style of working without observing any HR norm and standards.
Your latest post clearly suggests, not only your policy is to work arbitrarily by depending only on presumptions and shortcuts, but also you try to read between the lines without understanding what others try to communicate.
If you properly go through my original posting, you will find that the very opening sentence of my suggestion was “Of course a probationer, as per the prescribed provision of the organization about termination without notice can be resorted to.” BUT my suggestion was quite simple that before taking a step to terminate the probationer, the poster of the problem may try to find out the cause of absenteeism and to avoid any hasty step.
JUST TRY to reread my original comments and, as presumed by you, intimate me —
WHERE DID I SUGGEST TO START DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS?
If you don’t want to go back to read my original comments, I reproduce here at the end of this discussion for your convenience.
ON THE OTHER HAND, your contention, “What I am suggesting is that there is no need to do anything big,”I would like to draw your attention to your own suggestion, where you gave a very big and wrong advice to shirk from the duty clearly forbidding him not only on one count, but on several counts, by clearly stating –
“In your case, you do not have to initiate any letter to be sent to him. Just keep quite. Don't even load his data onto the payroll master for processing salary. Don't even consider him as an employee.”
All this provides us what type of HR duties you would be doing and advising to others also. In this respect, I would like to put straight questions to you:
1) If you have recruited an employee by which provision of law you should not do anything in regard to his termination?
2) Does your suggestion to keep quiet not forbidding an HR personnel to do his genuine duty?
3) Does advising him not to load data on to the payroll master not forbidding him to do his genuine duty?
4) Does advising him not to consider the duly recruited employee as an employee not forbidding him to do his genuine duty?
5) Once an employee is recruited, which provision of law provides you an arbitrary authority not to treat him as an employee unless you formally terminate or dismiss him?
6) What is the basis of your firm conviction that the things would not have happened to the taste of the employee, as you have stated, “This is EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED in this case?” Is not it your presumption only?
7) Do all the recruitment formalities adopted by your organization are farce and fictitious?
8) Provision of which law provides you, as an HR man to arbitrarily function at your sweet will and not to discharge your duties and responsibilities towards employees and an organization of which you are also an employee?
You must know that such type of arbitrary attitude of the HR personnel is the main reason behind the HR not commanding due respect amongst the employees of the organizations.
EXTRACT OF MY ORIGINAL COMMENTS DATED 23.10.2010
“Of course a probationer, as per the prescribed provision of the organization about termination "without notice" can be resorted to.
BUT, never take any hasty step just on presumption basis unless you are really sure that the employee/probationer is absenting willingly and unauthorizedly. Humanitarian grounds should never be lost sight of if you want loyalty and sincerity of employees. There may be some compulsion with the probationer, like accident of self or a family member, death of any near relative, sudden serious illness of self or family member.
If the candidate has a contact number, must try to contact him or his family members on phone or through some messenger. If you find some evasive response, only then you can be sure to some extent that the candidate does not want to serve your organization. Get the outcome of contact recorded and bring that to the notice of the competent authority. Only then decide whether to serve him a notice for unauthorized absence or terminate without notice upon getting a formal decision of the competent authority.”
You may like to read reply to Balaji's response. I think you will find answers to your queries also there.
About being on rolls of any absconding employee, if you do not do your duty to formally show exit to any employee, he will remain employee of the organization and can claim any time his post irrespective of whether he remained absent without pay. So, HR formalities are a must to do if you want to terminate him. You should not keep any loop hole open to be taken advantage of by any one at any time simply by omitting any HR formality.
So, the solutions offered by Balaji and you were not the slutions, rather were the likely cause of aggravating problems in employee-employer conflicts. If you have practiced the solution offered by Balaji and you, just give me complete particulars of the employees (including their addresses) whom you would have treated as non-employees without observing prescribed formalities of their formal exist from your organization, I shall prove my stance practically when I would legally compel your organization to rejoin any one or more of those employees.
Anyway, if you still have any more question, you are most welcome.
I hope you will also find answers to your queries in reply to the response of Balaji and VK.
About direct and indirect cost of fresh recruitment formalities for substitute and the cost of simple investigation to find out the cause cause of absconding of an employee, better you calculate yourself, or even ask a cost accountant to do for you and you will find an alarming difference than even your imagination. Neither recruitment, nor employee retention and employee relations is a child's play, what to say of the discharge of HR responsibilities as a whole.
Why to go for any previous example of any court ruling, just you give me complete particulars of the employees (including their addresses) whom you would have treated as non-employees without bserving prescribed formalities of their formal exist from your organization, I shall prove my stance practically when I would legally compel your organization to rejoin any one or more of those employees.
I would like to advice you, try to command respect as a rational HR man, rather than earning hate of employees with arbitrary actions or inactions.
I would like to reciprocate the advice given in the last para to you as well. You being an HR professional (?) I would rather suggest you to analyse the situation as if it happened with your organization and try to find out whether the management would like the HR to invest more time and energy on such issues. The answer to this will satisfy you, as well. However, pl don't label me as an anti-employee HR professional. I believe, that it is the prime responsibility of each and every HR professional to do a root cause analysis to suggest a best suitable solution to the problem. Mr. Dingra, all your suggestions / advices are one sided only using a defensive mechanism and as such, does not seems to be helpful in resolving any issue. The origin of the discussion is to find out an amicable solution to the issue rather than creating a platforum for argument and counter argument to reach nowhere.
so probably u estimated my long comment meaning as expenses but still it takes very less time n energy to try n speak to the person. if not answered then 1 letter n person is out. agan standard registry charges apply.
Didnt mean to be offensive but probably this was my first thought after reading ur comment..
I have carefully gone thru your response to my post and posts of Mr. Balaji and Mr. Gopal. I have following comments to offer. These are my final comments and I will not be commenting further in this post to stretch it further.
• I think a very basic and important fact in this case is “Employee has deserted you on a second day of his joining, he is not interested in working with you and he has stopped attending duties on a very second day of his employment and has not bothered to inform you anything” I feel you are not at all taking notice and cognizance of this fact.
• Legally and Technically you are right in saying that, employee may claim employment since he has not resigned or terminated and not relieved. But what are the chances of such a claim from an employee who is not at all interested in working with you and who is gainfully employed elsewhere.
• There are occasions when 40 or more employees join on a single day and entering of their data in HRMS and Payroll System may spill over next 4-5 days. What is a point in entering and keeping the data of employee, who is no more with you?
• I have already made it clear in my earlier post that, in case employee turns up after few days with some genuine reason for absconding, you may consider his/her rejoining on merits.
• I fail to understand how ignoring a past employee, who has worked with you only for a day and who is not at all interested in working with you will lead to “Aggravating problems in employee-employer conflicts”
• It will be better if you enlighten us, as to how exactly you are going to prove your stance practically in respect of employee who is not interested to be our employee, leave alone rejoining or reinstatement.
• There is no possibility of these kind of employees hating us. They are not at all interested in working with us and we have not troubled them any way during or after their one day stay with us.
About the question of time and energy, answer to your comments lie in Neha’s brief but befitting response to your comments, as they lie just after your comments. But I know you won’t like to admit where your presumption and policy becomes wrong. Probably you consider yourself as the most expert HR professional (?).
In fact, it is not the management, but it is the individual HR professional who doesn’t like to spend even a few minutes at the very initial stage to find out the root cause as against his own presumptions.
You try to suggest me to analyse the situation, but instead of resorting to analysis, you try to stick to your own one sided presumption, as your analysis, without even trying to know the basic cause of the employee about his being absent by spending just a few minutes of your time in calling him on phone or sending him a written notice. My suggestion was based on my real practical professional experience for about 40 years. I used to analyse every situation before taking any action, rather than making my own presumptions, as you do in playing with the career of employees on mere presumption basis.
You also profess to believe that it is the prime responsibility of each and every HR professional to do a root cause analysis to suggest a best suitable solution to the problem, but still you won’t like to do a root cause analysis by having any response from the employee, as you want to impose your own presumption on the pretext of root cause analysis, without going through the circumstances, whether it is the compulsion of the employee not attending being unfit due to sudden serious illness, accident, death of his near relative or any other eventuality, or whether faulty HR policies are the root cause. Unless you go through this process, how you can claim to do the root cause analysis. I think better try to understand the real meaning of “root cause analysis”, rather than just to use the words in a meaningless manner.
I have not labelled you as an anti-employee HR professional, but you have yourself proved to be of that.
My suggestions were neither one sided nor for using a defensive mechanism, as I suggested to take in to confidence both sides, the responsible management as well as the concerned employee. My suggestion was based on my practical experience for about 40 years. On the other hand your suggestion/advice was clearly one sided based on mere presumption without going in to the root cause of the problem, and also your replies to my queries are mere a defensive mechanism just to stick to your presumption about the employee that he does not want to work. But you won’t like to admit all that.
Had you considered this forum as not the platform for argument and counter argument, you could well have taken my suggestions in right perspective. But, you preferred to adopt defensive mechanism just to stick to your presumption to prove that as only the root cause analysis of the problem, and started counter arguments.
Sorry to say dear, you are just exposing more and more of yourself.
In your first bulleted point you have stated, the employee is not interested in working with you. The question arises, how you could come to this conclusion without even trying to contact him? Is it not your presumption? You have further stated, I have not at all been taking notice and cognizance of this fact. The question arises, which fact? Do you consider your presumption as the fact, when you have not tried to verify about the reason from the employee? The fact is that, which is established beyond any doubt. Simply use of the word “fact” does not become the fact.
Thanks, in your second point, you have admitted at least one thing that Legally and Technically I am right in saying that, employee may claim employment since he has not resigned or terminated and not relieved. About your point, “what are the chances of such a claim from an employee who is not at all interested in working with you and who is gainfully employed elsewhere,” here also you are making two more presumptions by stating “not at all interested in working with the employer” and “who is gainfully employed elsewhere.” The question arises, how did you come to the conclusion that he was not interested to work with the employer, whether he is willing or not and whether he is employed or not gainfully elsewhere, when you have never tried to verify all these things and still not ready to verify?
About your query, “what is a point in entering and keeping the data of employee, who is no more with you,” the question arises, which law provides for any exemption for the employer not to enter and keep the data of a formally employed person? You have already admitted that legally and technically he remained an employee of the firm. You cannot even escape entering of the data, even if he is terminated after one day, as you cannot confiscate his salary of one day for which he has worked with you. The question arises, does the commercial accounting, profit and loss account, and assets and liability accounts of a firm allow not to show its liability for one day’s salary, which became due to the employee for his working with the firm? Better ask this question from the Chartered Accountant of your own company. You will know the implications of falsification of accounts of the company.
About your point, “in case employee turns up after few days with some genuine reason for absconding, you may consider his/her rejoining on merits”, the question arises, when you are not considering him as your employee, and your employment record is totally blank about his employment, where is the question of the management agreeing to his claim for rejoining? He will surely be left in lurch due to the inhuman and arbitrary policy that is being adopted by the HR right from the initial stage.
About your inability to understand how ignoring a past employee can lead to the problem of aggravation of employee-employer conflicts, I am sure by the passage of time and gaining more experience in HR, you will surely learn that and remember me about having rightly pointed out towards that. However, for clarification sake it may be pointed out, once the ignored employee puts his claim and the management becomes hesitant to admit his claim to rejoin, don’t think that the employee who has come with full determination to exert his claim would keep quiet and could turn back quietly on asking by the management. He would definitely publicise the bad policies of the HR to make all other employees and trade unions alert about that. Any trade union or the media coming to his recue may cause havoc for the organization by aggravating the employee-employer conflict and even leading to lock-out. You should not forget about the recent instance of Hero Honda employee-employer conflict and ultimate lock-out affecting badly the revenues of the company. I have already advised that an HR personnel should not keep any loop hole unplugged.
In another query, in a bid to exert on your presumption, I find you have not refrained even to twist my question posed to you by putting your own presumption, “in respect of employee who is not interested to be our employee”. Where did I mention about the employee not interested to be your employee? This also proves that you depend more on presumptions rather than facts. You may please try to re-read my last response to you, with particular reference to your claim that you had been practising your (presumptive) solutions of not taking any action or not entering data for salary of the absenting employees. For your convenience, I repeat my words “If you have practiced the solution offered by Balaji and you, just give me complete particulars of the employees (including their addresses) whom you would have treated as non-employees without observing prescribed formalities of their formal exist from your organization.” Being a practical man, I need not explain to you theoretically, how I would prove my stance. Just give me the requisite data and see how that is proved practically to see how your management is exposed.
About hatred of employees, you are taking in to account only those employees whom you have not taken on rolls, while I am talking about the whole lot of employees of any organization. I give you one suggestion, you just ask someone outsider to investigate in your own organization by conduct of a survey, not revealing himself to be your own man, you would find how much respect your HR enjoys amongst the employees of your own organization. One drawback of your HR you have already admitted about what you are already practicing, the others you will know from the result of the survey.
With reference to your comment on 2nd para, I am of the view that you jumped into conclusion without referring to the whole matter. You may refer to my posting on 25th Oct for clarity. I think, you need to be little bit flexible in your approach. While respecting your age and experience, I would like to reiterate my stand that no corporates/ organizations, as of now, would be willing to invest resources for non-productive activities, like the one you have been referring to and recommending throughout - even if one may brand it as cause of aggravating problems in employee-employer conflicts and subsequent repercussion (?). Further, it seems that there is a need to change the 'think' process as it is very old and will not hold good in the current scenario. Just to quote an example, nobody is using C or C++ now for programming but progressed with .net or similar. There are many more examples to quote. For survival, one needs to be adopting to change. Change is imperative - not only in technology but in attitude, behavior and approach of an individual too. To face the cut throat competition and to achieve the business goals, employers are always looking / experimenting new things and in relations to Human resources, they expect that the HR professionals needs to be totally in line with the business requirements. As such, only in the name of maintaining industrial relations, I don't think that issues like the one which is the subject matter of entire discussion, will create an employee - employer conflict leading to industrial unrest.
By the way, thanks for the time you are spending to educate on legal/IR aspects but I am sorry to say that it is not in line with the new HR concept. Have a nice day and I am not going to respond any further on the subject matter.
Thanks for your comments. But, your pointless reply to my comments shows you are still adopting defensive mechanism although that contradicts your own earlier views. By this you have tried to expose more and more of your wrong and anti-employee policies.
I have not jumped to any conclusion, as to arrive at some conclusion after proper analysis, I clearly suggested to investigate the reason for absence of the employee. Contrarily, you jumped to the conclusion that the employee was unwilling to work in the company without even trying to know the reason behind the absence of the employee. At least your friend tried to find out the cause of absence of an employee of his organisation and could analyse the position. But, you could not learn any lesson from him also.
It is quite surprising that there were 6 (six) paragraphs of my comments, but you preferred to offer your comments only on one para, i.e., 2nd para. The question arises, why your response is with specific reference to ONLY the 2nd para of my comments, WHY NOT with reference to all the 6 (six) paragraphs of my comments? That clearly means, no plea is left with you to offer against the rest of the 5 paragraphs of my comments, and you quite agree on 83% of the points raised by me. Even with reference to my 2nd para of my comments (17% only), your response contradicts your own earlier stand where you stated that you believed it as the prime responsibility of each and every HR professional to do a root cause analysis to suggest a best suitable solution to the problem, but contrary to it you still don’t like to do a root cause analysis by having any response from the employee, but still you don’t want to spend even a very brief time of yours for just a few minutes whether he is willing or not to serve your company. I repeat the contents of 2nd para of my earlier comments here for refreshing your memory:
“In fact, it is not the management, but it is the individual HR professional who doesn’t like to spend even a few minutes at the very initial stage to find out the root cause as against his own presumptions.”
Your own post of 25.10.2010 suggests that on contacting the absentee employee your friend found defective and deceptive policy of HR as the management did not offer what was promised to him. On one hand you advocate the policy of analysing the situation and on the other you do not want to get in touch with the employee to get his views for his absence so that your HR policies may not get exposed as the defective, deceptive and unethical policies of the management. Thus, you contradict your own early stand for the need of analysing the root cause.
You have referred about some “new concept of HR”. By the way, what is that new concept of HR and which scholar or researcher has suggested that. I would definitely like to study that “new concept”. Does that suggest that you abandon even the most necessary tasks of making your record complete and make recruitment process as mere informal process just to honour the sweet will of an individual HR professional, as he does not favour to discharge his responsibilities pretending to be the desire of the management, or pretending to be the “new concept”?
For your kind information I use to challenge the imaginary theories of some of the world’s top 20 Management Gurus through Harvard Business Review & Harvard Business Publishing of the Harvard University, Wharton University, BNET, etc. While a few of them acknowledge their shortcomings, a some try to delete my comments with the fear that the same may go against their reputation. At one time University of Harvard, world’s most renowned University, was compelled to restore my comments when found that the action would go against the University’s own reputation. I also happen to be Executive Member of the McKinsey & Co. For MckInsey Quarterly, and the Aberdeen, the world’s renowned management consultancy companies. I have yet to come across any such “new concept” that you are trying to preach. I am sure, had there been the facility for you to moderate or delete any comment on this forum also, you would also have tried to delete my comments.
You have tried to teach me about the need to be little bit flexible in my approach, where I tried to suggest a flexible approach to the problem, while on the contrary, your approach is quite inflexible, as you still persist on your formula of work shirking by the HR professional. By asking me to be little bit flexible, did you mean, I should not have commented against your unethical inflexible approach?
Reiteration on your stand that no corporate/ organization, as of now, would be willing to invest resources for non-productive activities, is just a farce on your part, as instead of rectifying your approach to be practical and rational in your business activity, yourself is adopting a non-productive activity of aimlessly wasting time repetitively to defend your wrong and unethical policy. So, clearly you or your organization is investing in non-productive activity. Contrary to it, no corporate/ organization would be willing that its HR professional should abandon any essential process to accomplish the job to close the chapter once for all, rather than leaving a loophole unplugged to create problems for the future, as you suggested on the problem referred by the author of the thread.
In a frantic bid to defend your wrong policy, you have quoted even a wrong example, as “nobody is using C or C++ now for programming but progressed with .net or similar.” Probably you are extremely mistaken. It doesn’t mean that if you are not using something, the same is discarded worldwide. At first .net was available even when in 1979 ‘C’ was developed and improved further as ‘c++’ in 1983. Secondly, probably you don’t know both ‘C’ and ‘C++’ are still being taught and C++ is one of the most popular programming languages ever created, C++ is widely used in the software industry. Some of its application domains include systems software, application software, device drivers, embedded software, high-performance server and client applications, and entertainment software such as video games. Several groups provide both free and proprietary C++ compiler software, including the GNU Project, Microsoft, Intel and Borland. C++ has greatly influenced many other popular programming languages, most notably C# and Java. SO, .net would be lame without C++ till it is not replaced by some other innovative software.
You profess about the Change in technology, attitude, behavior and approach of an individual. That does not mean you leave any essential process completed. Change does not mean to use hit and trial methods. Change also needs some processes to be established and accomplished. You can simplify a process with regard to the law of the land, but not neglect that altogether. Better try to learn what actually is the change process.
May the employers be always looking / experimenting new things and in relations to Human resources, but that does not mean that, you as an employee of some organization may neglect your duties and responsibilities in the name of your employer or in the name of the new thing. Ignoring a process is not a new thing, but an old tactics of the employees, as a dereliction of their duties & responsibilities.
You are welcome to give your comments, if you still have any doubt in getting yourself less exposed by yourself only