Recently, we have come across many queries on termination, forced resignation, employee disciplining, etc., and have debated much about it. Just today, I received an email from a company that provides training sessions to HR on various topics. The email was about delivering a training session on "Employee Disciplining." After reading the email, I wish to share it here to know the viewpoints of different HR members on this topic. I have edited the email only to the extent of deleting the promotional links they sent along with it.
The mailer is as below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor Performer Has Complained? Read This Before Firing!
By Jonathan Hyman
Employers usually don't have a problem terminating an employee for poor performance if the employee has never raised any kind of discrimination claim. But somehow, as soon as an employee goes to the EEOC (or even just HR) with a complaint, the same employer doesn't know what to do.
- Should you terminate the employee and face a potential retaliation suit?
- Or do you keep the employee, hoping that will keep her from suing?
Because of the specter of a retaliation claim, employers often feel hamstrung and seldom take the action necessary to rid themselves of a problem employee. Lower your stress level—and the risk of a lawsuit—with Effective Employee Discipline & Termination Strategies for Supervisors.
Are You Being Set Up?
Consider the possibility that the employee's complaint is a setup. Indeed, when problem employees see the writing on the wall, they often complain about bogus incidents of alleged discrimination in an attempt to bulletproof themselves from an adverse action like demotion or termination. Employees believe that the mere threat of retaliation liability will protect their jobs. It's understandable that the threat of litigation sometimes paralyzes employers—no matter how baseless the retaliation threat might be. Don't let that happen to your organization.
The following case sends the right message to employees: that a meritless complaint will not protect a poor performer. And it's welcome relief from fear of a retaliation lawsuit.
7-Year Run of Poor Reviews
Daniel Galeski was an acoustics engineer at the Ford Community and Performing Arts Center in Dearborn, Mich. During his seven-year tenure at the theater, Galeski compiled a history of well-documented performance problems. Two months before the date when he would finally be fired, Galeski complained that his male supervisor had been sexually harassing him. After complaining, Galeski's performance problems continued, for which he received reprimands and written warnings. After he failed to improve—and despite his harassment complaint—the city terminated him.
The court agreed with the city that Galeski's long history of performance problems, many of which predated his harassment complaints, were fatal to his retaliation claim:
"Galeski has a history of violating the City's policies and being insubordinate... [I]t appears that the issues that led to Galeski's termination were inevitable once a more strict supervisor arrived at the Theater... [H]is job was in danger regardless of his sexual harassment complaints. In light of his repeated issues with failing to wear his uniform and his reaction to his employer revoking his privilege to use the gym, there is no indication in the record that the city of Dearborn's legitimate reasons for discharging Galeski were pretextual or otherwise invalid."
(Galeski v. City of Dearborn, No. 10-1256, 6th Cir., 2011)
No one likes to discipline or fire an employee, but all too often you simply must do it. Get the training you and your supervisors need to do it right—professionally and unemotionally—while legally protecting your organization and yourself.
Lessons for Employers
The case provides several important lessons for employers that may have hesitated before disciplining an employee who has made an internal or other complaint. These include:
- Don't Wait to Terminate. Galeski did not become an insubordinate employee overnight. His performance issues predated his termination by seven years. Yet, a long line of weak and non-confrontational supervisors refused to do anything about it. I'm not saying you should fire an employee at the first sign of trouble, but there is a broad line between fair warning and years of capitulation. The former will put you in good stead defending a lawsuit. The latter could result in a judge or jury asking why you waited so long—and then looked for an illegitimate reason for the late-in-the-game termination. Just because this scenario worked out for the city of Dearborn does not mean that it will work out well for every employer in every case.
- Document, Document, Document. Few terminations can survive scrutiny without proper documentation. Your odds as an employer go down exponentially if you pair a lack of documentation with a termination on the heels of protected activity. As the Galeski case illustrates, a poor performer is a poor performer, regardless of complaints about harassment or other protected conduct. Without a legitimate paper trail, however, you will find yourself without the ammunition to do anything about it.
- Do Investigate the Employee's Complaint. While you don't have to withhold discipline just because the employee complained about alleged discrimination, neither should you ignore the complaint. It is, after all, possible that someone is experiencing sexual harassment and is a poor performer. Regardless, you don't want to give a judge or jury a chance to decide that you allowed sexual harassment or discrimination to exist. Remember, the employee can win a hostile environment case if he really was harassed, even if he loses a retaliation claim.
- It's a Nasty Job, But Somebody Has to Do It. Employee discipline, and especially termination, definitely raise your stress level. It's even more frustrating when discipline is ineffective, and even more stressful when a poorly handled termination triggers a lawsuit.
When you handle discipline and termination properly, your organization will see countless benefits. Do it wrong, and you're in a world of hurt. Why take the risk?
---------------------------------------------------------------
I would really want that seniors and other HR members on this forum share and express their views on this. Employee termination and employee disciplining have always been retaliated against. Though a few cases genuinely need termination, in most of the cases discussed in the forum, we have observed that HR/Management terminates the employee just for the sake of it, many times even without giving a proper justification and/or compensation for the same. What should be done about the Employee Disciplining and Termination Process? How should it be carried forward or alleviated?
Waiting for a healthy discussion. Thank you in advance for the time, views, and efforts.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(6)
Amend(0)
742The mailer is as below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor Performer Has Complained? Read This Before Firing!
By Jonathan Hyman
Employers usually don't have a problem terminating an employee for poor performance if the employee has never raised any kind of discrimination claim. But somehow, as soon as an employee goes to the EEOC (or even just HR) with a complaint, the same employer doesn't know what to do.
- Should you terminate the employee and face a potential retaliation suit?
- Or do you keep the employee, hoping that will keep her from suing?
Because of the specter of a retaliation claim, employers often feel hamstrung and seldom take the action necessary to rid themselves of a problem employee. Lower your stress level—and the risk of a lawsuit—with Effective Employee Discipline & Termination Strategies for Supervisors.
Are You Being Set Up?
Consider the possibility that the employee's complaint is a setup. Indeed, when problem employees see the writing on the wall, they often complain about bogus incidents of alleged discrimination in an attempt to bulletproof themselves from an adverse action like demotion or termination. Employees believe that the mere threat of retaliation liability will protect their jobs. It's understandable that the threat of litigation sometimes paralyzes employers—no matter how baseless the retaliation threat might be. Don't let that happen to your organization.
The following case sends the right message to employees: that a meritless complaint will not protect a poor performer. And it's welcome relief from fear of a retaliation lawsuit.
7-Year Run of Poor Reviews
Daniel Galeski was an acoustics engineer at the Ford Community and Performing Arts Center in Dearborn, Mich. During his seven-year tenure at the theater, Galeski compiled a history of well-documented performance problems. Two months before the date when he would finally be fired, Galeski complained that his male supervisor had been sexually harassing him. After complaining, Galeski's performance problems continued, for which he received reprimands and written warnings. After he failed to improve—and despite his harassment complaint—the city terminated him.
The court agreed with the city that Galeski's long history of performance problems, many of which predated his harassment complaints, were fatal to his retaliation claim:
"Galeski has a history of violating the City's policies and being insubordinate... [I]t appears that the issues that led to Galeski's termination were inevitable once a more strict supervisor arrived at the Theater... [H]is job was in danger regardless of his sexual harassment complaints. In light of his repeated issues with failing to wear his uniform and his reaction to his employer revoking his privilege to use the gym, there is no indication in the record that the city of Dearborn's legitimate reasons for discharging Galeski were pretextual or otherwise invalid."
(Galeski v. City of Dearborn, No. 10-1256, 6th Cir., 2011)
No one likes to discipline or fire an employee, but all too often you simply must do it. Get the training you and your supervisors need to do it right—professionally and unemotionally—while legally protecting your organization and yourself.
Lessons for Employers
The case provides several important lessons for employers that may have hesitated before disciplining an employee who has made an internal or other complaint. These include:
- Don't Wait to Terminate. Galeski did not become an insubordinate employee overnight. His performance issues predated his termination by seven years. Yet, a long line of weak and non-confrontational supervisors refused to do anything about it. I'm not saying you should fire an employee at the first sign of trouble, but there is a broad line between fair warning and years of capitulation. The former will put you in good stead defending a lawsuit. The latter could result in a judge or jury asking why you waited so long—and then looked for an illegitimate reason for the late-in-the-game termination. Just because this scenario worked out for the city of Dearborn does not mean that it will work out well for every employer in every case.
- Document, Document, Document. Few terminations can survive scrutiny without proper documentation. Your odds as an employer go down exponentially if you pair a lack of documentation with a termination on the heels of protected activity. As the Galeski case illustrates, a poor performer is a poor performer, regardless of complaints about harassment or other protected conduct. Without a legitimate paper trail, however, you will find yourself without the ammunition to do anything about it.
- Do Investigate the Employee's Complaint. While you don't have to withhold discipline just because the employee complained about alleged discrimination, neither should you ignore the complaint. It is, after all, possible that someone is experiencing sexual harassment and is a poor performer. Regardless, you don't want to give a judge or jury a chance to decide that you allowed sexual harassment or discrimination to exist. Remember, the employee can win a hostile environment case if he really was harassed, even if he loses a retaliation claim.
- It's a Nasty Job, But Somebody Has to Do It. Employee discipline, and especially termination, definitely raise your stress level. It's even more frustrating when discipline is ineffective, and even more stressful when a poorly handled termination triggers a lawsuit.
When you handle discipline and termination properly, your organization will see countless benefits. Do it wrong, and you're in a world of hurt. Why take the risk?
---------------------------------------------------------------
I would really want that seniors and other HR members on this forum share and express their views on this. Employee termination and employee disciplining have always been retaliated against. Though a few cases genuinely need termination, in most of the cases discussed in the forum, we have observed that HR/Management terminates the employee just for the sake of it, many times even without giving a proper justification and/or compensation for the same. What should be done about the Employee Disciplining and Termination Process? How should it be carried forward or alleviated?
Waiting for a healthy discussion. Thank you in advance for the time, views, and efforts.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(6)+1 more
Amend(0)
Different Strokes for Different Folks
The termination cases that I worked through were never a one-way error. However, as shared in this post about documentation, it remained the only respite for employers.
Employee Grievances and Attrition
Employee grievances are almost always the reason why we have attrition. An employee leaving the firm often resorts to such tactics to settle scores. It gets very sensitive and is difficult to fight a case on such grounds, as the employer is looking forward to an early exit for that employee. Fueling grapevine is mostly undermined. However, an active communication process can retain balance.
Fudging Clearance Documents
Fudging the clearance documents is almost at the top of this list. Managerial counseling is often considered a cure for insubordination while being employed or even serving a bond. Yet, moderation of the employee's activity calls for action day in and day out. I wait to hear from our experts and mentors.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(4)Amend(0)
The termination cases that I worked through were never a one-way error. However, as shared in this post about documentation, it remained the only respite for employers.
Employee Grievances and Attrition
Employee grievances are almost always the reason why we have attrition. An employee leaving the firm often resorts to such tactics to settle scores. It gets very sensitive and is difficult to fight a case on such grounds, as the employer is looking forward to an early exit for that employee. Fueling grapevine is mostly undermined. However, an active communication process can retain balance.
Fudging Clearance Documents
Fudging the clearance documents is almost at the top of this list. Managerial counseling is often considered a cure for insubordination while being employed or even serving a bond. Yet, moderation of the employee's activity calls for action day in and day out. I wait to hear from our experts and mentors.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(4)Amend(0)
Your blogs are always very informative. Thank you very much for sharing. Indeed, one can relate and try to comprehend the problem when reading the entire content together.
Understanding Employee Termination
From my understanding, the whole process of "Terminating an Employee" is triggered because:
- HR fails to hire the right person who fits into the culture practiced by the organization.
- Expectations are never communicated with the employees.
- Many employees are unclear about their job roles as they are not shared the KPI of their role, due to which they are clueless about where to head further and hence always categorized as low/poor performers.
It is very important to share the expectations that you have from a person at a particular designation performing a specific role. It is as simple as this: Unless you tell me what you specifically need, how do you expect me to deliver what you want?
When we call an ice-cream parlor, though it is very obvious that we are going to have an ice-cream, we need to give an order that specifies which ice-cream or what flavor we need. If we allow the server to serve any ice-cream without giving specific details of our likes and dislikes, we cannot blame the server for serving a flavor we do not like. Some things that seem very common are seldom practiced.
Effective Communication in Recruitment
It is not just limited to the fact that supervisors are to inform the performer what is expected of them. It also means that when there is a vacancy and you fill a manpower requisition form, communicate clearly what job roles the prospect would perform, what qualifications you need, how much experience, salary range, any specific details that need to be verified, etc.
Many organizations just ask HR to provide, say, a PHP developer, but fail to mention the specifications. HR does not have all the technical knowledge to understand and try to hit close to the target. This is especially true when the opening is outsourced to recruitment firms.
Again, when outsourcing the vacancy so that a recruitment consultancy can source CVs for you, it is essential to know whom you are giving your opening to. It can be a pain to give recruitment to a person who does not know the basics of recruitment. In consultancies, a recruiter is given a target for the month. They may just provide you with some CVs without trying harder to find better candidates.
The whole process could be checked and made better by one simple thing: Communication. It brings transparency to the process and informs what is expected of the candidates.
Are there any other ideas that can help HR develop their performance?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(5)Amend(0)
Understanding Employee Termination
From my understanding, the whole process of "Terminating an Employee" is triggered because:
- HR fails to hire the right person who fits into the culture practiced by the organization.
- Expectations are never communicated with the employees.
- Many employees are unclear about their job roles as they are not shared the KPI of their role, due to which they are clueless about where to head further and hence always categorized as low/poor performers.
It is very important to share the expectations that you have from a person at a particular designation performing a specific role. It is as simple as this: Unless you tell me what you specifically need, how do you expect me to deliver what you want?
When we call an ice-cream parlor, though it is very obvious that we are going to have an ice-cream, we need to give an order that specifies which ice-cream or what flavor we need. If we allow the server to serve any ice-cream without giving specific details of our likes and dislikes, we cannot blame the server for serving a flavor we do not like. Some things that seem very common are seldom practiced.
Effective Communication in Recruitment
It is not just limited to the fact that supervisors are to inform the performer what is expected of them. It also means that when there is a vacancy and you fill a manpower requisition form, communicate clearly what job roles the prospect would perform, what qualifications you need, how much experience, salary range, any specific details that need to be verified, etc.
Many organizations just ask HR to provide, say, a PHP developer, but fail to mention the specifications. HR does not have all the technical knowledge to understand and try to hit close to the target. This is especially true when the opening is outsourced to recruitment firms.
Again, when outsourcing the vacancy so that a recruitment consultancy can source CVs for you, it is essential to know whom you are giving your opening to. It can be a pain to give recruitment to a person who does not know the basics of recruitment. In consultancies, a recruiter is given a target for the month. They may just provide you with some CVs without trying harder to find better candidates.
The whole process could be checked and made better by one simple thing: Communication. It brings transparency to the process and informs what is expected of the candidates.
Are there any other ideas that can help HR develop their performance?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(5)Amend(0)
Unless the EMPLOYER/MANAGEMENT learns "HOW TO NEGOTIATE AND SOLVE THE PROBLEM USING LOGIC AND COMMON SENSE, ALONG WITH A LITTLE HUMOR" and STOPS MISUSING their "POWERS," EMPLOYEE TERMINATIONS will be a NEVER-ENDING SAGA. If management cannot address employees' GENUINE GRIEVANCES positively, I would love to call them (management) COWARDS because terminating an employee cannot be the BEST or PERMANENT SOLUTION to the existing PROBLEM. In fact, the PROBLEM itself contains the SOLUTION if we know how to DECODE and INTERPRET it in the RIGHT/POSITIVE SENSE. In many organizations, employee termination (biased) has ignited employee agitations and provided a scope for plotting new plans to fight against INJUSTICE.
- My experience says, Management, HOD, and the SUPERVISORS need to "MASTER - PROBLEM-SOLVING TECHNIQUES & NEGOTIATION STRATEGIES" and "LEARN TO FACE REALITY."
- They must never underestimate any EMPLOYEE.
- They must come forward with a SOLUTION containing MULTIPLE OPTIONS.
- EMPLOYER/MANAGEMENT must listen to both parties rather than just supporting (biased decision) the SUPERIOR, which resulted in TERMINATING THE EMPLOYEE.
EMPLOYER/MANAGEMENT must treat all employees as BUSINESS PARTNERS rather than treating them as SLAVES (employees) who are truly HELPLESS IN NATURE. EMPLOYER/MANAGEMENT must PRACTICE "DOWN-TO-EARTH ATTITUDE" and KILL YOUR EGO.
Often, many organizations repeatedly say that they are unable to recruit "THE RIGHT CANDIDATE WITH THE RIGHT ATTITUDE WITH THE RIGHT COMPETENCIES," etc., etc. To what extent have employers/managers tried their best to help employees align themselves with the organization's culture? It is evident that NEW EMPLOYEES are not aware of ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE before joining any organization, nor do they have any idea about the ATTITUDE OF THE EMPLOYER/MANAGER, HOD & SUPERVISORS.
HR must STOP buttering up their MANAGEMENT just to safeguard their jobs. This is happening in the majority of organizations, and HR is equally responsible for EMPLOYEE-BIASED TERMINATIONS.
This is all I can say.
With profound regards
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(5)Amend(0)
- My experience says, Management, HOD, and the SUPERVISORS need to "MASTER - PROBLEM-SOLVING TECHNIQUES & NEGOTIATION STRATEGIES" and "LEARN TO FACE REALITY."
- They must never underestimate any EMPLOYEE.
- They must come forward with a SOLUTION containing MULTIPLE OPTIONS.
- EMPLOYER/MANAGEMENT must listen to both parties rather than just supporting (biased decision) the SUPERIOR, which resulted in TERMINATING THE EMPLOYEE.
EMPLOYER/MANAGEMENT must treat all employees as BUSINESS PARTNERS rather than treating them as SLAVES (employees) who are truly HELPLESS IN NATURE. EMPLOYER/MANAGEMENT must PRACTICE "DOWN-TO-EARTH ATTITUDE" and KILL YOUR EGO.
Often, many organizations repeatedly say that they are unable to recruit "THE RIGHT CANDIDATE WITH THE RIGHT ATTITUDE WITH THE RIGHT COMPETENCIES," etc., etc. To what extent have employers/managers tried their best to help employees align themselves with the organization's culture? It is evident that NEW EMPLOYEES are not aware of ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE before joining any organization, nor do they have any idea about the ATTITUDE OF THE EMPLOYER/MANAGER, HOD & SUPERVISORS.
HR must STOP buttering up their MANAGEMENT just to safeguard their jobs. This is happening in the majority of organizations, and HR is equally responsible for EMPLOYEE-BIASED TERMINATIONS.
This is all I can say.
With profound regards
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(5)Amend(0)
Discipline: A Double-Edged Sword
'Discipline' is a double-edged sword in my opinion—it should cut both ways, i.e., both the employer and the employee! However, in many organizations, it is always the 'employee' who is disciplined. We see here in the CiteHR forum that in many organizations, there are no systems, procedures, no written appointment letters, no leave policies. Yet, the moment an employee does not follow a particular procedure, is absent, or quits the company, there are immediate queries from young HR professionals seeking clarifications from seniors on the methodology for 'fire-fighting'! And then disciplining takes place!
Who Should Be Disciplined?
So whom should we discipline? The employers or the employees only? Before disciplining somebody, should we not assess the need for discipline, whether sufficient steps were taken proactively, or if action is taken only reactively? Are there systems and procedures in place at all levels, covering all activities? Were all options exhausted before resorting to 'disciplining' somebody?
Let us accept that we humans are one step above animals, at least in terms of common sense, knowledge, skills, ability, and so on. One requires disciplining only if the person descends from a 'human level' to an 'animal level'. Only animals need to be tamed and disciplined like in a circus! Disciplining should take place only if all other options are thoroughly exhausted.
The Role of Leadership in Discipline
If an immediate superior spends enough time with their team members to mentor, guide, motivate, train, and teach those reporting to them, I don't think there will be a need to discipline somebody. If an employee has some grey areas for development, it is the duty of the team leader to identify the same and arrange for training to fill the gap!
The old saying goes like this: People don't leave the organization but leave their managers!
I await the views of other fellow professionals and experts!
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(3)
Amend(0)
'Discipline' is a double-edged sword in my opinion—it should cut both ways, i.e., both the employer and the employee! However, in many organizations, it is always the 'employee' who is disciplined. We see here in the CiteHR forum that in many organizations, there are no systems, procedures, no written appointment letters, no leave policies. Yet, the moment an employee does not follow a particular procedure, is absent, or quits the company, there are immediate queries from young HR professionals seeking clarifications from seniors on the methodology for 'fire-fighting'! And then disciplining takes place!
Who Should Be Disciplined?
So whom should we discipline? The employers or the employees only? Before disciplining somebody, should we not assess the need for discipline, whether sufficient steps were taken proactively, or if action is taken only reactively? Are there systems and procedures in place at all levels, covering all activities? Were all options exhausted before resorting to 'disciplining' somebody?
Let us accept that we humans are one step above animals, at least in terms of common sense, knowledge, skills, ability, and so on. One requires disciplining only if the person descends from a 'human level' to an 'animal level'. Only animals need to be tamed and disciplined like in a circus! Disciplining should take place only if all other options are thoroughly exhausted.
The Role of Leadership in Discipline
If an immediate superior spends enough time with their team members to mentor, guide, motivate, train, and teach those reporting to them, I don't think there will be a need to discipline somebody. If an employee has some grey areas for development, it is the duty of the team leader to identify the same and arrange for training to fill the gap!
The old saying goes like this: People don't leave the organization but leave their managers!
I await the views of other fellow professionals and experts!
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(3)Amend(0)
Exactly, sir. It's great that you brought up this point.
Indeed, who is to be blamed when the organization does not have the policies and procedures in place? Even if they do, these are not effectively communicated to the employees. While communicating, we (as HR - not all HR professionals, but those who either willingly practice this or are forced to do so) cleverly present data that can be easily manipulated to our advantage.
For example, during an interview when it is stated that you will receive X amount as your in-hand salary, what does 'in-hand' mean? Technically, if you say my in-hand would be X Rs per month, I expect to receive X Rs on my paycheck after all statutory deductions (such as PF, ESIC, Professional Tax, TDS, etc., as applicable).
During my tenure at a consultancy before joining my current organization, I was informed that I would receive X amount as in-hand salary. This was also mentioned in the appointment letter as:
Monthly salary: X
PF Deduction: - (N/A as we didn't have 20 employees)
ESIC Deduction: - (N/A as the salary exceeded the limit)
Professional Tax: Nil
TDS: Nil (because my annual salary didn't surpass the basic exemption limit)
In-hand: X
Note: Statutory deductions would be deducted as applicable.
However, upon receiving our paychecks, it was X - 200 (Professional Tax). Upon inquiry, they mentioned it was Professional Tax, which was not applicable before because they were not a Limited Company, but now it was (with an explanation that was not clear to me). They also justified it by stating there was a note mentioning statutory deductions as applicable.
We united and emphasized that Professional Tax is a statutory deduction and should be included in the salary details provided. During the interview, we were promised X as in-hand, not just X as our salary. There is a significant difference between the two, and we expect what was promised - X in-hand.
They acknowledged their mistake, updated the appointment letters for future employees, and agreed to pay Professional Tax on our behalf until our salaries were revised due to their error. However, I resigned the following month, so I am unaware of further developments.
In such cases, who should be held accountable? In a scenario where the entire staff united, they could perhaps do little. However, if only one person had the courage to challenge the unfair practice or raise concerns, they would have likely been terminated before spreading awareness to others. The fear of being fired would deter anyone else from speaking up.
I recall reading somewhere that "No one died from swallowing their egos and admitting mistakes." True. We are familiar with policies, procedures, rules, and discipline. We expect employees to self-discipline and adhere to the company's regulations. But do we, as HR, question certain management practices that are unfair? Do we ensure our conduct is ethical and compliant with the rules? Are we implying that the rules and policies we design apply only to employees and not to top management and HR? Aren't HR and top management also employees of the company?
What message are we sending by practicing double standards? Something to ponder upon. More discussions are needed. I hope others share their thoughts.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Indeed, who is to be blamed when the organization does not have the policies and procedures in place? Even if they do, these are not effectively communicated to the employees. While communicating, we (as HR - not all HR professionals, but those who either willingly practice this or are forced to do so) cleverly present data that can be easily manipulated to our advantage.
For example, during an interview when it is stated that you will receive X amount as your in-hand salary, what does 'in-hand' mean? Technically, if you say my in-hand would be X Rs per month, I expect to receive X Rs on my paycheck after all statutory deductions (such as PF, ESIC, Professional Tax, TDS, etc., as applicable).
During my tenure at a consultancy before joining my current organization, I was informed that I would receive X amount as in-hand salary. This was also mentioned in the appointment letter as:
Monthly salary: X
PF Deduction: - (N/A as we didn't have 20 employees)
ESIC Deduction: - (N/A as the salary exceeded the limit)
Professional Tax: Nil
TDS: Nil (because my annual salary didn't surpass the basic exemption limit)
In-hand: X
Note: Statutory deductions would be deducted as applicable.
However, upon receiving our paychecks, it was X - 200 (Professional Tax). Upon inquiry, they mentioned it was Professional Tax, which was not applicable before because they were not a Limited Company, but now it was (with an explanation that was not clear to me). They also justified it by stating there was a note mentioning statutory deductions as applicable.
We united and emphasized that Professional Tax is a statutory deduction and should be included in the salary details provided. During the interview, we were promised X as in-hand, not just X as our salary. There is a significant difference between the two, and we expect what was promised - X in-hand.
They acknowledged their mistake, updated the appointment letters for future employees, and agreed to pay Professional Tax on our behalf until our salaries were revised due to their error. However, I resigned the following month, so I am unaware of further developments.
In such cases, who should be held accountable? In a scenario where the entire staff united, they could perhaps do little. However, if only one person had the courage to challenge the unfair practice or raise concerns, they would have likely been terminated before spreading awareness to others. The fear of being fired would deter anyone else from speaking up.
I recall reading somewhere that "No one died from swallowing their egos and admitting mistakes." True. We are familiar with policies, procedures, rules, and discipline. We expect employees to self-discipline and adhere to the company's regulations. But do we, as HR, question certain management practices that are unfair? Do we ensure our conduct is ethical and compliant with the rules? Are we implying that the rules and policies we design apply only to employees and not to top management and HR? Aren't HR and top management also employees of the company?
What message are we sending by practicing double standards? Something to ponder upon. More discussions are needed. I hope others share their thoughts.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I was delighted to go through a lively discussion on a relevant issue that most HR professionals shy away from discussing. Thanks to Ankita for bringing up the issue for discussion. The crux of the issue is the need to be well-equipped with disciplinary procedures so that employers can avoid the adverse effects of a lopsided action (or is it misadventure?). I only confine myself to this rationale.
A disciplined workforce, embracing the altruistic principle of 'all for one and one for all,' exists only in the idealistic imaginations (or is it wild imaginations) of social thinkers and management philosophers. The realities are different and harsh, staring in everyone's face. The reality is that a man with a heart full of desires and a head capable of thinking can be both an asset and a liability to an organization, depending upon the way he manipulates the head and the heart. Therefore, discipline will always remain an issue in organizational management.
However, HR can, as Ankita said, minimize instances of indiscipline by selecting candidates with the right fit. This, again, is not so easy. Candidates fulfilling simultaneously all the criteria of talent fit, job fit, and culture fit are few and far to seek, and if you find one, it is doubtful whether the organization is capable of hiring one (or willing to hire one) when it comes to the hardcore discussions of pay and packages because a diamond is always costly. This apart, how many interviewing members are equipped with such super skills to pick a diamond from the heap of coals? Thus, there are various factors beyond the control of the organization that may allow a mix of the 'Good, the Bad, and the Ugly' into an organization, livening up issues of discipline now and then.
Discipline: A Necessary Focus
Dear members, 'Discipline' is the word that we may love or hate, but we can't ignore it. Therefore, the wisdom lies in equipping ourselves with the knowledge and procedures relating to disciplinary action as Vinod opined and using such knowledge judiciously and on the merits of each case, as Cite Contribution rightly described as different strokes for different folks, and at the same time, making efforts to mitigate instances of indiscipline by:
1) Recruiting candidates with the right fit, if you are lucky to find one,
2) Addressing grievances promptly as skhadir said.
3) Counseling and censuring employees when the issues have behavioral overtones only. You cannot counsel an employee who committed fraud and caused financial loss to the organization.
4) Self-disciplining by employers as NK Sundaram suggested.
Regards,
B. Saikumar
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
A disciplined workforce, embracing the altruistic principle of 'all for one and one for all,' exists only in the idealistic imaginations (or is it wild imaginations) of social thinkers and management philosophers. The realities are different and harsh, staring in everyone's face. The reality is that a man with a heart full of desires and a head capable of thinking can be both an asset and a liability to an organization, depending upon the way he manipulates the head and the heart. Therefore, discipline will always remain an issue in organizational management.
However, HR can, as Ankita said, minimize instances of indiscipline by selecting candidates with the right fit. This, again, is not so easy. Candidates fulfilling simultaneously all the criteria of talent fit, job fit, and culture fit are few and far to seek, and if you find one, it is doubtful whether the organization is capable of hiring one (or willing to hire one) when it comes to the hardcore discussions of pay and packages because a diamond is always costly. This apart, how many interviewing members are equipped with such super skills to pick a diamond from the heap of coals? Thus, there are various factors beyond the control of the organization that may allow a mix of the 'Good, the Bad, and the Ugly' into an organization, livening up issues of discipline now and then.
Discipline: A Necessary Focus
Dear members, 'Discipline' is the word that we may love or hate, but we can't ignore it. Therefore, the wisdom lies in equipping ourselves with the knowledge and procedures relating to disciplinary action as Vinod opined and using such knowledge judiciously and on the merits of each case, as Cite Contribution rightly described as different strokes for different folks, and at the same time, making efforts to mitigate instances of indiscipline by:
1) Recruiting candidates with the right fit, if you are lucky to find one,
2) Addressing grievances promptly as skhadir said.
3) Counseling and censuring employees when the issues have behavioral overtones only. You cannot counsel an employee who committed fraud and caused financial loss to the organization.
4) Self-disciplining by employers as NK Sundaram suggested.
Regards,
B. Saikumar
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
The HR Dilemma: Balancing Between Management and Employees
More often than not, an HR person is caught in the crossfire. Unfortunately, an HR person cannot take sides either with management or with the employee; they will always be in Trishanku! However, if they stand upright, are assertive, and mature enough to show the management the writing on the wall, they can also discipline the management in a subtle, gentler, diplomatic way. However, in most cases, we HR people pretend as if nothing happened, always taking the side of management (considering their own stake in the organization!), and it typically ends up like the Emperor in his new clothes... hahahaha.
In my own company, when my successor was appointed, some senior people in charge of HR in the division played with his salary fixation by calculating the CTC incorrectly. As a result, he was paid much less than what was promised and not at par with his batch-mates in our organization. He is still suffering due to the cumulative loss in the past five years. Those who fixed his salary have all been transferred to other business units/divisions, but the problem persists!
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
More often than not, an HR person is caught in the crossfire. Unfortunately, an HR person cannot take sides either with management or with the employee; they will always be in Trishanku! However, if they stand upright, are assertive, and mature enough to show the management the writing on the wall, they can also discipline the management in a subtle, gentler, diplomatic way. However, in most cases, we HR people pretend as if nothing happened, always taking the side of management (considering their own stake in the organization!), and it typically ends up like the Emperor in his new clothes... hahahaha.
In my own company, when my successor was appointed, some senior people in charge of HR in the division played with his salary fixation by calculating the CTC incorrectly. As a result, he was paid much less than what was promised and not at par with his batch-mates in our organization. He is still suffering due to the cumulative loss in the past five years. Those who fixed his salary have all been transferred to other business units/divisions, but the problem persists!
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Employee Relations, Discipline and Policy.doc
Employee Termination during covid 19.pdf