From the nature of discussions, hypothesis seems to be more than reality in the problem.
From India, Delhi
The concerned HR Department too cannot escape a part of the responsibility in failing to identify & foresee the incident but proceeded with the on-boarding process further.
From India, Bangalore
Dear Aman,

Thank you very much for your nice words about this Forum. I am in total agreement with T.S that this Forum is an enlightening machanism for all its members because of the brain-storming effect created by the response of the members to the questions posed.

Some of our senior members at times pose certain counter-questions with the honest intention of answering the questioners rather than their questions in order to avoid spoon-feeding and not to hurt them otherwise.

Now, coming to ypur question. It is really a bothersome situation if the new entrant leaves the job very soon after his joining the organization for no reason at all thus not only frustrating the entire process of recruitment but also creating valid doubts about the orientation process, if any in place like training. But, as rightly observed by my learned friend Dhingra that recruitment, appointment and relinquishment of the commitment to continue the employment are distinct processes though they are inter-related. Everyone of them is governed by the terms and conditions including breach as stipulated therein. Whatsoever the magnitude of the training imparted to or howsoever insignificant the service rendered by the new entrant during his short incumbency, as an employer you should not forget the fact that he remained at your disposal and that makes the entitlement to salary. Adjustment of the due salary towards notice pay or reimbursement of the expenses on training as suggested by Saswata is another permissible remedy available to the employer. But denial of the salary for the period of his stay in the organization as an employee irrespective of his status of employment consequent on his abrupt unilateral exit or abandonment will not be a fair practice.

Coming to the "free-look" agreement proposed, what is the yard stick of fixing its minimum duration? To what extent it will deter the desire for jumping the conditions? Instead, as the CEO of the organization, you try to find out whether this is an isolated and indeterminate case created by an indecisive person or the presence of any repulsive factors in your orientation programme.

From India, Salem
Mr. Aman K Bansal,

If you are CEO of your company, your written grumble against and criticism of the forum and its members reveal as if you consider yourself as the CEO of the members of this forum also. Your egoistic direction that "readers who think this question not right or is fishing - DO NOT RESPOND. It only discourages new users like us" reveals, as if you consider yourself as the CEO of all the members of this forum. Now the following questions arise out of your latest post:

1) Did you anywhere mention in your initial query, whether you were asking a general question, as a student, as an employee, as an executive of a company, or as a CEO of your own company?

2) Did you anywhere describe in your initial query, what exactly was your problem? To be very frank, your question was merely a test question, as if an examiner puts to his students. question and not fishing

3) In the absence of proper description and background of the problem, did you expect that it was obligatory for the responding members to waste their time to presume, what would have been the background of the employee leaving your company, how much cost you had spent on his training, how much output he would been given against your expectations, and whether you have asked the question as a CEO of a start-up company? So, on what ground the members would have been obliged to assume that your problem was not a hypothetical one? If your time is precious, their time is much more precious than you as they would have solved 3-4 more problems of some other needy persons.

4) Is not it a mean and disgraceful thinking for a person of a status of a CEO, if he intends to hold salary of merely 10 days of service of an employee in lieu of the time wasted in recruitment process? Frankly speaking, now I have got a doubt if you are really a CEO of a company. Had this question been asked by an HR executive that would have been justified

5) Did you waste your time in going for the recruitment process just to solely favour that employee with livelihood to him, and not fulfil the need of your own firm?

6) Had you ever made a mention what type of training you could impart to the employee within the fist 10 days of his probation period? Even now you are not clear whether any training would have been impartd to him or not, as you have not clarified on that point, rather you preferred to criticise as to why you were asked such a question.

7) IF you are "unsure what work/service can be expected rendered in 10 days," how on what basis you have stated, "he has not wasted time of recruitment but also training? So, on what ground your query was relevant based on such a vague plea?

8) Are you sure that the employee just sit idle in your firm abd did not give any output during those 10 days of his working in your company?

9) If an employee leaves your company just within 10 days of his appointment, do you think the work culture and environments are congenial even to the least extent for making any employee to stick to your company?

10) Even if your attitude towards the members of this forum is so rude, when they wasted their time to solve your academic type of problem FREE OF COST, is there any reason not to assume that salaried employee would not have been treated very shabbily during his meagre service that he was compelled to leave your company, just within 10 days of his joining?

11) As a CEO of a company, was their any compulsion for you to seek only FREE SERVICE to solve your commercial type of query, rather than hiring service of some legal consultant?

12) If I tried to solve your problem to the best of my capability, which even you appreciated, what irked you if I asked you, "by the way, what type of training can be possible within 10 days. He must have rendered his service in doing work of the company? Don't you think that the question might have been put to supplement my reply, if your reason would have been justified? But, you preferred to demonstrate your anger, as if I was your paid servant and was obliged not to question you on any doubt.

So, now can you clarify, what was the reationale of your grumble in response to the replies to the members on your own academic query? Mind it, if you expect them to solve your problem, they also have the unquestionable right to question you on your unethical, unreasonable or vague questions. If you feel any restraint in replying their question, better you hire services of some legal expert to reply your questions as per your taste and not to qustion you on whatsoever ground.

MY FREE ADVICE TO YOU, AT FIRST MEND YOUR ATTITUDE & BEHAVIOUR, SHUN YOUR EGO, AND ONLY THEN DESERVE SERVICE FROM EVEN YOUR PAID EMPLOYEES, IF YOU REALLY WANT PRODUCTIVITY AND PROGRESS OF YOUR COMPANY. people leaving a company frequently only become the cause of unwarranted financial loss and harm to the reputation of a company. For that only you can blame yourself.

From India, Delhi
As we are not fully knowledgeable about the nature of his work, we have to base it on assumptions.
My tutor had spelt assume as "ASS U ME", and explained that when our assumptions are wrong we "Make an ASS out of YOU and ME".
That's what happens when bloggers post queries with insufficient information and experts try to give responses based on assumptions instead of raising questions to clarify the scenario.

From United Kingdom
Dear Nathrao,

Thanks for appreciating my reply to the querist.

About your observation, on the direction of querist, ""I will appreciate that readers who think this question not right or is fishing - DO NOT RESPOND. It only discourages new users like us," the language of the querist matters much. All the contents of his new post indicates as if he was issuing commands and directions to his employees, not to the members, from whome he was seeking help to solve his problem.

If you see my reply to his query that was given thinking the querist to be an HR executive nd would have been in a confusion what to do or what not just to make him aware of what is what with respect to the legal implications and what should not be there to avoid any legal comlications for him. But his reason training did not sound well. You can se that he even appreciated my reply. But, if in addition, I asked what type of training would have been imparted within 10 days of joining of the employee, what was wrong. Instead of clarifying the issue. he seemed to have got annoyed and retorted like a boss of all the community members. His reply clearly indicated his annoyance, as to why he was asked question. Rather, instead of being thankful to the response of members, he virtually critised the whole of the forum and its communinty members.

He has not taken any paid consultation from any of us. But, if he has come to open forum for solution, any one can respond or ask question before reply if the query is hazy or of academic nature. If some member asks a question for clarification that means he is ready to solve the problem of the querist. So, in what sense he can issue directions to the community members from whom he desired service free of cost? It is not a matter of issue of direction, but is well understood that the members should not respond if they think the question as a not right or phishing. Not every one tried to answer such type of questions. So, you can well appreciate, where was the need to issue such a nasty direction that too by the querist himself?

From India, Delhi
Dear Simhan,
I appreciate your intention to solve problems of the querists, may that be on some presumptions. But, I am of the opinion that replies based on different presumptions of different members can only lead to confusions more than solution to the problem of the querist. So, for better appreciation of the spirit of the problem and the intentions of the querist, it is always better to get clarification from the querist rather than basing the replies merely on different presmption. Results going wrong on presumptions cannot be ruled out.

From India, Delhi

If you are knowledgeable about any fact, resource or experience related to this topic - please add your views using the reply box below. For articles and copyrighted material please only cite the original source link. Each contribution will make this page a resource useful for everyone.

Please Login To Add Reply

About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2021 CiteHR.Comô

All Material Copyright And Trademarks Posted Held By Respective Owners.
Panel Selection For Threads Are Automated - Members Notified Via CiteMailer Server