# Am I right to be pissed off here?



## free spirit (Oct 5, 2014)

A fairly key member of our team has quit giving only 14 days notice as opposed to the 28 days in his contract, which leaves us right in the shit on a couple of jobs we're in the middle of that only he can complete - well I might be able to, but I'm supposed to be working up a load of big quotes and things to keep everyone in work rather than being on the tools for 3 days.

It's only a week since the guy had said he was going to be fine for working around christmas so we could let the other staff have the time off, and we were just finalising the arrangements for him to go back to college on day release for a year to finish his qualifications, so as far as I knew he was on board for at least the year and we've been in the process of putting in quite a bit of work to build up that side of the business all built around him.

In the last year we've paid for him to go on maybe £3k worth of courses, and bought another £3-4k or so of equipment that is only needed for his specialist side of the business, all on the understanding that he'd be developing that side of the business with us as a fairly long term process, and while we can still clawback 25% of the training costs under our contract, we're still well out of pocket, and now left unable to service our current customers and with maybe 6-7 contracts in the works that we now can't actually carry out.

His take on it is that he was just an employee, and we shouldn't be building a business entirely reliant on him, or some such rubbish, but he knew that was the crack when he joined up, and that was what he agreed to.

Feeling a bit shafted to be honest, doesn't seem like there's much loyalty left these days, and I can totally understand why employers prefer to get in experienced staff as opposed to actually training staff up themselves, if the staff just up an leave at the first sniff of something that suits them a little better.

and no he wasn't being paid peanuts, he was on a decent wage for someone in his mid 20s who hadn't properly finished their basic qualifications.

I'm assuming there's nowt I can really do about someone failing to work out their notice?


----------



## Belushi (Oct 6, 2014)

Not really. And tbh you'd have got rid of him if  the business demanded it.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 6, 2014)

You're pissed off, you are inconvenienced, but what would you suggest? You are presumably in a free market situation, isn't your worker also in one?  I'm not really having a go, just wondering what you thought the nature of the boss-worker relationship was.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 6, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Not really. And tbh you'd have got rid of him if  the business demanded it.


Thing is, I should have done back in March when his lack of the full qualifications meant we couldn't get our accreditation for something, but we stuck by him then and said we'd support him through college to get those qualifications, as I was viewing it as a long term situation.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 6, 2014)

maybe he didnt like the people he was working with and found it hard to stay there? and as belushi said, he is a contractor, if the worked dropped , you would have dropped him.

Its not good but maybe you should have got a full timer..

not having a go at you mind you must be pissed off


----------



## free spirit (Oct 6, 2014)

Wilf said:


> You're pissed off, you are inconvenienced, but what would you suggest? You are presumably in a free market situation, isn't your worker also in one?  I'm not really having a go, just wondering what you thought the nature of the boss-worker relationship was.


at the very least I thought people should honour their agreements and give 28 days notice.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 6, 2014)

well to be fair he should have spoke to you, im about to leave my good full time perm job to go contracting, but only after i asked 3 of my bosses if it was ok to leave on a weeks notice


----------



## free spirit (Oct 6, 2014)

ruffneck23 said:


> maybe he didnt like the people he was working with and found it hard to stay there? and as belushi said, he is a contractor, if the worked dropped , you would have dropped him.
> 
> Its not good but maybe you should have got a full timer..
> 
> not having a go at you mind you must be pissed off


not a contractor, he's in a full time salaried permanent position, and we do our best to stick by staff when we have slack periods as apart from anything else it takes too much time and effort to train someone new up, but also that's really my ethos with things, is to treat people right as far as possible.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 6, 2014)

not that ive got the contract yet lol


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> not a contractor, he's in a full time salaried permanent position, and we do our best to stick by staff when we have slack periods as apart from anything else it takes too much time and effort to train someone new up, but also that's really my ethos with things, is to treat people right as far as possible.


ok fair enough, didnt read it as he was full time. soz


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 6, 2014)

you can of course withhold any pay due, or at least you used to be able to, if you think its fair and right


----------



## free spirit (Oct 6, 2014)

To give an idea on how I'd like to have seen this handled, our head spark left earlier this year after 4 years with us. He told me at the point he'd been approached about another job, then told the new place that he couldn't start for 4 weeks, which gave us the time needed to find someone to replace him, as in total we had maybe 7 weeks since he first told us it might be happening. 

2 weeks is taking the piss when you're someone in a role that only you can do in that company.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 6, 2014)

It's a (often sad) truth that unless you're big enough to offer them a route upwards you train people to lose them. Just the way it is.


----------



## xenon (Oct 6, 2014)

It's the economic climate. The moral ambience. Everyone Hammers into you day after day. It's a jungle out there be grateful for a job etc. The flipside of which is. If you can jump to somewhere better why the fuck not. You might be a model employer. Maybe he's a selfish disloyal bastard. But generally employees don't have the power.


----------



## xenon (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> To give an idea on how I'd like to have seen this handled, our head spark left earlier this year after 4 years with us. He told me at the point he'd been approached about another job, then told the new place that he couldn't start for 4 weeks, which gave us the time needed to find someone to replace him, as in total we had maybe 7 weeks since he first told us it might be happening.
> 
> 2 weeks is taking the piss when you're someone in a role that only you can do in that company.


Well yes. I can understand you being pissed off but. That's people for you.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 6, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It's a (often sad) truth that unless you're big enough to offer them a route upwards you train people to lose them. Just the way it is.


thing is, we'd barely even started with that side of the business, and he was really in a position to make of it what he wanted, but tbh I suspect he'd realised that he wasn't actually good enough to do that yet, so has actually gone for a backward step for a job that's purely on the tools.

I just wish he hadn't bullshitted me a year ago into thinking he could actually make a go of it.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 6, 2014)

Stuff like this is gradually making me understand why most employers shit all over their staff as soon as the going gets slightly bad.

I never wanted to get like that, but this has really pissed me off.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Stuff like this is gradually making me understand why most employers shit all over their staff as soon as the going gets slightly bad.
> 
> I never wanted to get like that, but this has really pissed me off.


You are pissed off (edit: about the 28 days), fair enough. But ultimately you seem to be suggesting your workers should make a long term extra-contractual commitment to you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2014)

he owes you nothing


----------



## free spirit (Oct 6, 2014)

Wilf said:


> You are pissed off, fair enough. But ultimately you seem to be suggesting your workers should make a long term extra-contractual commitment to you.


well, firstly they should at least honour the terms of the fucking contract, and secondly yes, if we have an agreement that specifies the role as being partially business development role, and that as part of that we're going to pay for them to be trained in xyz courses prior to them then being able to really develop that side of the business.... and we pay for them to do the courses, then they fuck off.

To me, that's a serious breach of faith.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 6, 2014)

If he stayed two weeks longer, you wouldn't be getting two weeks extra work out of him anyway. No one is going to make any effort for a job they quit a fortnight ago and that they won't be doing in fourteen more days.

Would two extra weeks really have been enough to train up a replacement?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Stuff like this is gradually making me understand why most employers shit all over their staff as soon as the going gets slightly bad.



That's a bollocks way of thinking, fs.
You trained him up and that was a good thing for your company to do (although presumably it wasn't without the idea of any profit/expansion for the company in mind, too) - in the end he went elsewhere, but that has fuck all to do with what the_ next_ person might do, or with how you choose to treat your employees in future.

You can opt to shit all over your staff, or not - but don't use one employee who you didn't happen to get enough of a payback from to justify it, either way. It's about your own ethics, eh?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 6, 2014)

so this just helps clarify things for me, as a business owner I should treat all staff as if they're about to fuck me over at all times, because they owe me nothing.

right, great, thanks urban, glad we cleared that one up.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 6, 2014)

Moving on is not fucking you over. That's where your thinking is wrong here.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> so this just helps clarify things for me, as a business owner I should treat all staff as if they're about to fuck me over at all times, because they owe me nothing.
> 
> right, great, thanks urban, glad we cleared that one up.



No, you should treat them all as if they're NOT.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> well, firstly they should at least honour the terms of the fucking contract, and secondly yes, if we have an agreement that specifies the role as being partially business development role, and that as part of that we're going to pay for them to be trained in xyz courses prior to them then being able to really develop that side of the business.... and we pay for them to do the courses, then they fuck off.
> 
> To me, that's a serious breach of faith.


Frankly, that's bollocks and illogical.  Whatever role a worker has agreed to, it doesn't put any constraints on them taking another job - and let's not forget that that's what this is, _he's just taken another job_.  Fair enough, you can moan about the 28 days, but that was the limit of his obligations to you - and not one that's really worth enforcing as fez just said.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 6, 2014)

sheothebudworths said:


> That's a bollocks way of thinking, fs.
> You trained him up and that was a good thing for your company to do (although presumably it wasn't without the idea of any profit/expansion for the company in mind, too) - in the end he went elsewhere, but that has fuck all to do with what the_ next_ person might do, or with how you choose to treat your employees in future.
> 
> You can opt to shit all over your staff, or not - but don't use one employee who you didn't happen to get enough of a payback from to justify it, either way. It's about your own ethics, eh?


no, me training him up was a bad thing for my company to do, as we've nothing like covered the costs involved yet,

consider that this is a family company, the money invested in his training was money directly invested by my family in his training, this is not some big corporation, so yes I'll take this personally when someone decides to shaft me like this after we've treated them well.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Oct 6, 2014)

You are going to the fucking DARK SIDE, free spirit  
No, but _seriously,_ you are!


----------



## free spirit (Oct 6, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Frankly, that's bollocks and illogical.  Whatever role a worker has agreed to, it doesn't put any constraints on them taking another job - and let's not forget that that's what this is, _he's just taken another job_.  Fair enough, you can moan about the 28 days, but that was the limit of his obligations to you - and not one that's really worth enforcing as fez just said.


fuck it, I may as well just put everyone on zero fucking hours contracts and be done with it then.

From this thread, I'm definitely taking it that the concept of loyalty is well and truly dead and buried. Everyone look after number 1 only, fuck everyone else, fuck those who've given you a chance, who've seen your potential and invested to hep you realise that potential, they're obviously just mugs who you owed nothing back to.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Oct 6, 2014)

It was an investment that didn't pay off this time - that's business for you.


----------



## xenon (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> so this just helps clarify things for me, as a business owner I should treat all staff as if they're about to fuck me over at all times, because they owe me nothing.
> 
> right, great, thanks urban, glad we cleared that one up.


Learn to read. We are not contract lawyers. Specifics of the contractual arrangement you made with person X. Its general opinion here. Basically what sheo says.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> fuck it, I may as well just put everyone on zero fucking hours contracts and be done with it then.
> 
> From this thread, I'm definitely taking it that the concept of loyalty is well and truly dead and buried. Everyone look after number 1 only, fuck everyone else, fuck those who've given you a chance, who've seen your potential and invested to hep you realise that potential, they're obviously just mugs who you owed nothing back to.



Why would you do that? What have the rest of your employees done to 'shaft you'?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2014)

of course you run a co-op and would have shared all profits equitably with a fellow stakeholder-employee-colleague? right? cos otherwise, take some cheese with yer whine


----------



## free spirit (Oct 6, 2014)

sheothebudworths said:


> You are going to the fucking DARK SIDE, free spirit
> No, but _seriously,_ you are!


I am, I just wanted to check whether this was a generally held feeling, or just this tosser.

seems urban thinks what he's done is perfectly ok, so from now on I'll just assume that everyone I employ is out to screw me over at the first opportunity and take my lead from that.


----------



## xenon (Oct 6, 2014)

Fucksake The bosses have feelings too. Honestly I can't be arsed to give a sensible reply any more bollocks


----------



## sheothebudworths (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> seems urban thinks what he's done is perfectly ok, so from now on I'll just assume that everyone I employ is out to screw me over at the first opportunity and take my lead from that.



Stop being a big baby.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 6, 2014)

sheothebudworths said:


> Why would you do that? What have the rest of your employees done to 'shaft you'?


nowt yet, but from the content of this thread it'd seem that everyone on here would think nothing of also jumping ship in the same way, no matter what their employer had done to support / train them, they owe the employer nothing beyond the precise terms of the contract, and even that doesn't really mean anything.

so why should an employer invest in training etc for their staff if their staff are then just going to fuck off at the first opportunity to exploit that training elsewhere?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 6, 2014)

sheothebudworths said:


> Stop being a big baby.


This. Seriously FS, what sort of reply did you think you'd get to your 'we're one big happy family, but there's no loyalty today' post?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> so why should an employer invest in training etc for their staff if their staff are then just going to fuck off at the first opportunity to exploit that training elsewhere?


I imagine employers will carry on doing this for the same reasons they've always done it - it makes them money.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2014)

they in the meantime profit from the employees labour. Thats the deal, you want a family or a co-op go start one. Meantime its post industrial britain, work is work.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> nowt yet, but from the content of this thread it'd seem that everyone on here would think nothing of also jumping ship in the same way, no matter what their employer had done to support / train them, they owe the employer nothing beyond the precise terms of the contract, and even that doesn't really mean anything.
> 
> so why should an employer invest in training etc for their staff if their staff are then just going to fuck off at the first opportunity to exploit that training elsewhere?



So you're contemplating putting them all on zero hour contracts?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2014)

sheothebudworths said:


> So you're contemplating putting them all on zero hour contracts?




because one bloke wasn't sufficiently loyal.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 6, 2014)

well maybe the bloke who is leaving just doesnt like you or your family ?

youre not coming out of this in a very good light mate


----------



## free spirit (Oct 6, 2014)

sheothebudworths said:


> So you're contemplating putting them all on zero hour contracts?


I may as well do apparently, being as nobody gives a fuck about the actual terms of a permanent contract.

I've really tried hard not to be that sort of employer, but I am starting to wonder why if this is how people really view things.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2014)

its astonishing to find out people might be working for you for money, you'd think they'd do it out of the goodness in thier hearts


----------



## MrSki (Oct 6, 2014)

Do you employ people out of the goodness of your heart or is it that you think by employing them, they can make money for you?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 6, 2014)

By the way FS, why did the bloke tell you he was leaving?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Oct 6, 2014)

The 'actual terms' he's broken are that he's failed to give 14/28 days notice.

Fuck sake - stew over it and seethe a bit and feel mildly irked, if it makes you feel better in the end, but no one's done anything outrageous to you - and the way that you're reacting to it is well over the fucking top.

You can be a decent employer or you can be a shitcunt - but that's not decided on the basis of one bloke pissing you off.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 6, 2014)

Wilf said:


> By the way FS, why did the bloke tell you he was leaving?


... and what I mean by that is he _must have had a reason_. Could have been money, opportunities, less travel, had a problem with someone at your works - all the usual stuff or none of the above, but he would have had a logical reason _or he wouldn't have done it_.  The logic of your position is that he should have overridden that because he made a commitment to you a year ago. Bollocks to that.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its astonishing to find out people might be working for you for money, you'd think they'd do it out of the goodness in thier hearts


yeah really. did I complain about paying them? We pay everyone decent wages as well, not that anything like that will bother anyone.


MrSki said:


> Do you employ people out of the goodness of your heart or is it that you think by employing them, they can make money for you?


I employ people because I can't keep up with all the work / inquiries we have coming in by myself, and generally aim to pay them fairly, pay their sick leave without quibble, give them advances when they want them, agree training programmes with them that they want, give them permanent full time contracts etc..

And to an extent, yes I do sometimes take and keep people on out of the goodness of my heart, and find them work to fit around their needs - one lad we took on as a full apprentice because he asked us to (on the JIB apprentice rate, not government minimum wage rates), and we have several other staff who work hours to fit around their family commitments, study etc 

tbh I've ever really given much of a fuck about making money, it's not what I'm about, but I do give a fuck about spending shitloads of money, time and effort on someone who then shoves it back in my face.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 6, 2014)

sheothebudworths said:


> The 'actual terms' he's broken are that he's failed to give 14/28 days notice.


so if I sacked someone with 14 days notice instead of the 28 in the contract this would be ok as well?

didn't think so.

We have that there for a reason, the reason being it allows us time to ensure that any works in progress can be completed before they leave, and to give us time to find a replacement so as not to leave us in the lurch.

Mainly though I think I'm pissed off because I stuck with the guy 6 months ago when we had genuine cause to make him redundant due to his qualifications not being up to those required by our accreditation body, but instead of doing that we'd stuck with him and agreed to support him to gain the necessary qualifications. And we've essentially been overstaffed the entire time since due to him not being able to do his primary role, so we've carried an extra £12k wages since then that we didn't need to do, but did because I am loyal to my staff and preferred to support him to gain the qualification rather than sack him and hire someone with the right qualifications.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 6, 2014)

Wilf said:


> ... and what I mean by that is he _must have had a reason_. Could have been money, opportunities, less travel, had a problem with someone at your works - all the usual stuff or none of the above, but he would have had a logical reason _or he wouldn't have done it_.  The logic of your position is that he should have overridden that because he made a commitment to you a year ago. Bollocks to that.


and 6 months ago when I agreed to keep him on and support him to get the necessary qualifications, and a week ago when I was sorting out the arrangements with the college for him.

He's gone because the work is directly hands on doing the work he wanted to do, but then we have a fair amount of that work in the pipeline as well, had he even bothered to come and talk to me prior to making the decision.

anyway, I'm obviously flogging a dead horse with this thread.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> and 6 months ago when I agreed to keep him on and support him to get the necessary qualifications, and a week ago when I was sorting out the arrangements with the college for him.
> 
> .


 At which point he was probably due to go for an interview/waiting to hear back from one - and felt he couldn't risk telling you that. All pretty standard and logical behaviour for any worker.

And more to the point, this whole palaver rests on the premise of your business being a moral entity, which it isn't.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2014)

[QUOTE="free spirit, post: 13445606, member: 228".

anyway, I'm obviously flogging a dead horse with this thread.[/QUOTE]


how did you imagine going onto urban to moan about the hardships of being bossman was going to go?


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> if we have an agreement that specifies the role as being partially business development role, and that as part of that we're going to pay for them to be trained in xyz courses prior to them then being able to really develop that side of the business.... and we pay for them to do the courses, then they fuck off.
> 
> To me, that's a serious breach of faith.


Screw you, you trained him up because it's in the interests of your business. The 14 days notice is a bit off but apart from that he owns you nothing.

Typical LD supporter


----------



## antimata (Oct 6, 2014)

very naive. all staff hate employers imho. thats why unions are about.
if said staff is the only one that can blahblah do that job then is on you. inefficient bossing. always have an understudy. 
people move on because you never pay enough, life changes, shit happens etc...
stop wasting time threading and read some cvs....


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> His take on it is that he was just an employee, and we shouldn't be building a business entirely reliant on him, or some such rubbish


But you did that anyway, and now you're pissed off at him because he was right?


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Oct 6, 2014)

I feel for you free spirit

You had an unwritten agreement with the guy. He broke it. Yeah you can't DO anything about it, but it was still a shitty thing for him to do when you've seen him right in the past.

My only advice is don't let this effect how you treat the rest of your employees. Carry on treating people right cos it's the right thing to do and cos it pays off in a lot of small ways you might not always see.

Shake this guys hand and move on. Fuck all else you can do. S'ok to feel aggrieved mind.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Oct 6, 2014)

A lot of you sound like some kind of supporters of a dog eat dog world. Weird


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Oct 6, 2014)

On a human level i think you can be pissed off...sounds like you had investment in this guy to his and your benefit a d that on the basis of that plus all the other signals you did not see this coming 

However I think the economic climate is such that if an employer needs to be rid of an employee then they will be gone regardless of performance And loyalty


I think people have been a bit harsh on you personally on this thread as you wanted personal sympathy for your predicament

As Nancy w says don't treat all future employees with cynicism cos of this but don't expect extra loyalty as it's business not a family


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Oct 6, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> A lot of you sound like some kind of supporters of a dog eat dog world. Weird


Maybe lots people here work in very insecure employment and have been screwed over a lot?

I've mainly worked in public sector where there is (In theory) a shared ethos and value system of working for the clients. This mitigates against the type of employee behaviour that free spirits employee has demonstrated


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Oct 6, 2014)

Miss-Shelf said:


> Maybe lots people here work in very insecure employment and have been screwed over a lot?
> 
> I've mainly worked in public sector where there is (In theory) a shared ethos and value system of working for the clients. This mitigates against the type of employee behaviour that free spirits employee has demonstrated


True. Thing is everyone should support 28 days from both sides.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 6, 2014)

Your business made an investment, that investment didn't pay off but you've not lost it all as you said you have work in the pipeline as a result. 

(Also you've stated how much you spent on training, but not how much money having the person there has brought in, similar situation at my work recently, they tried to get someone to repay £2k of training costs and were moaning about being out of pocket but the staff member had been on jobs generating many thousand of pounds more in profits than the training had cost; have you actually lost out financially?)

The 14/28 day notice thing is totally shitty and you've a right to feel pissed off that you'd agreed plans with this guy that haven't worked out but running a business, employing people, this is the risk you take, accept it and that you've lost this time and stop throwing your toys out the pram, or don't take that risk, turn down the extra work you say you get that has led you to employing people and keep it as a micro business for yourself.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Oct 6, 2014)

^thats also true.

The thing about business of course is that it's never just a cold headed matter of investment and loss. Well def not at the level free spirit and given he's a decent bloke. People are people not capitalist machines and they just don't see it that way!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 6, 2014)

Also note OP only made this 'investment' because he didn't employ someone qualified, on a suitable  qualified salary. It was in his interests to pay less wages as the training worked out cheaper.


----------



## Ted Striker (Oct 6, 2014)

The 14/28 thing is a bit of a piss take, though (with business hat on), it seems 28 days would have been woefully insufficient too - I guess a longer 3 months notice (which sounds like it would genuinely support your needs) wasn't on the cards? 

Also,  I've been at places where direct external training costs are repaid if the employee leaves within a year - might be something to implement to prevent exposure to this exact problem.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 6, 2014)

Was this guy involved in the fight/expensive bar tab thing?


----------



## Chilli.s (Oct 6, 2014)

Employee is being a cunt.

Withhold/dock wages.

No good reference.


----------



## JTG (Oct 6, 2014)

BigTom said:


> Your business made an investment, that investment didn't pay off but you've not lost it all as you said you have work in the pipeline as a result.
> 
> (Also you've stated how much you spent on training, but not how much money having the person there has brought in, similar situation at my work recently, they tried to get someone to repay £2k of training costs and were moaning about being out of pocket but the staff member had been on jobs generating many thousand of pounds more in profits than the training had cost; have you actually lost out financially?)
> 
> The 14/28 day notice thing is totally shitty and you've a right to feel pissed off that you'd agreed plans with this guy that haven't worked out but running a business, employing people, this is the risk you take, accept it and that you've lost this time and stop throwing your toys out the pram, or don't take that risk, turn down the extra work you say you get that has led you to employing people and keep it as a micro business for yourself.


Yep.

Never been a boss and don't ever intend to be. But I know this from personal relationships over the years: just because some people have taken the piss/taken advantage of me in the past and caused hurt to my feelings and/or faith in human nature, it doesn't mean the next one will. Similarly, it doesn't mean you have to start treating people badly because you expect them to do the same in your work life. Come on mate, move on and stay true to your beliefs.

If you want a co-op, start a co-op. If you want a boss/worker situation then be prepared for the friction that's going to cause - but no need to be shitty to everyone.


----------



## aqua (Oct 6, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> I feel for you free spirit
> 
> You had an unwritten agreement with the guy. He broke it. Yeah you can't DO anything about it, but it was still a shitty thing for him to do when you've seen him right in the past.
> 
> ...


This really, and as bees says investing in anyone is always a risk. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't. It would fuck me off too because you have to start from scratch but tbh, that's just work. Happens all the time. Be pissed off, brush yourself off and don't let it affect the principles you have because one of the risks you take will be worth it


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 6, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> True. Thing is everyone should support 28 days from both sides.


Yes because the relationship between employers and employees is in no way biased to one side.


----------



## Chilli.s (Oct 6, 2014)

Put out a sit. vacant add, another better worker is but an intervew away.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 6, 2014)

why did he leave? did you make a counter offer?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 6, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Was this guy involved in the fight/expensive bar tab thing?




funny you  say that, it was the first thing i thought of but couldn't remember in FS was the person who mentioned it.

I'm kinda wondering if this night has had something to do with his reasons?


----------



## maomao (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> no he wasn't being paid peanuts, he was on a decent wage for someone in his mid 20s





free spirit said:


> overstaffed the entire time since due to him not being able to do his primary role, so we've carried an extra £12k wages since then that we didn't need to do,



£5.77 an hour (assuming a 40 hour week). Fucking freeloader.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 6, 2014)

Guy has the right to resign, short notice is a hassle...when my employer paid for a post grad qualification it was on the understanding that if I left within a year of finishing it, I would pay back the fees.I didn't leave so didn't have to pay them back. What was this guy's contract? If there is nothing said about repayment of course fees then it is happy days for him.


----------



## MooChild (Oct 6, 2014)

CEO to Manager - "What if we train up these staff and they then leave?"
Manager to CEO - "What if we don't and they stay..."


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 6, 2014)

has person actually said why he's leaving?  and why it's so important that he leaves without working out contracted notice period?

while this is a pain, it is not always a good idea if an organisation relies that heavily on one employee.  any employee could get sick / hit by a bus / have a major family crisis at no notice - an employer has to deal with that.

while i'm not a lawyer, a few points in response to some of what's been posted - 

it's my understanding that it is illegal to withold wages for hours / work actually done, even if an employee leaves without proper notice.

although if there's a contractual thing about training costs, then employer can legally deduct these from any outstanding pay, and if that doesn't cover them, then pursue any debt through small claims or whatever.

likewise, if employee has taken more holiday than their annual pro-rata allowance would be up to date of leaving, that holiday pay can be deducted from outstanding wages.

technically, an employer can take an employee to court for breach of contract if they fail to work their notice, but would have to prove actual financial losses.  it probably isn't worth it here.

also, while "it's illegal to give a bad reference" is a myth that's repeated so much it's often considered to be true, an (ex) employee can sue if a reference is false or malicious (a lot of organisations don't give anything other than dates employed because they don't want to have the slightest chance of being sued)

for future reference, some organisations have a sliding scale of recouping training costs - e.g. 100% if employee leaves within 6 months of course finishing, 75 % within 12 months, 50% in 2 years or something like that.  This of course needs to be in writing and signed by the employee before the training is agreed.

May be worth a call to ACAS to discuss what the legal position is so that you're not going to drop yourself in to legal shit here.

Ultimately though, any employee is a 'hired hand' and it's not reasonable to expect them to feel that deep a commitment to the organisation.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 6, 2014)

As somebody said earlier FS, maybe people (inc me) were a bit harsh with you last night, at least on the interpersonal side of this. You've personally got more work to do, the hassle of getting somebody else and yes, it must piss you of royally having somebody leave when you are arranging further training. Same time, I think you've absolutely got it wrong with your assumption of a moral contract, expecting this should over ride what the guy thinks is in his own best interest.  All the stuff about you 'expecting loyalty' from employees in a capitalist enterprise - well that's bollocks, and offensive bollocks at that.  To be honest, people have gone on easy on you over that.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 6, 2014)

Chilli.s said:


> Employee is being a cunt.
> 
> Withhold/dock wages.
> 
> No good reference.


For the sake of 2 weeks notice - fuck off!


----------



## Chilli.s (Oct 6, 2014)

Knowingly dropping yer employer in it?

Gotta have a code, as Omar Little said.

Still, all's fair in love, war, and work.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 6, 2014)

tbh the guy decided he didnt want to honour the contract so the employer now has no reason to do so either. a new employer is normally perfectly fine with "I can start on xxxx as i have to give 4 weeks notice" so they guy has been a bit of a twat over only giving 14 days.

the rest of it though is "business". in the IT industry it used to be quite common to train someone up on a niche skill.. they leave .. rinse repeat. companies then woke up to having to have stuff in place to allow them to keep the newly very marketable person they had just invested in (well the wise ones did anyhow)


----------



## Enviro (Oct 6, 2014)

Where I work they put in clauses into the contracts which state that if an employee leaves up to 2 years after receiving training paid for by the company, then they will have to pay back 50% of the training costs... or something like that... Maybe that could have been useful in this situation?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> A fairly key member of our team has quit giving only 14 days notice as opposed to the 28 days in his contract, which leaves us right in the shit on a couple of jobs we're in the middle of that only he can complete - well I might be able to, but I'm supposed to be working up a load of big quotes and things to keep everyone in work rather than being on the tools for 3 days.
> 
> It's only a week since the guy had said he was going to be fine for working around christmas so we could let the other staff have the time off, and we were just finalising the arrangements for him to go back to college on day release for a year to finish his qualifications, so as far as I knew he was on board for at least the year and we've been in the process of putting in quite a bit of work to build up that side of the business all built around him.
> 
> ...


it's probably already been pointed out, but there's a dichotomy between you being called free spirit and you denying a free spirit the freedom to leave as he desires.


----------



## Callie (Oct 6, 2014)

Pingu said:


> in the IT industry it used to be quite common to train someone up on a niche skill.. they leave .. rinse repeat. companies then woke up to having to have stuff in place to allow them to keep the newly very marketable person they had just invested in (well the wise ones did anyhow)


 
This is what you should have done free spirit  - You need to add something contractual to try to stop people leaving once you have invested training in them.

In the NHS if they pay for qualifications you often expected to contribute a % yourself and/or if you leave within a certain time frame the Trust can chase you for the money (or get another NHS Trust to take on the debt). I dont know how easy/likely it is they get it back but it does work as a deterrent and you know what you are committing to at the start.


----------



## tufty79 (Oct 6, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Was this guy involved in the fight/expensive bar tab thing?


The one that cost a quarter of leaving bloke's annual wage,   you mean?


----------



## Pingu (Oct 6, 2014)

Callie said:


> This is what you should have done free spirit  - You need to add something contractual to try to stop people leaving once you have invested training in them.
> 
> In the NHS if they pay for qualifications you often expected to contribute a % yourself and/or if you leave within a certain time frame the Trust can chase you for the money (or get another NHS Trust to take on the debt). I dont know how easy/likely it is they get it back but it does work as a deterrent and you know what you are committing to at the start.



well that as well. what i meant was put something in place to make it attractive for them to stay


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 6, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> The one that cost a quarter of leaving bloke's annual wage,   you mean?


 

which would seem is far easier to write off without complaint than this bloke leaving


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 6, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> The one that cost a quarter of leaving bloke's annual wage,   you mean?



I really need a link to this


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2014)

One of the ways bosses get free work (3/4 of a billion quids worth a year) out of employees (note _employees_ - not _their_ employees, _their_ workers - only slavers own people) is this sort of whining moral blackmail -_ you owe us _(actually the bosses owe the workers as the workers produce all the profit) _and i'm never going to let you forget it, in fact i'm going to use it_. I can well imagine that might piss someone off so badly they don't really care about giving and working full notice for those bosses. They may well be very glad to get away from that sort of atmosphere and pressure and so not be too fussy about how they manage it.


----------



## Callie (Oct 6, 2014)

Pingu said:


> well that as well. what i meant was put something in place to make it attractive for them to stay


 ahh but that should apply to all staff all the time, you want to keep them. even if youre not investing ££££s in special training its a cost and time suckerage thing to keep losing staff.


----------



## Sapphireblue (Oct 6, 2014)

i think you are right to be pissed off and am fairly surprised how few agree.

obviously, technically that's business and you can't expect an employee to put your needs over their own. but, i can see why you feel annoyed when they have not only given no indication that they're unhappy but have actively given you the impression they're committed to the company.

i'm treading the fine line from the other side in that i'm job-hunting but not wanting to give away that i'm unhappy. my company is a large one that i know doesn't give a shit about me personally or professionally so not feeling like i need to be loyal. if it was a small place where they might be planning stuff around me then it might be a different matter. i wouldn't commit to any training either way though - i would dither and put it off. if i wasn't able to then i might have to come clean - partly because i don't want to be paying back the training costs after leaving. 

so basically, it's tough shit for you, i wouldn't necessarily expect the employee to behave differently, but it's still understandably annoying for you.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 6, 2014)

3200 euros on a night out, expenses paid:
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/your-most-expensive-ever-night-boozing.327899/


----------



## Wilson (Oct 6, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> The one that cost a quarter of leaving bloke's annual wage,   you mean?



I'm not sure as it's not totally clear but I got the impression from fs's post about the wages that 12k was half the bloke's annual wage, ie. that this bloke gets 24k pa.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 6, 2014)

Seems like 3 grand is a really important amount of money when it is spent on staff training, but less so when it pissed up against the wall...

Be interesting to see what the projected ROI was on both of those.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 6, 2014)

Sapphireblue said:


> i think you are right to be pissed off and am fairly surprised how few agree.
> 
> obviously, technically that's business and you can't expect an employee to put your needs over their own. but, i can see why you feel annoyed when they have not only given no indication that they're unhappy but have actively given you the impression they're committed to the company.
> .


 But that's it though isn't it - you might be pissed off at the inconvenience, but ultimately that's the situation.  Whether FS is a good boss or not, whether it's all charabanc rides to the seaside at his company, the 'I expect loyalty from you' line is dodgy as fuck. 'Loyalty' is almost always a one way street.


----------



## Tankus (Oct 6, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> 3200 euros on a night out, expenses paid:
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/your-most-expensive-ever-night-boozing.327899/



Reading that ....he's made the right decision to leave .....


----------



## Looby (Oct 6, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> The one that cost a quarter of leaving bloke's annual wage,   you mean?



I don't think the wage quoted earlier was his annual wage, I got the impression it was 6 months wages but I might be wrong.

ETA-clearly I didn't notice that someone made the same point 2 hours ago.


----------



## tufty79 (Oct 6, 2014)

I'm wrong regardless -  the bar tab etc was euros,  not pounds


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> he owes you nothing



Not quite true. If he signed a contract, then he owes 28 days notice, not 14.
If he didn't sign a contract stating that, then free spirit is a mug, as although verbal contracts are binding, they're incredibly-difficult to prove.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> so this just helps clarify things for me, as a business owner I should treat all staff as if they're about to fuck me over at all times, because they owe me nothing.
> 
> right, great, thanks urban, glad we cleared that one up.



It's more that while you're an idealistic type, you need to acknowledge that some (most?) businesses, and some workers are not - they're mercenary, and will do what benefits them best, fuck anyone else.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> nowt yet, but from the content of this thread it'd seem that everyone on here would think nothing of also jumping ship in the same way, no matter what their employer had done to support / train them, they owe the employer nothing beyond the precise terms of the contract, and even that doesn't really mean anything.



Well, they may owe you consideration, but then they may be mercenary and have no consideration for anyone but themselves.



> so why should an employer invest in training etc for their staff if their staff are then just going to fuck off at the first opportunity to exploit that training elsewhere?



Investment in training is *always* a gamble, but most of the time it's a gamble that pays off. Obviously, with smaller businesses the occasional bad gamble will be felt more keenly, but there's really nothing to be done about that, unless you want to invest in a knee-capper.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I may as well do apparently, being as nobody gives a fuck about the actual terms of a permanent contract.
> 
> I've really tried hard not to be that sort of employer, but I am starting to wonder why if this is how people really view things.



The problem with most written employment contracts is that they're generic, and bosses (or HR depts) generally don't forward-think enough to see potential problems and include contractual buffers to such problems.
An example: Some companies include a contractual proviso (perfectly legal) that states full repayment of any training costs if you leave the post within a year of the training ending. It's a standard form of indemnification. Companies in relatively narrow fields like yours also often include a non-competition clause whereby employees can't go directly from your employ to the employ of one of your competitors.  All this is stuff that is standard. Sure, you're trying not to be *that* employer, and _kudos_ for that, but if you're worrying about protecting your business, then do so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> and 6 months ago when I agreed to keep him on and support him to get the necessary qualifications, and a week ago when I was sorting out the arrangements with the college for him.



Sounds like one of your competitors has offered him a better deal/a bigger slice of pie, or he's been promised years of unending non-stop hot sex. Probably the former. 



> He's gone because the work is directly hands on doing the work he wanted to do, but then we have a fair amount of that work in the pipeline as well, had he even bothered to come and talk to me prior to making the decision.
> 
> anyway, I'm obviously flogging a dead horse with this thread.



You could probably take the guy to court over his breach of contract, but would it be worth it (financially, at least) to do so?


----------



## bmd (Oct 6, 2014)

I can understand you being pissed off and what seems to sting the most is his lack of reciprocation. You put your time, money and faith in him and he didn't appreciate that in the way you expected.

But please, don't let this sour your good nature. If you do then it will bite you on the arse in the future and you just don't sound like the sort of person who is like that anyway.

This is a bad situation and for sure he has left you in the shit and looking bad with people who may feel you're unreliable and not use you for future contracts. So there are lessons to be learned here. You overextended yourself with someone. If it was me I would be taking the lesson from this that I need to expand more slowly and always be sure that I don't take on contracts that rely on staff who haven't proved their loyalty. How you do that is up to you but I believe you can still stick to your principles whilst doing it.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Yes because the relationship between employers and employees is in no way biased to one side.


Depends on the nature and size of the business, doesn't it?


----------



## ddraig (Oct 6, 2014)

boohoo poor bossman 

you should've had a clause in the contract wrt training and payback if leave as others have said
you didn't, your mistake, tough shit


----------



## Wilf (Oct 6, 2014)

ddraig said:


> boohoo poor bossman
> 
> you should've had a clause in the contract wrt training and payback if leave as others have said
> you didn't, your mistake, tough shit


 30 years ago Rochdale Council took me on as an administrator and sent me on a course 1 day a week.  Spent the whole time in the pub and failed the accounting bit of it (not quite sure whether to be ashamed of the fail or astonished that I passed the other exams). Then left and should have paid them the fees back, but Personnel had forgotten to get me to sign an agreement.  Looking back, the whole episode was one of my crowning achievements.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 6, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> ^thats also true.
> 
> The thing about business of course is that it's never just a cold headed matter of investment and loss. Well def not at the level free spirit and given he's a decent bloke. People are people not capitalist machines and they just don't see it that way!



Totally - aside from the business aspect, FS and this bloke sat down and had a chat where they agreed long term plans involving each other. The other bloke has now bailed on those plans, leaving FS with problems. I'd be pissed off about that too, it's not like FS hired him with a grand plan that he wasn't aware of, and so I do think that the bloke owed FS some kind of commitment due to that. Not cos of contracts or employer-employee shit, but because two people decided something together. He owed him better than fucking off at very short notice anyway, but he didn't owe him staying if he wanted to leave. 

That's what happens sometimes in life, business or personal, and I don't think it's right to spit feathers about training costs or any of the business side of it at all (except the very short notice), or to suggest that you should have been a shitty employer instead, it's just something that you have to accept and deal with, and if the bloke comes back again tell him to fuck off.
None of this is about FS being a decent bloke, or a good employer, it's about one of the things you choose to accept when you decide to have employees rather than being a micro-business or co-op (although I bet in a co-op of any reasonable size there are similar issues).


----------



## bmd (Oct 6, 2014)

BigTom said:


> Totally - aside from the business aspect, FS and this bloke sat down and had a chat where they agreed long term plans involving each other. The other bloke has now bailed on those plans, leaving FS with problems. I'd be pissed off about that too, it's not like FS hired him with a grand plan that he wasn't aware of, and so I do think that the bloke owed FS some kind of commitment due to that. Not cos of contracts or employer-employee shit, but because two people decided something together. He owed him better than fucking off at very short notice anyway, but he didn't owe him staying if he wanted to leave.
> 
> That's what happens sometimes in life, business or personal, and I don't think it's right to spit feathers about training costs or any of the business side of it at all (except the very short notice), or to suggest that you should have been a shitty employer instead, it's just something that you have to accept and deal with, and if the bloke comes back again tell him to fuck off.
> None of this is about FS being a decent bloke, or a good employer, it's about one of the things you choose to accept when you decide to have employees rather than being a micro-business or co-op (although I bet in a co-op of any reasonable size there are similar issues).



I agree with most of this but I think this is a matter of principles and those are all about what sort of person you are.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 6, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Depends on the nature and size of the business, doesn't it?


Does it, how?


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 6, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Depends on the nature and size of the business, doesn't it?


Does it, in what way?



BigTom said:


> Totally - aside from the business aspect, FS and this bloke sat down and had a chat where they agreed long term plans involving each other. The other bloke has now bailed on those plans, leaving FS with problems. I'd be pissed off about that too, it's not like FS hired him with a grand plan that he wasn't aware of, and so I do think that the bloke owed FS some kind of commitment due to that. Not cos of contracts or employer-employee shit, but because two people decided something together.


But this ignores the fact that the structural relationship between employers and employees isn't an equal one. To pretend that that relationship is just one between two people is wrong, it leads to the type of things BA mentioned.



BigTom said:


> None of this is about FS being a decent bloke, or a good employer, it's about one of the things you choose to accept when you decide to have employees rather than being a micro-business or co-op (although I bet in a co-op of any reasonable size there are similar issues).


Well it depends what you mean by co-op some hardly differ form usual businesses, but if we are talking about a proper workers co-operative with a democratic basis then the situations totally different. For a start the co-op won't be exploiting (in the Marxist sense) the worker, secondly if the workplace is democratic then there won't be the same type of power imbalance that exists between FS and his employee.


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> From this thread, I'm definitely taking it that the concept of loyalty is well and truly dead and buried. Everyone look after number 1 only, fuck everyone else, fuck those who've given you a chance, who've seen your potential and invested to hep you realise that potential, they're obviously just mugs who you owed nothing back to.



At least you're starting to understand the requisite mindset for running a business. Of course, if you expect anything beyond that which is contracted you're a mug.

Sue him for breach of contract over the notice period for no other reason than shit up the others. I only had to do that once and nobody ever bailed on their notice period after that.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 6, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> But this ignores the fact that the structural relationship between employers and employees isn't an equal one. To pretend that that relationship is just one between two people is wrong, it leads to the type of things BA mentioned.



No, it ignores the employer/employee relationship entirely, as I said, kind of. What BA was talking about was what I meant by employer-employee shit, and I say that was all aside from the business aspect. At FS size of business there is always a personal relationship alongside the employer/employee relationship. 



> Well it depends what you mean by co-op some hardly differ form usual businesses, but if we are talking about a proper workers co-operative with a democratic basis then the situations totally different. For a start the co-op won't be exploiting (in the Marxist sense) the worker, secondly if the workplace is democratic then there won't be the same type of power imbalance that exists between FS and his employee.



Sure, but that doesn't remove the issues that arise because life happens or because people don't like each other. I've never been involved in a co-op over 4 people (technically was a ltd company but with equal ownership so functionally the same I guess) so I can't speak from experience about things in general.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> at the very least I thought people should honour their agreements and give 28 days notice.



Agreed.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 6, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> At least you're starting to understand the requisite mindset for running a business. Of course, if you expect anything beyond that which is contracted you're a mug.
> Sue him for breach of contract over the notice period for no other reason than shit up the others. I only had to do that once and nobody ever bailed on their notice period after that.


There you go FS, a living breathing example of where you could end up if you follow the no more mister nice guy route. Yuk.


----------



## Mation (Oct 6, 2014)

How many employees would say to their employer, "no sorry - I don't think I'd be up to the job after taking the training you're offering me, so please don't waste your money" do you think? You can't say that. It would be ludicrous, given the current world of work. 

I'd guess that he wasn't bullshitting but instead took a good training opportunity that turned out not to work for him (with you), for whatever reason.

If you haven't factored in that possibility, you're daft.

Don't hang your -whole- business around people who aren't yet trained. Shake your fist at the sky about the short notice he gave you. Don't take it out on anyone else.


----------



## zippyRN (Oct 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> [QUOTE="free spirit, post: 13445606, member: 228".
> 
> anyway, I'm obviously flogging a dead horse with this thread.




how did you imagine going onto urban to moan about the hardships of being bossman was going to go?[/QUOTE]


exactly .... [-]pistonheads[/-] penisheads  *EFA* is over there , don;t forget your goatee and red bull


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Does it, how?


The relative power of employer to low level employee in a large corporation is one thing.

If it's small business owner with an employee whose skills are highly in demand and who isn't easily replaced, then it's a bit different. The employer may have a lot at risk personally if the business fails, and may be dependent on a small number of staff sharing the workload, whereas the employee knows they can get another job without too much difficulty.

A lot of the replies on this thread seem to ignore this.


----------



## extra dry (Oct 7, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> I'm wrong regardless -  the bar tab etc was euros,  not pounds


3200 euro = 2,500 pounds, still a lot to spend on a night out, but between 15 people about 170 quid each.


----------



## antimata (Oct 7, 2014)

tatq yes you can be pissed off.
but see it for what is.
why would you want/force staff to stay a month when they can/will steal/sabotage if you enforce. 
one pay cycle notice is enough.

ditch them and move on. they have...


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 7, 2014)

free spirit is a decent guy, he did keep the guy on when he could have dropped him like a stone. It hasn't worked out and I think that's rough given that a few thousand pounds is a lot of investment in training for a small company. Yes, expecting loyalty these days is a bit much, but he did right by this chap and was screwed over on the notice period in return. 

I don't blame him for feeling a bit aggrieved.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 7, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> free spirit is a decent guy, he did keep the guy on when he could have dropped him like a stone. It hasn't worked out and I think that's rough given that a few thousand pounds is a lot of investment in training for a small company. Yes, expecting loyalty these days is a bit much, but he did right by this chap and was screwed over on the notice period in return.
> 
> I don't blame him for feeling a bit aggrieved.


I'm sure he is (genuinely) a nice guy and I'd be pissed off in his position about the hassle caused by the guy leaving.  I'd even go as far as saying it's a bad idea to shaft somebody unless there's a good reason to do so - do unto others and all that. Same time this isn't just an interpersonal thing and it isn't an exchange between equals.  Don't need to tell you or anybody reading urban that, 99% of firms have not one iota of loyalty to their workers.  Anyway, even if FS has, I think the line about 'expecting loyalty' is a dodgy one.


----------



## MrSki (Oct 7, 2014)

Did his deciding to leave occur after the scrap that happened in Germany? If FS's memory is a bit dodgy over the whole evening then maybe he did something that made this person think that they could no longer work for the company.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 7, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Did his deciding to leave occur after the scrap that happened in Germany? If FS's memory is a bit dodgy over the whole evening then maybe he did something that made this person think that they could no longer work for the company.


no, as 1 he wasn't there, 2 he emailed me to give his notice 3 days before that, and I'd not been out on the piss for months prior to that.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 7, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Anyway, even if FS has, I think the line about 'expecting loyalty' is a dodgy one.


why?

I gave him loyalty, why should I not expect the same in return?

and if I'm not to expect any form of loyalty from staff then why should I bother giving it to other staff in future? That's the problem with this whole attitude, it then fucks things up for those who follow in future as I'll be a lot less willing to stick by staff in future and train them up if they don't make the grade initially for one reason or another initially.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 7, 2014)

free spirit said:


> why?
> 
> I gave him loyalty, why should I not expect the same in return? <snip>


Have any other current or previous employees let you down like this?  If not, don't let one flake turn you into the type of boss you'd hate to be.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 7, 2014)

free spirit said:


> why?
> 
> 1. I gave him loyalty, why should I not expect the same in return?
> 
> 2. and if I'm not to expect any form of loyalty from staff then why should I bother giving it to other staff in future? That's the problem with this whole attitude, it then fucks things up for those who follow in future as I'll be a lot less willing to stick by staff in future and train them up if they don't make the grade initially for one reason or another initially.


On the first point, because it isn't a _friendship_, it's an economic relationship - and _ultimately_ it's one that bosses benefit from.

On the second, there's the point greebo just made - and also that appeals to a workers loyalty have been historically one of the things bosses have used to get more out of people.  Whatever this particular blokes levels of 'loyalty', surely you recognise that as a general point?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 7, 2014)

BigTom said:


> Your business made an investment, that investment didn't pay off but you've not lost it all as you said you have work in the pipeline as a result.
> 
> (Also you've stated how much you spent on training, but not how much money having the person there has brought in, similar situation at my work recently, they tried to get someone to repay £2k of training costs and were moaning about being out of pocket but the staff member had been on jobs generating many thousand of pounds more in profits than the training had cost; have you actually lost out financially?)


yes, I have 5-6 jobs in the pipeline that we now don't have the capacity to carry out, nor do we have the accreditation to carry out, so we're back at square one with that after months of work, and he'd done nothing to bring that work in, that was all me.

and no, we've lost the money as we weren't able to bring the work in in that field because we didn't get the accreditation because our assessors wouldn't quite recognise the guys experience level or training as being sufficient. Not entirely his fault or ours because our accreditation date got changed last minute and the rules changed between the date changes, so was a bit of a messed up situation but we stuck by the guy despite being told he'd need to get xxx qualification for them to consider him to meet the criteria, and were sorting it out for him to gain those qualifications with our support.

Obviously he has been working on other projects since, but we've essentially had an extra staff member that we could have managed without for the other work. 

We were just in the process of reapplying for the accreditation now, and I'd very nearly forked out £500 or so for that the day prior to him handing his notice in as well, so I was almost a hell of a lot more pissed off.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2014)

In a small company, the employer/employee relationship often isn't just an economic one - of course it has that element, but it can also be a personal one, maybe not a friendship as such but one involving quite a lot of (gradually earnt) trust on both sides. I think that maybe some people who haven't worked in that kind of situation don't get this.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 7, 2014)

teuchter said:


> In a small company, the employer/employee relationship often isn't just an economic one - of course it has that element, but it can also be a personal one, maybe not a friendship as such but one involving quite a lot of (gradually earnt) trust on both sides. I think that maybe some people who haven't worked in that kind of situation don't get this.


... and sometimes even more prone to the 'loyalty' argument, where the friendship leads you to doing things not strictly in your contract and the like (and no, I'm not accusing FS of that).


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2014)

Wilf said:


> ... and sometimes even more prone to the 'loyalty' argument, where the friendship leads you to doing things not strictly in your contract and the like (and no, I'm not accusing FS of that).


Works the other way too, though.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 7, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Have any other current or previous employees let you down like this?  If not, don't let one flake turn you into the type of boss you'd hate to be.


ah, well that was part of the point of this thread, to sus out how widespread this sort of attitude was. Urban didn't let me down, and demonstrated that a lot of people seem to think there should be no such thing as loyalty from an employee to an employer no matter what that employer had done for them.

Which is a bit concerning when you're trying to run a business that's not run on that basis, that has a level of trust between me and our staff, that trains them up and increases their wages as they gain more experience, and that doesn't spend shedloads on expensive employment layers to protect us from this sort of thing..... basically I;m trying to develop a team that can develop with the business and share in things when things go well, but be buffered from it when things are going badly as far as possible. I don't want to be that type of boss that's always out to screw as much from their workers for as little as possible, but stuff like this does start to wear down the resolve needed not to end up in that situation.

I think I'll try a more structured approach to long term loyalty bonuses / profit share arrangements or something, as we have to be able to rely on our staff to enable us to plan for longer term than a couple of weeks in advance - many of our projects can take months or years to go from starting point to completion. Though we've been constantly reinvesting everything we make back into the business to take extra staff on, train them, buy equipment etc so there's not actually a lot / any profit to be shared at the moment (I'm pretty sure even our apprentice is taking home more money than me at the moment).


----------



## Wilf (Oct 7, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Works the other way too, though.


Perhaps, but it's still the boss who's best placed to come out on top - particularly if it comes to a sacking (economic climate, cost of going to a tribunal, long delay before you can claim benefits when sacked).


----------



## Looby (Oct 7, 2014)

I agree that you are right to be pissed about the notice period. 

Unless something urgent has come up or they were offered the job of a lifetime, they should have worked their agreed notice.

The loyalty thing is tricky. 

As has been pointed out numerous times on this thread, the employer/employee relationship isn't an equal one. 

The employee has very little control over their future in a job. It's far easier to sack someone now with little or no come back due to the changes to tribunal rules and fees. 

I think a smaller company does mean there's more likely to be a closer working relationship and possibly more of a sense of loyalty than working for a faceless corporation.

In my experience though, that also means an expectation of being at the employer's beck and call, being expected to go over and above as we're mates or like family. 

I was never given better pay/hours because we were mates.
I was never treated more favourably because I was part of the family. 

I just felt more guilty when I wanted time off, more reluctant to fight my corner and more uncomfortable about admitting I wasn't happy/wanted to leave/had a better offer.

So for those reasons, I might be more inclined to take a job in a larger organisation with a HR department, well established policies etc over a small family run firm.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 7, 2014)

As an exmaple, I have a certain amount of loyalty for my boss because he is a decent guy and has gone out of his way in various things for me, things he didn't have to stick his neck out for. He's the type of boss I wish was more prevalent. 

I have very little loyalty to the company we work for though, for a number of reasons.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 7, 2014)

sparklefish said:


> So for those reasons, I might be more inclined to take a job in a larger organisation with a HR department, well established policies etc over a small family run firm.


each to their own and all that, but my experience with HR types isn't that favorable. I do know what you're saying, but it wasn't the situation here, and we're about as easy going for holidays, family friendly working, illnesses, advances, staff loans etc as it can be possible to get.



> The employee has very little control over their future in a job. It's far easier to sack someone now with little or no come back due to the changes to tribunal rules and fees.


only if they're not relying on you. I'd have had to have had a really good reason to sack this guy, he'd have been about the last on the list for redundancy and would have been even more vital once we had accreditation for this area of work where he was the only person with the skills to do that work in the company.

tbh I can't see that he'll ever be in a position again where he actually had such a large degree of control over his future.

I think I've sussed what's really bugged me here, he's apparently moved due to better wages, but he'd not actually said what those wages are, or given us the opportunity to make a counter offer, just told me it was a done deal.


----------



## rorymac (Oct 8, 2014)

The responsibility might have scared him fs
Folks can make lots of right noises and be capable but you've no way of knowing that they might change their mind or plain bottle it. It might be nice to have the steady work but when it comes down to it some folks really don't want responsibility.
That could be wrong obviously but still I don't think in the longer scheme of things you did wrong in investing in the guy. It feels like it now but same as others that's business and or more to the point it's people.
Don't let it change your whole outlook from what it was/is imo
It's a setback is all.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 8, 2014)

cheers rory, thing that about sums it up tbh.


----------



## co-op (Oct 9, 2014)

free spirit said:


> cheers rory, thing that about sums it up tbh.



If I remember rightly you are basically contracting - putting in renewables? - don't you get this kind of thing quite a lot with clients too? I used to work in landscape contracting and we'd get regularly fucked about really badly over money, over timescales, changes to the spec etc etc - I mean for us ACAB was All Clients Are Bastards. It just seems to go with the turf that you spend more time haggling & fighting than actually doing some useful work. I ended up with a decent working knowledge of how to run (and how to stymie) civil litigation, in fact I'd say I learnt more about that than I did about landscaping.

When I say "fucked about" I mean some clients, you'd realise had never had any intention of actually paying you what they agreed in the first place - basically they were operating a fraud. We got revenges - went back and pulled up a load of trees once and chucked them around the site, that kind of thing - but it's pretty normal not to get the money. 

Compared to all that bollocks a 14 day notice instead of a 28 day one seems like peanuts.

I get what you say about the fact that you'd invested money in his being there, that is a pisser, but it's still just the way it goes sometimes. 

I think you have to be impersonal in business, there are certain pubs where I will still sometimes run into guys who fucked us over (they are contractors too) and it's all meh now. Even had a laugh about the tree-chucking with asshole No.1.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 9, 2014)

Just goes to prove that it's not only the employer that has potential to be a cunt!


----------



## llaarraa (Oct 12, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Does it, in what way?
> 
> But this ignores the fact that the structural relationship between employers and employees isn't an equal one. To pretend that that relationship is just one between two people is wrong, it leads to the type of things BA mentioned.


I think this sums up the general response on here. Basically, if you're a boss don't even try to be nice to your employees . You're a capitalist c**t regardless of how you treat people. 

Seems like very few people on here have had positive relationships with their employers. Yes, things are set up to favour the company over the employee but it's still about human relationships and trust etc. 

It IS actually possible for employment to be a mutually beneficial arrangement. Yes, you make them profit but a good job can give you a hell of a lot (confidence, a sense of purpose, belonging on a team, support when you need it, flexibility, training, travel, bonuses, perks, networking, money for a good lifestyle, skills to get an even better job etc). 

I've become friends with most of my previous bosses, it's more than a contractual relationship. I admit this is rare and I've been lucky but if I assumed that I was entering an exploitative relationship that would have been a self fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 12, 2014)

co-op said:


> If I remember rightly you are basically contracting - putting in renewables? - don't you get this kind of thing quite a lot with clients too? I used to work in landscape contracting and we'd get regularly fucked about really badly over money, over timescales, changes to the spec etc etc - I mean for us ACAB was All Clients Are Bastards. It just seems to go with the turf that you spend more time haggling & fighting than actually doing some useful work. I ended up with a decent working knowledge of how to run (and how to stymie) civil litigation, in fact I'd say I learnt more about that than I did about landscaping.
> 
> When I say "fucked about" I mean some clients, you'd realise had never had any intention of actually paying you what they agreed in the first place - basically they were operating a fraud. We got revenges - went back and pulled up a load of trees once and chucked them around the site, that kind of thing - but it's pretty normal not to get the money.



Nope, well only a couple of very minor issues. I guess our area is more specialist, and tbh we don;t chase stuff too hard, if folk want to work with us then they do it on our terms, and we take most of our money upfront and they can't claim the Feed In Tariff until they've paid in full.



co-op said:


> Compared to all that bollocks a 14 day notice instead of a 28 day one seems like peanuts.


I suppose so, it's just the sheer lack of respect involved. Fuck you, I'm out of here on my terms and there's nowt you can do about it, effectively.

Anyway he's gone now, so time to move on.


----------

