If you had an employee who was a complete disaster and did almost nothing right?

Question

would you accept "He's doing the best he can", or would you fire them and get someone who can actually do the job?

"doing the best he can" means nothing

Answer 1

I'd can their butt and get somebody good in there.

Probably get sued, but I'd do it anyway.

Answer 2

First, I'd try like hell to help them. I'd explain their shortcomings and set a reasonable time for improvement. If improvement never came, they'd be terminated.
When I hired them I clearly explained , I didn't expect much for the first week, but after a week, i did expect at least an understandfing of the job. Usually, when i terminated someone, they knew it was coming.
And not one was lazy, it was just an inability to grasp the fundamentals of the job.

I also told anyone I terminated, that "for the record"' they quit. and I'd back them up.and would not block their unemployment .

The biggest problem I had. was it was 2nd shift work, and too many njust wanted to get done and get out of there. Unfortunately, this was often not possible, and speed was never a substitute for accuracy.

Answer 3

It depends on the job. If it is essential that the worker do their work right now, they are retrained or let go. If there is enough staffing that the work will get done, give the employee a little more time and see if they start to improve. I have been surprised at good employees who suddenly become worthless employees (usually something bad is happening in their lives at that point), but also very poor employees who catch on and eventually are good contributors. So it depends on how patient you can be and what training options you have to give it some more effort.

Answer 4

it wouldn't matter what the employer if the person was a member of a college and had tenure or a teacher, or any other member of a strong union with representation. we see this all the time. it is one of the reasons our children graduate and read on a third grade level.. why so many jobs have gone overseas. also, this is why so many congressmen keep their jobs, even after scandals..and this applies to both parties.

i am sure most of these are not the answer you were seeking so perhaps rewording the question would produce your desired results.

Answer 5

Why keep someone there who is wasting your money by doing nothing? You just have to be tactful when you fire the employee. It's not your fault that person can't live up to the expectations.....find someone else.

Answer 6

Firing him would be the best thing to happen to him. His lack of incentive would only be increased by lengthening his stay at the job. It might kick his *** into gear, and help him get moving. Keeping him only hurts the economy.

Answer 7

Have you tried to teach this employee or are you just venting.

Helping people is not the easiest and that is why being a manager is the hardest job.

That employee could be " a diamond in the rough?"

Some people have learning disabilities and they do not have to be physical.

Answer 8

I would talk to him about what he expects in his job, and then probably suggest that he may need to look for a job that better suits him. Because we need to hire some one that will do the job that they were hired to.

Answer 9

If I felt the person was worth saving, I would try them in other departments. But I would remove them from my department.

Answer 10

fire the lazy person - because doing nothing means he is not even trying

Answer 11

Yes, Gonzales should be FIRED ASAP.

http://impeachgonzales.org/