To Think Work Should Just Let Them Go

[trainboundfornowhere]

I will preempt this by saying I am not far enough up the pecking order at work to decide the fate of these two employees. However it does impact me as it impacts the business as a whole and one of the two was hired for the department I work in.

Two people have been hired recently for different departments in my workplace and they both started last week. Both were told what the requirements of the respective jobs were and that these elements of the jobs were a must without room for flexibility. Both confirmed they could manage the required parts of the job during interview but after starting last week they are now claiming they can’t.

I won’t go into too much detail but imagine it being in an office with core hours that everyone must work and it cannot be done from home due to you having to meet members of the public every day. You show up on your first day of work and start saying that you can’t work the core hours and in fact you couldn’t when you interviewed but wanted a job. Or imagine a small cafe with only six employees. You tell them during the interview that you are vegan and they explain that vegan or not due to the low numbers of staff you will have to handle meat and fish when cooking meals for customers. During the interview you assure them that as long as you don’t have to eat it you can handle cooking them. Then you show up on your first day and refuse to touch them as it is against your beliefs.

Am I unreasonable to think that as frustrating as it is management should just let them go now while they’re on probation due to neither of them being able to do the job they were hired for.

Lying about the availability for working hours can be classed as Gross Misconduct so yes, on that one. The other example - refusing to perform contracted duties is also GM but you have to be more careful if the reason is a protected belief. You have to phrase it very carefully.

Yeh. Piss takers. Should be told not to come back

I think it entirely depends on what was asked and confirmed at interview.

I've seen it a few times on here where people have been encouraged by morons to accept a job they know they cannot fulfil in the hope that the employer will flex. This is why it is such terrible advice - the employees will no doubt be fired but in the meantime, you're left covering for the new employees. People are incredibly selfish (stupid) these days.

If they were explicitly asked and lied then that’s likely to be classed as gross misconduct. There might be a bit of a grey area if they can’t do it due to a disability, but again that should’ve been mentioned when asked and if it truly is a core part of the job, then unfortunately the job is not suitable for that person. A lot of people think reasonable adjustments mean they have to agree to whatever a disabled person asks for ( and it is true many employers try to avoid things that are reasonable), but sometimes a job just isn’t suitable.

I think anyone who is caught lying to get a job should lose it. The fact they can't/won't even perform the job they lied to get, is actually unbelievable.

Oh and make sure you refuse to take on any of their work load.

Technically, lying to obtain a job is fraud. But it’s rarely pursued. If someone lies in a process where professional qualifications are needed-law, surgery, for example, this is a different matter.
We get this often, sadly. We offer hybrid working after a qualifying period(3 months probation). This is clearly explained on application, interview, and in writing when offering the job. People still try to swing WFH full time by claiming on day one that their circumstances have changed since they accepted the job.

This is the result of the job centre sanctions forcing job seekers to apply to jobs they aren’t suited for and accept any job offered even if they know they can’t do it.

Due to complaints of job seekers doing poorly in interviews to avoid the above, the job centre is now pressuring them to have toxic positivity about their ability to do jobs. Any job seeker doubt that they are suitable for a role is chalked up to lack of confidence or motivation, either of which is corrected by sanctioning.

One of people was employed as a supervisor and the role requires they are fully flexible between 8am and 6pm on the days they work incase someone phones in sick. They will in that instance make sure the work of the person who phoned in sick is completed by doing it themselves and make sure the department runs smoothly. The person came in and on their first shift announced they cannot work after 2pm. It then came out that they knew that when they interviewed for the job.

It's always someone else's fault isn't it...?

Similar in my job, I actually changed departments because I was so fed up with it.

If you can’t do every task on your job description and the full working hours required, you should be let go.

Unfortunately we’ve been understaffed for 4/5 years now so I highly doubt management will get rid of them but they’re not my issue anymore so I try to ignore it.

On the one hand, people are desperate for jobs, so I understand why your colleagues may have stretched the truth in the interview. But the obvious risk is that they'll be found out and sacked. Surely if your new colleagues can't meet the minimum requirements of their respective jobs, they'll just be sacked during probation?

Not always. There is a clear cause and effect relationship for this.

Perhaps they were unaware that they’d be a working supervisor which is as horrible a practice as a zero hour contract. Perhaps they thought this was decent company where if someone phones in sick, the supervisor redistributes work amongst those who are there or pushes off deadlines or gets in a temp or shifts schedules to call in another worker.

Cant really do your supervisor tasks, if you are required to do the work of those you supervise when they’re sick. What if 3 people are sick at once? They do the work of 4?
It is exploitation.