# coming near end of Probationary Period



## Harp (Jul 18, 2012)

So July 7 will mark exactly the 6 mos mark of my new job and end of my prob period. My supervisor sent a meeting request last week for June 20 for myself and the HR member that hired me originally, to take place in her office.

Keep in mind I am the type of person that worries over everything! 

Am I getting canned? I mean I ask for regular feedback all the time, my work is good, trying my hardest, etc. But is this a sign I am being let go….? My original job offer did say the following: “while you will get regular feedback from time to time a formal review will be conducted at the end of your 6 month prob period.”

….I am so scared!


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Harp. Chillax! They're doing what they said they would do, which is provide a formal feedback review at the end of six months. 

And they almost certainly are NOT going to can you, and here's why I think so: they can can you (that sounds weird written out!) at any point for any reason during your probationary period. So if they were going to can you, they would have already done so - they wouldn't wait until the end of your probation!


----------



## Harp (Jul 18, 2012)

MoneyGal said:


> Harp. Chillax! They're doing what they said they would do, which is provide a formal feedback review at the end of six months.
> 
> And they almost certainly are NOT going to can you, and here's why I think so: they can can you (that sounds weird written out!) at any point for any reason during your probationary period. So if they were going to can you, they would have already done so - they wouldn't wait until the end of your probation!


My wife says the same thing but let me tell U the wait for next Thurs, June 20 4pm meeting is the longest wait of my life! I love my job and sooooooo don't wanna be let go


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Is there any past precedent in the company regarding the 6 month probationary period?

What happened to other employees at that juncture in time?

Usually employees who have been there awhile will know what is going on.............

Hopefully it is simply a "welcome to the team" kind of meeting.


----------



## Barwelle (Feb 23, 2011)

Harp said:


> ...I love my job...


And I'm sure that shows in your performance at work so why would they can you?

Moneygal makes very good points as always... especially that they had all this time that they could have fired you, and didn't.

If anything, I would expect that you could possibly receive something as a reward for making it through the probationary period. At the very least you'll be informed that you are a permanent employee.


----------



## Harp (Jul 18, 2012)

Apparently when they wanna kick someone to the curb the head honcho of HR comes by out of the blue @ 4pm and says: "can I see U for a moment? " and locks U in his office until everyone leaves.

In my case its a scheduled meeting, titled "John's 6 month review"


----------



## Barwelle (Feb 23, 2011)

Yea, that's the other thing... if they were going to fire you, I doubt they'd schedule a meeting two weeks ahead of time.

You're fine!!!


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

There's probably even a pretty good chance you're going to get a raise...


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

If, five minutes before your meeting, a security guy appears at your desk with a cardboard box labelled 'Personal Belongings'....and says "Surprise".....that would be a hint. :smile:

(You'll be fine!)


----------



## Harp (Jul 18, 2012)

LMAO! Just to be safe the day before I am taking my pictures and personal stuff home, keep keys and wallet in pocket lol!


----------



## MoreMiles (Apr 20, 2011)

Harp said:


> LMAO! Just to be safe the day before I am taking my pictures and personal stuff home, keep keys and wallet in pocket lol!


Exactly... most firings are not pre-announced to prevent employees taking things away ahead of time. Since they pre-announced your meeting, it is very unlikely for a termination.

Let me put it the other way, you can still be fired easily after the probationary period. They just need to give you 1 week pay-in-lieu and can ask you to leave instantaneously, without any reason. So you are not "any safer" in a couple of weeks anyway, you should just proceed as usual.

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/guide/termination.php


Under the ESA:

an employer can terminate the employment of an employee who has been employed continuously for three months or more if the employer has given the employee proper written notice of termination and the notice period has expired;
or
an employer can terminate the employment of an employee without written notice or with less notice than is required if the employer pays termination pay to the employee.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MoreMiles said:


> ... most firings are not pre-announced to prevent employees taking things away ahead of time. Since they pre-announced your meeting, it is very unlikely for a termination.


True. On the other hand, most companies will have a set procedure as to how, when, who is involved etc. to limit the ability of the expendable employee of causing issues and to protect themselves from paying more than what is required by law.




MoreMiles said:


> Let me put it the other way, you can still be fired easily after the probationary period. They just need to give you 1 week pay-in-lieu and can ask you to leave instantaneously, without any reason. So you are not "any safer" in a couple of weeks anyway, you should just proceed as usual...


Interesting ... if it's that easy, I wonder why so many managers complain that it's difficult (i.e. expensive) and most people I know who have been fired have been offered 2 weeks pay per year they worked as a minimum. 


Cheers


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> True. On the other hand, most companies will have a set procedure as to how, when, who is involved etc. to limit the ability of the expendable employee of causing issues and to protect themselves from paying more than what is required by law.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If I remember correctly, it is indeed two weeks' severance after one year, one week up until one year. And the OP has nothing to worry about- it is simply the scheduled performance review as stated in the original hiring agreement. Nobody schedules a firing meeting! You say yourself that the way things are done is he manager comes up at the end of the day and asks to see you in the office after everyone has left. Very standard procedure, one that I have used. Saves embarrassing the person being fired, and the other employees. You're probably not getting a raise or anything but you'll be welcomed aboard and told what the next period will look like, what the expectations are, asked for your feedback and how you feel going forward, etc.


----------



## bayview (Nov 6, 2011)

@ Harp, Dont fret the small stuff to quote Richard Carlson. Everything is small stuff if we have no control over it.

Think of how you will celebrate with your loved ones once you get your permanent job confirmation. 

In this day and age, there is no longer guaranteed job security. Focus instead on doing your job well, getting along well with your workmates and most importantly work well with the Head(s) who determine(s) your job prospects.

All the best!


----------



## Echo (Apr 1, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> Interesting ... if it's that easy, I wonder why so many managers complain that it's difficult (i.e. expensive) and most people I know who have been fired have been offered 2 weeks pay per year they worked as a minimum.


It's difficult if you haven't documented the reason for dismissal. Firing someone on probation is not an issue but once they've passed probation then there needs to be cause for termination. Many managers don't give proper performance appraisals, whether it's due to fear of conflict or just pure laziness. 

So, even though everyone around the office knows when someone isn't pulling their weight, that person likely doesn't have these issues documented in a formal review. Things like punctuality, lack of performance, bad attitude, whatever. 

A few years go by until finally you can't deal with this person anymore, so you go to HR and say you want to fire him for reasons xyz, and she pulls up his performance reviews and they don't jive with what you're saying.

If you go ahead and fire him anyway, then it can get expensive because he's probably going to sue for wrongful dismissal. To avoid that possibility, maybe you sweeten the severance package (double or triple it) just to get rid of them and avoid a lawsuit.

Bottom line: 3-6 months is long enough to tell whether or not an employee is a good fit. If he or she isn't the right fit, save yourself all kinds of grief and end it before they reach probation.


----------



## MoreMiles (Apr 20, 2011)

Echo said:


> It's difficult if you haven't documented the reason for dismissal. Firing someone on probation is not an issue but once they've passed probation then there needs to be cause for termination. Many managers don't give proper performance appraisals, whether it's due to fear of conflict or just pure laziness.
> 
> So, even though everyone around the office knows when someone isn't pulling their weight, that person likely doesn't have these issues documented in a formal review. Things like punctuality, lack of performance, bad attitude, whatever.
> 
> ...


You are talking non sense! Do you own a business? You should talk to a employment lawyer before you get more confused. In Ontario, ESA allows termination without cause as you wish. That is the beauty of being a boss.

http://lawyerbuchanan.blogspot.ca/2011/09/back-to-basics-ive-been-fired-for-now.html


----------



## Echo (Apr 1, 2011)

Without cause, you'll still need to give written notice (up to 8 weeks for employment of 10 years or more, in Alberta anyway), or the equivalent in termination pay. Hence, that's the expensive option. Firing with just cause is the cheaper option, but you'll need to support the position that there was just cause for dismissal without notice.

http://humanservices.alberta.ca/documents/Termination-of-Employment-and-Temp-Layoff.pdf


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

indexxx said:


> If I remember correctly, it is indeed two weeks' severance after one year, one week up until one year...


Yet the link posted uses the example of the fictional Sarah, who is calculated to get three weeks termination pay after working for the company for three and a half years.

Don't get me wrong - what you are describing matches the firings I have been able to get the details for. I'm trying to figure out what other factors such as labour court judgements are changing this.




indexxx said:


> ... And the OP has nothing to worry about- it is simply the scheduled performance review as stated in the original hiring agreement. Nobody schedules a firing meeting! ...


I agree the OP likely has nothing to worry about. Though the scheduled part has a small degree of variation. 

At one company I worked for, the termination meeting was scheduled about three days in advance but that's the less than 1% exception as most don't want the soon to be departed employee to have any indication the firing is coming.




indexxx said:


> ... You say yourself that the way things are done is he manager comes up at the end of the day and asks to see you in the office after everyone has left ...


Actually the OP says ... most of the firings I've seen the process, the manager confirms the ducks are in a row in the morning and the "let's chat for a few minutes" meeting has been anywhere from 11am to end of the business day.

One employee who was fired just before lunch sat in his car in the parking lot for about an hour and a half from noon before driving off.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Echo said:


> It's difficult if you haven't documented the reason for dismissal. Firing someone on probation is not an issue but once they've passed probation then there needs to be cause for termination ...


Yet the common feedback from managers, supervisors and executives is that even with proper documentation, firing is difficult. The advice seems to be "if you have any doubts, save yourself the headache and fire the employee during their probation."




indexxx said:


> ... Many managers don't give proper performance appraisals, whether it's due to fear of conflict or just pure laziness.
> 
> So, even though everyone around the office knows when someone isn't pulling their weight, that person likely doesn't have these issues documented in a formal review. Things like punctuality, lack of performance, bad attitude, whatever ...


One of the most organised companies I've worked for in this respect, had the problems in the employee's file in HR (the employee objected to his review for six years in a row). Apparently what convinced management to pull the trigger on the firing was when in addition to all the rest, it was documented that the employee was working a second job for another company without permission during core business hours.

So between the number of times those who do this for a living have commented it's difficult and the situations I've seen - I'm not convinced that "lack of documentation" is the major factor.




indexxx said:


> ... If you go ahead and fire him anyway, then it can get expensive because he's probably going to sue for wrongful dismissal. To avoid that possibility, maybe you sweeten the severance package (double or triple it) just to get rid of them and avoid a lawsuit.
> 
> Bottom line: 3-6 months is long enough to tell whether or not an employee is a good fit. If he or she isn't the right fit, save yourself all kinds of grief and end it before they reach probation.


That's what is confusing me. 

Given the manager knew how much disruption, if not outright costs the employee was causing - it's astounding that two to four weeks severance would be considered "expensive" or difficult to justify. 

Never mind that if the posted link is to be taken at face value - the company could get by giving no reason and as cheaply as one week per year.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MoreMiles said:


> You are talking non sense!
> 
> Do you own a business? You should talk to a employment lawyer before you get more confused. In Ontario, ESA allows termination without cause as you wish. That is the beauty of being a boss ...


Maybe the key factor is that it's being the boss of a small business that the fired employee doesn't see any benefit in suing?


The corporations I've worked for either had just cause documented and paid a lot more than one week per year or have at least faked just cause. Despite this - the corporations have been sued by the fired employee.


Cheers


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

The posted link should be believed. I've fired people for no reason and as cheaply as one week per year. Company priorities change. People lose trust in the capacity of employees to fulfill their responsibilities. But we use the employer-side employment lawyer office that has a bunch of former Prime Ministers on the letterhead, and this is all private sector. :02.47-tranquillity:


----------



## Zoombie (Jan 10, 2012)

To me it sounds a little bit like they are going to fire you at this meeting they have arranged.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Have you, (the OP), been given any new projects, (not time wasters like counting paper clips), in the last little while, or are you feeling that things are going around you? Good indicators.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

At the same posted link........

_*Wrongful Dismissal*

The rules under the ESA about termination and severance of employment are minimum requirements. *An employee may choose instead to sue an employer in a court of law for "wrongful dismissal.*" An employee cannot sue an employer for wrongful dismissal and file a claim for termination pay or severance pay with the ministry for the same termination or severance of employment. The employee must choose one or the other and may wish to obtain legal advice concerning their rights.

Greater Right to Termination Notice, Pay in Lieu, and Severance Pay

The ESA provides minimum standards only. Some employees may have rights under the common law or other legislation that give them greater rights relating to notice of termination (or termination pay) and severance pay than the ESA. Employers and employees may wish to obtain legal advice concerning their rights._

Beware employers.........it happens.

My friend was fired without just cause on Friday and replaced by Monday. They offered severance pay and he declined and hired a lawyer. When they discovered he had a lawyer, they offered more severance pay and he declined again. It took a couple of years, but he won the case in court and was reimbursed his legal fees and enough damages to purchase an existing franchise business.

There have been cases where the employer was required to pay full salary until the employee found a job of "equal value". If I recall correctly, the case involved a butcher for a national grocery store, and at that time the employee was earning a higher than average salary, so it was a very expensive decision for the store.

There are principles in labour law such as "progressive discipline" which consist of verbal warnings, written warnings, and if all else fails..........termination.

To defend against such a case would require the employer to keep meticulous documentation.

Laying people off due to business circumstances is a different matter........but the employer had best not replace the worker.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Zoombie! Why you gotta play our boy this way?


----------



## Echo (Apr 1, 2011)

sags said:


> There are principles in labour law such as "progressive discipline" which consist of verbal warnings, written warnings, and if all else fails..........termination.
> 
> To defend against such a case would require the employer to keep meticulous documentation.


This.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I am keeping my fingers crossed for someone who really likes their job and wants to keep it.........that is kind of rare these days.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

I wouldn't overstate the idea that the OP has nothing to worry about. Yes, if he was really bad he probably would have been let go fairly early, but it's not uncommon for managers to not make a decision until the end of the prob period for someone who is on the bubble.

I don't want him to worry more than necessary, but to assume that he has nothing to fear might lead to a bigger shock if the worst happens.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> The posted link should be believed.
> 
> I've fired people for no reason and as cheaply as one week per year...
> But we use the employer-side employment lawyer office that has a bunch of former Prime Ministers on the letterhead, and this is all private sector ...


To be clear ... it's the gap between what the link says and what north of 90% of the firings I have enough information on that I'm trying to figure out. 

As for the private sector part - 99.9% of my info is private sector.




Echo said:


> sags said:
> 
> 
> > At the same posted link........
> ...


Agreed but the feedback/experience I have is that meticulous docs didn't encourage the manager to fire the misbehaving employee.



sags said:


> Laying people off due to business circumstances is a different matter........but the employer had best not replace the worker.


... which I've seen happen. I'm sure the job description of the replacement that only varied by the title was of benefit to the suing employee and their lawyer.

Then too - the US company that bought out a local Ontario company went on record with the local paper saying that one of the issues for the strike was that the employee & union had this crazy idea that the employer couldn't fire the employee for refusing overtime.




Four Pillars said:


> I wouldn't overstate the idea that the OP has nothing to worry about. Yes, if he was really bad he probably would have been let go fairly early, but it's not uncommon for managers to not make a decision until the end of the prob period for someone who is on the bubble.
> 
> I don't want him to worry more than necessary, but to assume that he has nothing to fear might lead to a bigger shock if the worst happens.


Agreed ... the indicators look good from what is described but the only thing worth worrying about is doing a good job. That's all one can control. 


Cheers


----------



## MoreMiles (Apr 20, 2011)

First of all, there is a difference between small business and large corporation.
There is also a difference between unionized workers and regular employees.

Since a businessperson can hire anyone as they wish, they also have the freedom to terminate anyone as they wish. Canada is a free world. There is no law to say you have to provide job guarantee. Just the same that there is no law to say you have to run your business the same way all the time... Most salaried employees may not have that experience to know it. However, if you are a small business owner or professional, you would know what I am talking about. For example, a dentist can terminate his receptionist any time as he or she wishes, provided that appropriate notice pay is made. Also, there is no "severance" for small business. You do not need to pay extra to sugar up someone. You can if you want, as a nice gesture, but ESA only requires 1 week notice per 1 year of service.

You also need a contract so everyone is bound on written terms, and not common law / case law. You need to be fair so you are not firing based on gender, marital, pregnancy, or disability status... As long as your reason for firing can happen to any of employees, you are okay to fire.

How can it be "wrongful dismissal" if there is no discrimination? Is it wrong to reduce payroll expense when a business does not do well? Is it wrong if the owner wants to slow down and spend more time with family so less employee is needed? 

A worker can sue as they wish.... in fact, all it takes is a court filing fee. Whether or not the person wins, that is a different question. Most naive employees hire a lawyer, send us the business owner the letter, then our lawyer calls back... asking "Are you aware that your client has signed an employment contract specifying all the termination rules?" 9/10 times... the opposing lawyer would say, "Oh really? never mind". Because the lawyers are looking for easy target, those without written terms, hoping to use common law to claim higher benefits.

I am offering my view from an employer point of view. You may have a different view as an employee. By the way, each employment contract costs about $1500 to draft. And I make sure that I spend that money to protect my employer right.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MoreMiles said:


> First of all, there is a difference between small business and large corporation.
> There is also a difference between unionized workers and regular employees.


So essentially you are agreeing with my theory that size of business plays into what a employee may be paid when let go. In fact, you seem to be adding additional factors.




MoreMiles said:


> ... Since a businessperson can hire anyone as they wish, they also have the freedom to terminate anyone as they wish ...
> 
> There is no law to say you have to provide job guarantee. Just the same that there is no law to say you have to run your business the same way all the time... Most salaried employees may not have that experience to know it. However, if you are a small business owner or professional, you would know what I am talking about ...
> 
> For example, a dentist can terminate his receptionist any time as he or she wishes, provided that appropriate notice pay is made.


What a salaried employee knows versus what a small business owner or professional know may be interesting side discussion. 

Returning to the point or question I am working on - why are corporations routinely exceeding the legislated minimum?




MoreMiles said:


> ... Also, there is no "severance" for small business. You do not need to pay extra to sugar up someone. You can if you want, as a nice gesture, but ESA only requires 1 week notice per 1 year of service.


Call it severance or call it "notice pay" - the point is that the link plus your business experience says one week whereas myself as well as others have noted, corporations are paying double or better. 

The last I checked, a multinational corp. was in the business to make money so forgive me if I doubt that they are "sugaring up" these fired employees as a nice gesture. Particularly when it's ten or twelve employees in the space of a year.


What's your theory on why there is this difference?




MoreMiles said:


> ...You also need a contract so everyone is bound on written terms, and not common law / case law.


In the most recent examples - there was a contract. For the most recent one, the notice pay exceeded three weeks per year worked.




MoreMiles said:


> ... A worker can sue as they wish.... in fact, all it takes is a court filing fee. Whether or not the person wins, that is a different question. Most naive employees hire a lawyer, ...


Great to hear that you've covered your bases so that nothing goes to court.

However - for at least one of the firings I am aware of, it did not make it to court because the lawyer hired to defend the case stated essentially "your HR executive is a lawyer who should know better - how could you screw a firing up this badly? There's no way to win the case."

Then there's the far more frequent instances where a letter from the employee's lawyer, without discussion or strings attached, bumped the notice pay up between one to two weeks per year.




MoreMiles said:


> ... I am offering my view from an employer point of view. You may have a different view as an employee..


I appreciate you sharing your employer point of view that describes your situation.

I thought I was clear that I'd both observed as well as had managers & executives describe different notice pay rates. It seems clear to me that there's a broad range in the market place.

Or to put it another way that might be clearer - for notice pay, "the legislated minimum does not fit all." :biggrin:

Cheers


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> Returning to the point or question I am working on - why are corporations routinely exceeding the legislated minimum?


I think it's fear of litigation. As for why it's mostly bigger companies - I think they are more knowledgeable about ramifications of lawsuits and are willing to pay more to avoid them. This is why it is harder to fire someone in a big company - it's not because there is a legal need for a certain amount of documentation, but because the company wants to make sure it has it's bases covered.

I believe smaller companies are more naive about this sort of thing and just take their chances when the fire someone.


----------



## Emma (May 18, 2013)

Relax Harp, my daughter who manages a fair number of employees, never schedules a termination meeting. However, if you are called in to your manager's office and someone from HR is present, look out! Before you get to this point you will have probably received some negative feedback about your performance. Good luck with your review.


----------



## MoreMiles (Apr 20, 2011)

Four Pillars said:


> I think it's fear of litigation. As for why it's mostly bigger companies - I think they are more knowledgeable about ramifications of lawsuits and are willing to pay more to avoid them. This is why it is harder to fire someone in a big company - it's not because there is a legal need for a certain amount of documentation, but because the company wants to make sure it has it's bases covered.
> 
> I believe smaller companies are more naive about this sort of thing and just take their chances when the fire someone.


No.... small business and large corporation have different rules. I am talking about small business and not large corporations / unionized employment. Those don't really have "owners" as they are sometimes public companies, with different rules.

With a regular business, you only need to pay severance / extra termination package if your payroll is *over $2.5 million*. If your business spends less than that on salary, you are not required to pay that. This can be verified easily on Google. I think employees, especially the generation Y, have this sense of "entitlement" and are naive to believe that small businesses have a lot of profit margin to sustain their payroll requests. There is no job loyalty from them, but they also complain how the job position should be guaranteed for them, etc. It's a 2-way street.... not 1-way. So they are surprised to hear those things.

It is very hard to run small businesses these days. Look at most of the mom-and-pop fastfood restaurant, like Subway and Pizza Pizza franchise... the owners are working free themselves to save on payroll, they often still just make $100,000 profit from their business after all expenses are deducted. So essentially, they are not much ahead as being a salaried employee somewhere else, without the fear of getting enough business volume.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MoreMiles said:


> No.... small business and large corporation have different rules. I am talking about small business and not large corporations / unionized employment. Those don't really have "owners" as they are sometimes public companies, with different rules.


I don't know ... for not having "owners", I've had to spend a lot of time justifying expenses that were within the expense policy guidelines.




MoreMiles said:


> With a regular business, you only need to pay severance / extra termination package if your payroll is *over $2.5 million*. If your business spends less than that on salary, you are not required to pay that. This can be verified easily on Google.


So it would appear that where the business payroll is under the threshold, notice pay is required while over the threshold, severance pay is required. 




MoreMiles said:


> I think employees, especially the generation Y, have this sense of "entitlement" and are naive to believe that small businesses have a lot of profit margin to sustain their payroll requests. There is no job loyalty from them, but they also complain how the job position should be guaranteed for them, etc. It's a 2-way street.... not 1-way. So they are surprised to hear those things.


Interesting ... that's pretty much what the corporate employees were saying back moons ago when new management brought in a "invest in yourself, pay for your own training policy, don't stay in the same job for more than three years" policy. For the first couple of years, the employees didn't change what they were doing and the corporation saved a bundle. When the employees took the policy to heart and acted on it, management started complaining about the lack of loyalty to the company and how the pay expectations when training was not included were so much higher.

I guess it's the human condition.




MoreMiles said:


> It is very hard to run small businesses these days. Look at most of the mom-and-pop fastfood restaurant, like Subway and Pizza Pizza franchise... the owners are working free themselves to save on payroll, they often still just make $100,000 profit from their business after all expenses are deducted. So essentially, they are not much ahead as being a salaried employee somewhere else, without the fear of getting enough business volume.


Without having looked into the details - I'm not sure if it's any harder or easier or just the same as when my uncle and aunt were working themselves to save on payroll in their small business.

Though if it's clearly that much work/stress to barely get ahead of an employee making $100K, I'd think a lot business owners would be making the jump over to being an employee. A grape farmer I know was torn between continuing farming or buying a garage in town. After his wife suggested he calculate his wages as his criteria - it was a quick decision as the wages worked out to $0.50 per hour. 


Cheers


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

MoreMiles said:


> No.... small business and large corporation have different rules. I am talking about small business and not large corporations / unionized employment. Those don't really have "owners" as they are sometimes public companies, with different rules.
> 
> With a regular business, you only need to pay severance / extra termination package if your payroll is *over $2.5 million*. If your business spends less than that on salary, you are not required to pay that. This can be verified easily on Google. I think employees, especially the generation Y, have this sense of "entitlement" and are naive to believe that small businesses have a lot of profit margin to sustain their payroll requests. There is no job loyalty from them, but they also complain how the job position should be guaranteed for them, etc. It's a 2-way street.... not 1-way. So they are surprised to hear those things.
> 
> It is very hard to run small businesses these days. Look at most of the mom-and-pop fastfood restaurant, like Subway and Pizza Pizza franchise... the owners are working free themselves to save on payroll, they often still just make $100,000 profit from their business after all expenses are deducted. So essentially, they are not much ahead as being a salaried employee somewhere else, without the fear of getting enough business volume.


I'm not too confident you know the rules. I don't know them either so I can't comment any further.

As far as the "hard to do XX these days" complaint - All I can say is that people make choices about what they do and they have to live with the consequences. If you are in a situation that isn't working as well as you'd like - change it.


----------



## Harp (Jul 18, 2012)

Actually this week we had our Regional Meetings - 3 days of discussions, etc and I was in on it all. 

After the mtgs my supervisor asked to speak to me and I thought: here we go. It was actually just to follow-up on some projects we are working on. Plans have been talking about me going to Ottawa for a couple of days to visit some locations of ours in July and that is still a go. During the Regional Meetings the field team was told that if they have any issues pertaining to my dept to direct things to me, etc. 

AND we just had a person in our dept give her 2 weeks notice so would they let me go, if they were going to, and end up having to fill 2 spots..? Her notice came totally out of the blue.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

^^^

All good signs. 

As for having to fill two spots - most managers don't like the work of filling one. They'd much prefer ... managing people who are there.

There is always the possibility of something major coming down from other areas (ex. the company has been sold to who?) but as mentioned up thread - it is far better to focus on what you control.


Cheers


----------



## warrdogg (Feb 8, 2013)

Where I currently work we get our probationary interview after 1.5 years of employment. My appointment was made and I went into the office to meet the boss. He tells me "I've heard a lot of great things about you, you're hard worker, dedicated, oh what's your name again?!" I guess I am a valued member of this organization huh. Hahahaha. I work for the government so I don't expect a hug and warm blanket.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I own a small business with 10 employees and in past have had to let people go ,my accountant has always done the financial part and we have always give them minimum 2 weeks pay but have asked them to leave immediately.I always give 3 warnings and put them in writing when dealing with non performance.As you guys know I have Personal Support Workers in these cases when my safety or my child's safety have been at risk you really don't have a choice but let them go immediately.


----------



## Harp (Jul 18, 2012)

D-Day today - meeting at 4pm. ......... wish me luck. 

:rolleyes2:


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Harp said:


> D-Day today - meeting at 4pm. ......... wish me luck.
> 
> :rolleyes2:


Naah...you don't need it...I sense PROMOTION! :encouragement:


----------



## Harp (Jul 18, 2012)

Meeting pushed to next Thursday re: dept had someone quit and gave less than weeks notice so they are occupied with that. My nerves are going to kill me!!


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

With so many recent departures, there's no way they are going to let you go.
Rest assured.

But the larger question is - why are so many folks quitting recently?
What is going on?


----------



## Harp (Jul 18, 2012)

My position was a newly created role in finance - I came on in January. 

The recent departure of this particular employee was kinda his own doing - his life is a mess, a scatter-brain, and very stubborn. Unfortunately his role is VERY important - I recently rec'd an email from my supervisor that they are going to be calling on me to assist until replacement is found for his position - which is good signs for me, at least ...... I hope lol.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

This is an opportunity in disguise for you.
Grab the bull by the horns, step up, and prove your worth to the organization.
If you can transition into this role and show that not only can you do it, but do it better than the last guy, you may have a bright future ahead in this organization.
Of course, I know nothing about the organization or the role or whether you even want it, but if you do, this could be a golden opportunity.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> This is an opportunity in disguise for you...
> 
> Of course, I know nothing about the organization or the role or whether you even want it, but if you do, this could be a golden opportunity.


There's no "if" about it being a golden opportunity.

Even if the OP decides the job/role isn't what they like - demonstrating flexibility and helping make the manager's life easier (as well as helping them meet their goals!) is always a good thing and will likely ensure the manager wants to keep them around.

The only risk I can see is if the OP doesn't like the job but is doing it so well that the manager decides the OP is the best replacement.


Cheers


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> if the OP doesn't like the job but is doing it so well that the manager decides the OP is the best replacement.


Ha, Ha, as if _that_ never happens :rolleyes2:


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Ha, Ha, as if _that_ never happens :rolleyes2:


I've had co-workers complain about both situations.

One that "I'll have to move to another company as my manager refuses to let me move to another job" and the other extreme "I turned down the manager's job because I didn't want the headache - now I have to deal with the headaches from the incompetent manager that was hired".

Like investing - there's quite a range out there & hindsight is 20/20! :biggrin:


Cheers


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Your fine or would have been let go by now.

Show a good attitude which you seem to have and the rest will take care of itself.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

"Keep in mind I am the type of person that worries over everything! " Does that include the stock market too  Thats a pretty normal thing these days, if you did your best and you know you did your good to go.


----------



## Harp (Jul 18, 2012)

Just for my curiousity - what is usually discussed at these types of meetings...? Its scheduled for only 30 mins.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

You should come prepared to discuss what you've learned, the feedback you've gotten (good and bad, if applicable), the challenges you've faced and how you addressed them, what you've accomplished (not "what you did"), areas you'd like to improve on or skills you'd like to acquire. In your shoes, I would come with a file folder with written notes on these areas. You might also consider "mocking" this conversation with a friend so you are comfortable going over these kinds of questions and providing confident answers.


----------



## Harp (Jul 18, 2012)

Perfect thanks.
I was hoping of bringing Kevin O'Leary with me as my representative, in case things go sour lol!


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Over my career, I've gotten more and more experience hiring, being hired, and firing (no "being fired" -- SO FAR!) :encouragement:


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Harp said:


> I was hoping of bringing Kevin O'Leary with me as my representative, in case things go sour lol!


You can't afford him, just going by the fees he charges for his mutual funds.


----------



## Harp (Jul 18, 2012)

LOL but isn't he Mr. Wonderful...?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Harp said:


> LOL but isn't he Mr. Wonderful...?


According to *him*, he is.


----------



## Harp (Jul 18, 2012)

So had a little mtg with my manager to go over status of a few things.

She mentioned: “wow we are coming up on your 6 months – wow time flies. I had a form from HR to fill out with some questions, etc.”

Then she asked if I had any previous experience in payroll since the chick that did it before left suddenly.

Am I worrying or reading too much into this re: making the team or not…? Tommorrow at 2 is D-Day.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Methinks you will be ok.
If they wanted to let you go, they would have done the hatchet work at this meeting.


----------



## Xoron (Jun 22, 2010)

Harp said:


> Then she asked if I had any previous experience in payroll since the chick that did it before left suddenly.


You're in good shape I'd say. They're already looking for ways to pile on the work 

Ask for a raise if they do that :encouragement:


----------



## Zoombie (Jan 10, 2012)

Still seems to me like they are looking for a reason to let you go. That reason may be that you don't have any experience in payroll. Think about it, they need someone to do payroll now, and if you don't have the experience - what do they need you for?


----------



## Xoron (Jun 22, 2010)

Zoombie said:


> Still seems to me like they are looking for a reason to let you go. That reason may be that you don't have any experience in payroll. Think about it, they need someone to do payroll now, and if you don't have the experience - what do they need you for?


Zoombie, that makes no sense at all. Presumably Harp was hired to fill some vacant or new position. Asking if Harp can do payroll, just means they're looking to fill that job before having to look outside. I see no reason to think Harp's job is in jeopardy, (unless they've done something wrong / aren't performing well). 

Harp: you're fine.


----------



## Harp (Jul 18, 2012)

Gots the job! YAY me! 
Thanks to everyone for the kind words and encouragement :encouragement:


----------



## bayview (Nov 6, 2011)

Happy Canada Day


----------



## Echo (Apr 1, 2011)

Way to go, Harp!


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Well done a good news story. :encouragement:


----------



## NorthKC (Apr 1, 2013)

Congrats! Enjoy your weekend!


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Nice job Harp!


----------



## sprocket1200 (Aug 21, 2009)

enjoy working for the man! and keep paying those taxes!!!!!



Four Pillars said:


> Nice job Harp!


----------

