Dear Balaji,
With your latest post you have clearly exposed yourself and your arbitrary style of working without observing any HR norm and standards.
Your latest post clearly suggests, not only your policy is to work arbitrarily by depending only on presumptions and shortcuts, but also you try to read between the lines without understanding what others try to communicate.
If you properly go through my original posting, you will find that the very opening sentence of my suggestion was “Of course a probationer, as per the prescribed provision of the organization about termination without notice can be resorted to.” BUT my suggestion was quite simple that before taking a step to terminate the probationer, the poster of the problem may try to find out the cause of absenteeism and to avoid any hasty step.
JUST TRY to reread my original comments and, as presumed by you, intimate me —
WHERE DID I SUGGEST TO START DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS?
If you don’t want to go back to read my original comments, I reproduce here at the end of this discussion for your convenience.
ON THE OTHER HAND, your contention, “What I am suggesting is that there is no need to do anything big,”I would like to draw your attention to your own suggestion, where you gave a very big and wrong advice to shirk from the duty clearly forbidding him not only on one count, but on several counts, by clearly stating –
“In your case, you do not have to initiate any letter to be sent to him. Just keep quite. Don't even load his data onto the payroll master for processing salary. Don't even consider him as an employee.”
All this provides us what type of HR duties you would be doing and advising to others also. In this respect, I would like to put straight questions to you:
1) If you have recruited an employee by which provision of law you should not do anything in regard to his termination?
2) Does your suggestion to keep quiet not forbidding an HR personnel to do his genuine duty?
3) Does advising him not to load data on to the payroll master not forbidding him to do his genuine duty?
4) Does advising him not to consider the duly recruited employee as an employee not forbidding him to do his genuine duty?
5) Once an employee is recruited, which provision of law provides you an arbitrary authority not to treat him as an employee unless you formally terminate or dismiss him?
6) What is the basis of your firm conviction that the things would not have happened to the taste of the employee, as you have stated, “This is EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED in this case?” Is not it your presumption only?
7) Do all the recruitment formalities adopted by your organization are farce and fictitious?
8) Provision of which law provides you, as an HR man to arbitrarily function at your sweet will and not to discharge your duties and responsibilities towards employees and an organization of which you are also an employee?
You must know that such type of arbitrary attitude of the HR personnel is the main reason behind the HR not commanding due respect amongst the employees of the organizations.
EXTRACT OF MY ORIGINAL COMMENTS DATED 23.10.2010
“Of course a probationer, as per the prescribed provision of the organization about termination "without notice" can be resorted to.
BUT, never take any hasty step just on presumption basis unless you are really sure that the employee/probationer is absenting willingly and unauthorizedly. Humanitarian grounds should never be lost sight of if you want loyalty and sincerity of employees. There may be some compulsion with the probationer, like accident of self or a family member, death of any near relative, sudden serious illness of self or family member.
If the candidate has a contact number, must try to contact him or his family members on phone or through some messenger. If you find some evasive response, only then you can be sure to some extent that the candidate does not want to serve your organization. Get the outcome of contact recorded and bring that to the notice of the competent authority. Only then decide whether to serve him a notice for unauthorized absence or terminate without notice upon getting a formal decision of the competent authority.”
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
394With your latest post you have clearly exposed yourself and your arbitrary style of working without observing any HR norm and standards.
Your latest post clearly suggests, not only your policy is to work arbitrarily by depending only on presumptions and shortcuts, but also you try to read between the lines without understanding what others try to communicate.
If you properly go through my original posting, you will find that the very opening sentence of my suggestion was “Of course a probationer, as per the prescribed provision of the organization about termination without notice can be resorted to.” BUT my suggestion was quite simple that before taking a step to terminate the probationer, the poster of the problem may try to find out the cause of absenteeism and to avoid any hasty step.
JUST TRY to reread my original comments and, as presumed by you, intimate me —
WHERE DID I SUGGEST TO START DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS?
If you don’t want to go back to read my original comments, I reproduce here at the end of this discussion for your convenience.
ON THE OTHER HAND, your contention, “What I am suggesting is that there is no need to do anything big,”I would like to draw your attention to your own suggestion, where you gave a very big and wrong advice to shirk from the duty clearly forbidding him not only on one count, but on several counts, by clearly stating –
“In your case, you do not have to initiate any letter to be sent to him. Just keep quite. Don't even load his data onto the payroll master for processing salary. Don't even consider him as an employee.”
All this provides us what type of HR duties you would be doing and advising to others also. In this respect, I would like to put straight questions to you:
1) If you have recruited an employee by which provision of law you should not do anything in regard to his termination?
2) Does your suggestion to keep quiet not forbidding an HR personnel to do his genuine duty?
3) Does advising him not to load data on to the payroll master not forbidding him to do his genuine duty?
4) Does advising him not to consider the duly recruited employee as an employee not forbidding him to do his genuine duty?
5) Once an employee is recruited, which provision of law provides you an arbitrary authority not to treat him as an employee unless you formally terminate or dismiss him?
6) What is the basis of your firm conviction that the things would not have happened to the taste of the employee, as you have stated, “This is EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED in this case?” Is not it your presumption only?
7) Do all the recruitment formalities adopted by your organization are farce and fictitious?
8) Provision of which law provides you, as an HR man to arbitrarily function at your sweet will and not to discharge your duties and responsibilities towards employees and an organization of which you are also an employee?
You must know that such type of arbitrary attitude of the HR personnel is the main reason behind the HR not commanding due respect amongst the employees of the organizations.
EXTRACT OF MY ORIGINAL COMMENTS DATED 23.10.2010
“Of course a probationer, as per the prescribed provision of the organization about termination "without notice" can be resorted to.
BUT, never take any hasty step just on presumption basis unless you are really sure that the employee/probationer is absenting willingly and unauthorizedly. Humanitarian grounds should never be lost sight of if you want loyalty and sincerity of employees. There may be some compulsion with the probationer, like accident of self or a family member, death of any near relative, sudden serious illness of self or family member.
If the candidate has a contact number, must try to contact him or his family members on phone or through some messenger. If you find some evasive response, only then you can be sure to some extent that the candidate does not want to serve your organization. Get the outcome of contact recorded and bring that to the notice of the competent authority. Only then decide whether to serve him a notice for unauthorized absence or terminate without notice upon getting a formal decision of the competent authority.”
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear VK,
You may like to read the reply to Balaji's response. I think you will find answers to your queries there.
About being on the rolls of any absconding employee, if you do not do your duty to formally show exit to any employee, he will remain an employee of the organization and can claim his post at any time, regardless of whether he remained absent without pay. Therefore, HR formalities are a must if you want to terminate him. You should not leave any loopholes open to be taken advantage of by anyone simply by omitting any HR formality.
So, the solutions offered by Balaji and you were not the solutions, but rather the likely cause of aggravating problems in employee-employer conflicts. If you have practiced the solution offered by Balaji and you, provide me with complete particulars of the employees (including their addresses) whom you would have treated as non-employees without observing the prescribed formalities of their formal exit from your organization. I will prove my stance practically by legally compelling your organization to rejoin any one or more of those employees.
Anyway, if you still have any more questions, you are most welcome.
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
Myself and Mr. Balaji have offered a solution to a common problem faced by many of us in the HR fraternity. I face this situation almost twice every month, and I am sure there are many others who face it even more frequently. The solution offered by Mr. Balaji is practiced by me, and I have not faced any problems so far, as feared by you.
You are at liberty to label our practice as a 'shortcut,' but I feel it is a practical solution tried and tested by me.
We are not forbidding anybody from discharging their duties. We have given advice, and you and some others have also given advice. It is up to the advice seeker to carefully choose from the many alternatives available, keeping in view the actual reality and situation, best known to him/her.
I am not presuming anything. But I do not understand what makes you presume that a person who has joined just a day before dares to abscond from the new job on the very second day and who is not bothered to inform anyone in the office has an intention and seriousness to continue to work with you?
My common sense will never allow someone who has joined and absconded on the second day to remain on the rolls, as feared by you. I think most organizations have a very basic function of Attendance & Time Office in place.
Firstly, you are presuming that such an employee will remain on the rolls, and secondly, you are presuming that he/she will put forward a claim. Kindly elaborate on how he/she can put forward a claim? Do we think that a person who was present for only a day can go for conciliation proceedings? What is his locus standi? If at all he goes, what is the company's stance? In what section of the ID Act can he invoke? (2A cannot be invoked as the company did not discharge/dismiss him) It is not that the company terminated him or wants to terminate him, but it is he who absconded the next day.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You may like to read the reply to Balaji's response. I think you will find answers to your queries there.
About being on the rolls of any absconding employee, if you do not do your duty to formally show exit to any employee, he will remain an employee of the organization and can claim his post at any time, regardless of whether he remained absent without pay. Therefore, HR formalities are a must if you want to terminate him. You should not leave any loopholes open to be taken advantage of by anyone simply by omitting any HR formality.
So, the solutions offered by Balaji and you were not the solutions, but rather the likely cause of aggravating problems in employee-employer conflicts. If you have practiced the solution offered by Balaji and you, provide me with complete particulars of the employees (including their addresses) whom you would have treated as non-employees without observing the prescribed formalities of their formal exit from your organization. I will prove my stance practically by legally compelling your organization to rejoin any one or more of those employees.
Anyway, if you still have any more questions, you are most welcome.
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
Myself and Mr. Balaji have offered a solution to a common problem faced by many of us in the HR fraternity. I face this situation almost twice every month, and I am sure there are many others who face it even more frequently. The solution offered by Mr. Balaji is practiced by me, and I have not faced any problems so far, as feared by you.
You are at liberty to label our practice as a 'shortcut,' but I feel it is a practical solution tried and tested by me.
We are not forbidding anybody from discharging their duties. We have given advice, and you and some others have also given advice. It is up to the advice seeker to carefully choose from the many alternatives available, keeping in view the actual reality and situation, best known to him/her.
I am not presuming anything. But I do not understand what makes you presume that a person who has joined just a day before dares to abscond from the new job on the very second day and who is not bothered to inform anyone in the office has an intention and seriousness to continue to work with you?
My common sense will never allow someone who has joined and absconded on the second day to remain on the rolls, as feared by you. I think most organizations have a very basic function of Attendance & Time Office in place.
Firstly, you are presuming that such an employee will remain on the rolls, and secondly, you are presuming that he/she will put forward a claim. Kindly elaborate on how he/she can put forward a claim? Do we think that a person who was present for only a day can go for conciliation proceedings? What is his locus standi? If at all he goes, what is the company's stance? In what section of the ID Act can he invoke? (2A cannot be invoked as the company did not discharge/dismiss him) It is not that the company terminated him or wants to terminate him, but it is he who absconded the next day.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Gopal,
I hope you will also find answers to your queries in reply to the responses of Balaji and VK.
About the direct and indirect costs of fresh recruitment formalities for substitutes and the cost of a simple investigation to find out the cause of an employee's absconding, it would be better for you to calculate it yourself or ask a cost accountant to do it for you. You will find an alarming difference beyond your imagination. Neither recruitment nor employee retention and employee relations are child's play, let alone the discharge of HR responsibilities as a whole.
Why refer to any previous examples of court rulings? Just provide me with complete particulars of the employees (including their addresses) whom you would have treated as non-employees without observing the prescribed formalities of their formal exit from your organization. I shall practically prove my stance when I legally compel your organization to rejoin any one or more of those employees.
I would like to advise you to try to command respect as a rational HR professional, rather than earning the hate of employees with arbitrary actions or inactions.
Dear Neha,
I am surprised that HR people have this much time to spend on a new person whose trustworthiness towards the organization or continuity is under a big question mark! You should conduct a PONC to find out the cost implications on the organization regarding such issues. In the modern HR context, Personnel Management has a limited role to play.
I am 100% in agreement with what V. Balaji commented in the third paragraph above. In my view, if there are no positive results on the initial probing, one should not spend much time on such non-productive activities.
Mr. Dhingra, in response to the last paragraph (highlighted in red) of your reply to V. Balaji, I would suggest that if you could quote any relevant rulings of any learned court in India ordering the reinstatement of an employee whose services were terminated on similar grounds under the subject matter in discussion.
Thanks!
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I hope you will also find answers to your queries in reply to the responses of Balaji and VK.
About the direct and indirect costs of fresh recruitment formalities for substitutes and the cost of a simple investigation to find out the cause of an employee's absconding, it would be better for you to calculate it yourself or ask a cost accountant to do it for you. You will find an alarming difference beyond your imagination. Neither recruitment nor employee retention and employee relations are child's play, let alone the discharge of HR responsibilities as a whole.
Why refer to any previous examples of court rulings? Just provide me with complete particulars of the employees (including their addresses) whom you would have treated as non-employees without observing the prescribed formalities of their formal exit from your organization. I shall practically prove my stance when I legally compel your organization to rejoin any one or more of those employees.
I would like to advise you to try to command respect as a rational HR professional, rather than earning the hate of employees with arbitrary actions or inactions.
Dear Neha,
I am surprised that HR people have this much time to spend on a new person whose trustworthiness towards the organization or continuity is under a big question mark! You should conduct a PONC to find out the cost implications on the organization regarding such issues. In the modern HR context, Personnel Management has a limited role to play.
I am 100% in agreement with what V. Balaji commented in the third paragraph above. In my view, if there are no positive results on the initial probing, one should not spend much time on such non-productive activities.
Mr. Dhingra, in response to the last paragraph (highlighted in red) of your reply to V. Balaji, I would suggest that if you could quote any relevant rulings of any learned court in India ordering the reinstatement of an employee whose services were terminated on similar grounds under the subject matter in discussion.
Thanks!
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
I would like to reciprocate the advice given in the last paragraph to you as well. Being an HR professional, I would suggest that you analyze the situation as if it happened within your organization. Try to determine whether the management would prefer the HR department to invest more time and energy in addressing such issues. Finding the answer to this question will also satisfy you. However, please do not label me as an anti-employee HR professional. I believe that it is the primary responsibility of every HR professional to conduct a root cause analysis and suggest the best suitable solution to the problem.
Mr. Dhingra, all your suggestions and advice seem one-sided, utilizing a defensive mechanism that does not appear helpful in resolving any issues. The intention behind this discussion is to find an amicable solution to the problem rather than creating a platform for arguments and counter-arguments that lead nowhere.
Thanks.
From India, Jaipur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I would like to reciprocate the advice given in the last paragraph to you as well. Being an HR professional, I would suggest that you analyze the situation as if it happened within your organization. Try to determine whether the management would prefer the HR department to invest more time and energy in addressing such issues. Finding the answer to this question will also satisfy you. However, please do not label me as an anti-employee HR professional. I believe that it is the primary responsibility of every HR professional to conduct a root cause analysis and suggest the best suitable solution to the problem.
Mr. Dhingra, all your suggestions and advice seem one-sided, utilizing a defensive mechanism that does not appear helpful in resolving any issues. The intention behind this discussion is to find an amicable solution to the problem rather than creating a platform for arguments and counter-arguments that lead nowhere.
Thanks.
From India, Jaipur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Well, Gopal, thank you for your opinion. Personally, our management doesn't find it useless if we try to contact the person. In terms of our time, it takes 2 minutes and money just for local call charges. So, probably you estimated my long comment as expenses, but it still takes very little time and energy to try to speak to the person. If not answered, then one letter, and the person is out. Again, standard registry charges apply. I didn't mean to be offensive, but probably this was my first thought after reading your comment.
Regards,
Neha
From India, Chandigarh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Regards,
Neha
From India, Chandigarh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
I have carefully gone through your response to my post and the posts of Mr. Balaji and Mr. Gopal. I have the following comments to offer. These are my final comments, and I will not be commenting further to avoid stretching this post.
• I think a very basic and important fact in this case is, "Employee has deserted you on the second day of his joining. He is not interested in working with you and has stopped attending duties on the second day of his employment without informing you." I feel you are not taking notice or cognizance of this fact.
• Legally and technically, you are correct in saying that the employee may claim employment since he has not resigned, been terminated, or relieved. But what are the chances of such a claim from an employee who is not interested in working with you and is gainfully employed elsewhere?
• There are occasions when 40 or more employees join on a single day, and entering their data in HRMS and Payroll System may take 4-5 days. What is the point of entering and keeping the data of an employee who is no longer with you?
• I have already mentioned in my earlier post that if the employee turns up after a few days with a genuine reason for absconding, you may consider their rejoining based on merits.
• I fail to understand how ignoring a past employee who worked with you for only one day and is not interested in working with you will lead to "Aggravating problems in employee-employer conflicts."
• It would be better if you could enlighten us on how exactly you plan to prove your stance practically regarding an employee who is not interested in being our employee, let alone rejoining or reinstatement.
• There is no possibility of these kinds of employees hating us. They are not interested in working with us, and we have not troubled them in any way during or after their one-day stay with us.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have carefully gone through your response to my post and the posts of Mr. Balaji and Mr. Gopal. I have the following comments to offer. These are my final comments, and I will not be commenting further to avoid stretching this post.
• I think a very basic and important fact in this case is, "Employee has deserted you on the second day of his joining. He is not interested in working with you and has stopped attending duties on the second day of his employment without informing you." I feel you are not taking notice or cognizance of this fact.
• Legally and technically, you are correct in saying that the employee may claim employment since he has not resigned, been terminated, or relieved. But what are the chances of such a claim from an employee who is not interested in working with you and is gainfully employed elsewhere?
• There are occasions when 40 or more employees join on a single day, and entering their data in HRMS and Payroll System may take 4-5 days. What is the point of entering and keeping the data of an employee who is no longer with you?
• I have already mentioned in my earlier post that if the employee turns up after a few days with a genuine reason for absconding, you may consider their rejoining based on merits.
• I fail to understand how ignoring a past employee who worked with you for only one day and is not interested in working with you will lead to "Aggravating problems in employee-employer conflicts."
• It would be better if you could enlighten us on how exactly you plan to prove your stance practically regarding an employee who is not interested in being our employee, let alone rejoining or reinstatement.
• There is no possibility of these kinds of employees hating us. They are not interested in working with us, and we have not troubled them in any way during or after their one-day stay with us.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Gopal,
Regarding the question of time and energy, the answer to your comments can be found in Neha's brief but fitting response to your comments, placed just after yours. However, I understand that you may not be inclined to admit when your presumptions and policies are incorrect. Perhaps you consider yourself the most expert HR professional?
In reality, it is not the management but the individual HR professional who may be reluctant to spend even a few minutes at the initial stage to uncover the root cause rather than rely on their own presumptions.
You suggest that I analyze the situation, yet instead of resorting to analysis, you seem to adhere to your one-sided presumptions. Your analysis lacks an attempt to understand the basic cause of an employee's absence by simply reaching out to them via phone or written notice. My suggestion stems from my practical experience of nearly 40 years, where I always analyzed situations before taking action rather than making assumptions, as you seem to do when dealing with employees' careers.
You also advocate for every HR professional to conduct a root cause analysis for problem-solving, yet you appear hesitant to engage with employees to truly understand the circumstances. How can you claim to perform a root cause analysis without considering factors such as illness, accidents, or internal policies? It is essential to comprehend the true meaning of "root cause analysis" rather than using the term arbitrarily.
I have not labeled you as anti-employee, but your actions may suggest otherwise.
My suggestions are not one-sided and do not represent a defensive mechanism; rather, I propose involving both management and employees in finding solutions. Conversely, your advice appears one-sided, relying on presumptions without delving into the core of issues. Your responses to my queries seem defensive, emphasizing your assumptions about employees' work ethic.
Had you viewed this forum as a platform for constructive discussion rather than argumentation, you could have considered my suggestions more thoughtfully. However, your defensive stance seems to prioritize proving your perspective as the only valid root cause analysis, leading to counterarguments.
I regret to point out, dear, that you are revealing more of yourself than perhaps intended.
---
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
I would like to extend the advice given in the last paragraph to you as well. As an HR professional, I recommend analyzing situations as if they occurred within your organization to determine whether the management would support HR investing more time and energy in such matters. This approach will likely provide you with a satisfactory answer. Please refrain from categorizing me as anti-employee. I firmly believe that conducting a root cause analysis is a fundamental responsibility of all HR professionals to propose optimal solutions to problems. Your suggestions and advice, Mr. Dhingra, appear one-sided, relying on a defensive mechanism that may not contribute effectively to issue resolution. The purpose of this discussion is to identify amicable solutions rather than engaging in fruitless arguments.
Thank you.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Regarding the question of time and energy, the answer to your comments can be found in Neha's brief but fitting response to your comments, placed just after yours. However, I understand that you may not be inclined to admit when your presumptions and policies are incorrect. Perhaps you consider yourself the most expert HR professional?
In reality, it is not the management but the individual HR professional who may be reluctant to spend even a few minutes at the initial stage to uncover the root cause rather than rely on their own presumptions.
You suggest that I analyze the situation, yet instead of resorting to analysis, you seem to adhere to your one-sided presumptions. Your analysis lacks an attempt to understand the basic cause of an employee's absence by simply reaching out to them via phone or written notice. My suggestion stems from my practical experience of nearly 40 years, where I always analyzed situations before taking action rather than making assumptions, as you seem to do when dealing with employees' careers.
You also advocate for every HR professional to conduct a root cause analysis for problem-solving, yet you appear hesitant to engage with employees to truly understand the circumstances. How can you claim to perform a root cause analysis without considering factors such as illness, accidents, or internal policies? It is essential to comprehend the true meaning of "root cause analysis" rather than using the term arbitrarily.
I have not labeled you as anti-employee, but your actions may suggest otherwise.
My suggestions are not one-sided and do not represent a defensive mechanism; rather, I propose involving both management and employees in finding solutions. Conversely, your advice appears one-sided, relying on presumptions without delving into the core of issues. Your responses to my queries seem defensive, emphasizing your assumptions about employees' work ethic.
Had you viewed this forum as a platform for constructive discussion rather than argumentation, you could have considered my suggestions more thoughtfully. However, your defensive stance seems to prioritize proving your perspective as the only valid root cause analysis, leading to counterarguments.
I regret to point out, dear, that you are revealing more of yourself than perhaps intended.
---
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
I would like to extend the advice given in the last paragraph to you as well. As an HR professional, I recommend analyzing situations as if they occurred within your organization to determine whether the management would support HR investing more time and energy in such matters. This approach will likely provide you with a satisfactory answer. Please refrain from categorizing me as anti-employee. I firmly believe that conducting a root cause analysis is a fundamental responsibility of all HR professionals to propose optimal solutions to problems. Your suggestions and advice, Mr. Dhingra, appear one-sided, relying on a defensive mechanism that may not contribute effectively to issue resolution. The purpose of this discussion is to identify amicable solutions rather than engaging in fruitless arguments.
Thank you.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear VK,
In your first bulleted point, you have stated that the employee is not interested in working with you. The question arises, how could you come to this conclusion without even trying to contact him? Is it not your presumption? You have further stated, "I have not at all been taking notice and cognizance of this fact." The question arises, which fact? Do you consider your presumption as the fact when you have not tried to verify the reason from the employee? The fact is that which is established beyond any doubt. Simply using the word "fact" does not make it a fact.
In your second point, you have admitted at least one thing - legally and technically, I am right in saying that the employee may claim employment since he has not resigned, been terminated, or relieved. Regarding your point about the chances of such a claim from an employee not interested in working with you and who is gainfully employed elsewhere, you are making two more presumptions by stating "not at all interested in working with the employer" and "who is gainfully employed elsewhere." How did you come to the conclusion that he was not interested in working with the employer, whether he is willing or not, and whether he is employed elsewhere gainfully, when you have never tried to verify these things and are still not ready to verify?
Regarding your query about entering and keeping the data of an employee who is no longer with you, which law provides an exemption for the employer not to enter and keep the data of a formerly employed person? You have already admitted that legally and technically he remained an employee of the firm. Even if he is terminated after one day, you cannot escape entering the data, as you cannot withhold his salary for the day he worked with you. Does commercial accounting, profit and loss accounts, and assets and liability accounts of a firm allow not showing its liability for one day's salary, which became due to the employee for his work with the firm?
About your point on an employee turning up after a few days with a genuine reason for absconding, the question arises, when you are not considering him as your employee, and your employment record is blank about his employment, where is the question of the management agreeing to his claim for rejoining? He will surely be left in a lurch due to the inhuman and arbitrary policy adopted by the HR from the initial stage.
Regarding your inability to understand how ignoring a past employee can lead to the aggravation of employee-employer conflicts, I am sure that with more experience in HR, you will learn and remember my point. Once the ignored employee puts forth his claim and the management hesitates to admit his claim to rejoin, do not think he will keep quiet. He would likely publicize the HR's policies, potentially causing conflict and even leading to a lockout, as seen in recent instances in other companies.
In another query, trying to exert your presumption, you have twisted my question by putting your own presumption of an employee not interested in being with your company. Where did I mention the employee was not interested in being your employee? This shows a reliance on presumptions rather than facts. Please re-read my last response, especially regarding your claim about not taking any action or entering data for the salary of absent employees. If you have practiced the solution offered by Balaji and you, provide me with complete particulars of the employees you treated as non-employees without following prescribed formalities for their formal exit from your organization.
Regarding the issue of employees' hatred, you seem to focus only on those employees not officially on your rolls. I suggest conducting an independent survey within your organization to gauge how much respect your HR department enjoys among all employees. It may reveal further insights into any drawbacks in your HR practices.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In your first bulleted point, you have stated that the employee is not interested in working with you. The question arises, how could you come to this conclusion without even trying to contact him? Is it not your presumption? You have further stated, "I have not at all been taking notice and cognizance of this fact." The question arises, which fact? Do you consider your presumption as the fact when you have not tried to verify the reason from the employee? The fact is that which is established beyond any doubt. Simply using the word "fact" does not make it a fact.
In your second point, you have admitted at least one thing - legally and technically, I am right in saying that the employee may claim employment since he has not resigned, been terminated, or relieved. Regarding your point about the chances of such a claim from an employee not interested in working with you and who is gainfully employed elsewhere, you are making two more presumptions by stating "not at all interested in working with the employer" and "who is gainfully employed elsewhere." How did you come to the conclusion that he was not interested in working with the employer, whether he is willing or not, and whether he is employed elsewhere gainfully, when you have never tried to verify these things and are still not ready to verify?
Regarding your query about entering and keeping the data of an employee who is no longer with you, which law provides an exemption for the employer not to enter and keep the data of a formerly employed person? You have already admitted that legally and technically he remained an employee of the firm. Even if he is terminated after one day, you cannot escape entering the data, as you cannot withhold his salary for the day he worked with you. Does commercial accounting, profit and loss accounts, and assets and liability accounts of a firm allow not showing its liability for one day's salary, which became due to the employee for his work with the firm?
About your point on an employee turning up after a few days with a genuine reason for absconding, the question arises, when you are not considering him as your employee, and your employment record is blank about his employment, where is the question of the management agreeing to his claim for rejoining? He will surely be left in a lurch due to the inhuman and arbitrary policy adopted by the HR from the initial stage.
Regarding your inability to understand how ignoring a past employee can lead to the aggravation of employee-employer conflicts, I am sure that with more experience in HR, you will learn and remember my point. Once the ignored employee puts forth his claim and the management hesitates to admit his claim to rejoin, do not think he will keep quiet. He would likely publicize the HR's policies, potentially causing conflict and even leading to a lockout, as seen in recent instances in other companies.
In another query, trying to exert your presumption, you have twisted my question by putting your own presumption of an employee not interested in being with your company. Where did I mention the employee was not interested in being your employee? This shows a reliance on presumptions rather than facts. Please re-read my last response, especially regarding your claim about not taking any action or entering data for the salary of absent employees. If you have practiced the solution offered by Balaji and you, provide me with complete particulars of the employees you treated as non-employees without following prescribed formalities for their formal exit from your organization.
Regarding the issue of employees' hatred, you seem to focus only on those employees not officially on your rolls. I suggest conducting an independent survey within your organization to gauge how much respect your HR department enjoys among all employees. It may reveal further insights into any drawbacks in your HR practices.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
With reference to your comment on the 2nd paragraph, I am of the view that you jumped to a conclusion without referring to the whole matter. You may refer to my posting on 25th Oct for clarity. I think you need to be a little bit more flexible in your approach. While respecting your age and experience, I would like to reiterate my stance that no corporates/organizations, as of now, would be willing to invest resources in non-productive activities, like the one you have been referring to and recommending throughout – even if one may brand it as the cause of aggravating problems in employee-employer conflicts and subsequent repercussions.
Furthermore, it seems that there is a need to change the 'think' process as it is very old and will not hold good in the current scenario. Just to quote an example, nobody is using C or C++ now for programming but has progressed with .NET or similar. There are many more examples to quote. For survival, one needs to adopt change. Change is imperative – not only in technology but in attitude, behavior, and approach of an individual too. To face the cutthroat competition and to achieve the business goals, employers are always looking/experimenting with new things, and in relation to Human resources, they expect that HR professionals need to be totally in line with the business requirements.
As such, only in the name of maintaining industrial relations, I don't think that issues like the one which is the subject matter of the entire discussion will create an employee-employer conflict leading to industrial unrest.
By the way, thank you for the time you are spending to educate on legal/IR aspects, but I am sorry to say that it is not in line with the new HR concept. Have a nice day, and I am not going to respond any further on the subject matter.
From India, Jaipur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
With reference to your comment on the 2nd paragraph, I am of the view that you jumped to a conclusion without referring to the whole matter. You may refer to my posting on 25th Oct for clarity. I think you need to be a little bit more flexible in your approach. While respecting your age and experience, I would like to reiterate my stance that no corporates/organizations, as of now, would be willing to invest resources in non-productive activities, like the one you have been referring to and recommending throughout – even if one may brand it as the cause of aggravating problems in employee-employer conflicts and subsequent repercussions.
Furthermore, it seems that there is a need to change the 'think' process as it is very old and will not hold good in the current scenario. Just to quote an example, nobody is using C or C++ now for programming but has progressed with .NET or similar. There are many more examples to quote. For survival, one needs to adopt change. Change is imperative – not only in technology but in attitude, behavior, and approach of an individual too. To face the cutthroat competition and to achieve the business goals, employers are always looking/experimenting with new things, and in relation to Human resources, they expect that HR professionals need to be totally in line with the business requirements.
As such, only in the name of maintaining industrial relations, I don't think that issues like the one which is the subject matter of the entire discussion will create an employee-employer conflict leading to industrial unrest.
By the way, thank you for the time you are spending to educate on legal/IR aspects, but I am sorry to say that it is not in line with the new HR concept. Have a nice day, and I am not going to respond any further on the subject matter.
From India, Jaipur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Gopal,
Thanks for your comments. However, your pointless reply to my comments shows that you are still adopting a defensive mechanism, which contradicts your own earlier views. By doing this, you are exposing more and more of your wrong and anti-employee policies.
I have not jumped to any conclusions. To arrive at a conclusion after proper analysis, I clearly suggested investigating the reason for the employee's absence. In contrast, you jumped to the conclusion that the employee was unwilling to work in the company without even trying to understand the reason behind their absence. Your friend tried to find out the cause of an employee's absence in his organization and could analyze the situation, but you failed to learn any lesson from him.
It is surprising that there were six paragraphs in my comments, yet you only offered your comments on the second paragraph. This raises the question: why did your response specifically target only the second paragraph of my comments? Why not address all six paragraphs? This suggests that you have no argument against the other five paragraphs and you agree with 83% of the points I raised. Even regarding the second paragraph of my comments (17% only), your response contradicts your earlier stance where you stated that it is the prime responsibility of every HR professional to conduct a root cause analysis to provide the best solution to the problem. However, you still do not want to engage in a root cause analysis by obtaining a response from the employee, nor do you want to spend even a few minutes determining whether the employee is willing to serve your company. I will repeat the contents of the second paragraph of my earlier comments here to refresh your memory:
"In fact, it is not the management, but it is the individual HR professional who doesn’t like to spend even a few minutes at the very initial stage to find out the root cause as against his own presumptions."
Your own post from 25th October 2010 indicates that when your friend contacted the absent employee, he discovered a defective and deceptive HR policy, as the management did not fulfill what was promised to the employee. On one hand, you advocate analyzing the situation, yet on the other hand, you are reluctant to reach out to the employee to understand their viewpoint on their absence. This contradiction undermines your earlier advocacy for analyzing the root cause.
You mentioned a "new concept of HR." What is this new concept, and which scholar or researcher has proposed it? I would like to study this "new concept." Does it imply abandoning essential tasks to make the recruitment process merely informal in order to accommodate the whims of an individual HR professional who avoids fulfilling their responsibilities either under the guise of management's desires or this "new concept"?
For your information, I challenge the theoretical ideas of some of the world's top 20 Management Gurus through Harvard Business Review, Harvard Business Publishing of Harvard University, Wharton University, BNET, etc. While some acknowledge their shortcomings, others try to delete my comments out of fear that it may harm their reputation. At one point, Harvard University, one of the world's most renowned universities, had to reinstate my comments when they realized that removing them would damage the university's reputation. I also serve as an Executive Member of McKinsey & Co. for McKinsey Quarterly and Aberdeen, two of the world's renowned management consultancy companies. I have not encountered any such "new concept" that you are attempting to promote. I am certain that if you had the ability to moderate or delete comments on this forum, you would also try to delete mine.
You attempted to teach me about the need to be flexible in my approach. When I suggested a flexible approach to the problem, you, on the contrary, displayed inflexibility by persisting in the HR professional's tendency to shirk work. By urging me to be a bit more flexible, did you mean that I should refrain from criticizing your unethical and inflexible approach?
Your assertion that no corporation or organization is willing to invest resources in non-productive activities is merely a facade. Instead of rectifying your impractical and irrational approach to business activities, you are engaging in a non-productive activity by wasting time defending your flawed and unethical policies. Therefore, you or your organization are indeed investing in non-productive activities. Conversely, no corporation or organization would want its HR professional to neglect essential processes to efficiently resolve issues and prevent future problems, as you suggested in the case mentioned in the thread.
In your frantic attempt to defend your flawed policy, you cited a flawed example: "nobody is using C or C++ now for programming but progressed with .net or similar." This assertion is profoundly mistaken. The fact that you are not using something does not mean it has been universally discarded. .Net was available even when 'C' was developed in 1979 and improved further as 'C++' in 1983. Both 'C' and 'C++' are still taught and widely used in the software industry. C++ is one of the most popular programming languages ever created, with applications in systems software, application software, device drivers, embedded software, high-performance server and client applications, and entertainment software such as video games. C++ has significantly influenced other popular programming languages, particularly C# and Java. Therefore, .Net would not be as effective without C++ until it is replaced by another innovative software.
You mention the need for change in technology, attitude, behavior, and approach of individuals. However, change does not mean neglecting essential processes. Change requires establishing and completing certain processes. While you can simplify a process in accordance with the law of the land, you should not neglect it entirely. It is essential to understand the change process fully.
Employers may constantly seek and experiment with new approaches, but as an employee of an organization, you should not neglect your duties and responsibilities in the name of your employer or the pursuit of new things. Ignoring a process is not a novel concept; it is an old tactic used by employees to avoid their duties and responsibilities.
Feel free to share your comments if you still have any doubts about avoiding exposure by yourself.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks for your comments. However, your pointless reply to my comments shows that you are still adopting a defensive mechanism, which contradicts your own earlier views. By doing this, you are exposing more and more of your wrong and anti-employee policies.
I have not jumped to any conclusions. To arrive at a conclusion after proper analysis, I clearly suggested investigating the reason for the employee's absence. In contrast, you jumped to the conclusion that the employee was unwilling to work in the company without even trying to understand the reason behind their absence. Your friend tried to find out the cause of an employee's absence in his organization and could analyze the situation, but you failed to learn any lesson from him.
It is surprising that there were six paragraphs in my comments, yet you only offered your comments on the second paragraph. This raises the question: why did your response specifically target only the second paragraph of my comments? Why not address all six paragraphs? This suggests that you have no argument against the other five paragraphs and you agree with 83% of the points I raised. Even regarding the second paragraph of my comments (17% only), your response contradicts your earlier stance where you stated that it is the prime responsibility of every HR professional to conduct a root cause analysis to provide the best solution to the problem. However, you still do not want to engage in a root cause analysis by obtaining a response from the employee, nor do you want to spend even a few minutes determining whether the employee is willing to serve your company. I will repeat the contents of the second paragraph of my earlier comments here to refresh your memory:
"In fact, it is not the management, but it is the individual HR professional who doesn’t like to spend even a few minutes at the very initial stage to find out the root cause as against his own presumptions."
Your own post from 25th October 2010 indicates that when your friend contacted the absent employee, he discovered a defective and deceptive HR policy, as the management did not fulfill what was promised to the employee. On one hand, you advocate analyzing the situation, yet on the other hand, you are reluctant to reach out to the employee to understand their viewpoint on their absence. This contradiction undermines your earlier advocacy for analyzing the root cause.
You mentioned a "new concept of HR." What is this new concept, and which scholar or researcher has proposed it? I would like to study this "new concept." Does it imply abandoning essential tasks to make the recruitment process merely informal in order to accommodate the whims of an individual HR professional who avoids fulfilling their responsibilities either under the guise of management's desires or this "new concept"?
For your information, I challenge the theoretical ideas of some of the world's top 20 Management Gurus through Harvard Business Review, Harvard Business Publishing of Harvard University, Wharton University, BNET, etc. While some acknowledge their shortcomings, others try to delete my comments out of fear that it may harm their reputation. At one point, Harvard University, one of the world's most renowned universities, had to reinstate my comments when they realized that removing them would damage the university's reputation. I also serve as an Executive Member of McKinsey & Co. for McKinsey Quarterly and Aberdeen, two of the world's renowned management consultancy companies. I have not encountered any such "new concept" that you are attempting to promote. I am certain that if you had the ability to moderate or delete comments on this forum, you would also try to delete mine.
You attempted to teach me about the need to be flexible in my approach. When I suggested a flexible approach to the problem, you, on the contrary, displayed inflexibility by persisting in the HR professional's tendency to shirk work. By urging me to be a bit more flexible, did you mean that I should refrain from criticizing your unethical and inflexible approach?
Your assertion that no corporation or organization is willing to invest resources in non-productive activities is merely a facade. Instead of rectifying your impractical and irrational approach to business activities, you are engaging in a non-productive activity by wasting time defending your flawed and unethical policies. Therefore, you or your organization are indeed investing in non-productive activities. Conversely, no corporation or organization would want its HR professional to neglect essential processes to efficiently resolve issues and prevent future problems, as you suggested in the case mentioned in the thread.
In your frantic attempt to defend your flawed policy, you cited a flawed example: "nobody is using C or C++ now for programming but progressed with .net or similar." This assertion is profoundly mistaken. The fact that you are not using something does not mean it has been universally discarded. .Net was available even when 'C' was developed in 1979 and improved further as 'C++' in 1983. Both 'C' and 'C++' are still taught and widely used in the software industry. C++ is one of the most popular programming languages ever created, with applications in systems software, application software, device drivers, embedded software, high-performance server and client applications, and entertainment software such as video games. C++ has significantly influenced other popular programming languages, particularly C# and Java. Therefore, .Net would not be as effective without C++ until it is replaced by another innovative software.
You mention the need for change in technology, attitude, behavior, and approach of individuals. However, change does not mean neglecting essential processes. Change requires establishing and completing certain processes. While you can simplify a process in accordance with the law of the land, you should not neglect it entirely. It is essential to understand the change process fully.
Employers may constantly seek and experiment with new approaches, but as an employee of an organization, you should not neglect your duties and responsibilities in the name of your employer or the pursuit of new things. Ignoring a process is not a novel concept; it is an old tactic used by employees to avoid their duties and responsibilities.
Feel free to share your comments if you still have any doubts about avoiding exposure by yourself.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.