I'm not sure what you mean the sacking has to be negotiated? In most cases the business decides(for whatever reason) that they no longer want the employee to work for them.It could be gross misconduct and instant dismissal,or a series of misdemeanours that have resulted in dismissal... Very little negotiation involved,a bit of mitigation thrown over the table as a plea of mercy for the condemned individual,a 5 minute recess and the same outcome!!
I think we've got crossed lines here and I've probably misunderstood what type of business you're referring to In my work world there are no negotiations or financial payouts for a sacking...It's "Clear your locker and security will walk you off the premises")
I worked on rolling fixed term contracts most of my working life until 2021, from 3-24 months, and if you're sacked/let go, you're paid up for the rest of your contract, unless it's for gross misconduct - bringing alcohol/drugs with, failing a blood test, fighting, sexual assault, sabotage etc. You can get lawyered up and fight the accusations, but then get black-listed by the niche employment agencies and have next to no chance of working again, apart from Equatorial Guinea. All in the past now for me, I'm self employed since Easter and wouldn't mind sacking myself sometimes.
Aye, that's the ****ty end of the stick. Unless it's for gross misconduct I wouldn't be surprised if that practice is just illegal but no-one ever challenges it, it's getting into employment law territory which most folk prefer to avoid.
And if you're hired and fire him,don't forget that he hired me prior to hiring you and I'll then sack you
Good Employment Law advice is one of the most difficult things to lay your hands on nowadays.A very good friend of mine was an employment expert and tribunal representative up in my Local area(Gavin Booth,The Law At Work)...Sadly he passed away suddenly 3 years ago due to a heart attack. The bloke knew everything about Employment Law and his success rate was phenomenal at the tribunals.Sadly he hasn't been replaced up here and most of the legal firms up my way that claim to be well versed in Employment Law, cant,won't or don't give representation any more because they normally went to him for advice....
As the next post says,they're still there. I was in unions for the vast majority of my working life,as a member,a steward and a convener.The men are the Union,they're the strength,the backbone,the balls.Any weakness in that is exploited to the full by today's clandestine management techniques...I have also seen conveners softened up with gifts,promotions etc in exchange for a peaceful,less aggressive or volatile workforce. I gave up paying my dues some 15 years ago,I have no regrets on that front.
Managers get a crap deal in the sense that there aren't enough jobs to go around, and when they do get a job it's always them that gets the blame when it goes wrong, they often end up with a negative reputation as a result and have a harder time getting subsequent jobs, even though in many cases it's the conditions they're forced to work under which are to blame. The flipside is that like with players, clubs are happy to give them multi-year contracts even though they know that they rarely actually fulfill them, and that means they usually get paid off or continue to be paid for the remainder of their contract after being sacked. This is no more and no less than the terms that the clubs sign up to when they give out the contracts. I would say the crazy thing is that clubs are so happy to keep doing it, and keep sacking managers as soon as something goes wrong. Clearly we are a particularly extreme case.
Players are assets that clubs can make money on, managers rarely make a club money. Sacking an "asset" that can make you money is very different ( and stupid ) to sacking an "asset" that won't in 80% of cases Managers and coaches reputations within the game are sometimes completely different from what's out in the public due to the fact most within the game will know about said conditions way more then your average member of the public and don't actually blame the manager like the public eye does.
They're the same in that if you give someone an x year deal then terminate it early you're liable for it, otherwise it's not an x year deal. You should chill out, stop getting personal it's bad for you. But then a **** is a **** after all.
So why don't they need to pay anything for breaking the x year contract if they leave to move to another club?
Because they're earning what they couldn't expect earn if still in post. And Acun basically said so when Walter was sacked. Obviously there would be negotiations surrounding whether we pay a partial amount if the new job doesn't match the value of the current contract.
