29 minutes ago, Don Mega said:

Which part of "paid" in my post went over your head, or do you not know what the opposite without pay is ?

 

 

 

OK, if you want to be right I guess you can just add on to your post now knock yourself out!

But in your original post to me #17 " there is no mention of unlimited " which there is and you assume my remarks that it meant unlimited paid which isn't the case " exceed 30 days must present a Doctor note "  you are wrong here because it states after 3 days!

 

We can go on that is your choice but I won't be using the word " tangent " to your responses. In the end the moderator will get tired and delete the Thread  that will be your doing not mines so before that happens I'm jumping ship captain crunch.

 

54 minutes ago, thailand49 said:

OK, if you want to be right I guess you can just add on to your post now knock yourself out!

But in your original post to me #17 " there is no mention of unlimited " which there is and you assume my remarks that it meant unlimited paid which isn't the case " exceed 30 days must present a Doctor note "  you are wrong here because it states after 3 days!

 

We can go on that is your choice but I won't be using the word " tangent " to your responses. In the end the moderator will get tired and delete the Thread  that will be your doing not mines so before that happens I'm jumping ship captain crunch.

What on earth are you dribbling on about.... arguing for the sake of arguing has you now on my ignore list.

 

Goodbye.

Don't know much about employing staff in this country, but seems the odds are stacked in their favor 

 

Presumably the initial trial period makes it easy to sack a potential employee if not satisfactory.

 

To avoid what has happened to the OP, where the employee was great during the trial period but once his employment has been confirmed started to take the p*** with the intention of getting sacked and claiming big money, why not just tell him that he was not satisfactory during the trial but if willing can start the trial period again, and show he can be better.

 

Presumably you can have as many trial periods as it takes to find out if the employee is good and really wants the job or just a P*** taker that you would not want working for you anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Don Mega said:

What on earth are you dribbling on about.... arguing for the sake of arguing has you now on my ignore list.

 

Goodbye.

What took so long?  A man child who started the arguing with his " 30 days paid " sticking with it driving the conversation out of the range of the original question ask by the poster which he was looking for a solution to an employee maybe abusing the sick policy which I believe was given by me yet you are so anal you are stuck on the 30 days and continue to argue with it. I guess if you were running a business you would bend over and take it with a read hot poker for unlimited 30 day of pay that is clearly your solution.???????? thank god I'm on your ignore list.

 

How does it feel when your conversation is taken out of context, the table is turned isn't it frustrating?  Yes ignore Goodbye!

Edited September 18, 20205 yr by thailand49

On 9/17/2020 at 5:01 PM, blackcab said:

 

Yes, the employee would take you to Labour Court and easily win their claim if you did that. It's quite a process to terminate an employee for a valid reason and not have to pay them severance.

 

I terminated an employee after numerous documented verbal and written warnings and some really atrocious behaviour on their part. The employee took the company to Labour Court and won. My mistake cost the company well over 100,000 baht.

What was your mistake if you're willing to share? What's the best way to let someone go and not face monetary penalties?

My mistake was that I didn't give the employee 3 written warnings for exactly the same reason within a rolling 12 month period.

 

From memory the employee had 5 or 6 very well documented written warnings for several different reasons (swearing at line managers, buying vastly overpriced goods from an unauthorized supplier, lateness, unauthorised absence, etc), and the employee accepted all of these warnings.

 

However the fact that there was not 3 of the same offence meant that the Labour Court found against the company.

 

Of course a lot of companies would not even go this route. They would shame the employee in front of their colleagues so that the employee lost a huge amount of face, then terminate them without severance after they didn't show up for 3 consecutive days without a valid reason.