I agree with you, this should be the case, but in family companies that are not managed professionally there is often an overlap in authority where the manager is the son of the business owner, so he feels he has more authority to fire employees.The manager cannot just fire a staff without due process even if the case is administrative. The manager must write the business owner of the proper sanction as per his approval after a thorough deliberations.
Definitely the owner of the business should know the reason behind the layoff.What are the limits of powers that you would accord the manager of your business?
Would he or she have the right to fire a staff according to his own discretion or you want that to pass through you as the business owner?
That's right the business owner must be aware and be sure that the offense committed is a very bad one that warrants a sackDefinitely the owner of the business should know the reason behind the layoff.
There should always be a proper communication between the manager and the owner of the company.That's right the business owner must be aware and be sure that the offense committed is a very bad one that warrants a sack
In certain companies this is not done, even a manager could have the power of a business owner and could fire anyone without warnings, in some companies what you say is applied, this is the saddest part.Whether the company has HRD, whatever the decision, managers and business owners cannot fire directly without the intermediary of the HRD department, because the HRD department will determine the wages and severance pay that workers will receive before leaving the office.
If that happened to me, I would broadcast it in the form of a video on various social media so that it went viral, and it would be arbitrary for the manager to act without rules. If necessary, I will complain to the labor department.In certain companies this is not done, even a manager could have the power of a business owner and could fire anyone without warnings, in some companies what you say is applied, this is the saddest part.
Yes, even at that the owner must be on ground to issue the final sack than leaving it at the hands of the msnagerThere should always be a proper communication between the manager and the owner of the company.
Yes, even at that the owner must be on ground to issue the final sack than leaving it at the hands of the msnagerThere should always be a proper communication between the manager and the owner of the company.
If the owner of company is always absent the manager will cherish from this absence to its favor and do bad actions in his time of absence to exercice force on employees that is why being present is crucial to determine role for each one either manager.Yes, even at that the owner must be on ground to issue the final sack than leaving it at the hands of the msnager
Post automatically merged:
Yes, even at that the owner must be on ground to issue the final sack than leaving it at the hands of the msnager
But I don't even think it is ethical to leave some duties to a manager. They can abuse such powers and even run down the businessIf the owner of company is always absent the manager will cherish from this absence to its favor and do bad actions in his time of absence to exercice force on employees that is why being present is crucial to determine role for each one either manager.
That what happens most of time this over trust to the manager because it is a responsibility to leave some duties to him or her that shows you a picture and during your absence another behavior.But I don't even think it is ethical to leave some duties to a manager. They can abuse such powers and even run down the business
That's right during the absence of a business owner another behavior is exhibited. So sich duty should not be left to themThat what happens most of time this over trust to the manager because it is a responsibility to leave some duties to him or her that shows you a picture and during your absence another behavior.