Honest question -- what should happen to poor performing people? They should have less money, less food, be homeless or what? Should they be more stressed and as a result somehow perform better?
On one hand I don't like to deal with results of bad craftsmanship, on the other hand I don't desire of the suffering of others.
The thing is real, but so are the people.
Not a snark or a gotcha, I'm a union member and recognise this thing at work.
> Honest question -- what should happen to poor performing people?
The union should help them find roles they can be successful in. It should offer them more specialized training, mentorship programs, and other ways to help build up their skills. If they refuse to take any of these seriously, they should be fired. To me, that's the difference between poor performing and intentional laziness.
In my experience most poor performers just arent putting the effort in. They should be made to understand that low effort compared to peers will lead to less money, yes. If theyre genuinely unable to perform the duties they should do something else/
Genuinely poor performers are so toxic. They might not recognize their poor performance and suck up infinite amounts of support for no improvement. They might be ultra-aware of their game and manipulate the institution in mind-boggling ways to protect their graft. You have to get these folks out ASAP.
Of course, they could also be unrealized potential just waiting for someone to believe in them and mentor them to greatness. If you drop them too quickly you miss out on wonderful, loyal, capable people.
The trick is being able to tell the difference quickly, make the best choice you can, and move on.
There should be disincentives for poor performance, options to improve performance (training, counseling, etc.) and incentives for good performance (better raises, perks, etc.) to incentivize good employees.
