# Highly skilled, but....



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

A hypothetical scenario: You own a company with 3 or more employees and you have the opportunity to hire a highly skilled individual. Within a day or two, it's obvious that despite the individuals skills, the other thing he's highly skilled at is causing problems with your other employees to the point where it affects their attitudes and/or production on an ongoing basis.

Simple question - Do you keep him or let him go?


----------



## VanDamme (Feb 13, 2010)

....


----------



## Paradigmzz (May 5, 2010)

toss him on his a$$. Anthing that creates animosity, resentment and disrupts my peace of mind and work environment has got to go. 

He may have skills but if he distrupts your crew this much, it will only be a matter of time until he gets under your skin too. I love my work too much to have someone piss in my coffee or the coffee of those who work for me.


----------



## bikerboy (Sep 16, 2007)

If a conversation/discussion of the problems does not affect a quick change, fire him.


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

Been there done that.You MUST fire him! 

If other employees see him getting away this it undermines your authority and respect. Customers will soon pick up on this as well.

Things will get worse,never better in these situations.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

Attitude is the first trait to base hiring or firing on.


----------



## PatsPainting (Mar 4, 2010)

I would fire the 3 original employees and keep the new guy

Pat


----------



## WisePainter (Dec 27, 2008)

PatsPainting said:


> I would fire the 3 original employees and keep the new guy
> 
> Pat



Hiring an outsider is always tough for the old guard. 
If this individual is far more skilled than the crew you already have, you'll need to place them in management above the rest and not among them.
People REALLY hate that, but whatever it's your company.
I've been hired in as Foreman over guys who assumed they were gonna get the position, yeah, they did EVERYTHING they coud to sabotage my jobs.
They worked like pissy children, one guy even went home instead of following me to a job.

They (original players) need to either expand their knowledge and move up or accept their position in the food chain and shut it...there's a new Sheriff in town.


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

If the point of hiring him as a crew member was to increase production, but instead he's actually decreasing production due to his less then desirable behavior, a conversation with him is in order. He should at least have the chance to explain his side of the story with the owner.

Some times fitting in is difficult for people who are talented, but not necessarily as socially adept as a team that has been together for awhile.

If he has any sense at all, and understands company policies and boundaries, he will comply, and most likely become your best asset.

If not, let him go.


----------



## dvp (Jun 21, 2010)

now you see why he was looking for a job. bad attitude is impossible to fix. seen this before and it will only get worse. can wreck your whole company. if you have any problems with an employee in the first 2 weeks get rid of him. had to learn this lesson the hard way. just my opinion.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

CApainter said:


> Some times fitting in is difficult for people who are talented, but not necessarily as socially adept as a team that has been together for awhile.
> 
> If he has any sense at all, and understands company policies and boundaries, he will comply, and most likely become your best asset.


This can also be true in many situations, like a new member on the forum, if they don't fit in, should we just ban them?

If I thought the attitude could be "adjusted" and harmony achieved, I'd make the effort. Rob would just can him.


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

RCP said:


> This can also be true in many situations, like a new member on the forum, if they don't fit in, should we just ban them?
> 
> If I thought the attitude could be "adjusted" and harmony achieved, I'd make the effort. Rob would just can him.


It's human nature to be protective of oneself. Whether it's your integrity you're defending, or your knowledge and reputation. 

As a newbee, you're are always being tested, no matter what level you enter at.


----------



## WisePainter (Dec 27, 2008)

1 highly skilled worker = 3 average workers imho.

fill your crew with ALL highly skilled workers. Get ready to pay $15+ hr. though...


----------



## WisePainter (Dec 27, 2008)

CApainter said:


> It's human nature to be protective of oneself. Whether it's your integrity you're defending, or your knowledge and reputation.
> 
> As a newbee, you're are always being tested, no matter what level you enter at.


As that Foreman, I endured far more crap than I should have. I bailed after 7 months of b.s. to greener less stressful pastures.
Highly skilled painters shouldn't have to endure average workers.


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

The measure is when, after a period of time, it's obvious to the others that a person has no intentions of contributing to the team's common goals, that the person becomes useless, and in the way of progress.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

CApainter said:


> The measure is when, after a period of time, it's obvious to the others that a person has no intentions of contributing to the team's common goals, that the person becomes useless, and in the way of progress.


:yes::yes:


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

WisePainter said:


> As that Foreman, I endured far more crap than I should have. I bailed after 7 months of b.s. to greener less stressful pastures.
> Highly skilled painters shouldn't have to endure average workers.


The difference of being hired as low level management, verses rank and file, is the amount of compensation you get for taking crap.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Is he a threat to them?


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

Okay, to clarify a bit more: The employees that you have at this time are as highly skilled as the person causing the problems. Don't make this deeper than what it is.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Well I'm not sure then. More common is the highly skilled guy causes friction with the guys who master milking the clock.


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

Wolfgang said:


> Okay, to clarify a bit more: The employees that you have at this time are as highly skilled as the person causing the problems. Don't make this deeper than what it is.


Then it come down to what's most important to your business at it's current stage.

1. To have a work place that emphasizes camaraderie, and social acceptance amongst employees

2. To have a productive business that has to compete in tough economic times despite a few ruffled feathers amongst the troops.


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

CApainter said:


> Then it come down to what's most important to your business at it's current stage.
> 
> 1. To have a work place that emphasizes camaraderie, and social acceptance amongst employees
> 
> 2. To have a productive business that has to compete in tough economic times despite a few ruffled feathers amongst the troops.


You can't have all of #1 and the first part of #2 - leaving out "despite a few ruffled etc.?


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

Wolfgang said:


> You can't have all of #1 and the first part of #2 - leaving out "despite a few ruffled etc.?


I think in an ideal situation you can. Then again, when is it ever an ideal situation.


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

Seriously, I made the question as simple as I could. We have business owners, past business owners, members who have been in supervisory positions, and Mods who are business owners, and only 11 different established members can answer this?


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

It seems to me that the discussion is about how much patience, and tolerance an employer is supposed to have.

As an employer Wolfgang, do you think a talented employee is more valuable in a slow economy, and should be tolerated more then one in a boom economy? and why? I don't know the answer to this. Just asking.


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

CA, you're over-analyzing this whole thing. Don't add more to the question than what is there. It isn't a pass/fail exam. I understand completely where you're coming from on some of your replies as I've been known to do this exact thing myself. I appreciate your answers and contributions to the thread.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

I think it will be one for you to answer because you are there and you can have a gut feel about this that we can't, but really anytime you hire a guy he will have a hard time working into the group because the others will feel a threat.
The best thing a new guy can do is try to fit in, it is up to him to do this because the others are always going to act a certain way.


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

johnpaint said:


> I think it will be one for you to answer because you are there and you can have a gut feel about this that we can't, but really anytime you hire a guy he will have a hard time working into the group because the others will feel a threat.
> The best thing a new guy can do is try to fit in, it is up to him to do this because the others are always going to act a certain way.


 
See post #26.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

Wolfgang said:


> See post #26.


Well in that case there is really not enough information to make any decision at all Wolf. This will be one of having to be there kind of thing.If you want us to make a decision then if will most likely be a wrong decision.lol


----------



## Last Craftsman (Dec 5, 2008)

Wolfgang said:


> A hypothetical scenario: You own a company with 3 or more employees and you have the opportunity to hire a highly skilled individual. Within a day or two, it's obvious that despite the individuals skills, the other thing he's highly skilled at is causing problems with your other employees to the point where it affects their attitudes and/or production on an ongoing basis.
> 
> Simple question - Do you keep him or let him go?


Is this a metaphor?


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

What if she is a girl and looks hot, do you let her go then?lol


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

Last Craftsman said:


> Is this a metaphor?


Fer chrissakes....it's a question. Keep or Fire. Two possible answers...choose one. Sigh.............:blink:


----------



## WisePainter (Dec 27, 2008)

Wolfgang said:


> Fer chrissakes....it's a question. Keep or Fire. Two possible answers...choose one. Sigh.............:blink:



ffs wolf..."cranky old guy" much?

knock off the ambiguous question b.s. what exactly is the point of this exercise anyways?


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Keep. Good skills is hard to find. I think things might work out after the hi im john who the hell are u is over with.


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

WisePainter said:


> ffs wolf..."cranky old guy" much?
> 
> >>>>>Not cranky....old maybe, but not cranky.
> 
> knock off the ambiguous question b.s. what exactly is the point of this exercise anyways?


>>>>>Not an ambiguous, (pretty big word for a painter ain't it? LOL) question. There are meds available for paranoia symptoms.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

I have have to error on the side of if we made more money with him or not.


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

Wolfgang, I do find your OP interesting, as it relates to the employer/employee relationship. A subject I am very interested in. I re-read it just to make certain I was understanding your hypothetical situation. 

What provoked my analysis of the situation, is the same thing that provokes others when someone posts a reply that suggests a tough stance is the best way to "nip it in the bud" This may not always be the appropriate action.

It's kind of like the reactionary response to Klaw's situation regarding the retrieval of monies owed to him by a customer. I was called ridiculous for my response, and rightly so. it was a knee jerk, tough guy response that really has no place in todays business environment.


----------



## Schmidt & Co. (Nov 6, 2008)

Wolfgang said:


> is causing problems with your other employees to the point where it affects their attitudes and/or production on an ongoing basis.


Fire him, and fire fast. A man like that can bring a whole company down. If he is affecting the "attitude and production" of _the *rest of the company*, _get rid of him because everyone else will eventually leave and you will be left with _just_ the bad apple!


----------



## WisePainter (Dec 27, 2008)

Wolfgang said:


> >>>>>Not an ambiguous, (pretty big word for a painter ain't it? LOL) question. There are meds available for paranoia symptoms.


You seem surprised wolf...


I am far from the typical knuckle dragging painter, like most here I have many surprises up my sleeves that never see the light of day @ P.T.
:whistling2:

With the extra info added, I would give them 90 days (usual "honeymoon" period), if the person has not integrated with their peers, well then yes...buh bye.

I assumed the new hypothetical d00d was superior to his coworkers.


----------



## ewingpainting.net (Jun 2, 2008)

I had a situation a lil different than the op. I hired a foremen that was very tough. Had a crew of 5 walk in and tell me they were going to quit if I didn't replace their foremen, because he was to hard on them and called them names. I felt I needed to back up my foreman and didn't like the manner the crew confronted me. So I let the crew quit. A month later I had watch 32 employees either quit or got fired under that foreman. So I ended up letting him go. As it confirmed that he was a bit abusive. But dam that guy produced work, however I couldn't have him treating employees in the manner he was. Within a month we had 15 employee's returned.


----------



## Schmidt & Co. (Nov 6, 2008)

WisePainter said:


> With the extra info added, I would give them 90 days (usual "honeymoon" period), if the person has not integrated with their peers, well then yes...buh bye.


I hear ya Wise, and its a valid point. But _for me, _if its obvious its not going to work out after only a few days, I'm going to can him. The added bonus is I wont have to pay UI........


----------



## WisePainter (Dec 27, 2008)

Schmidt & Co. said:


> I hear ya Wise, and its a valid point. But _for me, _if its obvious its not going to work out after only a few days, I'm going to can him. The added bonus is I wont have to pay UI........



No 90 H.M. period?

Considering factors like:

Who were they at the last Co.?
How long have they been on the couch needing work?
Where are they from?
Allowing them time to "learn" a new system (yours).
How many years in the bucket, and transversely: possibly out of the bucket?
I am not able to read a person within a few days, they need time to adapt.

90 days validates my decision to cut them loose if necessary.

oops, we are overthinking again...lol.


----------



## Schmidt & Co. (Nov 6, 2008)

I'm just speeking from my _personal _experience Wise. One person with a bad attitude can affect the attitude and performance of the _rest of the company. _I don't care how good of a painter he is, IF, as Wolf said its a company of "three or more", he can't replace the rest of the employees if they walk.


----------



## bikerboy (Sep 16, 2007)

Wolfgang said:


> Seriously, I made the question as simple as I could. We have business owners, past business owners, members who have been in supervisory positions, and Mods who are business owners, and only 11 different established members can answer this?


Here's my Prima Dona story:

Hired a guy that could apply paint like there was no tomorrow. I'd leave the job to do an estimate or get more materials and he would start. Start telling the others what to do, how to do it.. Start telling them he was the money man and he wasn't paid enough for all the money he made me. Start telling everybody how much better he was then them.

Needless to say, he did not last long and everybody was happy when he was gone. 

In your scenerio, I'd can him because I'd rather have 3 productive content employees, then 4 miserable employees whose production and attitudes suffer.

It only takes one whiner to ruin everybody's day.


----------



## WisePainter (Dec 27, 2008)

Schmidt & Co. said:


> I'm just speeking from my _personal _experience Wise. One person with a bad attitude can affect the attitude and performance of the _rest of the company. _I don't care how good of a painter he is, IF, as Wolf said its a company of "three or more", he can't replace the rest of the employees if they walk.



I'm pickin' up what yer layin' down.

I'm actually the guy bikerboy describes, hence I am self employed.


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

WisePainter said:


> I'm pickin' up what yer layin' down.
> 
> I'm actually the guy bikerboy describes, hence I am self employed.


You took the thought right out of my head! When these type of employees are let go, they become the next competitor.


----------



## Schmidt & Co. (Nov 6, 2008)

WisePainter said:


> I'm pickin' up what yer layin' down.
> 
> I'm actually the guy bikerboy describes, hence I am self employed.


I hear ya man. Just enjoying the debate....... :yes:


----------



## WisePainter (Dec 27, 2008)

Schmidt & Co. said:


> I hear ya man. Just enjoying the debate....... :yes:




i assumed you were baiting me with your finger hovering over the ban button!!

:jester:


----------



## bikerboy (Sep 16, 2007)

CApainter said:


> You took the thought right out of my head! When these type of employees are let go, they become the next competitor.


 
I don't really believe that. If they could be on thier own in the first place they would. 

(failed business owners with an attitude looking for work is a whole other thread)


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

Schmidt & Co. said:


> I hear ya man. Just enjoying the debate....... :yes:


I've enjoyed this discussion as well. And I know more could be added but, I'm off to see Social Network. Have a good day folks. I'l check in with ya'll tonight


----------



## WisePainter (Dec 27, 2008)

bikerboy said:


> I don't really believe that. If they could be on thier own in the first place they would.
> 
> (failed business owners with an attitude looking for work is a whole other thread)



I banged around from company to company building my skillset and nerve to be my own man.
They may not leave to be the competition tomorrow, but someday...


----------



## Schmidt & Co. (Nov 6, 2008)

CApainter said:


> I've enjoyed this discussion as well. And I know more could be added but, I'm off to see Social Network. Have a good day folks. I'l check in with ya'll tonight


Enjoy! Want to see it myself, if I can find the time this weekend.


----------



## WisePainter (Dec 27, 2008)

CApainter said:


> I've enjoyed this discussion as well. And I know more could be added but, I'm off to see Social Network. Have a good day folks. I'l check in with ya'll tonight


the intrigue of going from nothing to infiltrating the daily lives of billions of humans...and making billions doing so.

only in America is it possible!

enjoy the movie!


----------



## bikerboy (Sep 16, 2007)

WisePainter said:


> I banged around from company to company building my skillset and nerve to be my own man.
> They may not leave to be the competition tomorrow, but someday...


That's possible and you are proof of it. But there are only so many wise painters. 

I should have said most won't succeed at it, but that's true for most start up business's anyway.


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

Wolfgang said:


> A hypothetical scenario: You own a company with 3 or more employees and you have the opportunity to hire a highly skilled individual. Within a day or two, it's obvious that despite the individuals skills, the other thing he's highly skilled at is causing problems with your other employees to the point where it affects their attitudes and/or production on an ongoing basis.
> 
> Simple question - Do you keep him or let him go?


You hired "Wise" didn't you???


----------



## bikerboy (Sep 16, 2007)

:w00t::lol::lol::clap:


Almost spit out my fruit punch.​


----------



## ewingpainting.net (Jun 2, 2008)

CApainter said:


> When these type of employees are let go, they become the next competitor.


I had this painter I let go, he was a foreman too. After working with him I've put him in a category I called "dirty painter". His whites always looked dirty, he smoked as he held a clip board watching employee's worked. The quality of the jobs were just below my standards. The crews respect for him declined to the point of giving a nick name "dog face". It was apparent that I needed too let him go. A month later he walked in the office wanting use to sign off for his experience. As it is required to get your lic. He tried to chase our work but was unsuccessful. Rather one builder used him to get free (kiss azz) work. Later he just became your average low ball repainter. He thought he was gonna take us out. :no:


----------



## WisePainter (Dec 27, 2008)

buttheads...

:thumbup:


----------



## PressurePros (May 6, 2007)

I have a different opinion than some. Highly skilled to me is responsible, on time, works when he has a head cold, and is willing to learn and fit in. I have management. Sometimes highly skilled people are hard to manage and rarely come down off their high horse long enough to be taught company policies. My best employees have come to me with no experience and a desire to grow. 

Each person has to be evaluated for their own merit.


----------



## Wallpaper Gypsy (Feb 22, 2010)

aaron61 said:


> Been there done that.You MUST fire him!
> 
> If other employees see him getting away this it undermines your authority and respect. Customers will soon pick up on this as well.
> 
> Things will get worse,never better in these situations.


That is the most arrogant and might I add ignorant attitude I've ever heard.
I think Wolfgang should watch the "The Dog Whisperer" a few times and realise that it's usually the owners problem when thing get chaotic. 

Highly skilled people should be independently contracted anyway.


----------



## TJ Paint (Jun 18, 2009)

WisePainter said:


> 1 highly skilled worker = 3 average workers imho.
> 
> fill your crew with ALL highly skilled workers. Get ready to *pay $15+ hr. *though...


----------



## NEPS.US (Feb 6, 2008)

Wolfgang said:


> A hypothetical scenario: You own a company with 3 or more employees and you have the opportunity to hire a highly skilled individual. Within a day or two, it's obvious that despite the individuals skills, the other thing he's highly skilled at is causing problems with your other employees to the point where it affects their attitudes and/or production on an ongoing basis.
> 
> Simple question - Do you keep him or let him go?





Wolfgang said:


> Okay, to clarify a bit more: The employees that you have at this time are as highly skilled as the person causing the problems. Don't make this deeper than what it is.


 
I would have to do a little more investigating to first see if my current employees feel threatened by having a new employee of equal talent. I would want to know if they are worried about being out produced, therefore exposing a flaw in their performance. If the problem solely lies with the new employee I would have to let him go. I too have had experience with one bad apple ruining the whole crew. 

I usually hire people on a probationary period of two weeks to evaluate their painting skills, people skills and personality. Sometimes certain people just cant work together. But I do like to rock the ship from time to time to keep guys on their toes. In this business I find that employees get comfortable and develop bad habits very easily.


----------



## NEPS.US (Feb 6, 2008)

Hire well, fire fast.


----------



## NEPS.US (Feb 6, 2008)

I think anyone responding should have at least provided 2000 hours to one employee in a calendar year before. And have had a _employee_ and not a sub.


----------



## PatsPainting (Mar 4, 2010)

NEPS.US said:


> I think anyone responding should have at least provided 2000 hours to one employee in a calendar year before. And have had a _employee_ and not a sub.



chit -that sucks. I'm out 


Pat


----------



## NEPS.US (Feb 6, 2008)

PatsPainting said:


> chit -that sucks. I'm out
> 
> 
> Pat


 
:laughing: ... I thought of you right after I hit post. LOL!


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

Wallpaper Gypsy said:


> That is the most arrogant and might I add ignorant attitude I've ever heard.
> I think Wolfgang should watch the "The Dog Whisperer" a few times and realise that it's usually the owners problem when thing get chaotic.
> *Not my company....the question was if it were "your" company...as in "your company - what would you do?" What is so hard about this? (And, I never equated my employees as dogs or my dogs as employees.)*
> Highly skilled people should be independently contracted anyway.


Not all highly skilled people want to be independent contractors.


----------



## KLaw (May 8, 2009)

Wolf- I'd like to respond but there is simply not enough information. If you could provide a few specific examples of how this ee was bringing folks down it would help. I know it's a hypothetical but maybe throw in a few hypothetical actions by this character.


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

I give.....sheesh. Read posts #1, #19, #26, and #32. And if it helps, the blue lettered part in #67.


----------



## KLaw (May 8, 2009)

Wolfgang said:


> I give.....sheesh. Read posts #1, #19, #26, and #32. And if it helps, the blue lettered part in #67.


I re-read those posts and I don't see any *specific examples* of the painter's *actions. *I guess what I am looking for is some examples like Wing and Biker posted. Those are specific. If their examples from their past experiences are examples for your scenario - say so. Then I can give my opinion. If there different then throw some examples out there. Thanks.


----------



## Capt-sheetrock (Feb 10, 2008)

This post is crazy,,, Its like "what came first, the chicken or the egg"

If your a creationist, your sure it was the chicken

If your an evolusionist, your sure it was the egg


----------



## daren (Jul 5, 2008)

Assuming that I was happy with the 3 original guys' performance I would fire the new guy and find someone else. Harmony in the crew is a must.


----------



## KLaw (May 8, 2009)

Wolfgang said:


> A hypothetical scenario: You own a company with 3 or more employees and you have the opportunity to hire a highly skilled individual. *Within a day or two, it's obvious that despite the individuals skills, the other thing he's highly skilled at is causing problems with your other employees to the point where it affects their attitudes and/or production on an ongoing basis. *This is the statement I need clarification on. Don’t get me wrong I think the OP is a good conversational piece. But, what are you basing the bold statement on (other employees opinions, personal observation, customer feedback, etc…) What specific actions (cussing on the job, rude to customer, smells like pot or alcohol, get's upset because your other three are slowing his production down, flirting with the wife, bad appearance, etc...) is he doing that is: *causing problems with your other employees to the point where it affects their attitudes and/or production on an ongoing basis? *It’s only been a day or 2. Has this individual been made aware of his specific actions that are causing troubles? I am not over thinking this. Just trying to get some background info prior to establishing an opinion. I don’t agree with some of the blanket statements that these types can’t and will never change. Sometimes a come to Jesus meeting identifying the issues and your expectations for the change and the results of not changing will change a person’s typical behavior.
> 
> 
> Simple question - Do you keep him or let him go?


If you can elaborate on my statement in red - I'll be more then happy to provide you feedback. Thanks.


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

Wallpaper Gypsy said:


> That is the most arrogant and might I add ignorant attitude I've ever heard.
> I think Wolfgang should watch the "The Dog Whisperer" a few times and realise that it's usually the owners problem when thing get chaotic.
> 
> Highly skilled people should be independently contracted anyway.


No this is the most ignorant statement I have ever read.

You're confusing arrogance with experience. I have probably hired and fired more guys in 1 year then I care to mention.That's not bragging.That's just what it takes to find a cohesive team. 

It takes a tremendous amount of psychology to bring the many different personalities together that it takes to make a paint company work. You have many different skill levels and alpha males that you have to make sure will blend well to make everything work.

Today I have 5 guys with optimal skills in different areas,carpentry,waterproofing,drywall,stucco.
As the Dog Whisperer says,These guys are all "calm assertive"
The other 5 are just great painters ($16 per hour)

Ignorance is lack of knowledge. I have plenty of knowledge on this subject my friend. Could you please tell us (honestly) how many employees do you have?:whistling2:


----------



## Tonyg (Dec 9, 2007)

The businesses I've had have always included a 30-90 day probation period where the new employee signs off on something similar to an employment agreement. This way they have documentation from the beginning that employment can and will be terminated for any reason if it doesn't work out. I would also have a form to give them to have something in writing.

Though I have always had the vehicle in place to get rid of someone I have never been quick on the fire button. I've always looked at it as I hired them to begin with and it was my responsibility to try to make it work either by letting them know where I stand and what will happen. Guys that hire and fire at the drop of a hat are expressing more ego than responsibility as an owner. This is someone's life and they should be given the opportunity to make changes. If they can't then NEPS said it best - hire well, fire fast.


----------



## NEPS.US (Feb 6, 2008)

Tonyg said:


> The businesses I've had have always included a 30-90 day probation period where the new employee signs off on something similar to an employment agreement. This way they have documentation from the beginning that employment can and will be terminated for any reason if it doesn't work out. I would also have a form to give them to have something in writing.
> 
> Though I have always had the vehicle in place to get rid of someone I have never been quick on the fire button. I've always looked at it as I hired them to begin with and it was my responsibility to try to make it work either by letting them know where I stand and what will happen. Guys that hire and fire at the drop of a hat are expressing more ego than responsibility as an owner. This is someone's life and they should be given the opportunity to make changes. If they can't then NEPS said it best - hire well, fire fast.


IMO if the employee does not possess the ability to be the employee for the postion they were hired for then it is not our responsibility to give them multiple chances. The biggest expense for a painting company is labor and labor burden. To make a mistake and keep the wrong employee around is very costly. I have compassion and probably give guys too many chances myself but they are always costly. As a business owner I owe it to the company, its other employees and clients to staff our projects with the best available help I can find.


----------



## Metro M & L (Jul 21, 2009)

You can teach a guy with a good attitude good technical skills with relative ease. 

You cannot teach a good attitude.

I define a good attitude for construction as -

Sober - no drug or alcohol problems or smoking

Tell em one time - people who care about their job only need to be told something once.

Come when I call - they have to be able to show up on time and work the hours dictated by the scope of work. Its the nature of this business to work when there's work.

Thinks - looks ahead, anticipates problems, points out quality solutions and works to protect the bottom line.


----------



## Capt-sheetrock (Feb 10, 2008)

TJ Paint said:


> , I'm concerned with anybody from the general public that may be reading in on this forum, Homeowners and business men and women, etc. Anybody that may at some point consider hiring a Paint Company.


 Do you really think that anyone that gets this far into this post is gonna hire any of us ????


----------



## NEPS.US (Feb 6, 2008)

Technical skills are only one aspect of the job.


----------



## Wallpaper Gypsy (Feb 22, 2010)

aaron61 said:


> No this is the most ignorant statement I have ever read.
> 
> You're confusing arrogance with experience. I have probably hired and fired more guys in 1 year then I care to mention.That's not bragging.That's just what it takes to find a cohesive team.
> 
> ...


 Are you kidding? What country do you think we live in Russia? Everyone here is an independent contractor. Just some not mentally. Some people find out the hard way... upon injury and when they have to deal with Worker's Comp- they find out that there isn't anybody in charge of what you do on a job but YOU!
Besides that, what really caught my attention is that, from what I've come to understand, this is an altruistic forum. Meaning the point is that: giving can raise the standard of the industry. What you did was give potentially life altering advice about a man you've never met. That's ignorance my friend.


About my business orientation. I'm a HANGER first. And yes painting and hanging are the same trade... WALLCOVERING. BOTH are facets of finish carpentry. 
The trade of wallcovering, pre immigration madness, was the most independent trade of all of them. A guilded trade and I'm not talking about the National Association of. Guilded in that it's independent- a term that was used by the masons in the guilded age that traveld around building Cathedrals. They were free masons. Independent contractors. The guild was the in the information and network. Incidentally, the same people founded this country.

There is no difference between having an employee or a contractor... they are both subject to agreement- I give you this for that.
I've been on a lot of big jobs that were near 100% independent contractors. Hell, get right down to it, union painters are independent, they have contract and rate.
So do your employees. 
I'm an independent- if I hire anyone, it's on a contract basis- no different than you only that they are trained and have a business mentality.
Seriously Mr. AAron- You shouldn't trash a man you know nothing about!
As far as my independence- I learned a long time ago that when I step on the job as the wallcovering contractor, I run a certain percentage of the job. 

As far as my painting goes, I contract independently for that too. The best contractor I know, who taught me a lot about things- has 50 painters working for him....but only two on his payroll.


----------



## TJ Paint (Jun 18, 2009)

I'm not offended at all. 

The concern in my post has to do with public relations, and wanting the painting trade to have a good reputation. This forum is open to the public. There's alot of complaints on this forum from us "professionals" that our trade isn't respected. 

Maybe there's things to do or not to do that would improve it.


----------



## Schmidt & Co. (Nov 6, 2008)

Wallpaper Gypsy said:


> The best contractor I know, who taught me a lot about things- has 50 painters working for him....but only two on his payroll.


I would think the IRS would have a problem with that? Why don't they?


----------



## Tonyg (Dec 9, 2007)

NEPS.US said:


> IMO if the employee does not possess the ability to be the employee for the postion they were hired for then it is not our responsibility to give them multiple chances. The biggest expense for a painting company is labor and labor burden. To make a mistake and keep the wrong employee around is very costly. I have compassion and probably give guys too many chances myself but they are always costly. As a business owner I owe it to the company, its other employees and clients to staff our projects with the best available help I can find.


I'm not saying don't fire them if they can't perform. I believe he said he was "highly skilled" so it is not that he wasn't able but only that there was conflict. I have terminated an employee for having an "abrasive personality" but also brought them in a week before hand and gave them a warning that it didn't matter how good their numbers were that if they were causing dissention they would be let go. 

The best advise I've ever heard was to hire someone that you actually like - someone you could spend 8hrs a day working next to rather than just skills. I've sat through interviews and ended up hiring someone that may have had less experience but had a great personality.


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

Wallpaper Gypsy said:


> Are you kidding? What country do you think we live in Russia? Everyone here is an independent contractor. Just some not mentally. Some people find out the hard way... upon injury and when they have to deal with Worker's Comp- they find out that there isn't anybody in charge of what you do on a job but YOU!
> Besides that, what really caught my attention is that, from what I've come to understand, this is an altruistic forum. Meaning the point is that: giving can raise the standard of the industry. What you did was give potentially life altering advice about a man you've never met. That's ignorance my friend.
> 
> 
> ...


What in the world are you talking about?????:blink:


----------



## TJ Paint (Jun 18, 2009)

Capt-sheetrock said:


> Do you really think that anyone that gets this far into this post is gonna hire any of us ????


I guess you're too close to the mountain to see it, and I'm back a little further.


----------



## Capt-sheetrock (Feb 10, 2008)

TJ Paint said:


> I'm not offended at all.
> 
> The concern in my post has to do with public relations, and wanting the painting trade to have a good reputation. This forum is open to the public. There's alot of complaints on this forum from us "professionals" that our trade isn't respected.
> 
> Maybe there's things to do or not to do that would improve it.


 I can see your point, but is a painting contractor that fires GOOD help just cause his other goons don't like em, gonna impress the general public any better than a little humor???

Trying to see your point, but I need a little help here !!

I think you are more upset about PC than reality


----------



## dvp (Jun 21, 2010)

The best advise I've ever heard was to hire someone that you actually like - someone you could spend 8hrs a day working next to rather than just skills. .[/QUOTE]

the best advice ive been given was to hire integrity over skills. wish i would have listened to it. would have saved myself alot of trouble and had a more productive buisiness in the long run.


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

I re-read the OP again and still concluded that unless the new employee was threatening the others with physical harm, or displaying aggressive behavior towards them, it's all conjecture, and requires further investigation in order to make an impartial decision.

BTW- The Social Network was a very good movie.

Also, if your into facebook, there's a keynote address from Mark Zuckerberg that describes social plugins, and personalized connectivity with the web.


----------



## TJ Paint (Jun 18, 2009)

as for the op the answer is simple. Just answer question: 

what arrangement helps you get closer to your long-term business goals?


----------



## ewingpainting.net (Jun 2, 2008)

Ever get back to the thread and you think "do I really want to read all this?" Next thread.


----------



## Last Craftsman (Dec 5, 2008)

Wolfgang said:


> Fer chrissakes....it's a question. Keep or Fire. Two possible answers...choose one. Sigh.............:blink:


I was just messing with you a little.

I will answer your question directly. 

Much more often than not:

*You should fire the individual.*

------------

But I do think there are a couple variables to consider.

I think some people on this thread have made a good point, that sometimes the reason why people have a problem with a highly skilled worker is because the people who are having the problem are threatened by the highly skilled worker/foreman, and THEY actually need to start striving higher and trying harder.

Sometimes just simply being very good at what you do, makes people hate you, even if you are being really nice to them, because they take your technical suggestions and technical advice as an insult, which is purely because of *their own* insecurity.

In that case, I think it would be foolhardy to fire someone who has the capacity to raise the bar for an entire crew, possibly even make some solid contributions/improvements to the current methods which are standard for the company, and raise the bar for the entire company.

So the golden question, how does one discern?

---------

First thing is, how familiar is the business owner with the actual crew? ( not the new foreman ).

If the business owner has direct experience working directly with the crew, ( in the bucket ), and is pleased with their work patterns and standards, and demeanor, then that is one indicator that would be a strike against the new foreman, and that there is something unreasonable about his expectations, delivery, attitude etc.

So I would think the next thing a prudent business owner would do, is to spend a day or two working with the new foreman and gauge for themselves what is the skill level, and general disposition of their new foreman.

Is the new foreman raising the bar? is the new foreman introducing innovation and productivity that are improvements over old methods? If so, could this simply be causing the crew to get disgruntled even if the new foreman is being very diplomatic in his delivery? because the sad truth of the matter is, most people have an aversion when someone tells them a better way to do something, even if they tell them very nicely, a lot of times, people's egos flare up, and they get all whiny and bitchy, just because someone is showing them something they didn't already know.

If that is the case, perhaps the crew needs to man up a bit, and stop being babies, and get over it, step up to the plate, and learn something new.

Now, hopefully the actual owner of the business won't also be afflicted by such foibles, and wont perceive being told more productive techniques by his new foreman as the foreman being abusive or cocky, or some other negative attribute.

But unfortunately my guess is at least half of painting contractors out there, would get their panties in a twist if they hire a new foreman who comes along and is regularly providing tangible demonstrations of more productive/efficient/effective methods than the methods the contractor has been doing for the last 20 years.

I gotta say, half of painting contractors, can't handle it.

Even if the new ideas mean they will make more money, and be more successful. Because most contractors are people, and most people actually put their pride and preservation of their ego above all else. Even at the cost of being less successful.

But in such an event, I _still_ think the answer is to fire the new foreman.

Because if the crew doesn't get it, and the business owner doesn't get it, then the bottom line is the new foreman is just not a good match for the company, and the company is not a good match for him.

In that scenario, the company would do better to fire the foreman, and keep moving at the pace they were, and at least everyone in the company is happy. And if they can still succeed, or succeed at a lower level and are content with that, then more power to them. That is where they are meant to be.

It takes all types. That company can still be effective at filling certain aspects of the market which need to be filled.

------------

However, *smart* business owners, will put aside their ego, and put aside their pride, recognize they have something very valuable in such an individual, and they will prioritize their net profit and strategic gain instead. And in that event, a smart business owner will tell their crew to smarten up, listen up, lighten up, and drop their egos, and *learn.*

Perhaps the business owner working with the foreman and the whole crew for a few days would help buffer the crew's sourness, because the business owner would be confirming, and backing up the new foreman.

That would set the tone, so that when the business owner left the jobsite, things would operate smoothly.

--------

One more possibility is if the new foreman is exceptionally skilled and exceptionally experienced, but he also truly is by collective standards, abusive and caustic, and uses his knowledge to try to belittle people, and needs to make himself feel important by tearing down others.

Obviously in that case, no matter how the good the painter is, the answer is to fire him, have zero regrets, and move on.

There are lots of necessary attributes other than skill which make an employee, and a company successful.

No matter how much skill an individual has, if they completely lack the other necessary attributes, then they will be useless to the company.


----------



## VanDamme (Feb 13, 2010)

Is that all you have to say LC? LOL!


----------



## CK_68847 (Apr 17, 2010)

Wolfgang said:


> A hypothetical scenario: You own a company with 3 or more employees and you have the opportunity to hire a highly skilled individual. Within a day or two, it's obvious that despite the individuals skills, the other thing he's highly skilled at is causing problems with your other employees to the point where it affects their attitudes and/or production on an ongoing basis.
> 
> Simple question - Do you keep him or let him go?


Fire him right away. If a painter sucks or isnt living up to what they are suppose to they are gone in two weeks. You can usually tell in a week or so if they have potential to be good. The other benefit of getting rid of them right away is you wont have any unemployment benefit issues or other things they might want to hose you over on if you get rid of them quick. The longer a guy stays on, the harder it is to get rid of them for various reasons.


----------



## Wallpaper Gypsy (Feb 22, 2010)

Schmidt & Co. said:


> I would think the IRS would have a problem with that? Why don't they?


Because they are all independent contractors. Certified by the state.
Jeez, All of you "owners" don't seem to realize that you are two things, a contractor for your own company, and b) a labor broker. You're not magnates!

If the "pack" doesn't like the guy, try giving him some piece work. That's the way to best efficiency anyway. And Aaron... 16 an hour is poverty level for a skilled painter. I should have clarified that I wasn't responding just to you. I don't how to quote more than one post. 

But business 101 here- Unless you are a General Contractor hired on behalf of a property owner, you ARE a SUB! Even when you've contracted house with a homeowner- in that case, the homeowner is the general contractor... you are a sub! 

At the end of the day, we're all independent. The reason that fits here is that all of these negative comments and fear of being hosed... it's called contracting for a reason! Contracts are how we protect ourselves. 
But I tell ya... it doesn't make sense to me at all to let the less able set the pace and "fire" a guy that you could probably benefit from. And worse is the big shotism of being an labor broker. I n my opinion, this country needs to do a lot less of that. We should ALL know the value of our investments and the worth of our labor. Therebye cutting out the broker.


----------



## dvp (Jun 21, 2010)

a top hand should be able to lead by example and bring every one else up to his level, not start fights with people and cause problems. next he'll prolly be arguing with you on how to do stuff and talking smack about you and your company behind your back, if hes not already. this is a common thing with people who been painting along time and dont have the nerve to start their own biz or the ability to keep a high paying job. anyone whose employed people consistently for years has seem this problem before, and you will see it again.


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

Wallpaper Gypsy said:


> Because they are all independent contractors. Certified by the state.
> Jeez, All of you "owners" don't seem to realize that you are two things, a contractor for your own company, and b) a labor broker. You're not magnates!
> 
> If the "pack" doesn't like the guy, try giving him some piece work. That's the way to best efficiency anyway. And Aaron... 16 an hour is poverty level for a skilled painter. I should have clarified that I wasn't responding just to you. I don't how to quote more than one post.
> ...


 

Mr Gypsy,I don't know where you are & really don't care but $16 an hour is huge here. 

I hope we can agree to disagree.
I surrender you are the 1:notworthy:


----------



## Schmidt & Co. (Nov 6, 2008)

Found this and it should help those that are having problems determining if they have "employees or independent contractors"....​ 

The IRS has developed twenty common law factors which are used on a case by case basis to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee for IRS tax purposes. Independent contractors do not have to satisfy all of the twenty common law factors. It is best to think of the factors as weights on a balance scale. 
The twenty common law factors of a perfect independent contractor relationship are:​ 
_No Instructions. _Independent contractors are not required to follow, nor are they furnished with, instructions to accomplish a job. ​ 
_No Training. _Independent contractors typically do not receive training by the hiring firm. They use their own methods to accomplish the work. ​ 
_Others can be hired. _Independent contractors are hired to provide a result and usually have the right to hire others to do the actual work. ​ 
_Independent contractor's work not essential. _A company's success or continuation should not depend on the service of outside independent contractors. An example violating this would be a law firm which called their lawyers independent contractors. ​ 
_No time clock. _Independent contractors set their own work hours. ​ 
_No permanent relationship. _Usually independent contractors don't have a continuing relationship with a hiring company. The relationship can be frequent, but it must be at irregular intervals, on call, or whenever work is available.​ 
_Independent contractors control their own workers. _Independent contractors shouldn't hire, supervise, or pay assistants at the direction of the hiring company. If assistants are hired, it should be at the independent contractor's sole discretion. ​ 
_Other jobs. _Independent contractors should have enough time available to pursue other gainful work. ​ 
_Location. _Independent contractors control where they work. If they work on the premises of the hiring company, it is not under that company's direction or supervision. ​ 
_Order of work. _Independent contractors determine the order and sequence in which they will perform their work. ​ 
_No interim reports. _Independent contractors are hired for the final result only. They should not be asked for progress or interim reports. ​ 
_No hourly pay. _Independent contractors are paid by the job, not by time. Payment by the job can include periodic payments based on a percentage of job completed. Payment can be based on the number of hours needed to do the job times a fixed hourly rate. Payment method should be determined before the job commences.​ 
_Multiple Firms. _Independent contractors often work for more than one firm at a time. ​ 
_Business expenses. _Independent contractors are generally responsible for their own business expenses. ​ 
_Own tools. _Independent contractors usually furnish their own tools. Some hiring firms have leased equipment to their independent contractors so that they could show the independent contractor had their own tools and an investment in their business. This strategy won't work if the lease is for a nominal amount or can be voided by the hiring firm at will. The lease must be equivalent to what an independent business person could have obtained in the open market. ​ 
_Significant investment. _Independent contractors should be able to perform their services without the hiring company's facilities (equipment, office furniture, machinery, etc.). The independent contractor's investment in his trade must be real, essential, and adequate. ​ 
_Services available to the public. _Independent contractors make their services available to the general public by one or more of the following: ​


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

I think the point Gypsy is making is that a legitimate contractor doesn't have the power he thinks he has to impartially fire someone, given the rights of employees protected under the governing body of labor boards, and or collective bargaining agreements.


----------



## George Z (Apr 15, 2007)

Putting paint on the wall is what we have production rates for.
Some painters do it faster, some do it better. 
In a small company you know your painters abillities and skill very well.

The thing is, raw skill alone is not going to do it.
The customer is not buying the painting job.
The customer is buying the experience of painting their place.
That comes from having good people working in their home, business etc.
That can be delivered by a company with a good company culture,
or at the very least painters that can work together.

So a skilled painter that doesn't facilitate the above is not going to do it.


----------



## TJ Paint (Jun 18, 2009)

aaron61 said:


> Mr Gypsy,I don't know where you are & really don't care but $16 an hour is huge here.
> 
> I hope we can agree to disagree.
> I surrender you are the 1:notworthy:


I wonder how a person is supposed to live on $16/hr? If they only have to house and feed themselves, then sure. I don't see how you could even come close to making a mortgage payment with that. Do you provide a health plan benefit? If not, do you ask if any of them can afford their own? 
This isn't a personal attack against you, and this pay schedule obviously works for your company. I'm just curious how it does.


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

TJ Paint said:


> I wonder how a person is supposed to live on $16/hr? If they only have to house and feed themselves, then sure. I don't see how you could even come close to making a mortgage payment with that. Do you provide a health plan benefit? If not, do you ask if any of them can afford their own?
> This isn't a personal attack against you, and this pay schedule obviously works for your company. I'm just curious how it does.


Pay scales are relative to regions.


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

this is the davis bacon rate here

PAINTER, Including Brush, 
Roller and Spray (Excluding 
Drywall Finisher/Taper)..........$ 13.59


----------



## Wallpaper Gypsy (Feb 22, 2010)

aaron61 said:


> this is the davis bacon rate here
> 
> PAINTER, Including Brush,
> Roller and Spray (Excluding
> Drywall Finisher/Taper)..........$ 13.59


We can agree to disagree man. My own frustration talking so, for what it's worth, there ya go. Rapidly changing market and world. 
Davis Bacon is only 20 cents more here in Colorado. Right to work states are pretty bottom of the barrel right now. A confusing mess is what i think. I've lived in both places- St. Pete and Seattle. Both places are expensive. 
I do think we all have to keep one thing in mind- the less you pay you're people, the less money they spend, the less the economy grows, the fewer people paint their houses. 
It's kind of like karma... only a lot more practical.


----------



## VanDamme (Feb 13, 2010)

aaron61 said:


> this is the davis bacon rate here
> 
> PAINTER, Including Brush,
> Roller and Spray (Excluding
> Drywall Finisher/Taper)..........$ 13.59


Yup..... Regional differences. All one needs to do is scan housing prices from one area of the country to the next.

I was paying an apprentice w/0 experience $15 per hour. My foreman was in the 20's 

Portland is an expensive place to live.


----------



## KLaw (May 8, 2009)

Schmidt & Co. said:


> Found this and it should help those that are having problems determining if they have "employees or independent contractors"....​
> 
> 
> The IRS has developed twenty common law factors which are used on a case by case basis to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee for IRS tax purposes. Independent contractors do not have to satisfy all of the twenty common law factors. It is best to think of the factors as weights on a balance scale.
> ...


We actually use these same questions as a checklist / audit for our process when we use subs. And we use 'em frequently. The one that I don't understand is the "No Interim Reports". I am contracting a sub to do some work and I'm not allowed to ask for status updates each day? Does that constitute as reporting? I justify our daily updates as being in compliance because it is all verbal. No documentation. Still this seems to be a pretty gray area. The other 19 q's are pretty black and white and I agree with these guidelines for seperation between a sub and employee.


----------



## Wallpaper Gypsy (Feb 22, 2010)

Schmidt & Co. said:


> Found this and it should help those that are having problems determining if they have "employees or independent contractors"....​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Although that is what the list is, each of those items is given a numerical value, you have to total a certain number of points.
And although that is IRS code... here's constitutional law

*At-will employment* is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can break the relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargain (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine:
“any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[1]”
Several exceptions to the doctrine exist, especially if unlawful discrimination is involved regarding the termination of an employee.
As a means of downsizing, such as closing an unprofitable factory, a company may terminate employees en masse. However, there are legal limitations upon the employer's ability to terminate without reason.[2]


This is what I mean by, 'We're all independent contractors." We work at will. If we taught independent contracting in 1st grade on, then people would realise that we're contracting whenever we give our word verbally or written. Of course the former is harder to prove but when it can be, it's upheld by law.

As well in reality, your employees are your creditors.


----------



## Last Craftsman (Dec 5, 2008)

Wallpaper Gypsy said:


> here's constitutional law


What does the constitution have to do with anything? This is AMERICA!


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

Dayyum.......................


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

Okay, this thread wasn't about wages, the constitution, or anything of the sort. I tried to provide a simple scenario with two obvious answers. Some here were able to answer it with one of the two, others wanted to over-analyze it, and some members/mods chose not to respond....then of course there were those who decided, for whatever reason, to just toss in an off the cuff remark.

This thread was also available for the general public to read, and there were quite a few non-members who did. I'd have to admit that I wasn't the one who came up with the question...it was borrowed from a day long seminar I attended a few years ago with some heavy hitters from the sales, business, and government. It had to do with public perception of your business, and continuity of your work force. What were/are you willing to put up with and for what cost.

The point I was trying to get across, or to be better said, I was trying to get us to think about was how one individual can take the professionalism and continuity of their employees down. And, to be quite honest, it had to do with the PT Forum. I appreciate the Mods who had the guts to answer, and those who didn't can continue to hide behind their locks, edit powers, and delete buttons. Probably a safer place, with no threat to their professionalism.

Apparently, though nothing has been said, part of the problem has been rectified. Which is good to see, as this Forum is a business also. Shame it even get's to that point.


----------



## Schmidt & Co. (Nov 6, 2008)

Thanks Wolf! :thumbsup: You said it better than I tried, "continuity of your workforce". After all, _thats _all we really have to sell here, our time and labor. Anything that jepordizes that, well you have a _big _problem then!


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

And I'd like to say thanks to all who responded. Some of the topics brought up were valid discussions for other threads and probably should be continued.


----------



## Last Craftsman (Dec 5, 2008)

Last Craftsman said:


> What does the constitution have to do with anything? This is AMERICA!


RCP.

I am pushing it??

:blink:

What are you talking about?

I don't care if you felt you needed to delete part of my post, but I am concerned over your view that I was "pushing it".

I think you might have understood the point of my post.

The cliche terminology I used in my post was PURELY satirical.

I wasn't actually referring to Wallpaper Gypsy as those things.

On the contrary, if anything I was applauding his reference to the constitution, my post was not against him.

My post was not against anyone in this thread, or anything that anyone has posted in this thread.

And it wasn't even political except for giving a celebratory cheer for the constitution of the United States.

I hope to God I won't be viewed as "pushing it" by simply indicating I value the constitution. 

Honestly I could care less about having part of that post deleted, but I hope you are not carrying some mark against me for having "pushed it", I really think you misunderstood my post.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

calm down, it was just the language and name calling, no big deal.


----------



## Last Craftsman (Dec 5, 2008)

RCP said:


> calm down, it was just the language and name calling, no big deal.


Ok, if you have an aversion to the language that's fine. I don't see what the issue is, but I don't have a problem with that if that is your interpretation. 

But just to clarify, I wasn't "name calling", or targeting anyone at all, or in any way intentionally trying to violate any of the Paint Talk rules.

It was just a joke, I was just doing some kind of a cliche drill sergeant character.

I didn't even have the remotest idea that terminology would be a big deal.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

wolf, I knew thats what you were getting at and I typed up a post all about the similarities and scratched it BECAUSE I thought that would open another can of worms on your thread. Funny tho how the answers you got should have been entirely expected.


----------



## poet-1 (Mar 27, 2008)

*Re: Scenario..*

Agreed with most of other good posts.


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

jack pauhl said:


> wolf, I knew thats what you were getting at and I typed up a post all about the similarities and scratched it BECAUSE I thought that would open another can of worms on your thread. Funny tho how the answers you got should have been entirely expected.


There were a few who could see the correlations and held back from posting them. And I did get "expected responses" from certain members, but that's the nature of the beast we know as PT. I was happy for all the responses, no matter what their answer. Wasn't to judge anyone, just maybe to take a look at what's going on.


----------



## NEPS.US (Feb 6, 2008)

edit


----------



## WisePainter (Dec 27, 2008)

^fired.


----------



## TJ Paint (Jun 18, 2009)

I find it ironic that Wolf mentioned that his seminar about productivity consisted of govt employees. 

This whole subject is really about good hiring (human resources) practices, and nothing much else.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

TJ Paint said:


> This whole subject is really about good hiring (human resources) practices, and nothing much else.


I agree with the good hiring practices, but I think it is about more.



I think you hit the nail on the head here,




TJ Paint said:


> I'm not offended at all.
> 
> The concern in my post has to do with public relations, and wanting the painting trade to have a good reputation. This forum is open to the public. There's alot of complaints on this forum from us "professionals" that our trade isn't respected.
> 
> Maybe there's things to do or not to do that would improve it.



How many of us carry the intolerance and attitudes we see here in real life?


----------



## Workaholic (Apr 17, 2007)

Wallpaper Gypsy said:


> I don't how to quote more than one post.


Sam it is the little quote looking button in between the quote button and the quick reply button. 


Wolf, I would give him a 2-3 week trial period and if production was still down I would find him not to as looked as good in real life as he did on paper and get rid of him. Of course I would of explained the trial period to him before he took the job so both him and I could see if it was a fit.


----------



## dvp (Jun 21, 2010)

Wolfgang said:


> There were a few who could see the correlations and held back from posting them. And I did get "expected responses" from certain members, but that's the nature of the beast we know as PT. I was happy for all the responses, no matter what their answer. Wasn't to judge anyone, just maybe to take a look at what's going on.


so you really dont have a bad employee? and this whole post was some sort of bizarre psychological experiment that i dont understand? are you trying to explode my puny little brain?


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

edit


----------



## NEPS.US (Feb 6, 2008)

edit


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

another edit


----------



## NEPS.US (Feb 6, 2008)

edit


----------



## NEPS.US (Feb 6, 2008)

edit


----------



## WisePainter (Dec 27, 2008)

dvp said:


> so you really dont have a bad employee? and this whole post was some sort of bizarre psychological experiment that i dont understand? are you trying to explode my puny little brain?




Wolf called me paranoid for the same question...


----------



## PCM1 (Jul 1, 2010)

Wolfgang said:


> A hypothetical scenario: You own a company with 3 or more employees and you have the opportunity to hire a highly skilled individual. Within a day or two, it's obvious that despite the individuals skills, the other thing he's highly skilled at is causing problems with your other employees to the point where it affects their attitudes and/or production on an ongoing basis.
> 
> Simple question - Do you keep him or let him go?


Just asking, Is the other employees comfortable and set in old ways? It might be good for them being exposed to this on many levels.


----------



## Roamer (Jul 5, 2010)

IRP the OP: We would likely switch the guy to another crew to get another perspective on the guy. Often times, however, the original issue/problem will re-surface with the new crew and we'd end up firing the guy.

As Aaron said a couple of pages ago,(and I'm paraphrasing here) we work hard to hire the right people to have a successful company. One highly skilled bad egg doesn't help the company nor feed our company culture. Both are more important to us than having a guy that can paint circles around the entire crew.

Btw, when we run an ad for painters in the newspaper it is not uncommon for us to have 20-30 guys call about the ad. We qualify that number down to about 10-15 guys and that is who we interview. In any case that is a lot of people to look at and it is important when spending this amount of time to find the 'right' guy that we aren't hesitant to fire the 'right' guy when he turns out to be the wrong guy.


----------



## KLaw (May 8, 2009)

Wolfgang said:


> Neps: PM sent.


He did make a good point - wolf. What would you do in the scenario you presented in your OP? Thanks.


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

WisePainter said:


> redundant wolfy is redundant.
> 
> 
> (he'll see this post, as well as a P.M. notification)
> ...


Yep. I bet you would.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Wolfgang said:


> Yep. I bet you would.


So would I, I think they they are both professional, articulate and honorable. So let's let them take care of it.


----------



## WisePainter (Dec 27, 2008)

Wolfgang said:


> Yep. I bet you would.



accepting paypal?

echeck?

3 pennies, some bellybutton lint, and a $1 foodstamp?

:jester:


----------



## WisePainter (Dec 27, 2008)

RCP said:


> So would I, I think they they are both professional, articulate and honorable. So let's let them take care of it.


nobody's preventing it...


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

KLaw said:


> He did make a good point - wolf. What would you do in the scenario you presented in your OP? Thanks.


Fire him. No ifs, ands, or buts. You have good people working for and with you and a proven track record of success with them. They've made you some good money, helped to build your business, are a direct reflection of your business, so why sabotage yourself? Simply a matter of being able to "afford" the individual, and I dont mean in the monetary sense. Hopefully the individual you hire compliments your business and doesnt cause strife within it.

Now if your intent is to shake up the rest of them, that's an entirely different scenario and a whole set of different problems.


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

RCP said:


> So would I, I think they they are both professional, articulate and honorable. So let's let them take care of it.


One would hope anyway....

If NEPS feels he wants to share what was said, that's his perogative. For the record, I have no personal grudges with him and yes, he is a pro, articulate and honorable.


----------



## NEPS.US (Feb 6, 2008)

Wolf and I have had a nice conversation over pm's and I deleted my posts directed to him personally. I like and respect Wolf's post's and thought's and look forward to sharing information with him in the future.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

NEPS.US said:


> Wolf and I have had a nice conversation over pm's and I deleted my posts directed to him personally. I like and respect Wolf's post's and thought's and look forward to sharing information with him in the future.


Thank you Chris, and Wolf. I appreciate the way you both handle yourselves.
Let me know if you want me to clean up the last few posts. I would like them to stay as a testament to the level of professionalism and integrity that was discussed previously.


----------



## PatsPainting (Mar 4, 2010)

NEPS.US said:


> Wolf and I have had a nice conversation over pm's and I deleted my posts directed to him personally. I like and respect Wolf's post's and thought's and look forward to sharing information with him in the future.


That sounds like something you would hear from one of those hostages in those terrorist videos you see on al jazeera networks. 

Pat


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

NEPS.US said:


> Wolf and I have had a nice conversation over pm's and I deleted my posts directed to him personally. I like and respect Wolf's post's and thought's and look forward to sharing information with him in the future.


That's creepy


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

aaron61 said:


> That's creepy


Nah.....that's what known as "maturity".:thumbsup: Believe it or not....there are times that *I* have to be reminded also.


----------



## Last Craftsman (Dec 5, 2008)

aaron61 said:


> That's creepy





NEPS.US said:


> Wolf and I have had a nice conversation over pm's and I deleted my posts directed to him personally. I like and respect Wolf's post's and thought's and look forward to sharing information with him in the future.


----------



## Wallpaper Gypsy (Feb 22, 2010)

The thing that I do like best about this thread is that, it's obvious that the character who is getting the axe and the character that's doing the axing is the same guy. :yes:


----------



## WisePainter (Dec 27, 2008)

bollocks, complete bollocks...


----------

