# I have a staffing issue



## atmospheric (Mar 11, 2006)

Let's keep this simple:

What's better, bad staff or no staff?


----------



## NateO (Mar 11, 2006)

No staff; if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.


----------



## Andrew Fergus (Mar 11, 2006)

I agree.  No staff.  Better to do it right first time, even if it is late.


----------



## Richard Schollar (Mar 12, 2006)

Thanks to restrictive employment laws, bad staff can cause many, many more problems than no staff because they can be difficult to get rid of.


----------



## Barry Katcher (Mar 12, 2006)

> What's better, bad staff or no staff?


If you're seriously think of an operation, please first consider Viagra or Cialis.


----------



## atmospheric (Mar 12, 2006)

OK, but bad staff have the potential to be re-trained or relocated to a more suitable position. It's **** difficult to do a 10 man job with 5. Also I agree with Parsnip, getting rid of them is a minefield.


----------



## PaddyD (Mar 12, 2006)

what's worse is management who haven't the nuts to proactively address an employee issue that's disrupting the team & holding back everyone's performance - successful teams are not usually comprised of people who are tollerated only 'cos it's too much hassle to get rid of them.


----------



## whiteghost (Mar 19, 2006)

If they can't do what you employed them to do.... why keep them?


----------

