I have a staffing issue

[atmospheric]

Let's keep this simple:

What's better, bad staff or no staff?

 

[NateO]

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

 

[Andrew Fergus]

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

 

[Richard Schollar]

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]

What's better, bad staff or no staff?

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

 

[atmospheric]

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]

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]

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