About to get much easier for companies to sack folk
Discussion
cardigankid said:
crankedup said:
And there's more, in some areas 20 people are seeking one vacancy, so competition for the job is hot.
If you think 20 people after one job is hot competition, I congratulate you on your ignorance.
crankedup said:
I'm not about to post quotes in order to justify facts that most of the Country have been shouting about for 18 months or more, they are out there, go look. I do agree that an average across the Country is 1/5 unemployed, but I did mention in my post 'in some areas 1 in 20 people are chasing a job'.
Why are so many people scared of being fired you ask, clearly you have never had the misfortune to be in that situation to be able to understand the answer.
Union strength in the U.K. has been declining since the 1980's and this is reflected in membership levels falling. Successive Governments have also strangled the Unions with increasing legislation, U.K. Unions are the most heavily regulated Unions in Europe. Don't accept it? Go investigate and see for yourself, its all true.
Why are so many people scared of being fired you ask, clearly you have never had the misfortune to be in that situation to be able to understand the answer.
Union strength in the U.K. has been declining since the 1980's and this is reflected in membership levels falling. Successive Governments have also strangled the Unions with increasing legislation, U.K. Unions are the most heavily regulated Unions in Europe. Don't accept it? Go investigate and see for yourself, its all true.
0000 said:
crankedup said:
I'm not about to post quotes in order to justify facts that most of the Country have been shouting about for 18 months or more, they are out there, go look. I do agree that an average across the Country is 1/5 unemployed, but I did mention in my post 'in some areas 1 in 20 people are chasing a job'.
Why are so many people scared of being fired you ask, clearly you have never had the misfortune to be in that situation to be able to understand the answer.
Union strength in the U.K. has been declining since the 1980's and this is reflected in membership levels falling. Successive Governments have also strangled the Unions with increasing legislation, U.K. Unions are the most heavily regulated Unions in Europe. Don't accept it? Go investigate and see for yourself, its all true.
Why are so many people scared of being fired you ask, clearly you have never had the misfortune to be in that situation to be able to understand the answer.
Union strength in the U.K. has been declining since the 1980's and this is reflected in membership levels falling. Successive Governments have also strangled the Unions with increasing legislation, U.K. Unions are the most heavily regulated Unions in Europe. Don't accept it? Go investigate and see for yourself, its all true.
Forgive me, having been repeatedly streamed through formal education I'm afflicted with a disease which means I can only point and laugh at people who present supposed facts yet refuse, proudly, to support them.
Sadly I'm unable to enjoy such religious ferver as anything other than sport.
Sadly I'm unable to enjoy such religious ferver as anything other than sport.
cardigankid said:
You are, perhaps disingenuously, confusing effect with cause. What we had under Labour, and even today, is not capitalism. It is state initiated, manipulated and taxed enterprise. Politicians created the service economy. Politicians created the low-interest house price boom. Politicians believed that they could create prosperity by expanding the public sector. Deregulation was a gift to financial cronies. Politicians believed (and still believe) that bankers spin gold out of straw. Politicians gave Fred Goodwin the rope he needed to hang himself, and then waded in with public money to save the resulting bust bank. 'Too big to fail' is not private enterprise. The USSR was 'too big to fail'. RBS should have been let go, like Greece should be let go, and those who argue against it are mostly those with as personal interest to protect. Otherwise we are only preserving inefficiency for political reasons, which is how the USSR went and British Leyland if you recall that blinding example of state managed British enterprise.
Whatever the politicians did, nobody forced the bankers to shaft their shareholders, customers, employees or the tax payer. That was all done out of the bankers own free will, and it was down to pure greed ultimately. It was private enterprise that was insufficiently regulated and you're asking for more of the same. It is highly ironic that you mention British Leyland, another private enterprise that was spectacularly badly managed and which had to go crying to the government:
"
"Help, we made a load of cars that all look the same but which didn't share any parts, and we've made them so they fall apart and we've recruited the most workshy, militant workers that could be found because we thought they'd be cheap, and now we've made cars some of which are based on 30 year-old technology and some which have square steering wheels and not enough people are buying them. Please save us from ourselves, help! "
Some points:
In regard to the supposed one-sidedness of employment law, its pretty easy to see why Governments will pass legislation to protect employees. If a politician goes into a workplace theres one boss (one vote) and 25 employees (25 votes). Doesnt take Einstein to work out which batch they'll go after.
Its easy to bang on about how people supposedly shouldnt be afraid of getting sacked when its never happened to them, its easy for people in secure jobs with a good income to judge others, its easy for non public sector workers to say the public sector needed shrinking. Its easy to say a business exists to make money, not to employ you and you should be grateful to have a job if you actually have a job.
If implimented badly, reforms could play into the hands of poor management. For every 1 person who works hard and gets rewards, theres 500 who work hard and get exploited. Unfortunately theres too many examples of people outperforming their pay grade who are merely used by their company to get skills on the cheap.
Its too much of an employers market right now to pass such reforms, the oft quoted BBC News figure of 6 people chasing every job is horribly misleading. In reality most run into three figures these days even for basic jobs. We got 185 applications in 3 weeks for a simple office role on £14k a year, some of these people may be unemployed for a decade or more with figures like that and if employers are able to hire and fire with the gay abandon of Roman Abramovich it could unsettle the entire nation even further.
Creating an environment where you can easily get rid of somebody makes workers fear for their jobs and drives down wages ever closer to Eastern European levels because it'll be too easy to get someone else in to do it for less. The concept of working hard to get ahead and get rewards could be shattered.
Employees have their own lives to think about and need some degree of financial security. Its hard enough to plan ahead financially for ordinary people in ordinary jobs. Their priority is not whether their company increases revenue, its about whether they can put food on the table at home and badly implimented reforms can engineer an even more static economy. Nobody is going to spend money if they might get the sack tomorrow.
Well implimented reforms can help youth unemployment as it makes high risk people on paper less of a risk. Employers might be more willing to give inexperienced people a chance if they know they're not locking themselves in with them for a long time. Well implimented reforms can create more jobs and more movement of people between jobs, therefore giving more people an opportunity to prove themselves. Right now millions have to sit on job seekers because inferior people occupy jobs due to being too hard to sack.
We all know of people who should get the sack but the company never bothers because its too much hassle, they just move them around instead to places where they'll do the least amount of damage. You could say the current law deprives more worthy people of that persons job, my fear is that usually whenever Government does anything it doesnt achieve its purpose and its the scum who still seem to get away with it. I just dont have faith in this Government to impliment anything properly.
Most voters are employees rather than employers. Most Conservative voters do work and a large portion of them in the private sector, if these reforms go badly the Tories can kiss many future elections goodbye. This is legislation which will affect the majority of people. We dont want to get back to a time where Unions were actually needed because there was no other way to protect employees, individual rights have overtaken collective rights and thats moved us away from militant behaviour as a first resort.
In regard to the supposed one-sidedness of employment law, its pretty easy to see why Governments will pass legislation to protect employees. If a politician goes into a workplace theres one boss (one vote) and 25 employees (25 votes). Doesnt take Einstein to work out which batch they'll go after.
Its easy to bang on about how people supposedly shouldnt be afraid of getting sacked when its never happened to them, its easy for people in secure jobs with a good income to judge others, its easy for non public sector workers to say the public sector needed shrinking. Its easy to say a business exists to make money, not to employ you and you should be grateful to have a job if you actually have a job.
If implimented badly, reforms could play into the hands of poor management. For every 1 person who works hard and gets rewards, theres 500 who work hard and get exploited. Unfortunately theres too many examples of people outperforming their pay grade who are merely used by their company to get skills on the cheap.
Its too much of an employers market right now to pass such reforms, the oft quoted BBC News figure of 6 people chasing every job is horribly misleading. In reality most run into three figures these days even for basic jobs. We got 185 applications in 3 weeks for a simple office role on £14k a year, some of these people may be unemployed for a decade or more with figures like that and if employers are able to hire and fire with the gay abandon of Roman Abramovich it could unsettle the entire nation even further.
Creating an environment where you can easily get rid of somebody makes workers fear for their jobs and drives down wages ever closer to Eastern European levels because it'll be too easy to get someone else in to do it for less. The concept of working hard to get ahead and get rewards could be shattered.
Employees have their own lives to think about and need some degree of financial security. Its hard enough to plan ahead financially for ordinary people in ordinary jobs. Their priority is not whether their company increases revenue, its about whether they can put food on the table at home and badly implimented reforms can engineer an even more static economy. Nobody is going to spend money if they might get the sack tomorrow.
Well implimented reforms can help youth unemployment as it makes high risk people on paper less of a risk. Employers might be more willing to give inexperienced people a chance if they know they're not locking themselves in with them for a long time. Well implimented reforms can create more jobs and more movement of people between jobs, therefore giving more people an opportunity to prove themselves. Right now millions have to sit on job seekers because inferior people occupy jobs due to being too hard to sack.
We all know of people who should get the sack but the company never bothers because its too much hassle, they just move them around instead to places where they'll do the least amount of damage. You could say the current law deprives more worthy people of that persons job, my fear is that usually whenever Government does anything it doesnt achieve its purpose and its the scum who still seem to get away with it. I just dont have faith in this Government to impliment anything properly.
Most voters are employees rather than employers. Most Conservative voters do work and a large portion of them in the private sector, if these reforms go badly the Tories can kiss many future elections goodbye. This is legislation which will affect the majority of people. We dont want to get back to a time where Unions were actually needed because there was no other way to protect employees, individual rights have overtaken collective rights and thats moved us away from militant behaviour as a first resort.
Wow, what a verbose post, and I disagreed with virtually every word. But it's bed time so I'll pick on:
It's an employer's market for exactly that reason, and the status quo will make that worse.
If not now, when would you recommend labour law reform? Or to put it another way, when in the past should we have grasped the nettle and we didn't?
martin84 said:
Its too much of an employers market right now to pass such reforms...
We need these reforms because our ability as a nation to employ anyone to actually grow the economy by their efforts is disappearing.It's an employer's market for exactly that reason, and the status quo will make that worse.
If not now, when would you recommend labour law reform? Or to put it another way, when in the past should we have grasped the nettle and we didn't?
Johnnytheboy said:
Wow, what a verbose post, and I disagreed with virtually every word
You disagree that well implimented reform can speed up movement in the job market and help tackle the youth unemployment problem?Johnnytheboy said:
If not now, when would you recommend labour law reform? Or to put it another way, when in the past should we have grasped the nettle and we didn't?
If a bill on this ever gets passed its unlikely to actually include anything which will make it easy to sack everybody overnight but the fact is it'll sound like it does. The time to impliment reform is in good times, not neccessarily with a fast growing economy but a steady high employment economy. It needs to be done in times where people are confident about their chances of finding other work. All you're going to do with this now is scare people into spending even less money, which is the last thing we need.martin84 said:
If implimented badly, reforms could play into the hands of poor management. For every 1 person who works hard and gets rewards, theres 500 who work hard and get exploited. Unfortunately theres too many examples of people outperforming their pay grade who are merely used by their company to get skills on the cheap.
Not being able to sack people isn't a solution for poor management, but it will hinder good management.martin84 said:
Some points:
In regard to the supposed one-sidedness of employment law, its pretty easy to see why Governments will pass legislation to protect employees. If a politician goes into a workplace theres one boss (one vote) and 25 employees (25 votes). Doesnt take Einstein to work out which batch they'll go after.
Its easy to bang on about how people supposedly shouldnt be afraid of getting sacked when its never happened to them, its easy for people in secure jobs with a good income to judge others, its easy for non public sector workers to say the public sector needed shrinking. Its easy to say a business exists to make money, not to employ you and you should be grateful to have a job if you actually have a job.
If implimented badly, reforms could play into the hands of poor management. For every 1 person who works hard and gets rewards, theres 500 who work hard and get exploited. Unfortunately theres too many examples of people outperforming their pay grade who are merely used by their company to get skills on the cheap.
Its too much of an employers market right now to pass such reforms, the oft quoted BBC News figure of 6 people chasing every job is horribly misleading. In reality most run into three figures these days even for basic jobs. We got 185 applications in 3 weeks for a simple office role on £14k a year, some of these people may be unemployed for a decade or more with figures like that and if employers are able to hire and fire with the gay abandon of Roman Abramovich it could unsettle the entire nation even further.
Creating an environment where you can easily get rid of somebody makes workers fear for their jobs and drives down wages ever closer to Eastern European levels because it'll be too easy to get someone else in to do it for less. The concept of working hard to get ahead and get rewards could be shattered.
Employees have their own lives to think about and need some degree of financial security. Its hard enough to plan ahead financially for ordinary people in ordinary jobs. Their priority is not whether their company increases revenue, its about whether they can put food on the table at home and badly implimented reforms can engineer an even more static economy. Nobody is going to spend money if they might get the sack tomorrow.
Well implimented reforms can help youth unemployment as it makes high risk people on paper less of a risk. Employers might be more willing to give inexperienced people a chance if they know they're not locking themselves in with them for a long time. Well implimented reforms can create more jobs and more movement of people between jobs, therefore giving more people an opportunity to prove themselves. Right now millions have to sit on job seekers because inferior people occupy jobs due to being too hard to sack.
We all know of people who should get the sack but the company never bothers because its too much hassle, they just move them around instead to places where they'll do the least amount of damage. You could say the current law deprives more worthy people of that persons job, my fear is that usually whenever Government does anything it doesnt achieve its purpose and its the scum who still seem to get away with it. I just dont have faith in this Government to impliment anything properly.
Most voters are employees rather than employers. Most Conservative voters do work and a large portion of them in the private sector, if these reforms go badly the Tories can kiss many future elections goodbye. This is legislation which will affect the majority of people. We dont want to get back to a time where Unions were actually needed because there was no other way to protect employees, individual rights have overtaken collective rights and thats moved us away from militant behaviour as a first resort.
That would be 'implemented'. In regard to the supposed one-sidedness of employment law, its pretty easy to see why Governments will pass legislation to protect employees. If a politician goes into a workplace theres one boss (one vote) and 25 employees (25 votes). Doesnt take Einstein to work out which batch they'll go after.
Its easy to bang on about how people supposedly shouldnt be afraid of getting sacked when its never happened to them, its easy for people in secure jobs with a good income to judge others, its easy for non public sector workers to say the public sector needed shrinking. Its easy to say a business exists to make money, not to employ you and you should be grateful to have a job if you actually have a job.
If implimented badly, reforms could play into the hands of poor management. For every 1 person who works hard and gets rewards, theres 500 who work hard and get exploited. Unfortunately theres too many examples of people outperforming their pay grade who are merely used by their company to get skills on the cheap.
Its too much of an employers market right now to pass such reforms, the oft quoted BBC News figure of 6 people chasing every job is horribly misleading. In reality most run into three figures these days even for basic jobs. We got 185 applications in 3 weeks for a simple office role on £14k a year, some of these people may be unemployed for a decade or more with figures like that and if employers are able to hire and fire with the gay abandon of Roman Abramovich it could unsettle the entire nation even further.
Creating an environment where you can easily get rid of somebody makes workers fear for their jobs and drives down wages ever closer to Eastern European levels because it'll be too easy to get someone else in to do it for less. The concept of working hard to get ahead and get rewards could be shattered.
Employees have their own lives to think about and need some degree of financial security. Its hard enough to plan ahead financially for ordinary people in ordinary jobs. Their priority is not whether their company increases revenue, its about whether they can put food on the table at home and badly implimented reforms can engineer an even more static economy. Nobody is going to spend money if they might get the sack tomorrow.
Well implimented reforms can help youth unemployment as it makes high risk people on paper less of a risk. Employers might be more willing to give inexperienced people a chance if they know they're not locking themselves in with them for a long time. Well implimented reforms can create more jobs and more movement of people between jobs, therefore giving more people an opportunity to prove themselves. Right now millions have to sit on job seekers because inferior people occupy jobs due to being too hard to sack.
We all know of people who should get the sack but the company never bothers because its too much hassle, they just move them around instead to places where they'll do the least amount of damage. You could say the current law deprives more worthy people of that persons job, my fear is that usually whenever Government does anything it doesnt achieve its purpose and its the scum who still seem to get away with it. I just dont have faith in this Government to impliment anything properly.
Most voters are employees rather than employers. Most Conservative voters do work and a large portion of them in the private sector, if these reforms go badly the Tories can kiss many future elections goodbye. This is legislation which will affect the majority of people. We dont want to get back to a time where Unions were actually needed because there was no other way to protect employees, individual rights have overtaken collective rights and thats moved us away from militant behaviour as a first resort.
Johnnytheboy said:
We need these reforms because our ability as a nation to employ anyone to actually grow the economy by their efforts is disappearing.
It's an employer's market for exactly that reason, and the status quo will make that worse.
If not now, when would you recommend labour law reform? Or to put it another way, when in the past should we have grasped the nettle and we didn't?
If people have no job security, which means they have very little financial security, just what sort of percentage of their income do you think they're going to spend?It's an employer's market for exactly that reason, and the status quo will make that worse.
If not now, when would you recommend labour law reform? Or to put it another way, when in the past should we have grasped the nettle and we didn't?
If employment security is taken away then just watch us become the biggest nation of savers.
I'm struggling to think of a realistic reform that could do more damage to business than this.
It is a charter for bad management, and god knows we have enough of that already.
heebeegeetee said:
If employment security is taken away then just watch us become the biggest nation of savers.
I'm struggling to think of a realistic reform that could do more damage to business than this.
Approach A : "I know they can't sack me from my job, so I'll fI'm struggling to think of a realistic reform that could do more damage to business than this.
k about at work, and borrow money I can't afford to spend on crap I don't need, simply because I can"Approach B : "Times are hard, I'm not sure I can always be certain of finding work, so I'll make sure that I do a good job for my employer, and save up for stuff that I genuinely need."
Why is approach B bad for business?
Gaspode said:
Approach A : "I know they can't sack me from my job, so I'll fk about at work, and borrow money I can't afford to spend on crap I don't need, simply because I can"
Approach B : "Times are hard, I'm not sure I can always be certain of finding work, so I'll make sure that I do a good job for my employer, and save up for stuff that I genuinely need."
Why is approach B bad for business?
From the employer's POVk about at work, and borrow money I can't afford to spend on crap I don't need, simply because I can"Approach B : "Times are hard, I'm not sure I can always be certain of finding work, so I'll make sure that I do a good job for my employer, and save up for stuff that I genuinely need."
Why is approach B bad for business?
Approach A: "My primary objective is to make as much money as possible out of all the resources I have at my disposal. So I'll dump the waste byproducts in the local river, run my fleet of white vans on bald tyres, pay everybody cash in hand, and as for my employees? Muwahahahah
If they were worth anything the'd be the ones with shaven heads and goatees. Now, I feel like a can of a well-known refreshing branded energy drink."Approach B: "My objective is to make as much money as possible but because some bosses behave like t
ts the Guv'mint has put into place various laws which restrict what the tt bosses can and cannot do by law. And actually whilst the laws may enable a minority of employees to take the p155, they also prevent a minority of bosses from taking the p1ss as well"Gaspode said:
Approach A : "I know they can't sack me from my job, so I'll fk about at work, and borrow money I can't afford to spend on crap I don't need, simply because I can"
Approach B : "Times are hard, I'm not sure I can always be certain of finding work, so I'll make sure that I do a good job for my employer, and save up for stuff that I genuinely need."
Why is approach B bad for business?
Well, A doesn't exist apart maybe for teachers and nurses, and how is people not spending money in B good for business?k about at work, and borrow money I can't afford to spend on crap I don't need, simply because I can"Approach B : "Times are hard, I'm not sure I can always be certain of finding work, so I'll make sure that I do a good job for my employer, and save up for stuff that I genuinely need."
Why is approach B bad for business?
Gaspode said:
Approach B : "Times are hard, I'm not sure I can always be certain of finding work, so I'll make sure that I do a good job for my employer, and save up for stuff that I genuinely need."
Why is approach B bad for business?
Its bad for business because if everybody does it then people arent spending, which means businesses don't make money, businesses fold and those good employees trying to do a good job will be made redundant due to the fact nobodies spending. Not to mention the fact most employees dont trust a word their employer says. They say you're safe one day, but what about tomorrow?Why is approach B bad for business?
The last thing the economy needs is for everybody to hide every penny under the mattress. The people who only spend money on what they genuinely need aren't the people who power the economy, if everybody only bought the bare essentials the economy would consist of EDF, Shell, Tesco, water companies and nothing else. In turn that'd damage anybody they're linked to, put people out of work, force prices high and those nice well meaning savers will be hit very hard indeed.
Extreme example I know, but the point is we need to get money moving. People aren't going to spend money if they think they might get the sack tomorrow, whether they deserve the sack or not. PH'ers must've come across some very sensible management in sensible companies to say the things they're saying, most places are not run as well as that. Good management can get rid of bad staff already, these reforms play into bad managers hands.
The problem with the 'save money' message is we're never going to get anywhere if people have no confidence to spend. For years we've been awful at managing money but we dont want to turn into serial savers either because that'll engineer permanent recession.
Edited by martin84 on Saturday 26th May 16:14
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff