About to get much easier for companies to sack folk
Discussion
So it seems plans are afoot to change the employment law.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18142544
These changes will effectively make it much easier for firms to get rid of workers by brining in the following key changes
An end to a mandatory 90-day consultation period when a company is considering redundancy programmes. Instead it will suggest a standard 30-day period and an emergency five-day period if a firm is in severe distress
A cap on loss-of-earnings compensation for employees who make successful unfair dismissal claims
Reform of the rights that workers are allowed to "carry" to new employers when their companies are the subject of a takeover
Scrapping provisions in the Equality Act which make employers liable for claims from employees for "third-party harassment", such as customers making "sexist" comments to staff in a restaurant
Shifting responsibility for checking foreign workers' eligibility to work in the UK from employers to the Border Agency or the Home Office
As you would expect labour are up in arms and the Lib Dems are moaning into their coffee cups again. Having been heavily involved in large scale redundancies though I can see a lot of merit in these changes, the 90 day consultation period is particularly painful for both employers and employes in a lot of cases. Typically what happens is the company decides that they need to lay off x amount of workers, they then announce the 90 day period for consultation, problem is they do not specify who is going to be laid off at this point, management then spend the next two month flat out in a huddle trying to decide who to pay off and the groups that are up for redundancy are then announced
Unfortunately though they can not just select the bad eggs as you can not pay off people, you can only make roles redundant, so for example if you decide you want to get rid of 3 Analysts in a certain department as the roles are not needed for whatever reason (and you need a bloody good one), every analyst in that department has to go in the pool and you then have to offer voluntary redundancy first. This means that you tend to get stuck with the lazy f
ker in the corner that sits on facebook all day while the older more studious guy that can collect a big pay off due to many years in the company goes out the door.
During all this though productivity goes through the floor and moral hits rock bottom as everyone in the company is under the threat of losing their job. The whole process is highly complex and the Lawyers are all over it every step of the way as any slight mistake can be very costly, as an exercise it really is hell on earth to go through and its completely mired in red tape, in fact its the reason why there are so many contractors and third party suppliers out there now as its far easier, safer and cheaper for companies not to hire. Take away the complications and you would see this change in my opinion.
So what do you think, good or bad.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18142544
These changes will effectively make it much easier for firms to get rid of workers by brining in the following key changes
An end to a mandatory 90-day consultation period when a company is considering redundancy programmes. Instead it will suggest a standard 30-day period and an emergency five-day period if a firm is in severe distress
A cap on loss-of-earnings compensation for employees who make successful unfair dismissal claims
Reform of the rights that workers are allowed to "carry" to new employers when their companies are the subject of a takeover
Scrapping provisions in the Equality Act which make employers liable for claims from employees for "third-party harassment", such as customers making "sexist" comments to staff in a restaurant
Shifting responsibility for checking foreign workers' eligibility to work in the UK from employers to the Border Agency or the Home Office
As you would expect labour are up in arms and the Lib Dems are moaning into their coffee cups again. Having been heavily involved in large scale redundancies though I can see a lot of merit in these changes, the 90 day consultation period is particularly painful for both employers and employes in a lot of cases. Typically what happens is the company decides that they need to lay off x amount of workers, they then announce the 90 day period for consultation, problem is they do not specify who is going to be laid off at this point, management then spend the next two month flat out in a huddle trying to decide who to pay off and the groups that are up for redundancy are then announced
Unfortunately though they can not just select the bad eggs as you can not pay off people, you can only make roles redundant, so for example if you decide you want to get rid of 3 Analysts in a certain department as the roles are not needed for whatever reason (and you need a bloody good one), every analyst in that department has to go in the pool and you then have to offer voluntary redundancy first. This means that you tend to get stuck with the lazy f
ker in the corner that sits on facebook all day while the older more studious guy that can collect a big pay off due to many years in the company goes out the door.During all this though productivity goes through the floor and moral hits rock bottom as everyone in the company is under the threat of losing their job. The whole process is highly complex and the Lawyers are all over it every step of the way as any slight mistake can be very costly, as an exercise it really is hell on earth to go through and its completely mired in red tape, in fact its the reason why there are so many contractors and third party suppliers out there now as its far easier, safer and cheaper for companies not to hire. Take away the complications and you would see this change in my opinion.
So what do you think, good or bad.
Edited by Chim on Monday 21st May 20:22
Could be good if done properly. What many don't realise is that the current morass of legislation does very few people any good at all.
If a Company needs to shed jobs it will do it one way or another; all the current legislation does is make that process much more costly and often then puts more jobs at risk.
Not to mention the many people who are not given jobs in the first place by reluctant employers knowing how difficult a task it is to downsize when necessary.
Cue the pleas on behalf of the working man, even though very few benefit from existing laws only the lawyers and civil servants implementing the legislation really do that.
If a Company needs to shed jobs it will do it one way or another; all the current legislation does is make that process much more costly and often then puts more jobs at risk.
Not to mention the many people who are not given jobs in the first place by reluctant employers knowing how difficult a task it is to downsize when necessary.
Cue the pleas on behalf of the working man, even though very few benefit from existing laws only the lawyers and civil servants implementing the legislation really do that.
Really hope this goes through
Extremely hacked off with carrying ste workers who expect everyone to cover their jobs- reckon about 10% of the countries population actually produces 90% of the countries GDP.
Oh and if can't find the people in your department not carrying their weight, then its probably you!
Extremely hacked off with carrying s
te workers who expect everyone to cover their jobs- reckon about 10% of the countries population actually produces 90% of the countries GDP. Oh and if can't find the people in your department not carrying their weight, then its probably you!
good idea, bad timing.
The effect of this for businesses will be quite a bit in the future, however the effect on the affected workforce will be immediate, in that they will have less confidence in their jobs.
IMO this will cause even less national spending with more uncertainty over jobs. I would however like to see quite a few people sacked from my office!
The effect of this for businesses will be quite a bit in the future, however the effect on the affected workforce will be immediate, in that they will have less confidence in their jobs.
IMO this will cause even less national spending with more uncertainty over jobs. I would however like to see quite a few people sacked from my office!
B Huey said:
Consumer confidence is what's needed.
Consumers are the workers.
Easier to sack workers equals less consumer confidence.
Potential employers at the margins aren't hiring because the potential cost to them of making a poor hiring decision is crippling. Easier to fire means easier to hire and while the churn it could generate is not an unalloyed good, it will create new jobs that would otherwise have not been there.Consumers are the workers.
Easier to sack workers equals less consumer confidence.
Einion Yrth said:
B Huey said:
Consumer confidence is what's needed.
Consumers are the workers.
Easier to sack workers equals less consumer confidence.
Potential employers at the margins aren't hiring because the potential cost to them of making a poor hiring decision is crippling. Easier to fire means easier to hire and while the churn it could generate is not an unalloyed good, it will create new jobs that would otherwise have not been there.Consumers are the workers.
Easier to sack workers equals less consumer confidence.
Countdown said:
B Huey said:
Germany has very employee friendly employment laws, plus high wages. They seem to do OK.
German workers are more productive.t at it.B Huey said:
Countdown said:
B Huey said:
Germany has very employee friendly employment laws, plus high wages. They seem to do OK.
German workers are more productive.
No-one honestly knows but the dogma (and hope) is that by relaxing employment laws entrepreneurs will be more likely to risk taking on staff. Impossible for it to be measured accurately but I have every confidence statistics can be brought forward from any "side" to support their argument.
B Huey said:
Countdown said:
B Huey said:
Germany has very employee friendly employment laws, plus high wages. They seem to do OK.
German workers are more productive.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff