About to get much easier for companies to sack folk

[eccles]

DSM2 said:

eccles said:

Using your logic, nobody would want to work for a small business because there'd be no job security, so they wouldn't be able to expand......

Are you seriously suggesting that the unemployed have such little confidence in their ability that they would turn down a job because they might then lose it because they are crap at it?

Oh boy...............

Not at all.
I might be brilliant at the job, but so might all the other employees. We're not just on about the unemployed either.

[bga]

PugwasHDJ80 said:

so to make it easy to sack people you have to put lots of work in.

ergo it ISN'T easy to sack people.

What do you find difficult about defining and operating a legally sound performance management process in your business?

I suggest that anyone finding it "lots of work" isn't cut out to be an employer.

[rich1231]

bga said:

What do you find difficult about defining and operating a legally sound performance management process in your business?

I suggest that anyone finding it "lots of work" isn't cut out to be an employer.

Ptaronising tit.

There are hundreds of thousands of people out there as one man bands that find themselves needing another pair of hands. Are you suggesting it feasible they all become experts on employment law?

[Gaspode]

Countdown said:

No. "Public Sector" taxes are no different to "Private Sector" taxes.

If this was the case, then presumably by this logic we could have a system in which all services were purchased via the government, entirely funded from taxation paid by public sector employees. That way we could properly protect all employees from ruthless exploitation by nasty bosses, whilst at the same time ensuring security of public income, as we'd have an entirely predictable tax base. This would allow us properly to plan the economy, on a regular sequence of say 5-year cycles.

I'm sure that's been tried somewhere, but I can't quite remember where.....

[Gaspode]

rich1231 said:

Ptaronising tit.

There are hundreds of thousands of people out there as one man bands that find themselves needing another pair of hands. Are you suggesting it feasible they all become experts on employment law?

The problem with existing employment law is that it makes it extraordinarily difficult to employ someone properly, as you have to be certain that the extra income generated from the additional employee is going to be permanent rather than temporary - even for temporary workers. This has the unwanted outcome of actually strengthening the black economy, with temp workers paid cash in hand, which in turn tends to encourage fiddling the benefits system.

[Murph7355]

rich1231 said:

...
There are hundreds of thousands of people out there as one man bands that find themselves needing another pair of hands. Are you suggesting it feasible they all become experts on employment law?

If you're in a position where you need to employ someone else, yes.

Either that or you pay for the knowledge/expertise as small companies do for, say, accountancy.

Employing someone should be taken no less lightly than ensuring your taxes are paid properly, your customers are happy etc etc. That people don't take it seriously enough is the root of the problem. And there are certain types of employee who know this...

[cardigankid]

Murph, all of the things that you mention are overhead cost, but there are more and more of them, and the volume of such overheads is already not sustainable, even for more medium sized businesses. To bid for public sector contracts you need ISO 9000 certification (Quality) and ISO 14000 certification (Environmental Management), you need to be on Constructionline, you need to be registered with CHAS (Health & Safety). Just for starters. Small businesses in the current climate simply don't make sufficient money to pay for all this. I arguably need some additional hands, but I am reluctant to take them on because employing people is such a minefield these days.

Yes you can get help from ACAS, and if you manage all of these things correctly, you should be OK, but my experience is that it becomes a full time job, and I have other things to do. Data Protection and common sense preclude me from telling you a few of my employment law tales, but I assure you they would astound you, and we are not a large business. It's not always possible to detect a manic depressive self harmer with AIDS at the interview, but they can cause a lot of havoc. If someone wants to take holidays, go on the sick, repeatedly, and then fall pregnant it is remarkably easy for them to do it, and all the poor employer can do is suck it up. Just asking people to get on with their work seems to cause unbearable stress.

At one time you wouldn't think twice about hiring a receptionist or an extra secretary for a few bob. Today you really would. Talking of expanding the private sector in conditions like these is laughable. It is a struggle for survival.

Edited by cardigankid on Tuesday 29th May 08:31

[singlecoil]

Gaspode said:

rich1231 said:

Ptaronising tit.

There are hundreds of thousands of people out there as one man bands that find themselves needing another pair of hands. Are you suggesting it feasible they all become experts on employment law?

The problem with existing employment law is that it makes it extraordinarily difficult to employ someone properly, as you have to be certain that the extra income generated from the additional employee is going to be permanent rather than temporary - even for temporary workers. This has the unwanted outcome of actually strengthening the black economy, with temp workers paid cash in hand, which in turn tends to encourage fiddling the benefits system.

And, of course, few people can be certain of that. The 'leap' from one man band to two man band is a big one, and I don't blame such people (I'm one myself) for choosing not to take it.

[Gaspode]

singlecoil said:

And, of course, few people can be certain of that. The 'leap' from one man band to two man band is a big one, and I don't blame such people (I'm one myself) for choosing not to take it.

Me too. I have lots of work available - but only at the moment. I don't know what it will be like next year, although I suspect demand will remain strong. I have a load of highly-sought after skills that I'd like to be able to transfer to someone younger than I, but what can I do? I can't afford to employ someone, as they wouldn't be able to generate an income stream themselves from day 1, and I can't afford to double my rates to support them - there's just too much competition in the market place.

My clients would just laugh at me if I tried sending them a neophyte, and they certainly wouldn't see themselves as being responsible for supporting my training budget. When I get pissed off with the rat race I'll retire, and my skills will go with me. If it was possible, I would like to take an IT graduate who has good communication skills but is currently on benefits, and give them a full-time role shadowing me and being trained - but of course if they did this they wouldn't be available for work and so they'd lose their benefits.

[cardigankid]

And the latest thing is Cookie Regulation Compliance, maximum fine £500,000. Its not even the risk of the fine, it is that large clients and especially PS clients are going to start asking for Cookie compliance certificates, adding yet another cost for no additional return.

[cardigankid]

Gaspode said:

My clients would just laugh at me if I tried sending them a neophyte

I'm thinking Hellraiser, and I wouldn't laugh.

[Murph7355]

cardigankid said:

...points on overheads, time etc...

I empathise in many respects. It's one of the reasons that right now I'm a one man band.

But in making business decisions you have to weigh up these overheads (hence me being a one man band ). You have to decide if you need a permanent employee or if the need is transient. And you have to select carefully (which may, for example, include medicals). As you've evidently found, not doing your due diligence thoroughly enough is counterproductive.

The new rules being suggested will not prevent you taking on duffers. Nor will they preclude you having to manage them. I still believe that if you do these things properly, and select the right type of contract for your immediate needs, even under current law reducing headcount is not impossible, and if you make the right decisions ahead of taking them on the risk of needing to reduce it is minimised.

[mph1977]

Gaspode said:

rich1231 said:

Ptaronising tit.

There are hundreds of thousands of people out there as one man bands that find themselves needing another pair of hands. Are you suggesting it feasible they all become experts on employment law?

The problem with existing employment law is that it makes it extraordinarily difficult to employ someone properly, as you have to be certain that the extra income generated from the additional employee is going to be permanent rather than temporary - even for temporary workers. This has the unwanted outcome of actually strengthening the black economy, with temp workers paid cash in hand, which in turn tends to encourage fiddling the benefits system.

well apart from the entirely legal mechanisms of

fixed term contracts ?
'zero hours' casual contracts ?

[bga]

rich1231 said:

Ptaronising tit.

There are hundreds of thousands of people out there as one man bands that find themselves needing another pair of hands. Are you suggesting it feasible they all become experts on employment law?

Pot meet kettle.

If you don't have an awareness of the regulatory environment in which you operate then don't operate!

None of this stuff is rocket science and information is freely available.

[rich1231]

bga said:

Pot meet kettle.

If you don't have an awareness of the regulatory environment in which you operate then don't operate!

None of this stuff is rocket science and information is freely available.

Are you saying that any level of regulatory involvement no matter what it is, is acceptable?

My guess is small business thrives in spite of the nonsense you seem to masterbate to.

[Gaspode]

bga said:

If you don't have an awareness of the regulatory environment in which you operate then don't operate!

None of this stuff is rocket science and information is freely available.

I think that's exactly the point. There are hundreds of thousands of one-person organisations out there who aren't fully aware of all the rules surrounding employing other people, and so they choose not to get involved - I suspect because by and large, they've got more important things to do, like earning a living for themselves.

So, because of the perceived complexity of the regulatory environment, growth is inhibited.

Maybe the answer is to scrap all employment. Every adult becomes responsible for their own pay, pension and healthcare arrangements, and freely contracts with other adults to buy and sell services, in open and fair competition with other service consumers and providers.

[Countdown]

Gaspode said:

If this was the case, then presumably by this logic we could have a system in which all services were purchased via the government, entirely funded from taxation paid by public sector employees. That way we could properly protect all employees from ruthless exploitation by nasty bosses, whilst at the same time ensuring security of public income, as we'd have an entirely predictable tax base. This would allow us properly to plan the economy, on a regular sequence of say 5-year cycles.

I'm sure that's been tried somewhere, but I can't quite remember where.....

Yes we could - the closest example would be a pure Communist state. In the same way we could have a pure market driven economy with zero public services and zero taxation. Quite a few spring to mind but I can't think of one where I would choose to live. There are advantages and disadvantages to both models - a mixed economy is probably the best compromise. But i think your original point was that only private sector taxes fund the Public Sector, and that clearly isn't the case.

[bga]

rich1231 said:

Are you saying that any level of regulatory involvement no matter what it is, is acceptable?

My guess is small business thrives in spite of the nonsense you seem to masterbate to.

I made no comment about the level of regulation in that post, but you know that anyway. While I sit here happily thrapping, I will run my business within the conditions that governments, customers, suppliers set and will be creative in making them work for us. Within current Emp law there are numerous options (a couple pointed out by mph1977) that provide varying degrees of flexibility for the employer that trade off against security for the employee or service provider.

[0000]

Countdown said:

If the Government disappeared tomorrow the services currently regarded as Public Sector would still exist, (albeit for most people they would be less affordable and, consequently demand would probably fall)

An awful lot wouldn't exist and certainly wouldn't exist in the same way; welfare, planning departments, public transport. I don't think it's as clear cut as saying private sector taxes don't fund the public sector. It's a mixed picture - some sections people would probably be happy to pay more for better service, while others would fall by the wayside.

[Murph7355]

rich1231 said:

Are you saying that any level of regulatory involvement no matter what it is, is acceptable?

My guess is small business thrives in spite of the nonsense you seem to masterbate to.

I think you might be extrapolating a little far there

I think the general point is, if you follow good mgmt practice (take care and due diligence over who you employ and how; manage your staff effectively) then the current rules are workable.

The problem is, people often don't do those things (in a hurry, no time, don't feel hey need to bother etc) and then blame "the system" for the shortfall.

Happens whether the business is small or large, but in the latter the mistakes get hidden, promoted or paid off.

If you cannot take the time to manage your recruitment and employees effectively, you don't have a good case for employing them in the first place.