About to get much easier for companies to sack folk

[andy_s]

In theory, theory and practise are the same; in practise, they aren't.

I think it's a good thing if used as intended, unfortunately, having once been on the receiving end of mendacious and spiteful management, the best I can say is that I'm underwhelmed with enthusiasm.

[B Huey]

Countdown said:

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.

Because they have better rights and pay?

Public sector workers have better rights and pay than most private sector workers. Doesn't make them automatically more productive.

I could go on about how much crap has just been dropped in my O/Hs lap re. the Olympics, 24 hr cover, 6 days on, 2 off for the next 4 months.

[Chim]

B Huey said:

Can anyone tell me how many jobs will be created by flushing all workers rights down the toilet?

No one is suggesting that workers rights are "flushed down the toilet" as you put it. the system as it stands at the moment though is god awful and not just from an employer perspective, the red tape and regulation that surrounds the whole process is beyond belief. By removing some of this and allowing employers the capability to scale operations and remove "bad" workers without having to effectively bring your company to a productive stand still for many months at a massive costs during the worst possible time. This can and will lead to employers taking on more workers as they will know that they can operate flexible if things get rough.

These are businesses, businesses exist to make money, they do not exist to employ people. The laws at they stand today mean that these businesses often have to carry these employees all the way to the bitter end and they can not scale to meet demand. No business likes to pay off good workers, they only consider it when its completely necessary. As I said, they exist to make money, they are not here to keep "facebook man" in the corner in a job or to carry a load of employes at huge cost when there is not the work for them to do.

[DSM2]

Chim 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.

The Germans are also a lot better at mass producing reliable products people actually want to buy, we unfortunately where really st at it.

We were actually quite good at it until the TUs and Labour conspired to fk things up in the 60s and 70s.

[BOR]

We have massively strong unions in Germany. What fked things up in the UK was short termism and profit taking.

[Adrian W]

I wonder if all the people on here saying this is good will still say that if they get fired rather than be made redundant

[heebeegeetee]

B Huey said:

Because they have better rights and pay?

Possibly, and much, much better management too of course.

[Hoofy]

Three things spring to mind in no order of importance.
-Employers won't sack someone on the spur of the moment unless they're an asshat because it'll cost a lot in time and money to recruit and train a replacement
-Employees may have to put up with abuse from scumbag managers who will push things knowing that they (the employees) could be sacked if they get arsey
-Will this apply to the public sector?

[heebeegeetee]

coyft said:

Let's try it for a couple of years and see how we get on.

You get to try it for a couple of years with every new employee you take on, don't you?

[philthy]

BOR said:

We have massively strong unions in Germany. What fked things up in the UK was short termism and profit taking.

Bullseye!

[Eric Mc]

There will be no changes.

[Eric Mc]

Chim 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.

The Germans are also a lot better at mass producing reliable products people actually want to buy, we unfortunately where really st at it.

Because employers treat their workers better perhaps?

Having said that, British car factories are amongst the most productive and efficient in the world.

[andy_s]

Eric Mc said:

Because employers treat their workers better perhaps?

Having said that, British car factories are amongst the most productive and efficient in the world.

Under foreign management....

[martin84]

In principle these changes can be very good if done properly, but I also take the point that making it easier to sack people will re-inforce the lack of consumer confidence and make people fear for their jobs, even if they have no need to fear for them. People emphasise the importance of saving money (quite reasonably) but if we all put every penny under the mattress we'll never get out of recession. The last thing the economy needs is everybody so scared for their jobs that they literally close ranks around their finances.

Really this is a change which should be made during good economic times in a growing economy where its positive points can have the most impact. I do think cutting red tape for employers is a good idea, I do think if its done properly it can really help the youth unemployment situation much more than any apprenticeship or grants system can ever do. Currently taking on an employee is such an expensive, time consuming process that it makes every potential employee a high risk, nobody wants to take on someone who seems less than perfect on paper due to the hassle of getting rid of them. If there was less risk attached to the hiring of younger, less experienced people then they could give more opportunities to youngsters to cut their teeth.

[voyds9]

I would like the ability to give the employees the same notice as they should give me.

Happy to give 1 months notice.

[Gaspode]

I'm not against these proposals, but isn't this what the existing system of using 'Compromise Agreements' is designed to get round? When I was 'got rid of' by my previous employer, this proved an easy way for them to get shot of me quickly without having to jump though hoops, whilst I got a nice little payoff in return for promising never to take them to court over the issue - which, by the way, was that I refused to move to Switzerland full time, rather than working there week on/week off as I had been doing.

[rich1231]

B Huey said:

I could go on about how much crap has just been dropped in my O/Hs lap re. the Olympics, 24 hr cover, 6 days on, 2 off for the next 4 months.

She is obviously a hero to us all, but you don't half go on and on about it.

[miniman]

New POD said:

Having worked for a manger (or 2) in the past who was a tt, this is the worst idea possible.

Why should good managers have ridiculous practices imposed on them because of the behaviour of bad managers?

Your issue is that you have a bad manager, nothing else.

[Miguel Alvarez]

andy_s said:

I think it's a good thing if used as intended, unfortunately, having once been on the receiving end of mendacious and spiteful management, the best I can say is that I'm underwhelmed with enthusiasm.

I echo this.

[DonkeyApple]

Jasandjules said:

I would prefer it if they made it easier to terminate on the basis of being s**t at the job.

This would seem the more logical solution.

A new law that allows an employer to hand to a crap member of staff a 1 month shape up or ship put notice. It must detail what they are failing at and give them the option to either understand what they are doing wrong and fix it or they are binned.

Once one has been served even if they survive they can then be booted at the drop of a hat without reasoning unless the employer pulls it from the file as the employee has genuinely sorted themselves out.

I would have thought that in the current climate the law that allows the firm to target that departmental loser is better than one which seems to be to the detriment of the entire work force regardless of whether good or bad.

I feel the changes need to be a little smarter than they appear.