About to get much easier for companies to sack folk
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
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.
BOR said:
We have massively strong unions in Germany. What f
ked things up in the UK was short termism and profit taking.
The real problem was that the union concept was hijacked by political extremists who instead of focussing on the welfare of their charges used the union as a vehicle to instigate a New World Order. ked things up in the UK was short termism and profit taking.I suspect that in Germany the people are far more wary of seeing those tactics again and would stamp them out swiftly.
Yet another ill considered back of a fag packet idea that comes across as worker bashing, just as 'we all are in this together'. It will never get through to legislation, thankfully. Its not the way to build unity in the workplace and would worry people enough for them to stop spending what little money they may have. I agree with Vince.
DonkeyApple said:
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.
Agree, but...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.
The current laws aren't really that far off allowing this to be done anyway. The main problem is unprepared/poor managers and s
t HR people who hide behind an interpretation of the law that means they don't need to do anything much.Reform is needed, but as described it's a typical sledgehammer to crack a nut. It needs to be more refined.
They also need to cut the morass of "rights" that employees have. An awful lot should, IMO, be left to the employer to decide what's best for his/her business and the employee to select an employer based on the overall "package" (before anyone pipes up, if you only have one choice of a job then your choice is made. Not working should not be a choice and needs reform elsewhere).
Things like maternity/paternity pay, long term sick etc etc I would imagine to be more troublesome for small business than many other items.
Being brutal, the former's a life choice of the individual, not the company. And the latter can be insured against by the individual. If an employer chooses to offer these things (and if examples such as employment conditions in Germany are sound then it would seem sensible to do so), fair enough. Otherwise let's get some responsibility and accountability back on the individual.
Ref redundancy, again the current laws can be navigated. I suspect careless "tweaks" will benefit larger organisations more than the smaller end, and I don't think that's the aim of anyone.
Current TUPE laws are silly though. I can see why they were put in place, but it's a really good demonstration of how poorly government tends to execute well intended legislation.
crankedup said:
Yet another ill considered back of a fag packet idea that comes across as worker bashing, just as 'we all are in this together'. It will never get through to legislation, thankfully. Its not the way to build unity in the workplace and would worry people enough for them to stop spending what little money they may have. I agree with Vince.
so giving a company the ability to get rid of st workers (which is currently a MASSSIVE detriment to the good workers) is somehow a bad thing? You can't "build" unity in the workplace with the wrong people. If you can't get rid of the wrong people then you can't have unity.
This is the very basis of effecitve workplaces and companies.
Currently we have a situation that as long as you get past 12m its almost impossible to sack people. At the same time, they good staff aren't valued any more than the worst staff.
Guess the guys bleating about these things being "unfair" are doing so becuase they know they aren't vital to the businesses in which they work!
PugwasHDJ80 said:
so giving a company the ability to get rid of st workers (which is currently a MASSSIVE detriment to the good workers) is somehow a bad thing?
You can't "build" unity in the workplace with the wrong people. If you can't get rid of the wrong people then you can't have unity.
This is the very basis of effecitve workplaces and companies.
Currently we have a situation that as long as you get past 12m its almost impossible to sack people. At the same time, they good staff aren't valued any more than the worst staff.
Guess the guys bleating about these things being "unfair" are doing so becuase they know they aren't vital to the businesses in which they work!
No! I employ people and from my point of view it's great, you piss me off, your gone, I need to make cuts, your gone, in fact anything I feel like, your gone. from an employees perspective it can only be bad news. this goverment should be looking at reducing business rates and admin costs, maybe almalgamate tax and NI arter all they are the same thing. t workers (which is currently a MASSSIVE detriment to the good workers) is somehow a bad thing? You can't "build" unity in the workplace with the wrong people. If you can't get rid of the wrong people then you can't have unity.
This is the very basis of effecitve workplaces and companies.
Currently we have a situation that as long as you get past 12m its almost impossible to sack people. At the same time, they good staff aren't valued any more than the worst staff.
Guess the guys bleating about these things being "unfair" are doing so becuase they know they aren't vital to the businesses in which they work!
PugwasHDJ80 said:
...
Currently we have a situation that as long as you get past 12m its almost impossible to sack people. At the same time, they good staff aren't valued any more than the worst staff. ...
I'm not sure this is the case though.Currently we have a situation that as long as you get past 12m its almost impossible to sack people. At the same time, they good staff aren't valued any more than the worst staff. ...
It is possible to get rid of people and it is possible to reward the good over the bad.
The first failing, IMO, is not the law but s
t management and poor company structures for dealing with such things. The worst offenders just blame the law for not doing their job for them.Getting rid of people if you have objective "targets" for individuals is pretty straightforward (either that, or they learn not to be s
t any more - win:win). The amount of time this takes depends on how well those targets are laid out and how good the managers are. But it's possible. And if your company's worth anything you would surely want it to encourage the best out of people at all levels in this way?It then further falls down with poor HR. A decent manager can do their job only to be tripped up by some half hearted HR jockey who doesn't want to get within a country mile of a wrongful dimissal suit. And to be fair, the board of companies are often equally lily livered themselves, easily scared by the HR dept and end up paying people off and hence being reticent to let people be fired.
Perhaps what needs to change is the individual's ability to sue with no down side (costs etc). But if companies structured and managed themselves well, and stood their ground when a rightful dismissal gets taken through the courts, I suspect there'd be a marked decrease in cases presented without any need to change the law from one side of the metronome to the other.
As for rewards...discretionary bonuses. Easy to tweak, easy to make a very clear statement of who you value and who you do not. Easy for the individuals to leave if they feel aggrieved. Problem with this? s
t managers again. Who do things for an easy life and for fear of delivering bad news.The law really isn't the worst culprit in all this IMO.
Likewise.Murph7355 said:
I'm not sure this is the case though.
It is possible to get rid of people and it is possible to reward the good over the bad.
The first failing, IMO, is not the law but st management and poor company structures for dealing with such things. The worst offenders just blame the law for not doing their job for them.
Getting rid of people if you have objective "targets" for individuals is pretty straightforward (either that, or they learn not to be st any more - win:win). The amount of time this takes depends on how well those targets are laid out and how good the managers are. But it's possible. And if your company's worth anything you would surely want it to encourage the best out of people at all levels in this way?
It then further falls down with poor HR. A decent manager can do their job only to be tripped up by some half hearted HR jockey who doesn't want to get within a country mile of a wrongful dimissal suit. And to be fair, the board of companies are often equally lily livered themselves, easily scared by the HR dept and end up paying people off and hence being reticent to let people be fired.
Perhaps what needs to change is the individual's ability to sue with no down side (costs etc). But if companies structured and managed themselves well, and stood their ground when a rightful dismissal gets taken through the courts, I suspect there'd be a marked decrease in cases presented without any need to change the law from one side of the metronome to the other.
As for rewards...discretionary bonuses. Easy to tweak, easy to make a very clear statement of who you value and who you do not. Easy for the individuals to leave if they feel aggrieved. Problem with this? st managers again. Who do things for an easy life and for fear of delivering bad news.
The law really isn't the worst culprit in all this IMO.
but surely we're into the market starting to work effectively at this point. It is possible to get rid of people and it is possible to reward the good over the bad.
The first failing, IMO, is not the law but s
t management and poor company structures for dealing with such things. The worst offenders just blame the law for not doing their job for them.Getting rid of people if you have objective "targets" for individuals is pretty straightforward (either that, or they learn not to be s
t any more - win:win). The amount of time this takes depends on how well those targets are laid out and how good the managers are. But it's possible. And if your company's worth anything you would surely want it to encourage the best out of people at all levels in this way?It then further falls down with poor HR. A decent manager can do their job only to be tripped up by some half hearted HR jockey who doesn't want to get within a country mile of a wrongful dimissal suit. And to be fair, the board of companies are often equally lily livered themselves, easily scared by the HR dept and end up paying people off and hence being reticent to let people be fired.
Perhaps what needs to change is the individual's ability to sue with no down side (costs etc). But if companies structured and managed themselves well, and stood their ground when a rightful dismissal gets taken through the courts, I suspect there'd be a marked decrease in cases presented without any need to change the law from one side of the metronome to the other.
As for rewards...discretionary bonuses. Easy to tweak, easy to make a very clear statement of who you value and who you do not. Easy for the individuals to leave if they feel aggrieved. Problem with this? s
t managers again. Who do things for an easy life and for fear of delivering bad news.The law really isn't the worst culprit in all this IMO.
if a company is getting rid of good people becuase it has a crap manager, then eventually they wil be left with no good people!
PugwasHDJ80 said:
Guess the guys bleating about these things being "unfair" are doing so becuase they know they aren't vital to the businesses in which they work!
Slightly O/TWe have a "colleague of the month" scheme. Nominations are by staff, winner selected by Mgmt and gets £100 vouchers. i see it as a nice way of saying "thank you". Managers cant be everywhere at all times so its nice when colleagues have recognised one of their own as going "above and beyond".
A small minority of staff feel it's ridiculous. In their view all staff "perform well" and staff are just doing their normal job and getting rewarded for it. Of course this has nothing to do with the fact that they themselves are 9th dan clockwatchers who spend more time on their mobiles than actually working.
Adrian W said:
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
Yep, I will, but then I'm a contractor so I work hard and ensure that I do a good job as I know that I would be 'out on my ear' if I did not.Which is why this is a good idea as workers should now realise that they have to work hard to keep their job, not just coast and let other take up the slack.
Countdown said:
PugwasHDJ80 said:
Guess the guys bleating about these things being "unfair" are doing so becuase they know they aren't vital to the businesses in which they work!
Slightly O/TWe have a "colleague of the month" scheme. Nominations are by staff, winner selected by Mgmt and gets £100 vouchers. i see it as a nice way of saying "thank you". Managers cant be everywhere at all times so its nice when colleagues have recognised one of their own as going "above and beyond".
A small minority of staff feel it's ridiculous. In their view all staff "perform well" and staff are just doing their normal job and getting rewarded for it. Of course this has nothing to do with the fact that they themselves are 9th dan clockwatchers who spend more time on their mobiles than actually working.
KENZ said:
Can't believe they would even talk about such thing's in this current climate. Never mind it make print. Fecking idiots!!
It was an independent report that made these recommendations not a government minister. Are you saying a government should never seek external advice, or publish such advise.
As for the proposals themselves the redundancy provisions made allot of sense as 90 days is often too long. A 'no fault' dismissal option should ideally come with a generous payout to give workers more security.
PugwasHDJ80 said:
crankedup said:
Yet another ill considered back of a fag packet idea that comes across as worker bashing, just as 'we all are in this together'. It will never get through to legislation, thankfully. Its not the way to build unity in the workplace and would worry people enough for them to stop spending what little money they may have. I agree with Vince.
so giving a company the ability to get rid of st workers (which is currently a MASSSIVE detriment to the good workers) is somehow a bad thing? You can't "build" unity in the workplace with the wrong people. If you can't get rid of the wrong people then you can't have unity.
This is the very basis of effecitve workplaces and companies.
Currently we have a situation that as long as you get past 12m its almost impossible to sack people. At the same time, they good staff aren't valued any more than the worst staff.
Guess the guys bleating about these things being "unfair" are doing so becuase they know they aren't vital to the businesses in which they work!
Understandably lots of pro employer view points on here. What about the other side of this. The employee. With the loss of any kind of job security who is going to take out loans to pay for home improvements, a new car etc if falling out with the boss means instant loss of income. How would that effect the economy?
Worse still is likelihood of abuse and bulling by bad managers towards those less able to stand up for themselves for fear of getting the sack.
There are existing ways and means of dealing with problem staff. If managers can't manage their staff without resorting to threats of sacking then they are the ones who should be out on their ear.
Worse still is likelihood of abuse and bulling by bad managers towards those less able to stand up for themselves for fear of getting the sack.
There are existing ways and means of dealing with problem staff. If managers can't manage their staff without resorting to threats of sacking then they are the ones who should be out on their ear.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff