About to get much easier for companies to sack folk

[Blib]

Mrs Blib is head of the employment law department at a major City institution. She told me that nothing in the proposals is unusual and that most are already enshrined in many European countries.

Furthermore, she doesn't believe that these proposals will become law as they stand, stating that the Tories are "Forever banging on about it".

Mrs Blib is way more intelligent than me.

[Efbe]

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/T

We 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.

sorry to go slightly off on a tangent, but this kind of scheme is ridiculous.

all it does is reward the most popular people, and people that are good at extolling their own virtues.

We have a similar thing in our company, and you can guarantee the winners are those who 'network' well, are flavour of the month with the right people, and are good at passing off other peoples work as their own.

your end of year pay rise or bonus is the point your performance should be brought up. In my workplace I see no correlation between the two.

[Wills2]

I don't get it, you already have to work somewhere for 2 years to get employment rights, surely that's enough time to work out if they are any good?

[crankedup]

colonel c said:

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.

Agreed, and I feel sure that not all bosses would welcome such a policy that may unsettle their staff. This is another example of Far Right Political ideology fantasy.

Edited by crankedup on Tuesday 22 May 15:25

[Murph7355]

Wills2 said:

I don't get it, you already have to work somewhere for 2 years to get employment rights, surely that's enough time to work out if they are any good?

This is fiddling with something that doesn't really need fiddling with. At least not in the way they are doing.

Sleight of hand you see...all this noise over nothingness that ends up in no real change anywhere. But you miss the fact they've done fq all with all the items that they should be changing (but can't because we're a country full of whingers and poverty stricken dependents).

[anonymous-user]

Will be electoral suicide if they put this through. Most Conservative voters go to work. A high proportion for large corporations. Why would anybody vote for a party that is adversly affecting them. Not me for sure.

[anonymous-user]

Murph7355 said:

Wills2 said:

I don't get it, you already have to work somewhere for 2 years to get employment rights, surely that's enough time to work out if they are any good?

This is fiddling with something that doesn't really need fiddling with. At least not in the way they are doing.

Sleight of hand you see...all this noise over nothingness that ends up in no real change anywhere. But you miss the fact they've done fq all with all the items that they should be changing (but can't because we're a country full of whingers and poverty stricken dependents).

You see, this is the problem. People like you two who know fk all about employment Law.

Of course you don't need to have two years employment before you get employment rights.

[Wills2]

REALIST123 said:

Murph7355 said:

Wills2 said:

I don't get it, you already have to work somewhere for 2 years to get employment rights, surely that's enough time to work out if they are any good?

This is fiddling with something that doesn't really need fiddling with. At least not in the way they are doing.

Sleight of hand you see...all this noise over nothingness that ends up in no real change anywhere. But you miss the fact they've done fq all with all the items that they should be changing (but can't because we're a country full of whingers and poverty stricken dependents).

You see, this is the problem. People like you two who know fk all about employment Law.

Of course you don't need to have two years employment before you get employment rights.

Easy tiger, always willing to be enlightened.

By all means explain what I don't know, but don't be so aggressive.

[rich1231]

Wills2 said:

I don't get it, you already have to work somewhere for 2 years to get employment rights, surely that's enough time to work out if they are any good?

Not true, if the employee can play a "card" of any type then they might as well have concrete boots stopping from being moved on.

[cardigankid]

This whole debate is quite extraordinary.

Labour tell us that we have to have a plan for growth. Their plan for growth was patently just tax, borrow, spend and go bust. There is a difference between investing in growth, and financing waste, which the Labour party and a lot of others simply do not comprehend.

The country has to be less wasteful. That is not an option. There have been too many well paid non-jobs in the public sector for far too long, and at some point it has to stop. it has to stop or we end up like Greece. Money might be spent reducing the pace of contraction, but there is a real danger it would just stop entirely. What is really needed is to allow the private sector to expand. That involves reducing taxes and deregulating. really deregulating. Every restrictive law on employment is simply a brake on jobs. I do not take on staff unless absolutely necessary because I know that if they turn out to be a workshy fking nightmare I am not going to be able to get rid of the bds without compensation. Fact.

If they do not roll back employment legislation they will never create a successful private economy. With VAT at 20% I am surprised that there is an economy at all. What would there be if they gave it a chance?

[DonkeyApple]

colonel c said:

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.

In fairness we've seen first hand just how beneficial people taking out loans for home improvement, shopping and new cars has been.

[cardigankid]

colonel c said:

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.

Speaking as an employer, though there are no doubt a few fruitcakes about, particularly in smaller businesses, they tend to take themselves out of circulation quite quickly. Most employers are rational because they have to be.

You are NOT going to fall out with your employer if you show up regularly, on time, put in an honest day's work and do not take excessive periods on the sick. This is because he needs reliable staff. To get staff like that these days sadly you are talking about Poles. Not because they are Supermen but because they see the connection between hard work and receiving an income.

Some of our basic employment legislation is both sound and helpful to all sides. Constructive Union involvement is a good thing, particularly in large scale businesses. However, the sheer lack of productivity and willingness to work, and unbelievable expectations, of many British employees are such that not only are some of the more ridiculous requirements (which are now being addressed) at risk, but the fundamental ones which ought at all costs to be preserved are at risk as well, because what use is an employment right if you do not have a job?

Personally I believe that we are a lot closer in this country to the old eastern bloc principle of we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us, than most would think. if the Germans weren't running our car industry I shudder to think what state we would be in and yes I am planning to emigrate.

[Murph7355]

REALIST123 said:

You see, this is the problem. People like you two who know fk all about employment Law.

Of course you don't need to have two years employment before you get employment rights.

In your opinion all statutory employment rights are granted before this time then?

And I suppose you think you can't sack people for being st too?

[Johnnytheboy]

There was an utterly bizarre quote on the radio yesterday by some union person saying it would serve no purpose to make "hard working people live in fear of losing their jobs".

It occurred to me that I had never felt an iota of job security due to employment law, but lots of job security due to not being st at my job.

It also occurred to me that few sensible employers would want to sack hard working people.

[Chim]

Many posters seem to be focusing on getting rid of bad workers, as much as I agree that legislation needs to loosened to allow this I think the main problem is that businesses can not react quickly to the market conditions and i believe these changes would help that. If a companies order book dries up they are left with having to maintain a workforce that is way in excess of the amount of work available as it can take many many months to get through the redundancy cycle at huge cost at the worst possible time, in a lot of cases the company will end up going to wall and everyone loses their job as they could not react quickly enough.

[bga]

Consultation - good
Carryover of rights changes - bad
3rd party harrassment - indifferent
Foreign worker check - bad. This is basic employer due diligence

[heebeegeetee]

cardigankid said:

What is really needed is to allow the private sector to expand. That involves reducing taxes and deregulating. really deregulating.

It was the private sector and deregulation that created massive personal debt until it all imploded and the private sector (or a good chunk of it) had to go begging to governments (aka the public sector).

cardigankid said:

I do not take on staff unless absolutely necessary because I know that if they turn out to be a workshy fking nightmare I am not going to be able to get rid of the bds without compensation.

That is untrue. All you have to do is dismiss someone competently.

cardigankid said:

1. You are NOT going to fall out with your employer if you show up regularly, on time, put in an honest day's work and do not take excessive periods on the sick.

2. To get staff like that these days sadly you are talking about Poles.

3. If the Germans weren't running our car industry I shudder to think what state we would be in and yes I am planning to emigrate.

1. That is untrue.

2. And so is that.

3. This is true, but in the UK the majority of their employees are neither German or Polish.
Funny how useful the average British employee can be with some training and good management, eh?

[eccles]

Chim said:

Many posters seem to be focusing on getting rid of bad workers, as much as I agree that legislation needs to loosened to allow this I think the main problem is that businesses can not react quickly to the market conditions and i believe these changes would help that. If a companies order book dries up they are left with having to maintain a workforce that is way in excess of the amount of work available as it can take many many months to get through the redundancy cycle at huge cost at the worst possible time, in a lot of cases the company will end up going to wall and everyone loses their job as they could not react quickly enough.

The industry I work in the model seems to be to have a core of permanent employees, if work ramps up dramatically, but is short term, contractors are employed, and let go at the end of the job. If the work ramps up and is fairly long term, more permanent staff are employed and then when the work has dried up you have redundancies, which is also a good opportunity to get rid of the deadwood.
As far as I can gather it's been like this for 50 years and seems to work well.

[Gaspode]

eccles said:

The industry I work in the model seems to be to have a core of permanent employees, if work ramps up dramatically, but is short term, contractors are employed, and let go at the end of the job.

Same here. I've been a contractor since 2006, never been out of work, no concerns about finding work, I enjoy it far more than being a permanent employee. I see freelancing as the ideal solution to the employment flexibility. All the government really needs to do is to figure out a way of encouraging more people to go contracting without taking the piss when it comes to NI/Tax.

[Murph7355]

eccles said:

The industry I work in the model seems to be to have a core of permanent employees, if work ramps up dramatically, but is short term, contractors are employed, and let go at the end of the job. If the work ramps up and is fairly long term, more permanent staff are employed and then when the work has dried up you have redundancies, which is also a good opportunity to get rid of the deadwood.
As far as I can gather it's been like this for 50 years and seems to work well.

No reason it wouldn't work well - it sounds like good management to me.

The bit of employment legislation I would scrap is IR35 which tries its best to undermine this way of managing resources.