About to get much easier for companies to sack folk

[Chim]

Gaspode said:

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.

Mentioned this in my first post, I was a contractor for many years and it led me to starting my own consultancy firm. From an employer perspective though it is a very expensive way of doing this, it also only really works for those contractors with specialist skills, primarily in IT and small companies can not afford to do this

[Countdown]

Efbe said:

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.

I would disagree

The awards are vetted by line managers (who you would hope were on the ball)so that should filter out those who have an inflated sense about their own performance. The people who get them are not always the "popular" types, although I would suggest that skivers/layabouts/whingers will not be particularly popular and ergo will not be nominated. More often than not its the quiet, head-down and get on with it types who have been nominated.

In many roles performance (and especially attitude) is not quantifiable but justifies recognition.

[Countdown]

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?

I know it sounds quaint but people might save up for those things

[vonuber]

Tell you what, given the 60 odd days off sick I had last year, I am glad I work for a fairly reasonable employer and not some of those posting here - I would've been fired straight away under this proposed legislation.

[Chim]

vonuber said:

Tell you what, given the 60 odd days off sick I had last year, I am glad I work for a fairly reasonable employer and not some of those posting here - I would've been fired straight away under this proposed legislation.

Why, the legislation does not mention or deal with long term illness absence and does not take away any of your current rights in this area.

[Johnnytheboy]

Chim said:

vonuber said:

Tell you what, given the 60 odd days off sick I had last year, I am glad I work for a fairly reasonable employer and not some of those posting here - I would've been fired straight away under this proposed legislation.

Why, the legislation does not mention or deal with long term illness absence and does not take away any of your current rights in this area.

A large proportion of the people I hear about whose companies try and get rid of them go off sick with exactly the same thing - stress and depression - so I'm sure this get out clause will continue...

[colonel c]

Countdown said:

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?

I know it sounds quaint but people might save up for those things

Indeed 'Neither a borrower nor a lender be'. That would fkup the bankers.

[johnfm]

crankedup said:

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!

Emotional bleating without factual basis! The U.K. already has, as widely recognised, one of the most flexible hard-working workforces. Add to this Union 'power' is the most stifled through legislation throughout Europe. And to top it all an employer has up to one year to dismiss an employee from point of employment, this is being upgraded to two years. Not forgetting the probation periods of course. And there's more, in some areas 20 people are seeking one vacancy, so competition for the job is hot. So I maintain that the policy suggestion we talk of is unfair, unreasonable and simply not required.

Dear Crankedup

Can you please supply the factual basis for:

"The U.K. already has, as widely recognised, one of the most flexible hard-working workforces"

"Union 'power' is the most stifled through legislation throughout Europe"

I suggest they are emotional bleatings with little or no basis in fact.

[PugwasHDJ80]

crankedup said:

Emotional bleating without factual basis! The U.K. already has, as widely recognised, one of the most flexible hard-working workforces. Add to this Union 'power' is the most stifled through legislation throughout Europe. And to top it all an employer has up to one year to dismiss an employee from point of employment, this is being upgraded to two years. Not forgetting the probation periods of course. And there's more, in some areas 20 people are seeking one vacancy, so competition for the job is hot. So I maintain that the policy suggestion we talk of is unfair, unreasonable and simply not required.

ha ha ha ha ha haha hahhaa hahahhahahahhha hahaahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

where do you get your "facts" from. i can only relate my experience from creating jobs for 120 people. I would have employed a darn site more if
a. taxes were lower,
b. there was less red tape
c. i could have hired and fired more efficiently to ensure i ended up with the right people?

seriously union power weak? there's no reason for unions any more- worked DONT need protecting- the law does that for them already. All unions do is look at lining the pockets of their members, at the expense of customers, new staff, efficiency, the company and eventually their own jobs.

20 people chasing one job? that's not many- there were almost 900 applicants post intial test stage for a city job i went for in the early 90s.

one in 5 of the workforce are economically inactive (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7257667/Eight-million-people-economically-inactive.html)

why are people so scared of being fired? if you are genuinely good at your job is very unlikely you are going to be fired- companies need staff as much as staff need copmanies.

[mph1977]

Jasandjules said:

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

it's easy to do that if people have proper job descriptions and there are objective measures of failures in performance.

the biggest problem is a lack of moral fibre on behalf on managers who will not take the most damaging type of employee to task and will not support first line supervisors and shift leaders in doing so.

[Murph7355]

mph1977 said:

it's easy to do that if people have proper job descriptions and there are objective measures of failures in performance.

the biggest problem is a lack of moral fibre on behalf on managers who will not take the most damaging type of employee to task and will not support first line supervisors and shift leaders in doing so.

Ssssssshhhhh. It's not the poor managers' fault. It's the law's.

[cardigankid]

heebeegeetee said:

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).

You are, perhaps disingenuously, confusing effect with cause. What we had under Labour, and even today, is not capitalism. It is state initiated, manipulated and taxed enterprise. Politicians created the service economy. Politicians created the low-interest house price boom. Politicians believed that they could create prosperity by expanding the public sector. Deregulation was a gift to financial cronies. Politicians believed (and still believe) that bankers spin gold out of straw. Politicians gave Fred Goodwin the rope he needed to hang himself, and then waded in with public money to save the resulting bust bank. 'Too big to fail' is not private enterprise. The USSR was 'too big to fail'. RBS should have been let go, like Greece should be let go, and those who argue against it are mostly those with as personal interest to protect. Otherwise we are only preserving inefficiency for political reasons, which is how the USSR went and British Leyland if you recall that blinding example of state managed British enterprise.

heebeegeetee said:

That [getting rid of incompetent staff] is untrue. All you have to do is dismiss someone competently.

Rubbish. it is far too easy for useless employees to entrench themselves with 'rights'. Even huge companies with in-house lawyers and HR departments struggle with this.

heebeegeetee said:

1. That [Good employees will rarely fall out with their employers] is untrue.

As I said, there are poor employers out there but they don't tend to last long. What we have far too much of in this country is lippy employees who are too cool to work and think it is their role to tell the employer what to do. Such people, and I have seen it from school leavers as well as graduates, are basically grossly undisciplined and unemployable.

heebeegeetee said:

2. And so is that [to get good staff you are talking about hiring Poles].

A slight exaggeration no doubt, but most of us have experience of this. We have raised generations in Britain who do not understand the connection between work and pay.

heebeegeetee said:

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?

The only point on which we agree, I think, but the Japanese and the Germans have serious financial and political muscle, as well as ethos and discipline, to back up their management. Things are done their way and everyone knows that if they don't pull their weight they can just as easily transfer production to Brazil or the Czech Republic. I am not saying that there are not good people in the UK. There are. They usually are not given a chance unless they happen to be working for Japs and Germans. Sensible management is discouraged within the UK where we seem to be divided amongst public sector jobsworths and private sector thieves, mostly high end City, who are only in it for a fast buck.

Edited by cardigankid on Thursday 24th May 09:18

[crankedup]

PugwasHDJ80 said:

crankedup said:

Emotional bleating without factual basis! The U.K. already has, as widely recognised, one of the most flexible hard-working workforces. Add to this Union 'power' is the most stifled through legislation throughout Europe. And to top it all an employer has up to one year to dismiss an employee from point of employment, this is being upgraded to two years. Not forgetting the probation periods of course. And there's more, in some areas 20 people are seeking one vacancy, so competition for the job is hot. So I maintain that the policy suggestion we talk of is unfair, unreasonable and simply not required.

ha ha ha ha ha haha hahhaa hahahhahahahhha hahaahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

where do you get your "facts" from. i can only relate my experience from creating jobs for 120 people. I would have employed a darn site more if
a. taxes were lower,
b. there was less red tape
c. i could have hired and fired more efficiently to ensure i ended up with the right people?

seriously union power weak? there's no reason for unions any more- worked DONT need protecting- the law does that for them already. All unions do is look at lining the pockets of their members, at the expense of customers, new staff, efficiency, the company and eventually their own jobs.

20 people chasing one job? that's not many- there were almost 900 applicants post intial test stage for a city job i went for in the early 90s.

one in 5 of the workforce are economically inactive (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7257667/Eight-million-people-economically-inactive.html)

why are people so scared of being fired? if you are genuinely good at your job is very unlikely you are going to be fired- companies need staff as much as staff need copmanies.

I'm not about to post quotes in order to justify facts that most of the Country have been shouting about for 18 months or more, they are out there, go look. I do agree that an average across the Country is 1/5 unemployed, but I did mention in my post 'in some areas 1 in 20 people are chasing a job'.
Why are so many people scared of being fired you ask, clearly you have never had the misfortune to be in that situation to be able to understand the answer.
Union strength in the U.K. has been declining since the 1980's and this is reflected in membership levels falling. Successive Governments have also strangled the Unions with increasing legislation, U.K. Unions are the most heavily regulated Unions in Europe. Don't accept it? Go investigate and see for yourself, its all true.

[crankedup]

johnfm said:

crankedup said:

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!

Emotional bleating without factual basis! The U.K. already has, as widely recognised, one of the most flexible hard-working workforces. Add to this Union 'power' is the most stifled through legislation throughout Europe. And to top it all an employer has up to one year to dismiss an employee from point of employment, this is being upgraded to two years. Not forgetting the probation periods of course. And there's more, in some areas 20 people are seeking one vacancy, so competition for the job is hot. So I maintain that the policy suggestion we talk of is unfair, unreasonable and simply not required.

Dear Crankedup

Can you please supply the factual basis for:

"The U.K. already has, as widely recognised, one of the most flexible hard-working workforces"

"Union 'power' is the most stifled through legislation throughout Europe"

I suggest they are emotional bleatings with little or no basis in fact.

Go Google Go!

[crankedup]

johnfm said:

crankedup said:

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!

Emotional bleating without factual basis! The U.K. already has, as widely recognised, one of the most flexible hard-working workforces. Add to this Union 'power' is the most stifled through legislation throughout Europe. And to top it all an employer has up to one year to dismiss an employee from point of employment, this is being upgraded to two years. Not forgetting the probation periods of course. And there's more, in some areas 20 people are seeking one vacancy, so competition for the job is hot. So I maintain that the policy suggestion we talk of is unfair, unreasonable and simply not required.

Dear Crankedup

Can you please supply the factual basis for:

"The U.K. already has, as widely recognised, one of the most flexible hard-working workforces"

"Union 'power' is the most stifled through legislation throughout Europe"

I suggest they are emotional bleatings with little or no basis in fact.

Go Google Go! And use your own word play while your at it.

[Dracoro]

crankedup said:

but I did mention in my post 'in some areas 1 in 20 people are chasing a job'.

What does that actually mean? There could be 20 jobs and each have 20 applicants (the same applicants for example) so there's a 1:1 job/person ratio. What's key is how many QUALIFIED people are chasing that job? There's something like, for example, 500,000 jobs out there waiting to be filled, if there are 20 applicants per job, thats TEN MILLION people looking for jobs! I don't think so. Many will already be in employment too so not all those applying for jobs are unemployed.

The only real "indicator" (if there is such a thing) is how many vacancies to unemployed (that are able/willing to work) ratio.

A major problem in this country is that people aren't willing to move to work. Granted it may not be "nice" to get a job miles away from friends/family but it can also be enlightening and get to make new friends where you move to etc. You make your own way in this world. How long are people in for example, old mining towns or northern towns going to wait for some business to set up shop in there area that all the locals are qualified for and "give" them their ideal job. If the jobs don't come to you, you go to the jobs.

[johnfm]

crankedup said:

johnfm said:

crankedup said:

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!

Emotional bleating without factual basis! The U.K. already has, as widely recognised, one of the most flexible hard-working workforces. Add to this Union 'power' is the most stifled through legislation throughout Europe. And to top it all an employer has up to one year to dismiss an employee from point of employment, this is being upgraded to two years. Not forgetting the probation periods of course. And there's more, in some areas 20 people are seeking one vacancy, so competition for the job is hot. So I maintain that the policy suggestion we talk of is unfair, unreasonable and simply not required.

Dear Crankedup

Can you please supply the factual basis for:

"The U.K. already has, as widely recognised, one of the most flexible hard-working workforces"

"Union 'power' is the most stifled through legislation throughout Europe"

I suggest they are emotional bleatings with little or no basis in fact.

Go Google Go! And use your own word play while your at it.

Oh, I see. When you get asked for facts the response is 'go find them yourself'.

You are priceless.

[crankedup]

johnfm said:

crankedup said:

johnfm said:

crankedup said:

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!

Emotional bleating without factual basis! The U.K. already has, as widely recognised, one of the most flexible hard-working workforces. Add to this Union 'power' is the most stifled through legislation throughout Europe. And to top it all an employer has up to one year to dismiss an employee from point of employment, this is being upgraded to two years. Not forgetting the probation periods of course. And there's more, in some areas 20 people are seeking one vacancy, so competition for the job is hot. So I maintain that the policy suggestion we talk of is unfair, unreasonable and simply not required.

Dear Crankedup

Can you please supply the factual basis for:

"The U.K. already has, as widely recognised, one of the most flexible hard-working workforces"

"Union 'power' is the most stifled through legislation throughout Europe"

I suggest they are emotional bleatings with little or no basis in fact.

Go Google Go! And use your own word play while your at it.

Oh, I see. When you get asked for facts the response is 'go find them yourself'.

You are priceless.

Upon reflection you are correct, I should offer something to back my statement.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52 It is old but offers a insight into Union legislation requirements. If you have time to read it you are more fortunate than myself, and I'm retired from work.

Edited by crankedup on Thursday 24th May 11:56

[cardigankid]

crankedup said:

And there's more, in some areas 20 people are seeking one vacancy, so competition for the job is hot.

If you think 20 people after one job is hot competition, I congratulate you on your ignorance.

[0000]

crankedup said:

I'm not about to post quotes in order to justify facts