|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 10, 2011 20:12:47 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2011 21:20:45 GMT 1
Well as an employer of people, what brilliant news............. are you awareof how many incompetent people are employed, TUPE is another law that should be looked at, as this just helps keep incompetent people in employment and helps seedy lawyers and other leechs of socity!!
|
|
|
Post by MarkRowley on Jan 10, 2011 21:32:19 GMT 1
A very impartial article that Like many laws in this country, employment law has plenty of worthy ideas and principles that need to be fully protected but these often get lost in the entanglement of red tape, bureaucratic procedures, and protracted legal argument that seeks to cloudy the waters which in many instances severely delays the ability of an employer to dismiss an incompetent/dishonest/disruptive employee. In the modern culture that we continue to adopt from our American cousins of "Where there's blame there's a claim" there will be a good number of frivolous claims for unfair dismissal that are made by unscrupulous ex-employees and/or their solicitors to try and make themselves a few quid rather than taking responsibility for their own failures/weakness. On the flip side there will be many cases that are fully justified and need to continue to be protected such as the recent case in the news about the school dinner lady who was unreasonable sacked for telling a set of parents that their child had been bullied.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2011 21:40:45 GMT 1
Completly agree!! to many frivolus claims!!
My ops manager today has been threatend by a guy, who.... when asked why he did not turn up for work on new years day.......... said he had a hangover....... and decided to have a day off sick.............. now threatening him with a report of bullying, because he was given a verbal warning...........
this guys employment started on 4th Jan 2010............ so he was reliably informed that there is "**** all you can do mate, i have been here over a year!
he will be getting a shock on Monday!! lol
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Jan 10, 2011 21:47:00 GMT 1
Agree that the law needs looking at, protect yes,,,but let employers remove those that deserve it.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 10, 2011 21:56:33 GMT 1
Just to re-cap then, the Tories are cutting corporation tax and raising NICs for employees (not employers). I remember when they announced the latter the Tory supporter's jumped to its defence on the grounds that 'otherwise they'd have to raise VAT'. Oh what hollow laughter. VAT - which, in 2009 Cameron himself said, would hit the poor hardest and which Clegg branded 'regressive'. They announce redundancies in the public sector, while at the same time 'relaxing' employment laws. They pussy foot around the banks while getting tough on the sick, disabled and unemployed. No doubt ever lower business taxes, and 'wage restraint' and less protection at work will all be introduced in the name of 'encouraging business'. Perhaps this article from the Daily Mail will be more to your liking, Mark.... www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345678/Making-easier-sack-bad-staff-Britain-work-claims-David-Cameron.html
Nice quote from it "As part of the shake-up of employment law, there is also expected to be a reduction in the length of time that firms have to pay workers statutory sick pay - currently at least £79.15 for up to 28 weeks - while some small companies could be released from some shackling employment laws altogether. More lovely compassionate Conservatism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2011 22:01:35 GMT 1
Shrewsace,
U may not like it, but all of those measures will certainly help employment in the private sector........... so good moves!!
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 10, 2011 22:04:39 GMT 1
David Cameron “You could try as you say put it on VAT, sales tax, but again if you look at the effect of sales tax, it’s very regressive, it hits the poorest the hardest. It does, I absolutely promise you. Any sales tax, anything that goes on purchases that you make in shops tends to… if you look at it, where VAT goes now it doesn’t go on food obviously but it goes very very widely and VAT is a more regressive tax than income tax or council tax”.
Oh, and please could someone point to the evidence that 'relaxing' employment laws will create extra jobs. or than the existing laws contributed to the economic crisis.
After all, I take it that this is yet another thing being done in the name of 'deficit reduction'.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 10, 2011 22:05:41 GMT 1
Shrewsace, U may not like it, but all of those measures will certainly help employment in the private sector........... so good moves!! Replace the word 'employment' with 'exploitation' and we're in full agreement!
|
|
|
Post by MarkRowley on Jan 10, 2011 22:17:33 GMT 1
Has Bob Crow joined B&A? The only thing that could in any way be construed as exploitation in these times is the ongoing failure by the former administration to address the gangmasters of foreign workers in agriculture and the likes of the tragic Morecambe cocklers. Trying to adopt that word for the general working relationship between UK worker and UK employer is pure sensationalism
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2011 22:23:59 GMT 1
the explotation of current rules by employed people will far outweigh employers exploiting employees.............
problem with todays workforce is they spend to much time figuring out how to play the system than they do effectively working!!
I have 5 or 6 that are superb loyal employees!! but twice as many on seeing how much sick pay they can get how much compo they can get if their feeling are hurt etc etc......... it is at the point where i do not want to employ peopl directly and would much prefer to sub contract
so have to see how this pans out, but would certainly sub contract less if it was not such hard work to get rid of skivvers and shirkers, is this not alone, evidence for you!!
another piece of info that will have heavenly and the bnp going into overdrive.......... the great british worker generally falls into the skivver and shirker pile.
the loyal workforce are :- 2 asian, 1 polish 1 bulgarian and 2 long time friends............
|
|
|
Post by Tux on Jan 10, 2011 22:30:51 GMT 1
Hmm I agree to an extent but there needs to be line in the sand.
It should only be easier to sack those who are clearly not following there duties or who are simply not doing there job well. There should also be clear evidence to prove it.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 10, 2011 22:35:37 GMT 1
I disagree, Mark.
The direction things are travelling is all in favour of the employers - from taxation to employment law, at the expense of the employee.
I fully expect that wage restraint will be the next 'virtue' preached by the coalition, again in the name of making Britain 'attractive to business'.
Out of interest, what exactly do you disagree with in the original 'dailyfinance' article I linked to? What are the inaccuracies you object to?
Where's the evidence that this is good for the country, rather than good for business? Or do you see one as being synomynous with the other? (I'd suggest the events of the last few years rather informs us otherwise).
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 10, 2011 22:39:06 GMT 1
the explotation of current rules by employed people will far outweigh employers exploiting employees............. problem with todays workforce is they spend to much time figuring out how to play the system than they do effectively working!! Just to be clear then, the entire UK workforce is characterised by fecklesness and system playing? Be interested to see any proper research that suggests this is the case.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jan 10, 2011 22:41:50 GMT 1
A boon to employers who do not give a ****. There are employers out there who still don't give written employer contracts, grievance procedures etc.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 10, 2011 22:56:30 GMT 1
The proposals, the subject of a consultation to be launched this month, were among those discussed by the Prime Minister at a Downing Street Jobs Summit attended by large employers like Tesco , McDonalds and InterContinental Hotels.
'The thrust of the initiative is that to persuade companies to hire people we need to make it easier to fire those workers who aren’t up to the job, so there is less risk in taking on new people, especially the young,' said a Whitehall source.'
Whose interests are being served by this I wonder?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2011 23:05:16 GMT 1
And who would your first priority be to get back into work then?? surly getting the young people off the streets and into employment is a good thing!!
or do you disagree??
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 10, 2011 23:17:25 GMT 1
And who would your first priority be to get back into work then?? surly getting the young people off the streets and into employment is a good thing!! or do you disagree?? The way I read it is that these big businesses (McDonalds, Tesco etc) are saying they'll take people on provided they can easily get rid of them, especially the young. They're especially reluctant to take on young people and want some juicy favours in return. I also have grave misgivings over the quality of jobs that are being created. The coalition have staked a lot on a 'private sector led recovery' , so they've arranged a meeting with these businesses to beg them to create a load of McJobs to keep the unemployment figures down (doubt it'll work ,but still). So their big business mates have said, 'OK, but what's in it for us?' and Cameron's said 'what do you want?'...and of course they want less protection for workers, lower taxes on business, wages kept nice and low....
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 10, 2011 23:20:22 GMT 1
And who could disagree with this?
The central part of his wheeze is to double the amount of qualifying time in which staff can sue for unfair dismissal. You'll now need to work for two years, rather than one, before you can claim unfair dismissal. Fees will be introduced for logging claims. And the length of time over sick pay must be paid out will be reduced.
The idea of having any period longer than a probationary one before a worker can claim unfair dismissal is unacceptable. Once someone has passed their probationary period and shown they can do the job, they should have full employment rights. End of story.
Of course, one of the many ways Labour failed to push the progressive argument was to simply reduce the two-year requirement to one. This, we were told, was a favour and an example of fairness. But what's fair about denying workplace rights to staff who have proved they can do the job?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2011 23:25:24 GMT 1
Yes, you would read it like that....
But it is obvious that you are very bitter that labour lost the election, and can only see bad in what is happening to try to get some of the great back in to britian.
No one hates the Bankers more than I do, and hate that they get away with what they can and do get away with...........
However, I try to look at all things objectively rather than with blinkers on!! we all know the faults with some systems, and this, although there will be winners and losers, I can see the reasoning behind it!!
I remember a few lessons from school, but have forgotten what they taught about the fairness of socity............
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 10, 2011 23:35:52 GMT 1
Yes, you would read it like that.... But it is obvious that you are very bitter that labour lost the election, and can only see bad in what is happening to try to get some of the great back in to britian. I don't think there's any other way of interpreting 'The thrust of the initiative is that to persuade companies to hire people we need to make it easier to fire those workers who aren’t up to the job, so there is less risk in taking on new people, especially the young'And I didn't vote Labour at the last election, I spoiled my paper, sorry to dispel your theory.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jan 10, 2011 23:36:15 GMT 1
The reason employers like McDonalds want to make it easier to take on young people and easier to dismiss staff is that minimum statutory pay peaks at age 21.
Therefore you hire 17 year olds and sack them at 21.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2011 23:45:26 GMT 1
but that is 4 years!! and sure if that became common then there would be penalties for that alone!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2011 23:47:54 GMT 1
Yes, you would read it like that.... But it is obvious that you are very bitter that labour lost the election, and can only see bad in what is happening to try to get some of the great back in to britian. I don't think there's any other way of interpreting 'The thrust of the initiative is that to persuade companies to hire people we need to make it easier to fire those workers who aren’t up to the job, so there is less risk in taking on new people, especially the young'And I didn't vote Labour at the last election, I spoiled my paper, sorry to dispel your theory. Spoiled paper eh!! so instead of bleating about everything that is wrong, why do you not stand yourself!! and try to make a difference!!
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 11, 2011 8:52:14 GMT 1
Oh, you've got me there, Downie.
Anyone who didn't stand for election themselves obviously has no right to an opinion.
Kicking myself as I'm sure Cameron would've invited me along with representatives of McDonalds, Microsoft to help shape policy.
I've really missed a trick, there.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jan 11, 2011 9:22:54 GMT 1
the explotation of current rules by employed people will far outweigh employers exploiting employees............. problem with todays workforce is they spend to much time figuring out how to play the system than they do effectively working!! I have 5 or 6 that are superb loyal employees!! but twice as many on seeing how much sick pay they can get how much compo they can get if their feeling are hurt etc etc......... it is at the point where i do not want to employ peopl directly and would much prefer to sub contract so have to see how this pans out, but would certainly sub contract less if it was not such hard work to get rid of skivvers and shirkers, is this not alone, evidence for you!! another piece of info that will have heavenly and the bnp going into overdrive.......... the great british worker generally falls into the skivver and shirker pile. the loyal workforce are :- 2 asian, 1 polish 1 bulgarian and 2 long time friends............ Perhaps your employees need to play the system because you are a really poor employer ! But of course that can't be the case because you belong firmly in the boss good - worker bad school of manangement. Also, clearly your knowledge of the TUPE legislation is sadly lacking.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jan 11, 2011 9:53:41 GMT 1
I'm horrified that a very high % of jobs now have to be applied for via these employment agencies.
Employers sub contract and the poor worker is left without any meaningful protection whatsoever.
The rates for the job are inevitably seriously reduced as employers pay large sums to these agencies to be supplied with labour and recoup the money by lowering by a significant amount the hourly rate paid.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Jan 11, 2011 10:46:39 GMT 1
Maybe the graet capatalist in the sky can explain why someone who has been a good employee for 12 months is likely to become a liability during the next twelve months. Surely it is managements job to understand their staff and deal with the issue.
I always thought that most jobs come with a trial period say 6 months.
There are employees who play the system but equally there are employers who exploit the system, I do not believe that the proposed changes will benefit the good employers the only ones to gain will be the poor employers who want to exploit their workforce.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2011 10:57:57 GMT 1
problem with todays workforce is they spend to much time figuring out how to play the system than they do effectively working!!........ have you considered how much money employers spend employing accountants ect in an attempt to play the system and get out of paying as much tax as they can? there will always be employees, be they public or private sector, that dont really want to work as hard as they should and will do what they can to play the system, but the same applies equally to employers. it would be a disaster if we went back to the kind of employment law more suited to the victorian age in an attempt to crush some mythical masses of workers trying to rob the private sector. fairness and common sence for both sides is whats needed. on a side note, i think the demands being made by london underground for triple pay and a day off in lieu for working bank holidays gives trade unions a bad name and they really need to wake up and smell the roses.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Jan 11, 2011 12:19:02 GMT 1
on a side note, i think the demands being made by london underground for triple pay and a day off in lieu for working bank holidays gives trade unions a bad name and they really need to wake up and smell the roses. Although I agree with you that such demands are ridiculous it really depends on their contract of employment. If London Transport wants to run a full service on Sunday's and Bank Holidays then they have to employ people prepared to do so under a suitable contract. As I understand it you can not sack people if they refuse to work Sundays unless that is in their contract of Employment.
|
|