|
Post by nicko on Jan 12, 2011 16:34:07 GMT 1
they should be ****ed off at the high port. Hope you don't talk to your employees in Army language. My current supervisor is an ex-army S/Sgt and twice during last year I had to remind him who he thinks he's speaking to. Regards maternity leave; who pays? Employer, or Government? I biggest gripe with maternity leave is that someone is left behind to take up the slack while they pursue their lifestyle choice (though it's not always a choice of course). But that's another issue. Also I personally have friends and family who have been treated appallingly by small companies and have had to go to people like Orangemob. Bullying, lack of SSP, emotional blackmail and working with no contracts being the biggest problems.
|
|
|
Post by nickjonesey on Jan 12, 2011 16:35:27 GMT 1
Nick, Question for you, How many times have you inadvertantly broken the law by doing something that is perfectly logical, like discilplining someone (Guy not turning up fpor work, cos he has a hangover, and not bothering to inform any one, therefore, warned him about his future conduct) but found that you are on the wrong side of the legal system........ Fortunately none mate. I have an advantage though because I have a smaller team, in a single location. We exercise give and take and I've been lucky that nobody has abused this approach.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Jan 12, 2011 16:38:30 GMT 1
In my opinion, generally employers get the employees they deserve, those who treat their employees with respect, receive respect in return. It is important that an employer fully understands employment law just as its important that drivers understand the highway code.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jan 12, 2011 16:46:50 GMT 1
I spent the last 30 years of my career working as a manager/executive for a multi national and my feeling about this debate is that the issues for a small firm are very different from those for a big company.
In my position I had the expertise of in-house HR and legal departments to help, most employees were not unionised and couldn't match the resources of the company - union membership was allowed, but very few bothered with it.
From my perspective the employer had all the power and it was easy to dismiss people for legitimate or other reasons. The most common way to get rid of someone whose face didn't fit, but had otherwise done nothing wrong, was to re-organise their department and make their job redundant.
Although I can truthfully say that I enjoyed my work, have no beef with the company and am happily in receipt of a decent pension, all employees need to realise that they are units of production who are entirely expendable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2011 16:50:32 GMT 1
In my opinion, generally employers get the employees they deserve, those who treat their employees with respect, receive respect in return. It is important that an employer fully understands employment law just as its important that drivers understand the highway code. Yes, I fully agree, anyway, lets try to get this back a little on topic, but in instances like what my ops manager has done, i fully support him, he may have gone about it out of proceedure, but essentially, the guy deserved a reprimand, and has got a formal one now. The original thread is about the plans to relax the laws, and I think the proposed plans will give employers greater confidence.
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Jan 12, 2011 16:52:29 GMT 1
all employees need to realise that they are units of production who are entirely expendable. Yes, because after all we are just another resource.
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Jan 12, 2011 17:28:11 GMT 1
In my opinion, generally employers get the employees they deserve, those who treat their employees with respect, receive respect in return. It is important that an employer fully understands employment law just as its important that drivers understand the highway code. As a matter of interest what do you do for a living?
|
|
oranjemob
Midland League Division One
Posts: 486
|
Post by oranjemob on Jan 12, 2011 17:49:50 GMT 1
Yes, I fully agree, anyway, lets try to get this back a little on topic, but in instances like what my ops manager has done, i fully support him, he may have gone about it out of proceedure, but essentially, the guy deserved a reprimand, and has got a formal one now. The original thread is about the plans to relax the laws, and I think the proposed plans will give employers greater confidence. As I said previously - you seem to have ignored all the points I made, Downie - if the guy needed disciplining, then fine. That your manager couldn't do it through a (very simple) legal process says a lot about his competence/training. It's not rocket science is it: Someone steps out of line - follow ther procedure - evidence says he's guilty - discipline him in the approporiate way. Result Not hard is it, "Give employers greater confidence" ?? Maybe it's not 'confidence' that some might need but 'competence'
|
|
oranjemob
Midland League Division One
Posts: 486
|
Post by oranjemob on Jan 12, 2011 17:58:46 GMT 1
As the employment legislation has got made it tougher to dismiss someone more employers have only taken people on via temporary contracts rather than permanent ones. I do believe if the laws were relaxed slightly for employers it would actually help employees have more chance of permanent contracts. Because of where I work I am not commenting at all on whether this proposal is a good idea or not. All I will say is within the last four years I have had more than one case of dismissing a member of staff because of poor attendance. In one case when the member of staff has rung in sick they have asked me "can I take this as holiday because I know I will be sacked if I don't come in today?" I have said "No, if unfit you are sick". So person has know what the outcome will be. I then had to follow all the procedures to ensure it was done fairly it took six weeks, which meant an extra six weeks pay for someone who knew they would be dismissed. This is the type of thing which employers find frustrating with the current legislation. So a member of staff is sick - wants to take a holiday to save his job and you say "No". What a warm hearted, compassionate human being you are Martin. I bet your mother is sooo proud. And, you had to follow the procedures to "ensure it was done fairly". Are you saying that this is a bad thing or would you have rather done it quickly and to hell with fairness? My God, the mind boggles
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Jan 12, 2011 18:02:38 GMT 1
In my opinion, generally employers get the employees they deserve, those who treat their employees with respect, receive respect in return. It is important that an employer fully understands employment law just as its important that drivers understand the highway code. As a matter of interest what do you do for a living? Not sure what relevance what I do for a living has, however to satisfy you I am retired. Prior to which I was a consultant working with many medium to large organisations.
|
|
oranjemob
Midland League Division One
Posts: 486
|
Post by oranjemob on Jan 12, 2011 18:07:05 GMT 1
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!! Ouch TUPE was introduced to protect workers from situations where businesses could 'change hands' often to relatives, friends etc, for the express purpose of getting rid of workers. The regulations prevent this from happening and countless thousands of people dumped on the dole for no reason. Where is this wrong? To say that it's intention is to "keep incompetent people in employment" is so absurd as to be laughable
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 12, 2011 19:48:36 GMT 1
Employment legislation is a necessary compromise. Ideally, it protects employees from exploitation by bad employers but gives responsible employers some flexibility in running their business.
Employers who dismiss it as so much red tape that stops them doing what they want are missing the point. When your business is big enough to take on employees, the employer has a wider social and economic responsibility. It's no longer yours to do with as you please.
I've worked with hundreds of businesses over the years, most of them small or medium sized. I can honestly say that the best employers are invariably more successful in business. There could be any number of reasons for this but I'm certain that one of the most important is that they recruit well and make their employees feel part of the team, not some sort of internal opponent whose resistance must be crushed. The reward is loyalty and good work - but it's a two way process.
I've seen plenty of bad, exploitative businesses fail. Their owners might think they were victims of external economic forces. I wouldn't agree.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 12, 2011 19:52:39 GMT 1
Not sure what's so puzzling or offensive. The first paragraph from the post you quote is a question to Jonah. The second paragraph simply flags up two posts by people who work in the field of HR/ employment law which use facts to put the case that legislation is not unfairly staked in the employees favour and not "Lets go back to sending kids up the chimney ..." style ranting, which you claim characterises that side of the debate. Sorry if that's proven too much for you, but I've played the ball, not the man as far as I can see.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 12, 2011 20:23:58 GMT 1
Although I can truthfully say that I enjoyed my work, have no beef with the company and am happily in receipt of a decent pension, all employees need to realise that they are units of production who are entirely expendable. Not human beings, then?
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jan 12, 2011 20:59:16 GMT 1
The evil in existing Employment Law regulations is to allow employers to trash employees conditions of service by claiming 'economic necessity.'
I used to work in education and have seen this done time and time again. Indeed the person appointed to do the dirty work for the Conservative Government in the early 1990s, Roger Ward, was given an honour for doing so before being exposed before a Commons Select Committee and moving on to run an expensive restaurant.
Before 1991 all Lecturers were on 'Silver Book' contracts which gave reasonable conditions of service. Ward unilaterally ripped these up to be replaced by grossly inferior contracts. Anyone who refused to sign was either dismissed via so called 'departmental reorganisations' or was informed they'd never have a pay increase again unless they signed the new contract. All in the name of 'economic necessity.'
And now in 2011 the Colleges are at it again..trashing conditions of service and sacking those not 'reasonable' enough to sign even more inferior contracts. And Employment Law allows them to get away with this! It is also incidentally a way of avoiding having to make redundancy payments.
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Jan 12, 2011 22:30:27 GMT 1
As the employment legislation has got made it tougher to dismiss someone more employers have only taken people on via temporary contracts rather than permanent ones. I do believe if the laws were relaxed slightly for employers it would actually help employees have more chance of permanent contracts. Because of where I work I am not commenting at all on whether this proposal is a good idea or not. All I will say is within the last four years I have had more than one case of dismissing a member of staff because of poor attendance. In one case when the member of staff has rung in sick they have asked me "can I take this as holiday because I know I will be sacked if I don't come in today?" I have said "No, if unfit you are sick". So person has know what the outcome will be. I then had to follow all the procedures to ensure it was done fairly it took six weeks, which meant an extra six weeks pay for someone who knew they would be dismissed. This is the type of thing which employers find frustrating with the current legislation. So a member of staff is sick - wants to take a holiday to save his job and you say "No". What a warm hearted, compassionate human being you are Martin. I bet your mother is sooo proud. And, you had to follow the procedures to "ensure it was done fairly". Are you saying that this is a bad thing or would you have rather done it quickly and to hell with fairness? My God, the mind boggles Two points so you think someone who hasn't managed to attend work for a whole month without being sick during an 18 month period is acceptable when there is medical evidence that they have no underlying conditions? This is with me making countless adjustments, giving them support and making allowances for them. Secondly the persons words to me were " I have taken liabilities haven't I. I know I am going to be sacked now". So we both knew the outcome, but the quickest I could dismiss them took six weeks, most of which time they were "off sick" with pay. Yes procedures should be followed but when it is such a clear cut case you can see why employers ger frustrated with wasting money. Pleased you know me so well. I am a warm kind hearted person. And my mum is really proud of me
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Jan 12, 2011 22:40:15 GMT 1
In my opinion, generally employers get the employees they deserve, those who treat their employees with respect, receive respect in return. It is important that an employer fully understands employment law just as its important that drivers understand the highway code. That explains everything. Consultants are the people who are paid shed loads of money for something that can be written on the back of a fag packet and everyone could see anyway. See I can jump to stupid sterotypes without knowing fully what I am talking about too
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Jan 13, 2011 10:41:40 GMT 1
In my opinion, generally employers get the employees they deserve, those who treat their employees with respect, receive respect in return. It is important that an employer fully understands employment law just as its important that drivers understand the highway code. That explains everything. Consultants are the people who are paid shed loads of money for something that can be written on the back of a fag packet and everyone could see anyway. See I can jump to stupid sterotypes without knowing fully what I am talking about too You forgot that consultants ask to borrow your watch before telling you the time. However consultants do get the chance to see how many different organisations work and often in different areas of the economy. Out of interest how many orgaisations have you worked for and are they all in the same sector?
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Jan 13, 2011 13:27:06 GMT 1
Simple solution minor. Dont take the chance on employing anyone in that age group. Sorry but that 'employee benefit' has pushed many employers to think that way. I see Jonah so basically disregard any female under the age of say 45. Now what you going to do about the long term ill. I know just sack them. Lets go back to sending kids up the chimney to clean them and maybe start transporting slaves from Africa. We live in the 21st century and employees should be treated with respect. Just found this little gem Ed One of your typical replies. You are not an employer and as far as I know never have been so you are unable to comment on staff recruitment and the thought behind it particularly in a small business. Long term disruption due to illness or even pregnancy can have a massive effect on a small business. I would not dare discriminate during recruitment because it is against the law but the selection process is carried out with the above thoughts firmly in mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2011 14:50:44 GMT 1
Problem is Jonah,
the only thing employee's see is the big bad boss ho is just raking it in off there backs eh.....
How many can be bothered to get of there backsides and do something themselves.......... but hang on, that would put everything at risk eh.........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2011 17:31:25 GMT 1
Can i say Downie, and i dont wish to sound rude or too personal, but for someone who is, or appears to be hugely critical of the previous government, employment laws, bureaucracy and just about everything else that happened over the past 13 years or so, you certainly seem to have done well.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Jan 13, 2011 17:42:20 GMT 1
Just found this little gem Ed One of your typical replies. You are not an employer and as far as I know never have been so you are unable to comment on staff recruitment and the thought behind it particularly in a small business. Long term disruption due to illness or even pregnancy can have a massive effect on a small business. I would not dare discriminate during recruitment because it is against the law but the selection process is carried out with the above thoughts firmly in mind. [/quote] Jonah, you do not have to be an "employer" to be responsible for staff recruitment, many managers are responsible for staff recruitment. Long term sickness or absence due to pregnancy can have a massive effect on any department or project, so please get off your high horse and realise that some organisations are proactive and actually plan for things other react to circumstances. By the way I have had input to a family business and therefore do understand the implications of staff relationships in a small business. Remind us Jonah how many do you actually employ.
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Jan 13, 2011 19:39:56 GMT 1
Problem is Jonah, the only thing employee's see is the big bad boss ho is just raking it in off there backs eh..... How many can be bothered to get of there backsides and do something themselves.......... but hang on, that would put everything at risk eh......... Got to agree with you Downie I expect those sitting back and taking their wage would think differently if they were sitting on the other side of the fence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2011 19:43:52 GMT 1
Can i say Downie, and i dont wish to sound rude or too personal, but for someone who is, or appears to be hugely critical of the previous government, employment laws, bureaucracy and just about everything else that happened over the past 13 years or so, you certainly seem to have done well. Yes mate, but I have also taken the knocks, and put everything at risk, such as my house & family............ going from a relitive secure job, to taking the bull by the horns and starting myself was a massive risk!!
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Jan 13, 2011 19:53:39 GMT 1
Ed I am talking about small businesses that are not big enough to have the luxury of Managers. From experience recruiting the correct person is crucial and long term planning certainly is at the forefront when that decision is made. If you been involved in this process within the family business then you will know exactly what I am talking about. Remind you how many I employ,why? I can't ever remember telling you in the first place so why remind you?
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 13, 2011 19:54:23 GMT 1
Problem is Jonah, the only thing employee's see is the big bad boss ho is just raking it in off there backs eh..... How many can be bothered to get of there backsides and do something themselves.......... but hang on, that would put everything at risk eh......... If bosses have that sort of contemptuous attitude then it's little wonder when it's reciprocated in kind by their employees. Suggests you see employers as the brave and under-appreciated entrepreneurs and employees as lazy whingers who don't know they're born. Surely your employees are 'getting off their backsides and doing something' when they turn up to work for you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2011 19:59:06 GMT 1
Shewsace, I have encountered both types, but very fortunate enough to sack the crap, and keep the good!!
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Jan 13, 2011 20:06:35 GMT 1
Ed I am talking about small businesses that are not big enough to have the luxury of Managers. From experience recruiting the correct person is crucial and long term planning certainly is at the forefront when that decision is made. If you been involved in this process within the family business then you will know exactly what I am talking about. Remind you how many I employ,why? I can't ever remember telling you in the first place so why remind you? Jonah, I hate to spoil your view of big business but most large businesses are made up of many small stand alone units each expected to meet targets month on month, failure to meet those targets lead to looking for a new job. You really do seem to lack an understanding of how business works. Downie without big business and the people who make it work many small businesses would go to the wall within weeks. It is big business that create the demand that small businesses fulfil. To assume that small businessmen are the only ones who take risks is very shortsighted.
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Jan 13, 2011 20:07:25 GMT 1
Shewsace, I have encountered both types, but very fortunate enough to sack the cr@p, and keep the good!! Downie the next generation of employees I.e the students of today will be an even bigger challenge How to manage those whose expectations far out way their talent will be a real test. Take the recent rallies, 300 arrests so far. would you employ one of those
|
|
|
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Jan 13, 2011 20:09:19 GMT 1
Shewsace, I have encountered both types, but very fortunate enough to sack the cr@p, and keep the good!! Downie the next generation of employees I.e the students of today will be an even bigger challenge [img src="http://www.shropshire.btinternet.co.uk/smiley/ www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0223.gif"].gif [/img] How to manage those whose expectations far out way their talent will be a real test. Take the recent rallies, 300 arrests so far. would you employ one of those [/quote] 300 arrests out of how many?
|
|