Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2011 20:14:25 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 [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] Unfortunately, we will have to at least give them an interview.......... its the law!!
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Jan 13, 2011 20:18:59 GMT 1
'You really do seem to lack an understanding of how business works' That has got to be one of the funniest quotes I have heard in a long long time Ed. How I have got to were I am today with a lack of understanding of business is a mystery to me then. Maybe my next step is to employ you as a consultant to advise me were I am going wrong
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jan 13, 2011 20:19:55 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? I could give a long reply, with lots of examples - but the short answer is no.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Jan 13, 2011 20:29:34 GMT 1
'You really do seem to lack an understanding of how business works' That has got to be one of the funniest quotes I have heard in a long long time Ed. [img src="http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/9825/ img14.imageshack.us/img14/9825/getaway.gif"].gif [/img] How I have got to were I am today with a lack of understanding of business is a mystery to me then. Maybe my next step is to employ you as a consultant to advise me were I am going wrong [/quote] I apologies Jonah I missed out the word big in front of the word business, you fail to demonstrate any understanding of the role of managers in business.
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Jan 13, 2011 20:52:23 GMT 1
Apology accepted Ed Now please stop digging that hole you are in any deeper. FYI my last employment before I started my own business was a national logistics manager for a Korean company that is one of the largest producers of household electrical goods in the world. Oh and I also have a graduate degree in business studies So just maybe I do have some understanding.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jan 13, 2011 23:14:48 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......... Were you not an employee once ? Could you not be bothered too when you were an employee of the government ? Your opinions and viewpoints would carry a much greater impact if you stopped resorting to the argument of the professor of stereotype.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jan 13, 2011 23:22:48 GMT 1
Take the recent rallies, 300 arrests so far. would you employ one of those Employ them when ? Now ? 5 years time? 10 years time? 20 years time ? Don't tell me that you are the same person now that you were when you were 17 or 18. I am absolutely chuffed that the teenagers of today are prepared to say and do something, not the criminal stuff but good old fashioned protest...long may it continue.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 14, 2011 0:09:15 GMT 1
I could give a long reply, with lots of examples - but the short answer is no. Extraordinary reply! No need to go on at length but could you please give me at least one example of someone who definitely is an 'expendable unit of production' and definitely not a human being.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jan 14, 2011 0:11:30 GMT 1
Ah. The self made man. That poor barsteward. No father and no mother either.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jan 14, 2011 0:22:04 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. Totally agree with the last sentence. And it's not that much different working for a small organisation. Even if you're shagging the boss. Once I realised this I became far happier. I stopped doing unpaid overtime because I wanted things to be the best they could. Stopped making suggestions about how things could be improved. Kept my head down and got on with the work to the standard that my employers in their wisdom (or otherwise) thought was the correct way to do the job. And at the end of the working day it was the end of the working day.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Jan 14, 2011 10:28:07 GMT 1
Jonah, just one question from April are you going to stop employing men who have partners of childbearing ages as from that date it will be parental leave?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2011 10:59:02 GMT 1
[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!! i understand that, and i think it is to be respected, but that is the price you pay, the risk, the knocks ect for the success you have had. my point is that you seem to be saying that business law, employment law, reams of government legislation over the past 13 years or so, have been bad for you, bad for business, bad for competition, bad for everything really, yet you have been a success, therefore perhaps it hasnt actually been that bad at all?
|
|
oranjemob
Midland League Division One
Posts: 486
|
Post by oranjemob on Jan 14, 2011 11:14:07 GMT 1
Spending most of my time working for employers - from micro-businesses to multi-million pound companies, national and local governments - I obviously have sympathy and understanding for the business perspective.
However, let us not forget that much of the recent legislation has been brought about by the actions of bad employers. Sexual Orientation, Religion & Belief and the Maternity regulations are just a few examples. Those who try to deny peoples rights by finding ‘loopholes’ in legislation have forced the introduction of new laws to close them.
I think it’s fair to say that while you have bad bosses you will need legislation to curb their excesses. Those who think it’s gone too far should, maybe, look at their fellow business owners when pointing the finger of blame
|
|
islaymalt
Midland League Division One
Posts: 420
|
Post by islaymalt on Jan 14, 2011 14:42:38 GMT 1
Maybe it's me but I always thought that if there is sufficient work availble; you recruit and if there isn't you don't.
Quite straightforward really.
The idea that any given employer, with an order book that can't be handled by the current workforce, would not take anyone else on unless the Government introduced new legislation is, quite frankly, bonkers.
The new laws are a fop to CBI, IoD and the bosses of Tesco, M&S etc who, by sheer coincidence control oops sorry, finance the Tory Party.
It will be facinating to see how many LibDems back this, as being a (now ex) supporter, it seems to be diametrically opposite to their fundamental libertarian ethos.
Fun times ahead
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Jan 14, 2011 14:46:56 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. I'll take these two posts as the jokes they're intended to be.......right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2011 15:02:40 GMT 1
[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!! i understand that, and i think it is to be respected, but that is the price you pay, the risk, the knocks ect for the success you have had. my point is that you seem to be saying that business law, employment law, reams of government legislation over the past 13 years or so, have been bad for you, bad for business, bad for competition, bad for everything really, yet you have been a success, therefore perhaps it hasnt actually been that bad at all? No mate, it has not been bad, but certainly frustrating at times. and red tape involved with a simple discipline case can be massive...... and you can break the law by doing something that seems logivcal and sensible. I realise that by losing your job, it can be very stressfull, and upsetting. But if you have done something, then take it on the chin, but what I have found is the actual reason for someone being dismissed gets overlooked, and people tend to try and find fault with the way its been done!! hence making the dismissal unfair!!
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Jan 14, 2011 15:29:15 GMT 1
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. I'll take these two posts as the jokes they're intended to be.......right?
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Jan 14, 2011 15:30:59 GMT 1
Jonah, just one question from April are you going to stop employing men who have partners of childbearing ages as from that date it will be parental leave? Like I have stated previously Ed I will do what I think is right for my Company.
|
|
oranjemob
Midland League Division One
Posts: 486
|
Post by oranjemob on Jan 14, 2011 16:13:57 GMT 1
but what I have found is the actual reason for someone being dismissed gets overlooked, and people tend to try and find fault with the way its been done!! hence making the dismissal unfair!! I understand where you're coming from here but it isn't actually the case. The reason for the dismissal is paramount. The reason the court look at the process is to ensure that the employee has been treated fairly. That is; • The ‘crime’ is deserving of the punishment • The employee knows what he’s charged with and what evidence is being offered against him • He has a chance to defend himself against the accusations • Any witnesses and/or evidence must be made available to him • The proceedings are documented • There is a right to appeal against the decision I really can’t see what is wrong with that. If there is justification to dismiss someone, then what’s the problem of making it transparent? I suggest that it is only on occasions where the justification is dubious, does the process become an issue. Having said all that, there is also a safeguard for employers. If, on consideration, a Tribunal finds that the process was not carried out correctly but, had it been so, the result would have been the same (dismissal), it would only award partial compensation (as low as zero) for the % likelihood of the dismissal being fair on completion of the process. For ‘anoraks’ Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd 1988 is the usual precedent quoted
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jan 14, 2011 16:53:34 GMT 1
I could give a long reply, with lots of examples - but the short answer is no. Extraordinary reply! No need to go on at length but could you please give me at least one example of someone who definitely is an 'expendable unit of production' and definitely not a human being. Are you taking me too literally? My feelings on this are a bit raw because I had a drink last week with half a dozen former colleagues each with at least 20 years service who had been made redundant - not because the company isn't profitable or because they have become incompetent, but because their jobs have been outsourced to India. They mistakenly believed that their years of loyalty and devotion meant something to their employer, and are shattered to find that it doesn't. In a legal sense they have been treated OK, slightly better than minimum redundancy payments, a consultant to help find alternative employment ( ) etc. A great consolation when you find yourself on the dole at 50+. The words in my original post were to warn people not to expect anything other than the legally required level of treatment from their employer and I entirely endorse what Sean wrote earlier. I could continue with the story of the same company moving an entire factory from Nottingham to Thailand with the loss of 500 (direct) jobs 6 years ago and other examples of how individuals were shafted, but that's enough for now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2011 17:00:01 GMT 1
Unfortunately, I have witnessed the complete opposite.
As stated in the pm, the other night, but for the benifit of other people.
I used to work for a company called CES Ltd, they had employee handbooks, and codes of conduct, one paragraph reffered to racial discrimination. and ststed that it would not be tolorated and could lead to instant dismissal.
A guy then sent a text message joke referring to race to a fellow worker, from his personall phone to a company phone, the phone was a site phone and not for personal use, the guy at the other end was a black guy, who offence and complained.
Action was taken and when the guy turned up for work, he was immediately sent home on full pay, stating that he was under investigation for breech of code of conduct, told what was alleged. this was followed up with a letter.
After disciple proceedure was followed he was dismissed. and he his case to tribunal.
for 2 days the tribunal was conducted, only really the last hour was the actual offence talked about........... and he stated that yes, he knew if proved, that it was a sackable offence. but they focused the tribunal on the ommission of a certain paragraph missing from the letter of notification of discipline proceedure, namely that the offence could lead to his dismissal, even though it was explained in the code of conduct.
The judge stated that although he was guilty of a sackable offence, he was unfairly treated, by not having been previously informed prior to the discipline proceedure that he was in danger of loosing his job. he was then awarded £3000 in damages, and could choose if he wanted to take up his post again, which he declined.
I realise that this could have been appealed and probably won, but for the company to lodge an appeal would have cost more than that, and cost of defending the case already was expensive.
it is through this case, that I have been part of, first hand, that I have very little faith in employment law, and believe it is stacked heavily against the employer!!
|
|
oranjemob
Midland League Division One
Posts: 486
|
Post by oranjemob on Jan 14, 2011 17:21:00 GMT 1
Downie. That was a very poor decision by the Tribunal. Their logic would have been 'how can you defend yourself when you don't know the likely severity of the sanction'. However, I agree with you and the fact that it was a clear case of gross misconduct. I guess the object lesson is to make sure the process is spot on - it is very clear that any possible dismissal should be advised in writing - that way it doesn't allow the opportunity for this sort of thing to happen. I'm pretty sure that this would have been overturned on appeal but, as you say, it can be expensive. I have to say that I have been invoplved in more Tribunals than I care to remeber and this is one of the most regretable judgements I have come across. Don't take this as typical, though, as most tend to come up with the right decisions. And don't forget to take me up on my offer when you need
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 14, 2011 19:49:20 GMT 1
Extraordinary reply! No need to go on at length but could you please give me at least one example of someone who definitely is an 'expendable unit of production' and definitely not a human being. Are you taking me too literally? My feelings on this are a bit raw because I had a drink last week with half a dozen former colleagues each with at least 20 years service who had been made redundant - not because the company isn't profitable or because they have become incompetent, but because their jobs have been outsourced to India. They mistakenly believed that their years of loyalty and devotion meant something to their employer, and are shattered to find that it doesn't. In a legal sense they have been treated OK, slightly better than minimum redundancy payments, a consultant to help find alternative employment ( ) etc. A great consolation when you find yourself on the dole at 50+. The words in my original post were to warn people not to expect anything other than the legally required level of treatment from their employer and I entirely endorse what Sean wrote earlier. I could continue with the story of the same company moving an entire factory from Nottingham to Thailand with the loss of 500 (direct) jobs 6 years ago and other examples of how individuals were shafted, but that's enough for now. Sorry, I mis-interpreted your original post ,having re-read I understand your point. Sadly you're no doubt right that the majority of employees shouldn't expect their employers to regard them as anything other than a resource.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Jan 14, 2011 19:57:59 GMT 1
My Mrs is only part time at a rather upper class clothing store, been there 5 years and in that time they have only taken management on full time.
She does not wish to be a manageress ergo she continues part time. Now the fact she could move and go full time elsewhere is not the point.
The point is this large UK retailer is deliberately recruiting staff on part time contracts ( I think its 20 hours and below).
Why is that ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2011 20:35:21 GMT 1
because many big firms treat their employees like s**t?
|
|
oranjemob
Midland League Division One
Posts: 486
|
Post by oranjemob on Jan 15, 2011 10:31:12 GMT 1
My Mrs is only part time at a rather upper class clothing store, been there 5 years and in that time they have only taken management on full time. She does not wish to be a manageress ergo she continues part time. Now the fact she could move and go full time elsewhere is not the point. The point is this large UK retailer is deliberately recruiting staff on part time contracts ( I think its 20 hours and below). Why is that ? This link sums up some of the main reasons why employers like to take on part-time workers www.duport.co.uk/guides/staff-issues/part-time-workers-benefits.php
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Jan 15, 2011 12:48:38 GMT 1
Thanks Oranjmob, that is exactly the point I was making.
In my opinion companies do this (take advantage of this ?)because of the laws imposed by government to protect the worker.
Thus it could be argued that in some cases the laws designed to protect the workers actually effect them negatively.
As with everything it is a question of balance.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 15, 2011 13:00:13 GMT 1
Thanks Oranjmob, that is exactly the point I was making. In my opinion companies do this (take advantage of this ?)because of the laws imposed by government to protect the worker. Thus it could be argued that in some cases the laws designed to protect the workers actually effect them negatively. As with everything it is a question of balance. Could you quote which bit of Oranjemob's link backs up the point your making? Is it this bit? Part-timers are flexible so they can fit the rest of their life into the days they are not at work. They do not tend need time off for dentist/doctors/hospital appointments etc, and their sickness rates are usually far lower than full-time staffGenuine question, just not quite sure what point you're making, or how it relates to the 'employers will take more people on provided they can get sack them more easily' 'logic' being put forward by the government.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Jan 15, 2011 15:36:26 GMT 1
My point is that I believe (in this instance) the employer is only employing part time staff for its gain. Some of which are highlighted in Oranjmobs report. I will comment further when the Mrs comes home as I wish to talk to her about pensions, sick pay etc. I will admit I only part read the article , first time around.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Jan 15, 2011 18:19:19 GMT 1
Question do part time workers have the same pension rights as full time, I believe The House of Lords passed such legislation in 2001.
So does my mrs or any part time worker qualify for a Company pension ? ( I thought th eanswer was no but am now not so sure).
Further to that is there any benefit to the Company in taxes whilst the part time are employed and when they have left/retired.
Any law boffin or employer able to assist ?
|
|