This is simply disgusting What a shite Government
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15456585 ]BBC News Unfair Dismaissal[/url]
You sound surprised?
Its only the start. corrupt, useless and medacious
Did you really expect anything good from dave and his chums?...
What a shite Government
It's a Tory government. A Tory government more right-wing than Thatcher was.
It makes perfect sense that they should think employers must be freely allowed to treat people unfairly, and not forced to treat them fairly.
The what is a tad surprising, I'll grant you, is that because the British people didn't give the Tories a clear mandate to do what they are doing, the LibDems have stepped in to help them.
The LibDems are making all this possible.
The depth of betrayal by the Libdems to their own voters, never mind to the British people, is truly shocking.
To be rational ( not common here) they have commissioned a report and stated that they will probably not act further on unfair dismissal.
Don't let that stop you though 🙄
You sound surprised?
Not at all. Never would give these a vote
Written by a tory party donor un****ingbelievable
Downing Street says changes to unfair dismissal rules are "unlikely"
Why not read it before going on an anti Tory rant? Instead of just reading the headline, igniting your predudices, and typing?
....they have commissioned a report and stated that they will probably not act further on unfair dismissal.
So they have pissed money on commissioning a report on an issue which they have no intention of doing anything about ?
Sounds a little wasteful.
No surprises, it's a recommendation from a venture capitalist. As I understand it though, the subject of the leak is a proposal to streamline dismissal procedures for "underperformers" - dropping the need to go through exhaustive restoring efficiency processes before dismissal is considered.
The what is a tad surprising, I'll grant you, is that because the British people didn't give the Tories a clear mandate to do what they are doing, the LibDems have stepped in to help them.
The LibDems are making all this possible.
The depth of betrayal by the Libdems to their own voters, never mind to the British people, is truly shocking.
I know and this hurts my values ernie_lynch
totally frustrates my head and to think the Liberals are still standing by this for a small
slice of power
Clegg must be the most hated person to whom voted for them which includes myself.
It's only a report. It would help get rid of crap staff at our place. One has sued her previous employers on several occasions despite her actually being quite s***
Taff - Member
It's only a report. It would help get rid of crap staff at our place. One has sued her previous employers on several occasions despite her actually being quite s**
should sack your own staff for not getting a reference
you can't cry the faults of your own staff on here when easily should have been spotted
through procedure of reference checking of new employees .
ScottChegg - MemberWhy not read it before going on an anti Tory rant?
Have you read the article ScottChegg ?
[b][i]"The report, commissioned by the prime minister"[/i][/b]
This Tory prime minister commissioned a report into the possibility of allowing employers to sack people unfairly. People have every right to express their disgust.
Wedge, thin end of.
Only a report,
We'll only sack useless staff,
or he one's who make trouble about Health and Safety,
or the people who's face does not fit,
or one's that didn't get a degree
or one's that don't have connected parents or go to the right school or be members of the appropriate club.............
Mind you before this gets enacted it'll be financial meltdown, better start buying the bottled water and cross bows now..........
johnners - MemberNo surprises, it's a recommendation from a venture capitalist. As I understand it though, the subject of the leak is a proposal to streamline dismissal procedures for "underperformers" - dropping the need to go through exhaustive restoring efficiency processes before dismissal is considered.
Its very simple to sack someone for underperforming and can be done a a very few weeks. its s simple and straightforward procedure to sack someone fairly for underperforming. I have done it several times.
We'll only sack useless staff
Employers can already legally sack people fairly.
And they are allowed to sack people unfairly for the first 12 months of their employment. Many employers automatically sack staff before the 12 months is up.
Its very simple to sack someone for underperforming and can be done a a very few weeks.
Which utopia are you living in? In the UK it seems almost impossible to get rid of someone unless you spend 6 months monitoring and showing them how crap they are before they then go off on sick for 6 months before you have to start the whole process again! 🙄
Employers can already legally sack people fairly.
And they are allowed to sack people unfairly for the first 12 months of their employment. Many employers automatically sack staff before the 12 months is up.
That is so true, which is normally through redundancies or anything minor
find more so when the employer really wanted someone for short time period
But thats why most European countries have a business here has the employees are shite poor
and you are easily removed.
We are the near worst in central Europe for employees working rights.
That 12 month period should be re addressed
Which utopia are you living in? In the UK it seems almost impossible to get rid of someone unless you spend 6 months monitoring and showing them how crap they are before they then go off on sick for 6 months before you have to start the whole process again!
Oh brilliant......the Tory Boys start off by strenuously denying that the government would do such a thing, and then move on to suggest that it wouldn't be a bad idea after all 😀
......right I'm off
Firstly, its a BBC online 'article'.
Have you actually read it? Where does it say its going to happen?
LHS - I have done it on several occcasions - its simple and straightforward to anyone with a basic understanding of the rules.
You do not have to go back to square one if they have been off sick, it does not take 6 months to do.
Thats what happens with incompetent HR / management. With competent management it can be done in a month. 2 months is easy to do.
Which utopia are you living in? In the UK it seems almost impossible to get rid of someone unless you spend 6 months monitoring and showing them how crap they are before they then go off on sick for 6 months before you have to start the whole process again!
Agreed - this more closely reflects my experience than TJ's assertion.
Johners - that will be because the people controlling the process are incompetent as well.
I have done this on a few occasions, I have also defended people as a union rep.
the procedure is simple and straightforward and can be done in a short timescale if you are / have competent HR / management.
Unfortunately it appears that most HR are not competent and cannot manage this simple procedure.
That 12 month period should be re addressed
It is. The plans are to make it 24 months 🙄
I read it that the report suggest making it easier to remove lazy staff and not remove the unfair dismissal option.
I've worked with loads of work shy useless ****tards who have quite well paid secure jobs but because they have employment rights they're just tolerated.
On the other hand myself as salesman I very rarely have the luxury of employment rights because we as a rule are so heavily performance targeted and when companies want rid of salespeople they move the targets and get rid.
Hmm let's see...is the std stw political thread nonsense present?
TJ predicting the future...CHECK!
TandemJeremy - Member
Its only the start. corrupt, useless and medacious
ernie mis-reporting/inferring what suits his political bias...CHECK!
ernie_lynch - Member
So they have pissed money on commissioning a report on an issue which they have no intention of doing anything about ?
Daily-Mail type comments on employment law:
Taff - Member
It's only a report. It would help get rid of crap staff at our place. One has sued her previous employers on several occasions despite her actually being quite s
(maybe she actually had a claim because her employers *ed up?)
Hora and other non-big-hitters actually speaking sense...CHECK!
hora - Member
Firstly, its a BBC online 'article'.Have you actually read it? Where does it say its going to happen?
Pigface - Member
Written by a tory party donor un****ingbelievable
Anyway on a serious point, it seems to me that the rules could be relaxed for small businesses.
grantway - Member
The depth of betrayal by the Libdems to their own voters, never mind to the British people, is truly shocking.
THEY ARE A MINORITY IN A POWER-SHARING GOVERMENT. WHAT DID YOU ****ING EXPECT, LIB DEM POLICIES?
The thread title is a bit misleading, isn't it?
Unfair dismissal for lazy, unproductive people, no? Which seems fair enough to me. I thought that Tandem was against the compensation culture that appears to be infecting the country?
The Treasury said that more than 80% of applications made to an employment tribunal did not result in a full hearing.Almost 40% of applicants withdrew their cases, but employers still had to pay legal fees in preparing a defence, it said.
Live and learn.
IME Decent companies and good quality management have nothing really to fear from unfair dismissal cases, trouble is...
Oh brilliant......the Tory Boys
Not sure who you are referring to, I am Donkey (Democrat) through and through.
See, all you who voted LibDem, you're to blame for this.
By the way, getting annoyed about something that isn't happening is a bit silly!
It will happen. This is one that has been batted back and forward for ages. Last Labour government took the qualifying period from 2 years to one. I am sure the "leaking" of this report is a part of the softening up process so when they take the qualifying period back to 2 years it will seem not so bad as they have not removed the right to tribunals alltogether
The exec summary is on the Telegraph website. It is two pages long and couched in terms of the need for businesses to be more efficient and competitive so the UK economy can grow. The author argues employment laws hinder this aim, because employers put up with lazy staff (interesting he emphasises this is more often the case in the public sector).
If one accepts this argument, then surely one must also argue that there are too many organisations with poor managers. Manager who employ people who are either lazy, or were productive but became lazy under their watch. Do we really want to put the future of the UK's growth in the hands of managers who clearly can't manage their employees effectively?
This Tory prime minister commissioned a report into the possibility of allowing employers to sack people unfairly. People have every right to express their disgust.
Are you absoloutely sure that was what the report was commissioned to do? Was it perhaps a broader report and this was one of the recommendations? I can hear you getting copies of the Socialist Worker ready and a megaphone to object at the outcome of your own selective reading. Calm down, dear.
The exec summary is on the Telegraph website.
HE READ THE TORYGRAPH! BURN HIM!
😈
Mr Beecroft in particular highlights abuses of the law in the public sector, where managers have been forced to offer under-performing staff large settlements because they fear costly tribunal rulings. The report says that the unfair dismissal rules have made public bodies “reluctant to dismiss unsatisfactory employees”. “[They] therefore accept inefficiency that they would not tolerate if dismissal of unsatisfactory employees was easier.”It goes on: “A proportion of employees, secure in the knowledge that their employer will be reluctant to dismiss them, work at a level well below their true capacity; they coast along.”
Seems fair enough in the public sector I work in.
Here you go, you can read it without having to sully yourself:
It will, it won't, it's irrelevant really. Strangely, businesses usually do like to have people working for them, they won't just sack everyone for the hell of it.
Indeed capt John.
You have the first year of employment during which time there is no recourse to tribunal except under rare circumstances. If you cannot identify an under-performing member of staff in this time then it reflects poorly on you.
Even after the year it is simple and straightforward to sack an underperforming employee and can be done in a short time span cheaply so long as you follow a reasonable procedure to make sure its a fair dismissal.
If you as a manager cannot do either of these two things then it certainly calls your competence into question.
A myth has built up around dismissal for underperformace because incompetent managers and HR have mucked it up and been found to have unfairly dismissed people. Like all the "H&S gorne mad" myths it is beloved by the tory press and is often repeated so that people believe it.
I have worked this one from both sides - both sacking and defending people. Its simple and straightforward to sack someone fairly for underperfoming.
paulosoxo - Member
It will, it won't, it's irrelevant really. Strangely, businesses usually do like to have people working for them, they won't just sack everyone for the hell of it.
There speaks the voice of management 😉
TandemJeremy - Member
Indeed capt John.
What is even more worrying, THJ, is people who can't read.
Sack 'em both!
CaptJon - Member
paulosoxo - MemberThere speaks the voice of management
🙂
It sounds like a worst case scenario report, a deliberate attempt to highlight the worst possible outcome in order to shield the real plans.
Osborne has already announced the intention to double the length of unprotected employment from 12 to 24 months. This added to the fact that the average tenure in a job is going down could lead to large proportions of the public spending much of their working life's with no employment protection.
The lack of employment protection isn't just about losing jobs either, it creates an atmosphere of fear that allows employees to be manipulated, look how many people are now working 50, 60 or more hour weeks with no extra pay, because they fear that not doing so will cost them their jobs, its becoming the norm rather than the exception.
I couldn't honestly tell you if it is easy to get rid of lazy and sub-standard staff in the UK or not. In my line of work (banking) I can tell you that it's pretty straightforward, if you don't pull your weight, you are gone. Part of the reason so many foreign banks have their European headquarters in London is the flexible labour laws, we have employees in Germany and France that just shouldnt be in the industry but have been with the firm for a while and have local contracts that make them unfireable.
The author of the report is a private equity guy, their whole business model depends on being able to slash and burn and turn a business around fast. I'm not surprised he has a pretty medieval attitude to this but the government has other priorities, or should have.
This though
Incompetent teachers 'being recycled' by head teachers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10464617
Academy and Free Schools will sort that out.
I'd back up TJ's statements about the fact that you can remove underperforming people from their role but it's not quite as straightforward as he makes out and how complex or lengthy the process ends up being is dependent on other variables.
For example, if the person has been in their role for a quite a while, say more than five years, and there's never been a problem before then it could take six months to work through a fair process that doesn't land you in an unfair dismissal claim.
Things change and it's not unusual in private industry for a person's job to morph almost imperceptible over time as the competitive landscape changes.
Imagine someone who's been in a role for 15 years and while their role hasn't changed very much in that time, what they need to do to be successful in it has. Adapting can be hard and in this case you could find someone being sacked for failing to perform when in truth what should actually happen is that they are made redundant - the role has changed rather than the person has failed to perform.
I consider myself pro-business, right of centre and voted Tory in the last election. But I would strongly oppose these changes IF the government decided to enact them.
Two other observations:
One, the proposed changes are very like the system they have in the US. You have almost no legal protection there against unfair dismissal either. Based on my experiences of my American colleagues (I've always worked for US companies) trust me you don't want to allow this to be passed.
Two, this is an even more extreme step to the creation of an underprotected class of workers, namely the white middle class man in professinal employment.
I've experienced this myself; basically you extend unlimited protection to individuals on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc, which is how it should be, but in the absence of you being able to claim on the basis ofa 'protected characteristic' you become particularly vulnerable to dismissal. While the discrimination laws protect you from being targetted for being white and being male, the chances of you being able to claim or at least pressure your employer for discrimination against these characteristics is almost non-existent.
If you're black, female, gay etc, then it's much easier to play these cards in any dismissal case and so employers are far more wary about how they treat you. In effect, the overprotection of one characteristic leads to the underprotection of another.
Removing unfair dismissal will simple lead to white men being effectively unprotected and far more vulnerable when an employer is looking to make easy cuts to their staffing levels.