THEY ARE A MINORITY IN A POWER-SHARING GOVERMENT. WHAT DID YOU **** EXPECT, LIB DEM POLICIES?
No i did not vote on the idea of a coalition with the Tories what the ....
I would rather vote the complete opposite, if I would had known including most of the Liberal voters.
The Liberal party have gone against if not all of there values and for what Clegg said regarding
he as gone with the best party Only YOU I suppose would say yes.
lazy and sub-standard staff in this context = staff that won't work their lunch hour, staff that refuse to do unpaid overtime or come in at the weekend because they would rather be with their families.
Echo the sentiment that this is softening everyone up ... leak the exaggerated or worst case demands by the lobbyists paying into the Tory coffers, then Dave can turn round and say "look what we saved you all from, we'll only do a little bit of it". Still end up shafted for the demands of business at the expense of their employees, who become less enabled to challenge anything.
Simply Leading towards Modern Tory Victorianism
Looking though the propose process (I take it all the people expressing views for and against have actually done this?) it would appear that the proposed policy may actually be beneficial to both parties -
The employee should be given a chance to argue his or her case, and suggest (but not demand) that they be given time to improve of be transferred to a less demanding job at a lower wage. If no such agreement could be reached the employee would receive the same payment they would get if they were made redundant
As understand under the current legislation you go though a process to collect evidence that a person is under-performing and you dismiss them. Under the proposed system you don't have to demonstrate that you have collected evidence, but can't just dismiss them, you have to give them the equivalent redundancy payment. I heard on the R4 this morning that it was alleged that similar schemes existed in other European countries.
Of course the devil is in the detail of implementation, but in theory does it really sound so terrible?
**** me!
Facts
1) Unfair dismissal is not generally about the reason for a person being dismissed, its about the process used to dismiss.
2) You can actually dismiss someone and subsequently find out that the reason was incorrect and it still be fair.
3) Management recruit the staff, and manage them. If the staff aren't performing thats a management issue not a staffing one.
4) You can easily dismiss someone who is not performing, and it does not take months.
5) If you have recruited a tosser, you have 12 months to figure that out and you can act on it with complete impunity.
6) If someone has worked well for 12 months and now doesn't, perhaps finding out why might be a good place to start, rather than a knee jerk dismissal
Overall this whole issue is a complete crock which quite clearly holds no water and therefore presumably a smokescreen for something more insidious.
Looking though the propose process - I take it all the people expressing views for and against have done this?
How i am an employer I would simply use and manipulate and fire on there guide lines
But I have morals learnt from being an apprentice and being from a working class background.
But don't forget the Torys are also trying to make it harder for you to get legal aid
I've employed some right fekwits in the past, current legislation never stopped me from "go home, don't come back, hand your keys in now" routine.
I work in sales and it's very easy to be fired. There is a monthly target and if you miss it for three months you're pretty much out, such is the way of things in my line of work.
In other jobs where the KPI's are less cut and dried I am sure that it is less easy to be let go however this strikes me as a very unfair proposal largely designed to enable useless management to pass the buck. On the other hand I think we have all worked with people we have had to carry who managed to tenaciously cling to their jobs despite being pretty crap.
I work with quite a few US owned companies and they seem to be far more mercenary when it comes to hire and fire I'd hate our country to go the same way. Often I am hired to find someone better to replace someone who is performing well but just not as well as someone else might, which is harsh.
I think this is a great idea. I look forward to the most underachieving in the country being immediately sacked. The board and all the senior brokers at RBS must be shitting themselves
Incompetent teachers 'being recycled' by head teachershttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10464617
Academy and Free Schools will sort that out.
Should read "Incompetant head teachers recycle incompetant teachers" its a red herring IME. The route to getting rid of a teacher is pretty well established, but most jump before they are pushed, heads should take more care over reading references and who they employ, however teacher shortages make this difficult. Problems is posts need filling and supply and demand isnt in favour of the good teachers.
Will Academies and Free Schools help? I'm not sure they will, dont think they are able to fire teachers more easily and there will still be only the same number of good teachers.
Your right there Bandit, although as a Manager / Owner of a business employing 30 people I'm glad to see the balance coming back to Employers, you wouldnt believe the amount of time that is WASTED in UK businesses with Employee complaints.
Arn't the statics for number of employees invloved in complaints against there employers something like 1 in 4 in the UK at the moment ? and we wonder why were in the shite... employees in the Far East dont work like that !
You are right though, the laws work in both ways however, 3 out of 4 constructive dismissal cases have been found in FAVOUR of the employee.. there is a default to the Employer beeing at fault.. but if you step through the steps employees can avoid it.
In the end I feel that employees dont benifit from current rules, employers dont, but the legal profession does and the people who like owt for nowt do to.....
but think who covers the cost of all these claims against employers
Things could be helped greatly if employers actually followed stated dismissal procedures (if they have them stated at all). Many cases I've seen have come about because the employer simply do what they want or what they think is right (which turns out to be wrong) and leave themselves open to action. Wasn't there someone posting on here a couple months back as the employer in this situation, where they got rid of someone but didn't do it right and were having to pay compensation or something? Doesn't help when HR departments don't actually seem to understand it all and fail to advise employees and employers correctly.
Did anyone read the rest of the suggestion?
saying that they'd identified a problem was the use of "manufactured redundancy situations" which were being used to manage people out of a company, and that instead of a disgruntled employee launching an unfair dismissal process, [i]The employee should be given a chance to argue his or her case, and to suggest (but not demand) that they be given time to improve or be transferred to a less demanding job at a lower wage. If no such agreement could be reached, the employee would receive the same payment they would get if they had been made redundant.”[/i] - it goes on to say that despite the costs being higher for the employer, the added reassurance of no comeback afterwards would mean they preferred it.
fairly common sense really, we all know of cases where someone has been made "redundant" to get them out - but, if you relied on a newspaper headline to form an opinion, then it might well reinforce your inherent knee jerk reaction....
I'm glad to see the balance coming back to Employer
When was the last time it moved in the employees favour? I can't remember legislation being changed in the employees favour any time during the last 30 or so years.
Should read "Incompetant head teachers recycle incompetant teachers"
No. It should not read that at all.
MSP - qualifying period for tribunals went from 2 yrs to one in the late 90s.
However our employment legislation offers us much much less protection that the rest of europe - hence when one multinational wanted to close a plant they closed the british one a it was much cheaper to close than the German one
Your right there Bandit, although as a Manager / Owner of a business employing 30 people I'm glad to see the balance coming back to Employers,
As a someone who was general manager of a compnay at 21 and who has employed literally thousands of people in a 35 year career to date, I have to say I have no idea waht you are talking about. Never had any problems of that nature. Years ago I did speak with an ACAS advisor whose advice was if you're a crap employer you'll get crap employees. Very true in my experience.
you wouldnt believe the amount of time that is WASTED in UK businesses with Employee complaints.
You are not wrong, I probably wouldn't, not necessarily for the same reasons though.
Arn't the statics for number of employees invloved in complaints against there employers something like 1 in 4 in the UK at the moment ? and we wonder why were in the shite... employees in the Far East dont work like that !
I very much doubt whether that statistic is correct. If it is its the biggest single issue effecting our economy currently, running into many millions of complaints which I'm pretty sure it isn't.
and we wonder why were in the shite...
Mainly piss poor leadership both political and managerial in my experience.
employees in the Far East dont work like that !
In my experience, which is over the last 30 years of doing business in the Far East that is true and no bad thing either frankly
Generally though its the same there as here, the good companies have good management and employee relations and the bad ones don't.
3 out of 4 constructive dismissal cases have been found in FAVOUR of the employee.. there is a default to the Employer beeing at fault.. but if you step through the steps employees can avoid it.
That statistic may be right, however a case for constructive dismissal is incredibly difficult to prove, and for that reason it is quite rare for one to go before a tribunal. Personally having been through the experience of having been constructively dismissed (Definition: being put into a situation no reasonable person could tolerate; which in my case was my employer F'ing and B'ing down the phone at my 10 year old daughter, and then accusing me without any supporting evidence or investigation of gross misconduct). My brief reckoned I had a cast iron rock solid case, but the advice was that it was unlikely to run because it was all verbal and without independant witnesses, so frankly if someone gets done for constructive dismissal you can be pretty sure they deserve to be.
In the end I feel that employees dont benifit from current rules, employers dont, but the legal profession does and the people who like owt for nowt do to..... but think who covers the cost of all these claims against employers
Again in my experience, most cost is incurred by expensive briefs being employed by dodgy employers. My particular case was on a no win no fee basis, but with an upfront one off payment from me of £1000 (because it was constructive dismissal and usually they don't run).It did not get as far as a tribunal.
They are testing the water by putting the story out.
I've noticed they've done this with a few ridiculous ideas.
****s.
Like selling off 100% of the forests and then reverting back to the intital plan to cut it whilst leaving people like 38 degrees claiming a resounding success you mean?
Yup - a common way of dealing with getting policies they know the public will dislike thru without protest.
don't forget Cameron is a PR man.
Should read "Incompetant head teachers recycle incompetant teachers"No. It should not read that at all.
any chance you could explain why you think differently?
If this policy did come through though, STW viewing figures would significantly decrease...
Sorry, back to work 😳
LOL not in my case though, I'm the boss 8)
My sister works in HR for a large national company, and has dismissed many people. She has only ever lost one claim for unfair dismissal, which was the one time she didn't follow procedure. The simple procedures are in place to ensure that employees are not treated unfairly. If the employer is unable to follow simple procedures then the employee should not be dismissed.
What's so difficult about that?
any chance you could explain why you think differently?
Nope. Work it out for yourself.
any chance you could explain why you think differently?Nope. Work it out for yourself.
did you train at the Oxford debating society, because you've got me convinced your right 😆
With every new post you add, I am further convinced that you won't get it. 😥
However our employment legislation offers us much much less protection that the rest of europe
That's true TJ but there are very important reasons why there are differences and why those differences should remain. France and Germany operate their economies in vastly different ways to ours and the way they are structured means that this level of protection is both appropriate and necessary.
In the UK it would be at odds with our version of capitalism and would cause untold problems. It would constrain some of key competitive advantages.
Geetee - sorry I simply do not agree. Our "competitive advantage" should be not at the cost of adequate workers rights and is at least as likely to cost us jobs and investment as it does to gain them. there are several instances of plants being closed in the UK and kept open in the rest of europe because its cheaper to close the plants here.
We should not be a in a race to the bottom on this.
Tootall - your post makes no logical sense that I can see. Do you have an explanation?
Germany and France (let alone Spain and Italy) have much higher structural unemployment levels than the UK. All through the 90s up until the crunch we bumped along at 4-5% unemployed, Germany and France were double that number. There is a lot to be admired about those countries but an inflexible job market isnt one of them, again there's a reason so many foreign companies come to the UK.
The real problem is that we dont do enough high end manufacturing ourselves, the German Mittlestand companies show us a clean pair of heals. I think having a sense of all in it together is a big part of it. Workers, management, local banks work together without the poisonous industrial relations the UK is plagued by.
McBoo - the numbers on employment were much closer if you used the same counting methods.
Indeed industrial relations in Germany are better. A part of that is the better employment protection = less them and us.
Those same foreign companies also leave he UK more quickly and easily.
Do you really only aspire to be a low wage low regulation offshoot of the EU what a poor aspiration.
TJ - you're a bloody hypocrite!
just two days ago, you were telling us that departure from europe would be a disaster because:
Companies that use us for a low tax low regulation manufacturing entry intot eh EU would have no incentive to remain
So, either we're a low tax, low regulation economy, or we're not, which is it
Indeed industrial relations in Germany are better. A part of that is the better employment protection = less them and us.
Very true judging by discussions I've had with german colleagues working for my companies' German sites.
Thing is those discussions also suggested that it's not all one sided - eg management down - there were sites whose workers proposed a salary reduction because they thought it would make them more competitive. "Them and us" is a major issue here but both sides need to think about the way they deal with 'them'. Some of the posts on STW make that very clear.
Zulu - out of context as you know. I did not say that was a good thing that we were a low regulation low tax economy.
Nice line in insults as well.
We are a low tax low regulation economy and I think that is a bad thing. I would rather be like Germany , France, the Netherlands, Sweden and so on where the people come first.
Tootall - your post makes no logical sense that I can see. Do you have an explanation?
Hang your head in shame. You are only letting yourself down.
McBoo - the numbers on employment were much closer if you used the same counting methods
How did I know you were going to say that. Do you ever give an inch on any point?
But I dont actually disagree that we shouldnt just try and race to the bottom, however cheap you make yourself, India and China are going to do it cheaper. Luckily we still live a a fantastically inventive country, we can leave India to be a huge back-office and focus on the real value-added.
Make your mind up TJ - I'll put the full context
If we withdrew from the EC I am absolutly certain it would have major effects. [u]Companies that use us for a low tax low regulation manufacturing entry intot eh EU would have no incentive to remain[/u], we would have no right to trade with the EC and I am certain we would lose much trade/
In one breath, you're telling us that being a low tax low regulation is vital to the economy, in the other you say we shouldn't be - the two are diametrically opposed!
hypocritical git!
Why do you go around making stuff up / quoting out of context Zulu? I know you can't help yourself. The insults show how weak your case is.
tootall - your position has no logic that I can see, your refusal to explain it leads me to believe that you cannot explain it.
McBoo -because its the truth?
Yes TJ I remember you writing that at the time too, sounded like hostage to fortune and so it was....oops.
Behave TJ
It seems pretty clear to me that he means that while there are no doubt some incompetent head teachers who use 'recycling' as a way of avoiding the hassle of getting rid of incompetent teachers, there are likely many more for whom the process is simply to clunky and complex to be able to focus on while also trying to do the other things they're trying to keep on top of so they make a decision to follow the accepted norm and recycle rather than wasting lots of time on it. That also obviously gets rid of the incompetent teacher much faster so presumably reducing the complaints from teachers and or increasing grades on which they're measured.
Clare Collins, chair of the National Governors Association, told BBC Breakfast there were "processes in place" to deal with incompetence, but acknowledged they were "too long winded and clunky" and needed to be "quicker, more efficient and more effective".
I did say it as that is what will happen. what I did not say is I believed the low tax low regulation economy was a good thing. It is not.
looks, sees standard of the debate, rejects chance to hurl insults, leaves
Geetee - sorry I simply do not agree. Our "competitive advantage" should be not at the cost of adequate workers rights and is at least as likely to cost us jobs and investment as it does to gain them. there are several instances of plants being closed in the UK and kept open in the rest of europe because its cheaper to close the plants here.
I do agree TJ and you're right, there are plenty of cases where redundancies have been executed here because they are easier to do than in France or Germany.
I think we would agree with each other if we said that the current laws seem to offer a good balance; I wouldn't want to see it shift either way. Maybe you would like to see more protection for employees?
The competitive advantage I'm referring to, as an example, is that 'liquidity' in the employment market, gives rise to constant exchange of people and thus ideas. That stimulates radical innovation; new ideas, new inventions, break throughs in technology and products.
In Germany for example, the largely static workforce means that you don't get this cross polination of ideas and therefore you don't get radical innovation.
What you do get is exemplary process refinement. The guys building the VW Golf now have been doing it for 25 years; what they don't know about how to refine the manufacturing process isn't worth worrying about.
So two different systems, two different examples of their advantages and disadvantages. Niether is better, they're just different.
If you tried to recreate German labour laws in the UK, you'd potentially shut off that free flow of people and ideas. It's more nuanced than that obviously, and far more complex, but that's the general idea.
Should read "Incompetant head teachers recycle incompetant teachers"
Let me correct that for you, as it should not read that at all:
Should read "Incompetent head teachers recycle incompetent teachers"
I really hope you get it now. You do get it now, don't you?