Yep 6 months is fair
It is "fair" to sack someone unfairly during the first 6 months of their employment? So how does that work and why isn't it fair to sack them after 12 months?
people aren't always right for a role, some plain lie about their abilities in interviews
What you are saying is that you don't trust employment tribunals to make the right decision during the first 6 months of someone's employment but you do trust them after that. Can you explain why ? The logic isn't obvious.
The other question which needs to be answered imo is why Starmer included it in Labour's manifesto but has now changed his mind.
The standard excuse that Starmer and his cohorts give for not honouring their election manifesto commitments is that no had told them just how bad the Tories had left the country. Presumably that isn't the excuse for this "U-turn" ?
They had an open goal, or at least a free run at the goal and they’re missed it completely.
I feel it's more a case of the striker with the ball spinning around and dribbling through his own team players whilst raising a digit at his own supporters as he scores an own goal. I'm just thankful I voted Green not Labour. If I'd voted for this I'd be angry.
Pledges u-turned on
Palestine action in jail and Israel supported
No closer to Europe and refusing to entertain the idea of rejoining
Enoch Powel attitude to Immigrants
Just when EVs are gaining in popularity they're going add a dissuasive tax
A refusual to tax where there's money to tax and a willingness to increase taxes on the poorest by leaving thresholds unchanged.
Pandering to money with deregulation and guarantees to private equity.
Detestable bunch intent on self harm for themselves, the party and the countries, I'm surprised they're at 15% in that poll up there, who's still saying they'll vote for them? Anyone on here? Kerley?
Presumably that isn't the excuse for this "U-turn" ?
The “excuse” this time is that the Lords will keep sending the bill back without the change to 6 months. I think the Lords has improved the legislation, personally. I don’t see any reason the government should/would push back any longer on this, given that the bill still improves the law and the rights of workers so significantly. It’s a compromise… now get on and implement it ASAP.
The “excuse” this time is that the Lords will keep sending the bill back without the change to 6 months.
The House of Lords? The excuse this time is the House of Lords ???
The useless self-serving careerist won a majority of 172 eighteen months ago, one of the largest UK parliamentary majorities of modern times, he could simply abolish the House of Lords......if he wasn't so utterly spineless!
This was Sir Keir Starmer's pledge number 8 out of 10 he made when he stood to be Leader of the Labour Party :
8. Radical devolution of power, wealth and opportunity
Push power, wealth and opportunity away from Whitehall. A federal system to devolve powers – including through regional investment banks and control over regional industrial strategy. Abolish the House of Lords – replace it with an elected chamber of regions and nations.
So why no abolition of the House of Lords? Not a big enough majority? The Tories left the country too skint after 14 years? It might put voters off and Labour will lose the next general election? What is the excuse this time?
The answer we all know, Sir Keir Starmer is basically a Tory and is hellbent on maintaining the status quo.
Which is also the reason why this present "Labour" government will be the first Labour government.in history to leave office without achieving one single great reform in the interests of ordinary working people.
Yep 6 months is fair
Lol not for the worker involved.
people aren't always right for a role, some plain lie about their abilities in interviews
Then it's unlikely it would be unfair dismissal in due process.
Is this stuff reallty so hard?
This is now classic Starmerism isn't it? Offer something good up then not have the balls to see it through 'cos he's scared of the powerful.
Labour aren't really interested in improving **** all. They just want to tinker at the seams and switcheroo on eveyrthing if they have a tiny bit of push-back on.
Just when EVs are gaining in popularity they're going add a dissuasive tax
Totally stupid. Imagine trying to pretend there's a middle ground here. Imagine grouping all EVs as having the same efficiency and weight too.
Brainless.
Just when EVs are gaining in popularity they're going add a dissuasive tax
Of course this is the rub of running the country to try and close a deficit - you use tax in a totally unprogressive way to protect a phoney balance sheet - everything else suffers. (economy, climate, progress, jobs, environment, lifestyle etc.)
Detestable bunch intent on self harm for themselves, the party and the countries, I'm surprised they're at 15% in that poll up there, who's still saying they'll vote for them? Anyone on here? Kerley?
Ha, you have the wrong man by a ****ing mile. I gave up with Labour when Corbyn went and voted Green ever since. I didn't rate Starmer before the election although admittedly I thought he would be way better than the tory party but appears not. Pre election Starmer/Labour supporters must be very pissed off (which is why they are so quiet now).
It is "fair" to sack someone unfairly during the first 6 months of their employment?
I'm with stumpyjon and Kelvin on this one. Two years was stupid and resulted in people not moving jobs for fear they might be let go two years in. 6 months removes that uncertainty but still gives employers an opportunity to get rid of people who are not right for a role. Recruiting people is hard and expensive, we need the right balance between making it easy for employers and protecting employees and I reckon 6 months sounds about right. Day one protection sounds lovely but it would result in huge inertia in the recruitment market and fewer jobs.
Tend to agree, very difficult to really know what someone is like just with an interview. Maybe a trial period, for both parties, of say 1 month may be better.
Day one protection sounds lovely....
Lovely ? I would just describe it as sounding fair.
Getting rid of someone who is unsuitable or is incapable of carrying out a job is not "unfair dismissal".
But if that is the problem which you envisage then deal with the problem don't sweep it under the carpet by saying "oh we just won't bother with unfair dismissals".
I will ask again the same questions which I asked earlier but received no answer, why was it included in Labour's election manifesto and what has happened since that manifesto was published that has changed? Apart from Labour winning a 172 parliamentary majority.
Whatever arguments apply now also applied in July 2024
Lovely ? I would just describe it as sounding fair.
And it would result in a situation where employers are extremely averse to taking new people on for fear that they'll be stuck with them forever. It would especially impact early careers and result in lots of young people not being able to find jobs. Fair or not we need a fluid jobs market and day one protection would grind it to a halt.
Getting rid of someone who is unsuitable or is incapable of carrying out a job is not "unfair dismissal"
'Fair' dismissal is really quite difficult. I've been through it from the emloyer's side. All it results in is massive stress for all involved and lots of wasted time. Sounds harsh but I've often thought it should be easier to fire people who are not right for a role. I can't really see any benefits on either side from someone remaining in a job they can't do.
A better option would be a severance compensation policy. If a company wants to get rid of someone let them do it but make them pay compensation, something like 3 months salary?
A better option would be a severance compensation policy. If a company wants to get rid of someone let them do it but make them pay compensation, something like 3 months salary?
Good idea and yes it is a painful process to sack someone who is not fit for the role and again it is very difficult to know exactly who you are hiring from an interview. Some people are very good at interviews.
Unfair dismissal is only really for small companies as where I work there is no way HR would let that happen due to potential cost and bad press. I am all for extended employees rights but it can't be 100% one way.
'Fair' dismissal is really quite difficult.
Well deal with that problem directly then.
It shouldn't be a problem to dismiss someone fairly, and if it is then the solution isn't to offer no protection at all for the first 6 months.
At least that isn't the solution in my world, nor was it the solution in Labour's election manifesto 18 months ago.
Which gets us back to that question again.....why was protection against unfair dismissal from day one included in Labour's election manifesto if it is apparently such a bad idea now?
If even Keir Starmer fully supported the policy last July it suggests that it isn't exactly the most radical and revolutionary policy!
Which gets us back to that question again.....why was protection against unfair dismissal from day one included in Labour's election manifesto if it is apparently such a bad idea now?
Because it was an idealistic wish that doesn't work in real life.
Well deal with that problem directly then.
Totally agree, and I've suggested an alternative above.
why was protection against unfair dismissal from day one included in Labour's election manifesto if it is apparently such a bad idea now?
It's hardly the first or last manifesto pledge (from any party) which doesn't stand up to a tiny bit of scrutiny. It's generally a good idea to stand by manifesto pledges but if they turn out to be a bit daft it doesn't mean they can't be changed or ignored.
Well deal with that problem directly then.
Totally agree, and I've suggested an alternative above.
No you haven't suggested dealing with the alleged problem directly. On the contrary you have suggested ignoring the alleged problem completely and not bothering at all with unfair dismissals in the first 6 months.
Because it was an idealistic wish that doesn't work in real life.
If Labour's 2024 election manifesto was not much more than Starmer's idealistic wish list without any commitment it begs the question why he fought so hard to keep radical policies, such as the re-nationalisation of the utilities and the abolition of the House of Lords, off it?
Rather than having no intention of implementing the policy Starmer no doubt felt that it was compatible with his Tory-Lite agenda, otherwise he would of treated it in the same way that he treated re-nationalisation of the utilities and the abolition of the House of Lords, two former pledges of his.
On the contrary you have suggested ignoring the alleged problem completely and not bothering at all with unfair dismissals in the first 6 months.
Hardly. To be clear I'd allow no questions asked dismissals up to 6 months with 3 months salary as compensation. After 6 months employees would be protected from unfair dismissal and employers would have to go through the existing process to fairly dismiss an employee.
Sounds harsh but I've often thought it should be easier to fire people who are not right for a role.
I think the problem is the murkiness of the definition (in this discussion at least) of "not right for a role". It could be incapacity to fulfill duties, or it could be taking offence at banter, or being boring, not wishing to listen to the noise of the radio all day every day, not wishing to engage socially with people at work (perhaps I'm just projecting my own fears though), skin colour, sexual orientation, accent. Even the incapacity to fulfill duties may be due to unwillingness of employer to fulfill their own duties to accommodate employee disability.
I think the problem is the murkiness of the definition (in this discussion at least) of "not right for a role".
Spends his days ****ing about, arguing with other grumpy middle-aged men on a mountain biking forum, when he should be working?
Exactly. And to get rid of that waster, as not an instant dismissal type offence, would take loads of effort, months of improvement plans that the waster would fail etc,. before you can replace them with someone much better.
However, protection is required because a lot of employers, especially small businesses can't be trusted.
Spends his days ****ing about, arguing with other grumpy middle-aged men on a mountain biking forum, when he should be working?
It's my equivalent of a fag break. Posting shite on here really doesn't require any appreciable effort that distracts from my day job. 😀
For a bit of context, it seems that the qualifying period for being able to claim unfair dismissal prior to 2012 was 1 year. The coalition put it up to 2 years. So while 6 months isn't as good as immediately it is better than what's come before, even prior to 2012.
I'm guessing that business bodies lobbied heavily against providing unfair dismissal protection from day 0. I am far from knowledgeable on these matters but I presume there'd be a bit of nervousness from employees that if anyone who failed their probationary period could claim unfair dismissal then the resulting tribunals could take up a lot of time and money, irrespective of the actual matters of the cases.
Whether this is a valid reason to go with the qualifying period of 6 months I don't know. On the face of it it it's a loss for workers (even if it's an improvement from what we have now, or had before 2012) but I suppose if the day 0 protection resulted in companies becoming disproportionately cautious when it comes to hiring new staff then that would be bad for workers too. And if the extra parliamentary time necessary to push through the day 0 protection (if it kept on getting bounced back by the Lords as Kelvin suggested) detracted from other positive things the government could be doing (provided they do positive things with the time saved, something I'm sure everyone here will debate) then that might also have caused the government to go with this compromise position.
On the contrary you have suggested ignoring the alleged problem completely and not bothering at all with unfair dismissals in the first 6 months.
I'd allow no questions asked dismissals up to 6 months with 3 months salary as compensation.
So I could get a job this week, deliberately do nothing and get fired next week, and collect 3 months' pay? Sounds like a system ripe for abuse.
So I could get a job this week, deliberately do nothing and get fired next week, and collect 3 months' pay? Sounds like a system ripe for abuse.
No, because dismissing you after day 1 (or maybe 2) would not be "unfair".
Sounds like a system ripe for abuse.
And many employers have been enjoying 'ripe for abuse' terms for years
I love the idea of people queuing to frame this in terms of abuse on the employer.
I bet you 100x over that in such situations without something in place like this the employer screws the employee, many more times.
That's why these things exist. That's why daft old Labour put it up there - or was to just get votes?
I say this as small employer - and I understand how difficult it is to get rid of wonky staff. (My partner's a teacher and we see this often. But it's in the minority)
There is a pool of labour - and if an employer sets on someone useless then for all intents and purpose they probably didn't do their interview very well, and didn't choose appropriately. Make better choices?
Either way, the protection is not their to help the employer - it's to protect the average willing employee who's more likely than not going to get shafted at some point.
You can't legislate for the odd idiot. You do it to protect the willing majority.
That said it's the impotent Labour manifesto breaking glass back that is the main issue.
It's a constant stream of useless junk.
There is a pool of labour - and if an employer sets on someone useless then for all intents and purpose they probably didn't do their interview very well, and didn't choose appropriately. Make better choices?
This is what I mean about day one being an issue for the job seeker... companies becoming more risk adverse and as a result creating overly restrictive and time consuming recruitment processes that make it harder for the job applicant.
So I could get a job this week, deliberately do nothing and get fired next week, and collect 3 months' pay? Sounds like a system ripe for abuse.
No, because dismissing you after day 1 (or maybe 2) would not be "unfair".
@dazh is proposing no questions asked dismissals up to 6 months. Fair or unfair wouldn't come into it.
@dazh is proposing no questions asked dismissals up to 6 months. Fair or unfair wouldn't come into it.
He is proposing ALLOWING no questions asked dismissals up to 6 months, not replacing all other dismissals with a compensated no questions scheme. At least that's how I read it. Otherwise you can just punch your boss on the nose on Day 1 and waltz off with 3 months pay. You usually need too be a football manager to get that level of ridiculous redundancy.
But...if you can ask the question about whether the dismissal was fair or not, then that's not "no questions asked".
dazh may have to come back and explain. I may have just misunderstood.
I will ask again the same questions which I asked earlier but received no answer, why was it included in Labour's election manifesto and what has happened since that manifesto was published that has changed? Apart from Labour winning a 172 parliamentary majority.
I know exactly what happened
The NI hikes hurt business hiring more than expected/hoped for, this has hit employment numbers and growth & this would be another hit
even the resolution foundation!!! was saying that the the day1 dismissal plans were a bad idea & you can bet the government read this report because it explains the 6 month figure too, well worth reading
dazh may have to come back and explain.
It's something I dreamed up in the 30 seconds it took to respond to Ernie so haven't exactly worked out all the detail. You'll need to ask a civil servant for that. Honestly though I can't imagine it would be very difficult to protect employers against chancers trying to abuse the system. Gross misconduct etc would still exist, and obviously in that case the employee wouldn't receive compensation. If however an employer wants to terminate the contract for no other reason than they hired the wrong person for the job then compensation would be due.
details from the report above , that may help to inform the debate , there seems to be some misunderstanding about the current situation and what it means for employers/employees
Reform here is definitely needed. Currently, protection from unfair dismissal kicks in only when someone has been in the job for two years. That doesn’t mean employers can do what they like within those two years: if they make a dismissal which is discriminatory, or dismiss someone because they’re a whistleblower, for example, then they could be taken to an employment tribunal. But in general, in the first two years, employers don’t need to demonstrate that dismissals are ‘fair’ (which would require that they are happening for a fair reason (including redundancy and performance) and happening through a fair process). As it stands, the law places no fairness constraint on dismissing workers who may be well-established in their jobs, albeit for less than two years
would love to see some actual data on this assertion too,
I love the idea of people queuing to frame this in terms of abuse on the employer.
I bet you 100x over that in such situations without something in place like this the employer screws the employee, many more times.
Ive always worked for reasonable employers so haven't experienced any real discrimination, but i have seen several instances of employees absolutely taking the piss
Can Rachel Reeves credibility sink any lower!...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/nov/28/obr-reeves-income-tax-rise-forecasts-budget
Hmm... I mean that this story is running is her/their own fault, for giving the grim warm up speech on the 3rd, and for kite flying possible tax changes with journalists ahead of the budget... but the details of that story don't match the assertion at all. That all the "better news" was all delivered 10 days before the final decision was made doesn't mean that the decision wasn't influenced by the OBR's improved submissions.
It doesn't matter what went on behind closed doors and the decisions made there - the impression she gives to the public is we're in deep shit. We're being gaslighted - we don't matter.
The way the dismissal process works is gross misconduct, straight out the door, sacked due to a protected characteristic, still and always was against the rules from day 1, employee not settling in and contributing as expected in first 6 months, off you go with previously agreed notice period, often shorter during probabtion. After 6 months dismissal for performance becomes more difficult which requires a proper PIP process which would normally taking at least 6 months and gives the employee a chance to improve, earned by getting through the first six months. If an employer is too rubbish to make a decision in 6 months that's on them. Under the old rules bad employers would get rid of people 23 months in.
Interviews are a terrible way to select people but it's all we've got.
Interviews are a terrible way to select people but it's all we've got.
They're really not all we've got.
They're really not all we've got.
Do enlighten us.
Hmm... I mean that this story is running is her/their own fault, for giving the grim warm up speech on the 3rd, and for kite flying possible tax changes with journalists ahead of the budget... but the details of that story don't match the assertion at all. That all the "better news" was all delivered 10 days before the final decision was made doesn't mean that the decision wasn't influenced by the OBR's improved submissions.
The problem she has is that she has been banging on about the 'back hole' since the start and how it is the end of the world and needs to be plugged at all costs yet that very same black hole seems to have disappeared without her doing anything. It will no doubt come back again, go away again and so on because of all the contributing factors involved.
If she still mentions a black hole her credibility should now be zero (for those people who it wasn't that already)
They could give people an IQ test and a psychological test. I knew that if it was just an interview I'd probably be offered the job and if there were tests before the interview they were just going through the motions to a rejection as the result of the first test intimidated and second was never going to get past human resources. Anyhow why waste your talent working for others when you can work for yourself.
Under the old rules bad employers would get rid of people 23 months in.
Which certain industries were notorious for. 2 years and then you can reapply after enough months to make it not appear a continuous contract.
Something which is overlooked by many eg "companies becoming more risk adverse and as a result creating overly restrictive and time consuming recruitment processes that make it harder for the job applicant." is what about employees being more risk adverse and deciding not to job hunt.
Why should I risk switching jobs when I dont have any protection against my new manager getting annoyed about a cyclist not diving under a bus to let their ****mobile through and so deciding to dislike me?
Plot twist
https://twitter.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1996572051478282392?t=RzSDkL86piKq_TF7GJiESQ&s=19
I can't stop laughing at this one. For all manner of reasons.
https://twitter.com/RealAlbanianPat/status/1996608340487549071?t=58SsPlME6vuX0TckYTAz_Q&s=19
I won’t be “laughing” when my friends and family are deported and the rich get their “hard earned” tax breaks, but hey.
Is it too late to make up the “save the NHS badges”, or have the Brexit people already neutered that message with their erroneous use of it?
I can't stop laughing at this one. For all manner of reasons.
Well the funniest thing about it is I guess that they calculated a seat projection by using the findings of that particular poll and applied it across the board. The idea that Labour would be down to just 3 MPs is so ridiculous that is neither worth suggesting nor funny.
There is obviously a reason why a great deal of time and money is spent on MRP polls, ie to come with realistic figures not daft ones.
I do think that the poll which was used in this ridiculous modelling exercise is worthwhile though. I suspect that it probably gives a very realistic insight into how Labour support has at least halved in the last 18 months.
It is certainly in line with all the other countless polls that have been released recently