Many companies now use agency staff for seasonal busy periods for the very reason that they can simply say to the agency that they only require half the staff this week. The larger employers also recruit permanent staff that have proved to be sound workers when employed through an agency which for the employer is better than the 3 month trial period. So by default employees rights have lessened over the past decade in favour of the employer.

I don't really think that there is anything for employers to complain about other than not being able to have jam on both sides...

Employment Law enables short term employment by using contract as well as permanent staffing. Additionally there is a cooling off period after employment which can be used by both sides with no detriment if either the job or employee are not right for the function.

Whilst working for any business as a contractor may not suit everyone there are many who use this form of employment for their livelihood most successfully.

As a result, any business that is afraid of recruiting has an option in two directions and there is no need to tamper with current regulations. If perception is the causal need then business needs to understand its rights and responsibilities better rather than requiring unnecessary changes.

"when I saw workers told on the Monday that their job finished on Friday".

There as been many cases of people arriving at work to find the premises locked, and the administrators called in. After that sudden and unexpected surprise the workers have then had to seek advice on how to reclaim money owed and the complications of delayed basic redundancy payments. No form of employment legislation will help their, in quick time!.

IoD and CBI disinformation is the theme here, not the TUC who are correct.

If the forum editor had to go, what's the best way to tell him.?