We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

Make Sacking Workers Easier


carver

Likes # 0

At a time when a lot of people are worried about their jobs and if they will still have one in 12 months the Con/Libs come out with a proposal that will set workers rights back years. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=new%20laws%20to%20make%20sacking%20workers%20easier&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.sky.com%2Fhome%2Fpolitics%2Farticle%2F16115706&ei=uQrOTqzNIYrIhAfulK3bDQ&usg=AFQjCNGv1xz_jn6Hv2t2c8PvEFEkH1Qivg

To hear Cable talk you would think that he is doing workers a favour and Cameron talking about next weeks strike you would think that it was just a minority forcing the majority to strike.

How can removing safe guards for workers increase jobs, the only thing it will do is allow a lot of unscrupulous firms to get shut of workers easier.

There is one thing I haven't heard and that is that any new laws apply to MP's jobs, maybe if it did we could get shut of a few of them who got into power by lying to the public who elected them.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

Like this post
zzzz999

Likes # 0

Ha ha ha ha, brilliant FE

Like this post
carver

Likes # 0

FE That has made my day, nice one.

Like this post
Aitchbee

Likes # 0

FE - your sense of humour supercedes mine. I'm not one for 'skating away, on the thin ice, of a new day!' and you are not going anywhere, also. ;o)

Like this post
spuds

Likes # 0

carver, I agree its not the same, because someone in the example you gave, was given 'notice' of pending job loss. When someone arrives at the door of the company that employed them the working day previously, and find that their employment was terminated immediately and without notice, can make a vast difference, and may even lead to far bigger hardships. That person could have worked at that company for many years, through possible many mergers and takeovers in that time?.

In the example I gave, I have known people who didn't get money that was owed to them, because they would or should have got paid at the end of the month (£1.000+?), they then had to fight 'the system' for payments that were due, trying to survive in the meantime. And not only that, their tools of the trade where locked behind closed doors, while they argued with the administrator's as to whose property it was, and whether the administrator's could or would sell it at auction?.

Like this post
spuds

Likes # 0

I have to agree with fourm members post at 9.09am. There are literally thousands of companies out there that 'employ' many more or less than that what the company account books show. So quoting statistics in this case, could be a little suspect?.

How many times have media reports stated 'knock-on effect', when contracts have been lost, and the unsure statistics implications behind that?.

Like this post
carver

Likes # 0

fourm member

"The companies the government is trying to help are those who are, essentially, owner-run"

How will it help those sort of companies, or any company to create jobs.

The problem nearly every company has at this moment in time is not setting workers on but whether they will have any company to own in the next 6 months.

If you employ some one and it doesn't matter who you are you can tell in the first month if that person has the potential to do the job, if it takes you 18 months to figure it out then you are a crap employer with no sense at all.

So please tell me how by altering the present laws it will encourage firms to take on staff.

Like this post
Aitchbee

Likes # 0

Stop scratching your head, fourm member, you'll make it worse.

'The UK government currently accepts the EU definition that a micro business is a company employing fewer than ten people with a turnover of less than 2m euros (£1.7m; $2.7m).'

Now argue with Prime Minister David Cameron about it, if you want to.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Samsung Galaxy Alpha vs iPhone 5S comparison review: Metal smartphones fight

IDG UK Sites

Gateway to your kingdom: why everybody should check and update their broadband router

IDG UK Sites

Fonts review

IDG UK Sites

Best Mac? Complete Apple Mac buyers guide for 2014