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
johndrew

Likes # 0

Vince Cable comes across to me as a typical academic who is totally divorced from the real world. For him to think that simply saying that a situation should exist and Government can make it so is, in many instances, to say the least naive. To attempt to reverse employment law at the drop of a (his) hat is almost criminal.

Perhaps it is his age and background talking; if so I think he should discuss these ideas with others before broadcasting them. A little like thinking he can control executive wages in the private sector with a single word; he should consult with shareholders - they at least have power in that area.

Like this post
Quickbeam

Likes # 0

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...

Like this post
spuds

Likes # 0

This is a red herring, because as already been stated, agency workers fill quite a number of seasonal jobs, and at the time of slackness their prompt departures are there to be seen.

I have a friend who runs a large processing company, and his in-house 'key' staff is very reduced to what it was quite a number of years ago. At peak periods he is running the company on a 24/7 basis with large amounts of agency staff being recruited and transported in from 50 miles or so away.

What my main concern would be on the 'slave labour' involvements that still exist, and what the government record is on this. Its alright seeing media reports about Border and Immigration Control investigations and raids, but this activity is a mere tip of the iceberg, possibly due to resources in clearing up this mess, or at least that is what the public is being told?.

Like this post
johndrew

Likes # 0

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.

Like this post
carver

Likes # 0

"In fact, since the changes apply only to the smallest companies what we're seeing from the TUC etc is a disinformation compaign aimed at making people think it affects everybody."

Thats an interesting statement and one I haven't seen mentioned by any body in government, this change in the law effects every one and it's not a small change either.

:: Increasing the qualification period for making a claim for unfair dismissal or sex discrimination from one to two years of employment.

:: Cutting the current 90-day consultation period on redundancies to as little as 30 days.

Thats only 2 of the proposed changes, and both are big changes.

If a firm thinks it needs workers it will set them on and it can always make it clear from day one that the work may only last a few months unless more orders come in, if after 12 months you are still working for that firm then you should have some protection in law other wise you are going back to the 1950's -60's when I saw workers told om the Monday that their job finished on Friday.

Like this post
spuds

Likes # 0

"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!.

Like this post
Aitchbee

Likes # 0

It's interesting to note that 95% of UK companies are micro-companies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15864898

that is, ten or less workers.

Like this post
zzzz999

Likes # 0

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

Like this post
carver

Likes # 0

spuds not a firm going bust but someone being told he no longer had a job at that firm, not the same.

Like this post
Aitchbee

Likes # 0

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

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Amazon Kindle Voyage release date, price and specs UK: a high-end eReader with Amazon’s best-ever...

IDG UK Sites

Why local multiplayer gaming is rapidly vanishing: we look at the demise of split-screen and LAN...

IDG UK Sites

How to successfully bridge the gap between clients and creatives

IDG UK Sites

How to update your iPhone or iPad to iOS 8: including how to install iOS 8 if you don't have room