Government considering new employment laws

Uncertain

Mudd14 wrote: »

Uncertain - our choice is to not use a professional and lose a claim through inexperience or pay a professional and have a better chnace of winning.

Ah, so you are incompetent? :rotfl:

MrRedundant

It's a hard middle ground to find. The law must make it reasonably easy for companies to dismiss in the correct circumstances and protect their interests but also prevent employees being treated unfairly.

At the moment in my view it is too stacked in the employees favour as ET's are far too costly for companies that most just pay people off; fee's and making them harder to win without just cause would be a start as there would be less ET's for profit without cause.

Googlewhacker

Uncertain wrote: »

Ah, so you are incompetent?

So why do you advise that your clients pay the employee off quite alot even if they are likely to win if it is so easy for them to defend themselves?

Let's be serious here, whilst they are meant to be informal they aren't, they can be costly and if you try and defend it yourself you could fall foul of a technicality and lose even if you are in the right.

Uncertain

Googlewhacker wrote: »

So why do you advise that your clients pay the employee off quite alot even if they are likely to win if it is so easy for them to defend themselves?

Quite simply because in many years of experience working with my professional association it became obvious that, generally, the less successful the business the more likely it was to get involved in disputes with it staff and clients.

There are two sides to EVERY story and very few disputes are as black & white as the parties believe. Dealing with them takes large amounts of time and energy regardless of the rights and wrongs. Nearly always, a successful business will be able to earn far more if this effort is put into developing the business rather than fighting a relatively petty cash squabble. Also, settling usually means the firm can obtain a confidentiality agreement which means the dirty linen is not washed in public.

Russe11

Regulation of emplyment agencies would be a good starting point.

Mudd14

Uncertain wrote: »

Ah, so you are incompetent? :rotfl:

Not incompetent, just lack of experience in employment tribunals so much beter for us to use a professional.

I am yet to hear your opinion on this Uncertain, all I have seen is you attack posters to the thread. Its my opinion from working around employees and you cant chnage that no matter how much you pick apart my posts because you seem to know better. I agree some of them (not under my control) have been treated badly and they have been compensated for it, quite rightly. And there are others who have had thousands out of us as it was cheaper to settle then to fight, it doesnt make it morally correct and this is the problem that I have with the current system. I would like to see ACAS more involved to reduce tribunals, more so than what they are currently involved. An example, failure to give someone the right of appeal formally in a letter, they were given the right to appeal in the meeting but it was never written in the letter, they were claiming £92,000.00 for unfair dimissal, do you truly believe that this claim was truly worth £92,000?!

Uncertain

Mudd14 wrote: »

An example, failure to give someone the right of appeal formally in a letter, they were given the right to appeal in the meeting but it was never written in the letter, they were claiming £92,000.00 for unfair dimissal, do you truly believe that this claim was truly worth £92,000?!

You are mixing two issues.

Their unfair dismissal claim MAY or MAY NOT be worth £92K (very very few are) but the procedural irregularity alone would be worth very little if anything. If you don't understand that no wonder you are spending so much on "professionals"!

The AVERAGE tribunal award is only around £5K and this INCLUDES the handful of headline making big payouts.

So, in most cases a company is choosing to spend far more in costs than it would take to settle and this doesn't allow for internal time and lost productivity. OK, that is their choice, but don't expect other people to pay for it.

Maybe they think it will deter other claims but that is largely nonsense as most individuals see their own case as unique.

Mudd14

Uncertain wrote: »

You are mixing two issues.

Their unfair dismissal claim MAY or MAY NOT be worth £92K (very very few are) but the procedural irregularity alone would be worth very little if anything. If you don't understand that no wonder you are spending so much on "professionals"!

Dont get me wrong I do understand this, my point was an employee latching onto the smallest thing and turning it into a massive claim that is based on false allegations, which were proven at our time/expense.

robbedofmymoney

as an employer i would welcome an extension to 2 years, this would give me more time to assess individuals in a sales enviroment which takes up to a year to see the results,
i have to make a judgement call before the 12 months are up on wether i think the employee is going to succeed or not (otherwise it then becomes very expensive and time consuming to follow company process and procedure to end someones employment on grounds of performance), and then you get accused of all sorts of crap when you start the process.

if i had the additional year it would enable me and others to give more time tot he employee in such instances,

don't get me wrong here, i'm not saying everyone will get 2 years, in fact i have just confirmed someones permanent employment after 6 months because i feel the person is right for the role in every way and has demonstrated as such.

as with any rules it depends how they are interpretated and used, a company with morals will use them correctly and fairly where as some companies will use them un-justly

Hammyman

Uncertain wrote: »

Only if they don't do things properly - in which case they get what they deserve.

Oh no, you can do everything by the book and it still costs you a load of money. For example, an employer can not dismiss someone who has an injury or illness and it is obvious they can never return to work. Instead the employer has to hire temporary staff to cover the position while the whole farcical dog and pony dance of terminating employment on medical grounds is gone through which is at least 3 months.

There's another thread where a HGV driver has been "on sick" (genuinely) for TWO YEARS with no ability to return to the job as they've lost their licence on medical grounds and the employee is wanting to see if there's a way of dragging it out another 7 months until they reach retirement age.. Thats two years an employer has had to hire temporary staff to cover the position.