Government considering new employment laws

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Fantastic ideas, especially the spurious claims one. Bout time!

They should also increase the discrimination cases from 0 years to 1 year as well because it is far to easy for people to cry discrimination against a new employer.

And you think this is about claims?

Its about cutting legal obligation in order to get rid of people as & when a company feels like it.

Uncertain

Hammyman wrote: »

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.

Obvious? To whom? An employer with no medical qualification and a vested interest in cutting cost? What about all the borderline close calls?

In the HGV example you quote, based on what we were told, the employer could very likely have safely terminated the employment long ago. There may be good reasons we don't know why they didn't or they may just be incompetent. You cannot blame an individual for sticking to their legal rights whether you agree with the law or not. I bet you would if you were in that position!

Uncertain

robbedofmymoney wrote: »

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.

Well, unless you have agreed contractual terms with them that give similar or better protection than the unfair dismissal rules making them "permanent" is next to meaningless!

Googlewhacker

robbedofmymoney wrote: »

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

And unfortunately like anything in life the majority of employers are moral and law abiding but the few that aren't drag the rest down.

Googlewhacker

Hammyman wrote: »

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.

And pay the person on the sick holiday don't forget as well as the temp person getting holiday pay!

Googlewhacker

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

And you think this is about claims?

Its about cutting legal obligation in order to get rid of people as & when a company feels like it.

The vast majority of companies would have a good reason to dismiss the person and it cuts some of the red tape involved. Can only be a good thing for employers.

Uncertain

Googlewhacker wrote: »

The vast majority of companies would have a good reason to dismiss the person and it cuts some of the red tape involved. Can only be a good thing for employers.

In who's opinion?

greendollar

The Tribunal judge already has the power to award costs to the employer if an employee insists on continuing with a spurious or vexatious claim . The fee for bringng a claim issue is already covered also , the employer can ask the Tribunal that the claimant puts a deposit down (up to £500) if the claim has little chance of success .
This is all about deterring employees from going to the Tribunal Service and making it easier for employees to sack people ........ what better deterrent , you're now unemployed (unfairly) , cannot claim benefits but somehow have to find money to take your ex-employer to a Tribunal .

Uncertain

Googlewhacker wrote: »

And pay the person on the sick holiday don't forget as well as the temp person getting holiday pay!

I have some sympathy for a very small company that finds itself in this situation.

However, with a large organisation the law of average will apply.

It is perfectly possible for a business to insure itself against the costs of a member of staff being long term sick. If they chose not to do so it is a bit like deciding not to insure your tools against theft. You may save money or you may catch a nasty cold.

Sick pay, if offered, should been seen as a kind of insurance that is paid for as part of the employment "package". The only issue should then be if the person is genuinely sick - which is for a doctor to decide not a jumped up clerk in the HR department!

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Googlewhacker wrote: »

The vast majority of companies would have a good reason to dismiss the person and it cuts some of the red tape involved. Can only be a good thing for employers.

There you go again.

You think its about getting rid of an individual.


This is about the blanket sacking of hundreds & thousands of people with minimal cost to business & no rights of those dumped on the dole queue at the taxpayers expense.


How very, very short sighted of you.