MSE News: Jobs market 'set to get worse'

tagq2

LadyMissA wrote: »

Of course it's easy to get rid of someone. No work means no staff needed.

With you so far.

Company has 40+ sites and then closes 15 over 5 years due to people not spending

Or the business could repurpose itself. Some jurisdictions may require very generous payments to people who are being made redundant (perhaps over a period of time), reducing the opportunity for business owners to say, "Wow, I can't rest on my laurels any more, best fire half the workforce rather than adapting." It is of course necessary not to make the burden so great that the business is driven into the ground.

and a new computer system comes on board so people in accounts and payroll lose their jobs as the job becomes partly automated and the new system doesn't do payroll

This is a contentious one: how much should a business pay for the human cost of replacing man with machine? Were people in these roles offered reduced hours? Or what about a requirement to move/retrain existing staff for new roles before hiring new people?

Outsourcing and offshoring are obvious targets for 21st century employment law: you're effectively firing existing staff to use cheaper staff, something which would be outside the law if it weren't so indirect. When it's combined with offshoring, you're taking advantage of lack of employee protections in less "developed" countries.

These are the sorts of issues once strong unions spent a lot of time discussing and trying to address. Now weaker, they tend to focus on more specific problems or laws affecting their members in the short or medium term.

Like I say no union can save those so a waste of time all round.

Even if it's too late for any union or association or associated political movement to do anything about the job you had, I'm not sure why it's "a waste of time all round" to do something to better your future lot. What kind of country would you like to live and work in after 5 years? After 50?

dandelionclock30

Plenty of actions could be undertaken to reduce the unemployment level.
The Government could stop investing millions in stupid wars in Iraq and Afganistan that serve no purpose and where British citizens are murdered for nothing. With this large amount of capital buisnesses could be given tax incentives to take unemployed people and train them for decent jobs as well as them being set to college.The unemployed could be given a decent training wage whilst doing this.
Also councils should have a cap on wages with nobody earning over £50,000 or so, as its stupid that council bossess get paid 100k plus to do what any member of the public could do. Sod all.
Abolish all middle management who are a complete waste of time.
Higher taxes on higher wage earners over £40,000 and the taxes goes towards training education and quality placements etc.
Abolish all subsides for M.Ps as they all have their own buisnesses and take bribes anyway.There needs to be a bigger committment to getting and maintaining buinessess in Britain instead.Financial incentives and mentoring for businesses.
An application to the EEC for more grants and help, instead of us funding everybody but ourselves.
If someonne has to do a placement then they should be offered NMW and then a proper chance of employment in a reasonably paying job.

tagq2

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

Plenty of actions could be undertaken to reduce the unemployment level.

Yes, but who would that benefit? Pushing everyone onto an inappropriate allowance was the government's solution in the '80s too. And Labour's solution was bloat.

There's not enough full-time work to go around. Nor does there need to be. Require offshore workers to be treated as well as onshore (just as we don't vary the law depending on how desperate the worker is around England or even much around Europe) and spread the load.

dtsazza

tagq2 wrote: »

[How can a union protect a job?] You might want to look into how easy it is to get rid of someone in this country vs much of continental Europe to find out how organised labour has produced an environment to "stop" people getting made redundant: sometimes through rational laws which stop the employer making dishonest excuses or using threats to push people out, other times through over-zealous protectionism which drives the company into the ground.

Playing devil's advocate here to some extent, I'm not convinced that these regulations have the desired net effect.

Firstly to make it clear, I understand your argument as that making it harder/more costly to fire people is a positive step for job security.

This does have the obvious benefit to the worker that they're more difficult to fire and so are more likely to keep a job that they have.

However, by the same token it disincentivises a company to take on any particular employee - they had better be really sure that the person is a good fit for the job, because it will be very difficult to get rid of them later if this turns out not to be the case. Relaxing these restrictions, a company would be more willing to take a punt on someone with less experience, or someone who was close to a "maybe" in interviews, because if it doesn't work out they're not obliged to keep paying them.

This is a particular boon to those who are able to do the job but don't have much demonstrable experience - in particular, young workers and those seeking to change career. As a corollary to this, as businesses are more open to hiring candidates, it stimulates demand in the employment market. It's easier to change jobs, which ceteris paribus gives the employee a better position in wages/working condition negotiations, as the (real or implied) threat to leave and work for a competitor has more weight.

In addition, it would put an end to the situation common at many companies (especially public sector ones) where there's the guy in the department that everyone knows is useless at his job. He adds nothing to the company as everyone ends up circumventing him or just doing his work themselves, but he can't be let go due to regulations. (And I speak from experience here.)

If these people could be dismissed and replaced with more able workers, then the company's productivity will increase, which again all things being equal will lead to them being able to hire more people as they grow through reinvested earnings. And we the public see the benefit of more goods/services being produced, which ultimately increases the real aggregate wealth of our society (for it's stuff, not pounds sterling, that determines the standard of living).


So, are you sure that it wouldn't be better for employees' prospects in general for an employer to be able to terminate a 3-months-notice contract by giving three months' notice, in the same way that an employee can?

(This is a genuine question, not a belligerent one, and I'm interested in your response as I know that I haven't considered every point of view.)

dandelionclock30

It is easy for an employer to fire someone, remember an employee can be let go at anytime within the first year and doesnt have any rights as long as its not for a discriminatory reason.
Also an employer on a mission could find gross misconduct against the most well behaved employee.People can and do get stiched up for misconduct that they havent done and an employer only has to have reasonable beleif that they did it. I know people who have been sacked and havent done what they were accused of.
If they want to get rid of you then they will do, or make it so uncomfortable for you that you leave yourself!

dtsazza

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

If they want to get rid of you then they will do, or make it so uncomfortable for you that you leave yourself!

That's something that crossed my mind too - if an employer wants to be rid of someone, is it doing either party any favours to make it difficult to dismiss that employee? If an employer wants you out I can't imagine it'll be much fun for either of you while they jump through artificial hoops to satisfy legislation.

Would it not be better for both parties to allow a clean break in this situation, letting both get on with a normal situation sooner?

tagq2

dtsazza wrote: »

However, by the same token it disincentivises a company to take on any particular employee - they had better be really sure that the person is a good fit for the job, because it will be very difficult to get rid of them later if this turns out not to be the case.

Yes, this is a common counterargument. If the law and practice were - say - to increase the value of any redundancy pay in proportion to number of days worked, there should be little disincentive to keeping people on for a short or even medium term trial. Such amount could increase on a daily basis so there's no cut-off point before which employers desperately try to remove workers or after which employees would suddenly start slacking off. This creates a positive feedback loop where an employee becomes more valuable to an employer and an employer more valuable to an employee as time goes on.

"Why not just pay the guy greater salary and let him allocate some of it for his redundancy?" Well, ignoring tax matters, no need. If an employee stays on until eligible for pension, leaves voluntarily or is fired then there is no need to pay out.

In addition, it would put an end to the situation common at many companies (especially public sector ones) where there's the guy in the department that everyone knows is useless at his job.

This shouldn't need to be a redundancy issue. Those who are willing and able can be dealt with differently from those who are either unwilling (disciplinary / fire) or unable (disability law: adaptations / change tasks within company / let go as last resort). The question to ask is: why was this person not dealt with earlier? IOW, what poor process didn't discipline or retrain or reassign or fire him? It is easy to blame the law or another external entity which can take the punches and doesn't answer back but it's more likely that the organisation has some internal problems.

but he can't be let go due to regulations.

Are you quite sure that he has to stay exactly where he is not-doing what he is supposed to do "due to regulations"? Which regulation?

If these people could be dismissed and replaced with more able workers, then the company's productivity will increase

Well, the workers don't control the means of production - it depends on how the human resource is applied. A generally able worker has to be trained up and allocated to function optimally in a specific role; he has to be sufficiently nurtured that he's going to keep himself in top performance on an on-going basis. This kind of optimum functioning requires a demonstration of loyalty, because frankly no-one cares to do their best if they might be kicked out tomorrow. Your high turnover customer service role might be able to constantly select the top-performing candidates on paper (like so many call centres filled with students) but they're not going to provide the best service because they're not going to be there for more than a few months.

And we the public see the benefit of more goods/services being produced, which ultimately increases the real aggregate wealth of our society (for it's stuff, not pounds sterling, that determines the standard of living).

Well, happiness is the ultimate measure of standard of living. A certain amount of stuff increases happiness, but many other variables apply with predictable labels such as freedom, security, opportunity, community, justice, safety, health...

So, are you sure that it wouldn't be better for employees' prospects in general for an employer to be able to terminate a 3-months-notice contract by giving three months' notice, in the same way that an employee can?

I have seen no evidence that at-will employment laws benefit employees as a whole. The points you have presented are important but they target specific cases rather than negating the notion of any sort of job protection.

Also, at the risk of getting on a particular hobby horse, there is no "same way" as long as an employer('s human form) has the protection of limited liability and can shrug, fire everyone and wind up his company.

dtsazza wrote:

Would it not be better for both parties to allow a clean break in this situation, letting both get on with a normal situation sooner?

Would it be better for a racist employer to be allowed to only hire one race? A sexist to make it clear that he gets to wolf-whistle at the ladies if they want a job there? Better to know up front who you're dealing with rather than discrimination behind your back, right?

Legislation can't stop everyone trying to flout the law, but it will try to make undesirable behaviour so fraught with risk (especially if the other party has the appropriate legal protection - union/insurance/whatever) that a businessman will either work within society's boundaries or go elsewhere.

revpeachy

I think the phasing in of the compulsory 3% employer pension contributions in 2012 is going to impact upon employment figures too next year. Okay it will only impact on larger businesses to start but a lot of the factories/manufacturing plants may think twice about expanding work force with another 3% per person for existing staff to find - don't know how some of the smaller firms will cope with the rise.

I've noticed huge change in employment status too far less full time opportunities and substantially more part time roles on offer.

LadyMissA

tagq2 wrote: »

With you so far.

Or the business could repurpose itself. Some jurisdictions may require very generous payments to people who are being made redundant (perhaps over a period of time), reducing the opportunity for business owners to say, "Wow, I can't rest on my laurels any more, best fire half the workforce rather than adapting." It is of course necessary not to make the burden so great that the business is driven into the ground.

This is a contentious one: how much should a business pay for the human cost of replacing man with machine? Were people in these roles offered reduced hours? Or what about a requirement to move/retrain existing staff for new roles before hiring new people?

Outsourcing and offshoring are obvious targets for 21st century employment law: you're effectively firing existing staff to use cheaper staff, something which would be outside the law if it weren't so indirect. When it's combined with offshoring, you're taking advantage of lack of employee protections in less "developed" countries.

These are the sorts of issues once strong unions spent a lot of time discussing and trying to address. Now weaker, they tend to focus on more specific problems or laws affecting their members in the short or medium term.

Even if it's too late for any union or association or associated political movement to do anything about the job you had, I'm not sure why it's "a waste of time all round" to do something to better your future lot. What kind of country would you like to live and work in after 5 years? After 50?

There was no talk of reduced hours as they said there was not enough work and those left behind would have to find a way to get in all done and they didn't care how. Payroll lost their jobs (one had been there TEN YEARS!) as they were too stupid to ask if the accounts package they bought in did payroll till it was too late to go back. There were no new roles!

All we got was statatory payments and nothing else. 330 x 4 for me (4 years and 11 mths with them)

A union is not better for my future at all as I have only ever worked in the private sector and they do not go on strike as you have to fight for your job, pay rise and anything else you want on your own or get yourself another job.

I will be dead in 50 years so not bothered really (maybe even in 5, who knows)

dark_lady

revpeachy wrote: »

I think the phasing in of the compulsory 3% employer pension contributions in 2012 is going to impact upon employment figures too next year. Okay it will only impact on larger businesses to start but a lot of the factories/manufacturing plants may think twice about expanding work force with another 3% per person for existing staff to find - don't know how some of the smaller firms will cope with the rise.

I've noticed huge change in employment status too far less full time opportunities and substantially more part time roles on offer.

buoyed up by working tax credits.