you have to admire the filthy tube scum/drivers

The_White_Horse

pqrdef wrote: »

What a load of rubbish. In the 19th century, employers regularly and routinely laid off their workers whenever the order book was a bit thin, or the supplies were late, or the steam engine broke down, or whatever. All sort of business risks could be laid by just letting the workers' kids go hungry.

i think you are forgetting that these are employees, not their adopted children.

the employees' kids are of no concern to the employer. and why should they be? is the employer running a business or a charity?

if not, just employ single childless people.

The_White_Horse

why shouldn't employers be able to sack women for getting pregnant cleaver? why should employers have to pay someone for a year to do nothing?????

Cleaver

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i think employers need more rights. why should an employer not be able to say "i don't want to employ you anymore" and that is that. the employer takes the risks and is then bogged down in lefty nonsense. if you do your job well, your employer will not want to get rid of you. if you annoy the employer for whatever reason (unless that reason is legislated for such as race) then the employer should be able to get rid.

Call me a crazy radical, but I feel that you should only be sacked from your job if you perform poorly in it, as per the contract that both the employer and employee signed. For example, if I don't achieve the goals and objectives I've been asked to do, if I'm lazy, if I don't turn up, if I commit an act of gross misconduct, if I refuse to do something I'm asked to as part of my job etc. etc. If that's the case, sack away.

What I don't think is that people can be sacked because their boss doesn't really like their choice in shirt colour, or because they are a pregnant woman, or because they are gay, or because they suffering from drepression.

I know this view makes me somewhat of a black sheep on this forum judging by the other responses, but there we go. I agree that employment law for small companies needs to be made more flexible. If you employ one person and she is female and goes off on maternity leave it's a completely different situation to a massive company who can easily cover that vacancy. Obviously the answer though is not to bring in a law stating that anyone can sack anyone for no reason.

Cleaver

By the way ILW I really hope your business doesn't expand to the point where you have to hire employees as you don't sound a very understanding person to work for.

zagfles

The_White_Horse wrote: »

why shouldn't employers be able to sack women for getting pregnant cleaver? why should employers have to pay someone for a year to do nothing?????

Employers don't, the taxpayer does (SMP/SPP is refunded by the state to the employer). But of course the employer has the additional cost of hiring/training temporary staff.

Cleaver

The_White_Horse wrote: »

why shouldn't employers be able to sack women for getting pregnant cleaver? why should employers have to pay someone for a year to do nothing?????

For a whole host of reasons really. Firstly, we live in an equal society and women shouldn't be penalised in the work place for having children. In a civilised society we generally have an understanding that different people have periods where they cannot work, so this might be due to pregnancy, an illness, incapability for another viable reason. And due to this we have law that says that employers must pay to a certain point to support their employees. This seems completely reasonable to me. As I've said above, I'd adapt the law for small businesses as they get a rough deal.

Just to pick up your line in bold, no employer need pay a woman for going off on maternity leave for a year. The minimum payment an employer must make is 90% of earnings for the first six weeks and then either £128 a week or 90% of earnings (whichever is the lower) for 33 weeks. Essentially if someone earns the average wage of £24,000 a year then if they were in work for the 36 week period they would earn £16,615. Whilst on maternity leave the employer must pay them a minimum of £6,709 over the same 36 week period. Then they must come back to work. There seems to be a myth that women go off 'paid for a year', as you've put above. A company can chose to do that of course, and a lot of caring companies do, but that's the minimum legal requirement. As another poster has said, the company doesn't pick up SMP anyway.

I'm sure you've mentioned before White Horse that you have a wife and family. I'm presuming when she had your children you sent any maternity pay back to the company out of principle?

Cleaver

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i think you are forgetting that these are employees, not their adopted children.

the employees' kids are of no concern to the employer. and why should they be? is the employer running a business or a charity?

if not, just employ single childless people.

I know you're essentially a troll, but do you manage staff in your job?

zagfles

Cleaver wrote: »

I know you're essentially a troll, but do you manage staff in your job?

You're spending a lot of time debating with a "troll"!

Cleaver

zagfles wrote: »

You're spending a lot of time debating with a "troll"!

I've said before that I just take people at face value on this forum. He may be a character that he's playing along too but I'm sure he represents the thoughts of some. And anyway, his question of "why should we pay women maternity pay?" is worthy of debate.

The_White_Horse

Cleaver wrote: »

I know you're essentially a troll, but do you manage staff in your job?

yes i do. why?