you have to admire the filthy tube scum/drivers

The_White_Horse

the point you are missing cleaver is not that the employer should have the right to sack people because they don't like their shirt (although, in a truly free society they would have that right) but to sack people for true genuine business reasons. if the company is not doing so well, why can't the employer lower his costs by sacking a few staff? why can't they be hired and fired at will as per the needs of the business?? if you have two people that have been working for years on 40k, why not sack them and get two young people on 18k if you can?

i think the fact that people are running a business, to make money, has been forgotten somewhere along the line by the bleeding hearts. and why not? that is afterall how they ran the country.

ILW

Cleaver wrote: »

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.

We actually decreased the size of the business a few years ago due to an employment tribunal issue. It found 100% in our favour and the claimant was found to be vexatious. It did cost us around 25 grand though which we had no recourse to reclaim. Very nearly bankrupted the company.

It is happening all the time, a large corp can swallow it, but it is different at the sharp end though.

We now just use agency temps as a when required, which is a pity as a few people could have had full time jobs.

Cleaver

The_White_Horse wrote: »

the point you are missing cleaver is not that the employer should have the right to sack people because they don't like their shirt (although, in a truly free society they would have that right) but to sack people for true genuine business reasons. if the company is not doing so well, why can't the employer lower his costs by sacking a few staff?

They can, it's called redundancy.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

if you have two people that have been working for years on 40k, why not sack them and get two young people on 18k if you can?

You can make that person redundant and bring in two people on different roles if you wish.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i think the fact that people are running a business, to make money, has been forgotten somewhere along the line by the bleeding hearts. and why not? that is afterall how they ran the country.

This is just a soundbyte of cliches, so I can't really respond to it in any meaningful way. I don't have a problem with profit, making money and companies sacking people, so best not to turn it in to that type of debate.

Cleaver

The_White_Horse wrote: »

yes i do. why?

No reason, I was just curious. I have a vision of a woman coming in to your office to tell you that she's pregnant and you calling her scum and sacking her.

ILW

Why should a job be held open for a year if a woman leaves due to pregnancy, without said woman having to commit to actually return at a specified time or be liable to a financial penalty if she chooses not to? All seems a bit one sided.

The_White_Horse

Cleaver wrote: »

No reason, I was just curious. I have a vision of a woman coming in to your office to tell you that she's pregnant and you calling her scum and sacking her.

it wouldn't make her scum, just unviable as an employee

ILW

The_White_Horse wrote: »

it wouldn't make her scum, just unviable as an employee

That is a fair point, if she is unable to do her job due to the pregnancy, why should an employer be forced to keep her on?

If she takes 6 weeks off to have the baby, take it as annual leave and arrange to be back at work at the end of that period. Simple.

This would not necessarily apply if it was the employer that got her pregnant.

Cleaver

The_White_Horse wrote: »

it wouldn't make her scum, just unviable as an employee

If she was an excellent performer in your team and planned to return after 6 months you'd really deem her 'unviable'?

Would you call her 'unviable as an employee' to her face, or would you bottle it because of your HR team and hide your true feelings?

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

That is a fair point, if she is unable to do her job due to the pregnancy, why should an employer be forced to keep her on?

If she takes 6 weeks off to have the baby, take it as annual leave and arrange to be back at work at the end of that period. Simple.

This would not necessarily apply if it was the employer that got her pregnant.

This thread needs more women commenting on it. And in answer to your first question, because it's 2011, not 1964. Most of the civilised world have moved on and understand that women are of equal value to men and need to be treated and respected as such. I can't really debate with you any further on this point to be honest. You'd sack women for being pregnant, if I owned a business I'd want to give them the time off to have a baby and then come back. I guess that's just a difference of opinion as to the way we'd operate our businesses given the choice.

As another example, let's say I work for you at ILW enterprises. I come to you and tell you, rather tearfully, that I have cancer. They've given me a 60% chance of survival but I have 7 months of quite heavy chemotherapy ahead of me, which means that I won't be able to work. Am I right in thinking that as IWL Enterprises sees the employer / employee relationship similar to the customer / seller relationship you would be sacking me on the spot as I am no longer able to do my job?

zagfles

Cleaver wrote: »

If she was an excellent performer in your team and planned to return after 6 months you'd really deem her 'unviable'?

Would you call her 'unviable as an employee' to her face, or would you bottle it because of your HR team and hide your true feelings?

The trouble is that it is usually better (from the employees point of view) not to tell the employer that if don't intend to come back, and hand in their notice just before they are due back. My wife did this when first pregnant, and my SIL did recently - for her it was better for her to go back for a week then hand her notice in - something to do with getting benefits & holiday pay over the maternity leave I think.

This is all very well in large companies as they probably aren't so dependant on a single member of staff, but it's not really fair on smaller employers.