We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
you have to admire the filthy tube scum/drivers
Comments
-
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.
You seem to be the one person on this thread who seems to understand that the current maternity rules for small businesses are skewed and need amending, yet seems to see that being able to sack people on the spot isn't the answer. Would that be correct?
I agree, the current balance of power is in favour of the employee in a lot of cases, especially with very small employers who might only have a few members of staff. The laws should be changed to make the balance more equal between employee and employer.0 -
I do agree on some of your points, but I really do fail to see why these issues are an employers responsibility rather than the states, or friends and families. An employer is not a mother/ father/ social worker but for some reason is expected to take on these roles.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?0 -
Isn't it? Why not exactly? It's his business, he keeps all the profits, why shouldn't he take the risks?I guess it's OK for the employers kids to go hungry because he has to pay workers who are producing nothing?"It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
I do agree on some of your points, but I really do fail to see why these issues are an employers responsibility rather than the states, or friends and families. An employer is not a mother/ father/ social worker but for some reason is expected to take on these roles.
You've dodged the question somewhat. As my employer would you want to sack me when I told you I had cancer? As opposed to paying me SSP and potentially dismissing me due to ill health if it became clear that I was incapable of doing my job due to not regaining my health? That is what you were arguing for earlier on this thread, the right for employer to sack on whim.0 -
You seem to be the one person on this thread who seems to understand that the current maternity rules for small businesses are skewed and need amending, yet seems to see that being able to sack people on the spot isn't the answer. Would that be correct?
Yes. I work for a large company and know what they are like. Employees do need extra protection when up against the might of a big HR department. But I also know people who run small businesses who are terrified of hiring staff, or of what happens if one of their staff make a vexatious claim as per ILW's post above.I agree, the current balance of power is in favour of the employee in a lot of cases, especially with very small employers who might only have a few members of staff. The laws should be changed to make the balance more equal between employee and employer.
Indeed. The distinction between a large employer and a small business needs to be recognised. It's ridiculous that a single vexatious employee should be able to destroy a company and hence other peoples' jobs - which can and does happen.0 -
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.
who would want to work for you with your atitude towards workers ?Always remember that you're unique, just like everybody else:cool:0 -
Indeed. The distinction between a large employer and a small business needs to be recognised. It's ridiculous that a single vexatious employee should be able to destroy a company and hence other peoples' jobs - which can and does happen.
Couldn't agree more. My main issue of debate on this thread is the idea that the answer is that any employer should be able to sack any person for any reason whenever they like. That simply isn't the answer, as any civilised person understands.0 -
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? 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.
I would say the person hired at 40k can bring more to a company than 2 inexperienced people on 18k otherwise why would you hire them on 40k in the first place.
Not seeing your workers as an asset is a bit blinkered .Always remember that you're unique, just like everybody else:cool:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards