you have to admire the filthy tube scum/drivers

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

Err, I think there are around two million people currently looking for jobs.

Why do you think it is that companies look at giving benefits to employees above the legal minimum requirement? Just for fun? The more forward-thinking employers know that in the war for talent it doesn't matter how many people are unemployed as there is a small, finite number of quality employees who have the skills, experience and emotional intelligence to really be a top performer for the company. By offering flexible benefits an employer can attract these people.

There's a really good reason that some of the biggest and best companies in the UK offer excellent sick pay, maternity pay, childcare support and general benefits for their employees above pay. Firstly, they know through research that pay, in 2011, is not the main motivator for employees. Benefits around flexibility rank highly in what people are looking for in a job, and will therefore perform higher when they are given flexible benefits and care from their employer. Secondly, they know by offering these benefits that they can attract the best of the best. Why else do top firms all offer way above the SMP rates? Yes, they can afford it, but it's mainly to hold on to talent.

Employers with their head in the sand (possibly like you) will treat their employees with scant regard and, presumably, will end up with the employees they deserve: the poor performers who can't get jobs elsewhere. It's not really that surprising that you've had issues with employees in the past.

ILW

Cleaver wrote: »

Why do you think it is that companies look at giving benefits to employees above the legal minimum requirement? Just for fun? The more forward-thinking employers know that in the war for talent it doesn't matter how many people are unemployed as there is a small, finite number of quality employees who have the skills, experience and emotional intelligence to really be a top performer for the company. By offering flexible benefits an employer can attract these people.

There's a really good reason that some of the biggest and best companies in the UK offer excellent sick pay, maternity pay, childcare support and general benefits for their employees above pay. Firstly, they know through research that pay, in 2011, is not the main motivator for employees. Benefits around flexibility rank highly in what people are looking for in a job, and will therefore perform higher when they are given flexible benefits and care from their employer. Secondly, they know by offering these benefits that they can attract the best of the best. Why else do top firms all offer way above the SMP rates? Yes, they can afford it, but it's mainly to hold on to talent.

Employers with their head in the sand (possibly like you) will treat their employees with scant regard and, presumably, will end up with the employees they deserve: the poor performers who can't get jobs elsewhere. It's not really that surprising that you've had issues with employees in the past.

I agree with nearly all you say above about attracting the right people with the right overall package. Where we differ is that I do not believe that the terms should be dictated by law, but by negotiation between the employee and employer.

discoass

ILW wrote: »

I agree with nearly all you say above about attracting the right people with the right overall package. Where we differ is that I do not believe that the terms should be dictated by law, but by negotiation between the employee and employer.

isnt that a bit like saying I dont agree with speed limits i should be able to drive as fast as i want .
with running a buisiness comes responsibilities wether you like them or not and if you dont like them you should`nt be running a business

ILW

discoass wrote: »

isnt that a bit like saying I dont agree with speed limits i should be able to drive as fast as i want .
with running a buisiness comes responsibilities wether you like them or not and if you dont like them you should`nt be running a business

Not sure what you are going on about.

When offering someone a job you discuss the terms and the applicant decides whether to accept them or not. Why should it be any more than that?

discoass

ILW wrote: »

Not sure what you are going on about.

When offering someone a job you discuss the terms and the applicant decides whether to accept them or not. Why should it be any more than that?

Because without laws many employers would just ignore the initial terms.

ILW

discoass wrote: »

Because without laws many employers would just ignore the initial terms.

The terms would form the contract, I would have no problem with going to law if either side broke the terms without the agreement of the other. But costs should be awarded either way.

I would guess you have never tried to start up a business.

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

I agree with nearly all you say above about attracting the right people with the right overall package. Where we differ is that I do not believe that the terms should be dictated by law, but by negotiation between the employee and employer.

I think as society has evolved it has become necessary to make some laws around employing people. It goes without saying that 99% of people don't need a law to tell them not to sack a woman when she annouces she's pregnant as they value their employees and have compassion for them. However, there are a small minority (yourself included) who are in favour of that practice and therefore law is probably required.

discoass

ILW wrote: »

The terms would form the contract, I would have no problem with going to law if either side broke the terms without the agreement of the other. But costs should be awarded either way.

But without laws dictating it the contract is worth jack. (It already is to a certain degree but would be worse under your proposals)

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

The terms would form the contract, I would have no problem with going to law if either side broke the terms without the agreement of the other. But costs should be awarded either way.

I would guess you have never tried to start up a business.

Do you really think people would work for your company if your contract stated "ILW can sack you at any point with no reason given and recourse to the employee."? Okay, you might get a few desperate morons taking up a role with you who had nothing to lose, but you can't run a successful company on those terms.

I'm beginning to actually wonder whether you have ever actually employed people.

ILW

Cleaver wrote: »

Do you really think people would work for your company if your contract stated "ILW can sack you at any point with no reason given and recourse to the employee."? Okay, you might get a few desperate morons taking up a role with you who had nothing to lose, but you can't run a successful company on those terms.

I'm beginning to actually wonder whether you have ever actually employed people.

A contract would not be worded like that, but may have strict levels of performance required. If these levels are not achieved for whatever reason, I believe the employer should have the right to let the person go. Is that really so unreasonable.