rights as an employee

fenwick458

in a nutshell, what are my rights as an employee?
last job was self employed so no rights basically, and before that was in the army (so no rights again lol)

LittleVoice

I put "rights as an employee" in Google and found http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/index.htm

Not a "nutshell" I suppose

agrinnall

I'd suggest you start by taking a good look here http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/index.htm

McKneff

Do you mean you are already employed.

Your rights should be in a company hand book or yur contract of employment.

Other than that have a look at the ACAS website.

tigeress289

As above, there is no simple answer. Are you employed to start with?

SarEl

fenwick458 wrote: »

in a nutshell, what are my rights as an employee?
last job was self employed so no rights basically, and before that was in the army (so no rights again lol)

I would save yourself a whole load of reading to no purpose. Within months you will have no rights as an employee either - so much easier to remember

LittleVoice

SarEl wrote: »

I would save yourself a whole load of reading to no purpose. Within months you will have no rights as an employee either - so much easier to remember

Please don't be so defeatist!

SarEl

LittleVoice wrote: »

Please don't be so defeatist!

Two years to claim unfair dsimissal. Tribunals only for those that can afford them. The rolling back of protections on sickness absence and leave accrual during periods of sickness absence. The watering down of TUPE protections that are already next to useless. This is setting employment protections back two decades. Were you thinking of throwing a party?

Googlewhacker

SarEl wrote: »

Two years to claim unfair dsimissal.Indifferent about Tribunals only for those that can afford themyou know its there to stop the malicious ones and I would guess that if a union though there was a case the fee would be in the package of being a member. The rolling back of protections on sickness absenceIts to hard to dismiss someone whose not contributing to a company and leave accrual during periods of sickness absenceHow can you think its even right that someone who doesn't work gets to still be paid holiday pay.. The watering down of TUPE protections that are already next to useless.Which is just as well because companies need to alter to survive This is setting employment protections back two decades. Were you thinking of throwing a party?

Even you must think the accrued holiday whilst sick is a silly employment law, how can anyone think its fair to accrue holiday whilst of sick is beyond me, yes it maybe part of a contract but its an enforced one on employers.

SarEl

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Even you must think the accrued holiday whilst sick is a silly employment law, how can anyone think its fair to accrue holiday whilst of sick is beyond me, yes it maybe part of a contract but its an enforced one on employers.

I think that unrestrained accrual is senseless yes. But I think there is a simpler answer than taking away the right to accrue holiday. Virtually nobody has 12 months full pay for sick leave even with the most generous policies. And in the very rare instances where someone is on sickness absence for very extended periods of time (and they are rare - generally an employer will have dismissed unless they have good cause not to) - pay them fo their holidays and let them take them! It would be very simple to amend the law to say that after, say 12 months, people should be paid holiday pay unless they remain on full pay during their sickness absence.

And as you are well aware there are already provisions to prevent malicious complaints - why charge everyone? And companies do need to survive - but they don't need to prove that the changes are for their survival rather than for increased profits. The law is already weighted in favour of the employer, as you well know. Why make it more so?

zagfles

SarEl wrote: »

I think that unrestrained accrual is senseless yes. But I think there is a simpler answer than taking away the right to accrue holiday. Virtually nobody has 12 months full pay for sick leave even with the most generous policies. And in the very rare instances where someone is on sickness absence for very extended periods of time (and they are rare - generally an employer will have dismissed unless they have good cause not to) - pay them fo their holidays and let them take them! It would be very simple to amend the law to say that after, say 12 months, people should be paid holiday pay unless they remain on full pay during their sickness absence.

And as you are well aware there are already provisions to prevent malicious complaints - why charge everyone? And companies do need to survive - but they don't need to prove that the changes are for their survival rather than for increased profits. The law is already weighted in favour of the employer, as you well know. Why make it more so?

Sorry, but this is complete rubbish. The law is weighted in favour of the employee, as it (generally) should be as the employer is likely to be more powerful.

As an employee, I can terminate my employment contract, subject to notice period, for whatever reason I want. It could be beacuse I get a better paid job, it could be because I don't like the colour of my boss's skin, it could be anything. My employer doesn't have the same rights to terminate my contract for equivalent reasons, like finding someone who'll do the job cheaper or because they don't like the colour of my skin.

This imbalance is fair when the employer is a large organisation with an HR dept etc, but not really fair when the employer is a one man band.