rights as an employee

Googlewhacker

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?

We offer upto 6 months full pay sick pay and then have to pay holiday pay for those 6 months so really its nearly 7 months sick pay.

I actually agree with you on that if you get full sick pay you should not get the holiday pay as well.

The charge is there to put it in the mind of the employee to make sure they are absolutely sure they wish to persue a claim, not just take a flier on one.

Googlewhacker

zagfles wrote: »

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.

Quite bloody right as well, no way should this be allowed even if they could!

Let's just face it, some employment laws benefit the employer, some the employee...

zagfles

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Quite bloody right as well, no way should this be allowed even if they could!

Let's just face it, some employment laws benefit the employer, some the employee...

Well, exactly. But I was just pointing out the imbalance, an employee can terminate the employment contract, or a potential employee can turn down a job, for whatever reason they want. Even racist ones. The employer can't.

SarEl

zagfles wrote: »

SMy 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.
.

You do actually live in the UK don't you? The employer has every right to terminate your contract because they have found someone cheaper to do your job - and employers are doing this every day. It's called a restructure and then redundancy. If you have qualifying service - otherwise it's called the sack. And they may not have the right to terminate your contract because they don't like the colour of your skin, your gender, your disabaility or your pregnancy - but they nevertheless get away with more often than not.

Are you genuinely trying to tell us that an employer cannot determine whether or not an employee is any good inside a year and they need two to be certain? If so, then what is rotten is not the state of employees but the state of employers.

And Googlewahcker - the charge isn't there to make sure they are really serious. The law already allows tribunals to charge deposits on people "taking a flier". You don't need to change the law to deal with this - if the government thinks that tribunals don't use it (and they do use it) deal with that. But how does someone on a minimum or part-time wage who has just been sacked afford between £250 - £1250 to make a claim?

zagfles

SarEl wrote: »

You do actually live in the UK don't you? The employer has every right to terminate your contract because they have found someone cheaper to do your job - and employers are doing this every day. It's called a restructure and then redundancy.

Redundancy means the job is no longer required, not that someone has offered to do the job cheaper.If the job is still required then the employer can't legally make someone redundant and get someone else to do the same job for less money. At least that's what my union told me when we were in a redundancy situation. Are they wrong?

Yes employers can try to get round the law, and often succeed due to clever manouvers, but that's why the law itself is biased in favour of the employee.

If you have qualifying service - otherwise it's called the sack. And they may not have the right to terminate your contract because they don't like the colour of your skin, your gender, your disabaility or your pregnancy - but they nevertheless get away with more often than not.

So its illegal. It's not illegal for an employee to terminate the contract for any reason at all.

LittleVoice

zagfles wrote: »

Redundancy means the job is no longer required, not that someone has offered to do the job cheaper.If the job is still required then the employer can't legally make someone redundant and get someone else to do the same job for less money. At least that's what my union told me when we were in a redundancy situation. Are they wrong?

It's not really the "job" which is no longer required, it is work of a particular kind for which there is a reduced requirement. (Not necessarily reduced to Nil.)

SarEl mentioned "a restructure and then redundancy". That is, you have the restructure which reallocates work or redefines it and then you need redundancy to tie up the loose ends.

Oh and we don't "own" our jobs. If someone else already employed could do it, then your job may be reassigned to that other person, their work/job is not required and you are the one who is dismissed on the grounds of redundancy.

tomjonesrules

zagfles wrote: »

Redundancy means the job is no longer required, not that someone has offered to do the job cheaper.If the job is still required then the employer can't legally make someone redundant and get someone else to do the same job for less money. At least that's what my union told me when we were in a redundancy situation. Are they wrong?

More often than not redundancy means that your work has been allocated to other people. Your job title may be gone, but your responsibilities have simply been dressed up under another guise.

zagfles wrote: »

So its illegal. It's not illegal for an employee to terminate the contract for any reason at all.

And what protection does the law offer for these illegal activities in reality? ET statistics paint a very sorry picture of the protection you claim is available to employees.

LittleVoice

SarEl wrote: »

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?[/QUOTE]

No. I'm not necessarily content with what is happening but life is not constant (other than constantly changing) and things can eventually get better. I'm sure you remember when it was 6 months service which gained employees some protection from unfair dismissal before it was increased to 2 years and then cut back to only 1 year.

zagfles

tomjonesrules wrote: »

More often than not redundancy means that your work has been allocated to other people. Your job title may be gone, but your responsibilities have simply been dressed up under another guise.

Yes, so there are various ways round it. The employee doesn't need an excuse to move job for financial gain, the employer does.

I was challenging the "the law is already weighted in favour of the employer" statement. It isn't, the opposite is true, and like I said this is generally a good thing at least with large/powerful employers. But not so much for small employers who don't have the same resources.

And what protection does the law offer for these illegal activities in reality? ET statistics paint a very sorry picture of the protection you claim is available to employees.

So if this protection isn't available anyway why are people whinging when it's removed?

SarEl

zagfles wrote: »

Redundancy means the job is no longer required, not that someone has offered to do the job cheaper.If the job is still required then the employer can't legally make someone redundant and get someone else to do the same job for less money. At least that's what my union told me when we were in a redundancy situation. Are they wrong? Yes. The employer either restructures and regrades the job at a lower rate, and you take it or get made redundant. Or they make you redundant, wait 3 months for "circumstances to change" (at which point you cannot make a claim) and then replace you with someone cheaper. Easy. Assuming of course you have a year - soon to be two years - continuous service. If you don't they simply dismiss you and take on the cheaper person and there is not a thing you can do.

Yes employers can try to get round the law, and often succeed due to clever manouvers, but that's why the law itself is biased in favour of the employee. If that is the case, and I still dispute it, then as pointed out, why do the statistics show otherwise? Employers win more tribunals than employees do.

So its illegal. It's not illegal for an employee to terminate the contract for any reason at all.

No it isn't unlawful for an employee to terminate a contract - that is because it is employment, not slavery.