rights as an employee

zagfles

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.

In other words they need clever manouvers to get around the law, as I wrote. They can't simply make someone redundant and replace them with someone else doing the same job. I know. I work for a large employer. Our union is pretty good at using the law in situations like this.

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.

What does that prove? It could be a lot of employees make speculative or vexatious claims where they haven't got a case. Employers often get landed with a massive bill even when they win, as someone posted here recently.

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.

Quite. So one party to the contract has greater rights to terminate the contract than the other party. That party has the law weighted in their favour. (and I don't disagree with this BTW, I'm just pointing out a simple fact).

ILW

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?

Sounds like your business may be affected.

LadyMissA

zagfles wrote: »

[/COLOR][/B]
In other words they need clever manouvers to get around the law, as I wrote. They can't simply make someone redundant and replace them with someone else doing the same job. I know. I work for a large employer. Our union is pretty good at using the law in situations like this.
[/I]

they did that at my job - took on two juniors for min wage when they could have or should have offered that to me. I never found out till someone left and told me so it was too late to do anything about it.

dandelionclock30

Your rights are basically bend over as far as possible and shut the F up!

ILW

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

Your rights are basically bend over as far as possible and shut the F up!

Or work for yourself, and bang on about how useless/unfair/dishonest your boss is.

SarEl

ILW wrote: »

Sounds like your business may be affected.

Not even a little bit, but thanks for your heartfelt concern.

ILW

SarEl wrote: »

Not even a little bit, but thanks for your heartfelt concern.

I do know how tight things can be for barristers.

SarEl

ILW wrote: »

I do know how tight things can be for barristers.

If I had ever been in the slightest bit concerned about making money then I would never have chosen to specialise in employment law, never mind in representing employees. There is far more money to be earned in any other branch of the law and with any other client group. My concerns about the changes in the law spring from a real and genuine principled position that people have a right to fight for their livelihood, and that access to the law should not be the purview of those who have money. I have never pretended to be poor, but nor am I anywhere near as wealthy as I might have been had I chosen to throw in my lot with welathy clients. I worked hard to get where I am, and I have invested my own money in ensuring that I remain at the top of my game for my clients. And if you have a problem with that then tough, because I don't give a damn what your problems are.

Not that it is really any of your business, but I intended to retire this year. I consdiered that I had made enough money and didn't need to work any more. However, since the changes/ proposed changes in employment law have been announced I have reconsidered, and I intend to continue to represent employees until we have collectively shattered these changes. It'll take years I know, and no, I don't need the money. That would probably be why myself and my colleagues in chambers take so many pro-bono cases. And will be continuing to do so.

You know very little about me, and the most obvious thing you don'[t know about me is that money is not even on the list of reasons why I do what I do. I do not deny that my income is quite comfortable thank you, but if I didn't get a penny I would still do it. After all - I don't get a penny for being here, do I? Would you like to line up the other barristers/solicitors giving free advice on the website - I think you'll find it's a pretty thin field. People who care more about money have better things to do with their time than help out hapless members of the public who mostly didn't bother to join a union and don't have the money to consult a lawyer.

zzzLazyDaisy

I would just like to say that generally people have no idea how much pro-bono (free) work is done by barristers and solicitors. Of course they are in business, like any other profession, but representing employees really doesn't pay much in comparison to the hours of work done. When I was in practice I mainly represented employers, but I did two years working for a charity to set up an employment rights unit, and I had no hesitation in returning to corporate law at the end of it, although I continued to represent some employees on a pro-bono basis (and I still give free advice to employees, both on and off these forums). There are plenty of employment practitioners like me and Sar-El around.

So please think, before you start criticising those on here who are trying to help.

dandelionclock30

It is nice and kind that you spend your time helping others and Im sure that people do benefit and are thankfull.I never knew solicitors did work for free,I thought it was either fee paying or Legal Aid. I wish I was able to work for myself to escape all the employment crap.