Leaving a job is a breach of a "permanent" contract...

Comms69

badmemory wrote: »

This isn't because they love their job or their employer but because they are afraid they will get sacked for taking that leave.

And many can carry over holidays.

lincroft1710

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

I enjoy philosophical debate

"Philosophical" is not a synonym for "illogical"

sangie595

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Diamondis - your first assumption is the correct explanation, I enjoy philosophical debate

The place for "debate" is the discussion time board, a fact I am sure that you are aware of. Your propositions are an insult to working people

There is no philosophy in here. I'd normally suggest it's actually economics, but in fact it isn't economics either :rotfl:

I think that you would find this debate more fruitful at a Tory party funders meeting - but they might thing you too right wing for their company. But keep an eye on the White House. There are always openings for lunatics there....

Takeaway_Addict

BorisThomson wrote: »

You're advocating zero hours contracts on a board for employee rights.

This has to be a wind up!

Techinally its employment rights so could and is used by businesses

System

Comms -

. It's a hedge fund. It's certainly not guaranteed.

Index fund, hedge funds are rubbish and expensive. Index funds are more diverse and cheaper and tend to do better than humans
And certainly not guaranteed, but highly probable. Nothing is guaranteed in life, and I think increasing my income reduces my overall risk

Lincroft - why is it illogical?

Sangie - it's hard to keep debate out of discussion, at first this was a legality query

Manxman_in_exile

Why is it that whenever a poster claims to only want to "debate" an issue, they never listen to what anybody else says?


Clearly a potential parliamentary candidate:rotfl:

getmore4less

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Is it only the break clauses that make it non permanent? If so the employer generally has to find fault or prove they don't need the employee, whereas the employee needs to prove nothing, this seems like a mismatch - the employee could fire the company if the company flouts rules or if the employee found the company "redundant" I.e the employee could show that they had an alternative offer if income / pension

If we made "permanent" contracts a pain in the butt, we'd see a shift more towards fixed term and zero hours, this may be good for business itself, since "permanent" contracts don't give the employer much real security compared to what they give the employee, so they're not mutual

It's actually quite easy for an employer to put a level playing field in place if they want under the current legislation, the provision of redundancy can be built into the offer of employment(pay a but less)

Currently the employment contract does not need break clauses because statute provides them, to make an employee "permanent" in your contracts would require very specific wording.

Also with your proposal if someone died their estate would owe the company.

elsien

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Bad memory - that's what I'm trying to say, fear is a cheaper way to motivate people than paying them well.

Now I really have read it all. Isn't that how revolutions generally start?

sangie595

elsien wrote: »

Now I really have read it all. Isn't that how revolutions generally start?

Nope. Revolutions are started with hope, not fear...

[Deleted User]

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

If we made "permanent" contracts a pain in the butt, we'd see a shift more towards fixed term and zero hours, this may be good for business itself, since "permanent" contracts don't give the employer much real security compared to what they give the employee, so they're not mutual

Pfft ! Fixed term contracts are already happening! As much as everyone suggests I must be on something and lying - the last 3 roles and absolutely likely next 1 I start have all been fixed term/as needed basis. I understand why it happens. There are great savings to be had when you need to contribute to someone's pension and that's why it works out in the employer's best interest to every so often have a position to re-fill so contributions are kept to a minimum.

The only workplace that auto enrolled for a pension straight away was not one I wanted to work at neither - no holiday allowed in what 9 months. And that included a second chance along the way. So perhaps I will be choosy where ever possible, in who I work for.

Noticed a shift to in interview notice as well - these days you'll often get contacted to attend next day, the very day before.

Oh and to upset further - got to say that Xmas temp job where my access card was stopped very much preventing me from working for the last week - well I got my week's pay paid today very gratefully, when yes they likely would have been entitled to keep it, you see it was a win-win in the end the employer would rather not want to be paying 2 weeks when the business levels were reduced...neither would I have liked to be in the situation honestly, for all the reading of you should just suck it up blah blah.

I think your thread should remain here and not in discussion time when just as much philosophical threads of 'is this it for 10/20/30 years' clearly get to remain.