We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

MSE News: Employees to be given more rights...

Interns, agency workers and 'gig economy' employees will be given greater rights under a new Government plan...
Read the full story:
'Employees to be given more rights under new Government plan'
OfficialStamp.gif
Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.

Comments

  • BorisThomson
    BorisThomson Posts: 1,721 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    And the reality ...

    The Tory government drastically reduced workers rights by doubling the qualifying period and by introducing tribunal fees. Tribunal fees have since been ruled unlawful.

    They are now claiming to be pro workers rights by putting forward Labour's manifesto policies as their own. Policies that they previously claimed to be unworkable.

    Same old, same old.
  • sangie595
    sangie595 Posts: 6,092 Forumite
    And the reality ...

    The Tory government drastically reduced workers rights by doubling the qualifying period and by introducing tribunal fees. Tribunal fees have since been ruled unlawful.

    They are now claiming to be pro workers rights by putting forward Labour's manifesto policies as their own. Policies that they previously claimed to be unworkable.

    Same old, same old.

    And actually, half of these are non-promises - they are going to tell you what your rights are?; working their way through the courts already and they'll be forced to do then soon; or the right to ask for something, which means the employer had the right to refuse!

    Seriously, there is nothing at all new in any of this. And tribunal fees will be back sooner or later - although, to an extent, we have brought some of that on ourselves by people making totally spurious claims knowing they can't win (the majority paying for a minority again).

    Any worker who expects any government to give them their "rights" is living in cloud cuckoo land. History has taught us that rights are taken, not given.
  • ThreadDefender
    ThreadDefender Posts: 19 Forumite
    edited 7 February 2018 at 8:10PM
    sangie595 wrote: »
    we have brought some of that on ourselves by people making totally spurious claims knowing they can't win (the majority paying for a minority again).

    Sorry, but that's a myth peddled by the likes of the Daily Mail. There is no evidence whatsoever that fees deterred "spurious" claims. "Spurious" or vexatious claims (as they're known in legal terms) also come with a high risk of costs being awarded against the Claimant, that's if the case isn't struck out in the early stages.

    Also, the law is stacked against the employee, and losing a case does not necessarily mean it was a case without merit. Most often it just means the Claimant could not prove the facts alleged; which itself is not surprising as the employer is usually the one in possession of all the evidence and criminal case standards of disclosure do not apply in civil cases.
  • sangie595
    sangie595 Posts: 6,092 Forumite
    edited 7 February 2018 at 9:00PM
    Sorry, but that's a myth peddled by the likes of the Daily Mail. There is no evidence whatsoever that fees deterred "spurious" claims. "Spurious" or vexatious claims (as they're known in legal terms) also come with a high risk of costs being awarded against the Claimant, that's if the case isn't struck out in the early stages.

    Also, the law is stacked against the employee, and losing a case does not necessarily mean it was a case without merit. Most often it just means the Claimant could not prove the facts alleged; which itself is not surprising as the employer is usually the one in possession of all the evidence and criminal case standards of disclosure do not apply in civil cases.
    Read what I said again! I did not say that fees deterred spurious claims. I said that spurious claims were the cause of the imposition of fees. They were. I oddly also know what a vexatious claim is. It's the sort of claim that comes from, for example, people on boards like this saying that someone doesn't have a claim in law, but if they make one anyway, the chances are that the employer will settle because of the costs of a tribunal. That's a vexatious claim!

    And if you ever spent any time on this board you'd know that I regularly point out that the law is stacked against the employee. And that an employee will get nowhere without evidence.

    The law has never defended employees. Employees defend themselves. But I'm glad you read the Daily Mail. Somebody has to, and it certainly isn't me!


    PS, my apologies, I didn't read that you were an expert on posters here based on your entire SIX posts in as many years! Wow, reading the Daily Mail must take more time than I thought.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.6K Life & Family
  • 259.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.