Re: Unfair dismissal could be abolished
 

Or those whose "face didn't fit" or those who dared stand up to a bullying boss?

There needs to be an appropriate process, with checks and balances, that cannot be abused by either side of the management fence (in an ideal world).

Re: Unfair dismissal could be abolished
 

It's not going to leave them anywhere Maggie :rolleyes:.There will still be employment rules ,we aren't talking about abolition of unfair dismissal across the board just for those who are unproductive and that would have to be proven,if a pregnant women is productive and does her job well then she has nothing to worry about .

Re: Unfair dismissal could be abolished
 

And I'm quoting from the original article.

So do you still maintain it's a good idea?

Re: Unfair dismissal could be abolished
 

yes ,read the last line of your quote

"I think if you look at our productivity problem, it's down to poor investment, poor training and poor management."

all of the above could be down to people doing a half assed job so realy John Philpott has kind of shot himself in the foot

Re: Unfair dismissal could be abolished
 

I guess this proposal could make it easier for a firm just to get of staff in times of an economic downturn. Imagine a building full of staff (lazy or otherwise), just create a reason why they should go and you can dispose of. No need to worry about paying redundancies either.

Re: Unfair dismissal could be abolished
 

No it doesn't at all ,as i said earlier any employer would have to prove the need for dismissal as they do now ,written and verbal warnings ect ,the only difference is dragging a company through a costly, time consuming and quite often pointless tribunal won't be a automatic right

Re: Unfair dismissal could be abolished
 

So it's not those at the bottom who should be dismissed but those in management?I don't think that's what was the original intent of the proposal..:D

Re: Unfair dismissal could be abolished
 

Come on Maggy, you are making up problems now. Where does it say that employers can sack women because they are pregnant?

We are talking about workers who are lazy, and have taken advantage of the fact that it is difficult to get rid of them.

---------- Post added at 21:44 ---------- Previous post was at 21:39 ----------

There is!!!!

They aren't talking about getting rid of all workers rights. They are talking about making it easier for employers to get rid of workers who are costing them money, rather than making them money.

I have employed people before who think it is their right to just turn up for work, and get paid, regardless of them actually doing anything productive. These are the sort of people who cause companies to go bust, which has a knock on effect for all the hard workers in the company who lose their jobs.

---------- Post added at 21:49 ---------- Previous post was at 21:44 ----------

I do yes. This government don't have many good ideas, but this is one of the very few they have had.

Th part of the report that you quoted in my opinion is actually wrong. If workers realise that there is a good risk that they can lose their jobs if they are lazy, and don't perform, then they will be more likely to work harder. If they don't and they are replaced by someone else who will work hard, then that was their own fault, and nobody elses. Either way the company has a more productive workforce, and is more likely to survive these difficult times.

---------- Post added at 21:51 ---------- Previous post was at 21:49 ----------

And all of the above would point to poor management. In other words unproductive managers, who also need to improve or be replaced.

---------- Post added at 21:54 ---------- Previous post was at 21:51 ----------

Unfortunately this goes on at the moment. Back in the days when you had to work somewhere for three months to have any rights, my wife got a job with a company who just employed people for three months, and then got rid of them.

On the other hand, if a company has to lay people off in order to survive, then that's what they have to do. Otherwise the end result will be the company closing, and all of the staff losing their jobs.

---------- Post added at 21:55 ---------- Previous post was at 21:54 ----------

Sometimes it is management yes.

Re: Unfair dismissal could be abolished
 

I have worked with people who are a waste of space, but the company couldn't get rid of them.

One of them would sneeze then take a week off work sick:rolleyes:

when redundancys came guess what, my mum went, she stayed.

I should also add her mum worked in HR.

Re: Unfair dismissal could be abolished
 

stop twisting things maggie ,you should know better :rolleyes:

The original proposal was to help companies get rid of unproductive staff be they management or unskilled manual workers,a much needed proposal imo ,it does not mean the return of work houses where the worker has no rights,it simply levels the playing field a bit

Re: Unfair dismissal could be abolished
 

How would the law define unproductive/lazy workers? An employer could say that anyone they wanted to dispose off was unproductive, how could it be shown that they weren't?

Re: Unfair dismissal could be abolished
 

The law doesn't have to ,a company simply compares the work rate of the suspect employee to others in the company doing a similar job ,if it's felt the work rate is too low then the company starts the procedure of warnings

Re: Unfair dismissal could be abolished
 

Downside to the issue is those who get redundancies either forced to use it live off so No Dole money paid by government. The other is how many use it to go into there own business.

Its sad state affairs when people think companies can chuck people to scrapheap with out pay for NOT DISMISIBLE actions.

I dont think its about getting rid lazy people its like you said its way to stop paying redundancies.

Its sham horrid dangerious move which will ultimalely hurt Government and economy.

How many people worked for company who sets a target for it to be met by incentives only shift goalposts make it harder to achieve. Loses workers morale thus workers get into mode where they do enough to satisfy they working hard but not going the extra yard as performance target is too hard to achieve. Happened at my brother in law chemical factorry they basically wanted to flog them to death to get production levels.

Fact many workers forced to do to mans jobs for same pay morale can easily go down or up.

If employers want hard work then they should provide carrots it could be a worker wins holiday. Extra pay incentive shares in company or even extra day off. Would say most companies who provide nice incentives dont get lazy workers. Those who have managers who dont treat workers nice are miserable environments which get workers doing just enough.

Before policy change ocurs maybe companies should be educated in motivation for workforce techniques and staff treatment skills.

Re: Unfair dismissal could be abolished
 

I think you are prepared to put a lot of faith in 'The Management'. However I'm not and I don't think this has a snowballs chance of getting into law luckily.

Re: Unfair dismissal could be abolished
 

Except we are... or at least the author of the report is.

Where do you get that from? The point is not just to remove the "threat" of being taken to a tribunal afterwards, but also to make it quicker and easier to dismiss people in the first place. Dismissal via standard disciplinary procedures could still be used, however the company could simply use the proposed new method instead to remove someone quicker than the "verbal, written, final warning" route.



Yes, the stated reason for removing unfair dismissal is to "make it easier to remove underperforming employees", but it is not "only" those kinds of employees for whom the unfair dismissal process would be removed - it is actually wholesale removal "across the board" which is being discussed, to be replaced with "Compensated No Fault Dismissal" (because simply removing it completely and leaving it at that would be even more politically unacceptable).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/j...t-advises.html


See also The Original Report (link from the Telegraph story)