[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Wonder where it would leave women who get pregnant?I can remember a time when dismissal was the result.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

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).

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

And I'm quoting from the original article.



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

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 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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 ----------

Originally Posted by chris9991

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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..

Sometimes it is management yes.