Unfair dismissal could be abolished

[chris9991]

I imagine the next thing they'll think about is Health and Safety at Work. Don't matter if a few more workers die - they were just lazy.

With regards to metrics being used to show who are unproductive, a firm could always choose the one to get rid of the workers it wants to get rid of.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by mertle

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.

So do you think that companies should be forced to continue to employ staff whos work rate is so low that they actually cost the company more than it earns??

You haven't been in business have you?

---------- Post added at 23:19 ---------- Previous post was at 23:17 ----------

Originally Posted by chris9991

I imagine the next thing they'll think about is Health and Safety at Work. Don't matter if a few more workers die - they were just lazy.

With regards to metrics being used to show who are unproductive, a firm could always choose the one to get rid of the workers it wants to get rid of.

Some people have to be over dramatic don't they.....don't forget there is still human rights under European law.

Originally Posted by Matt D

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.

There is no proposal to remove the standard disciplinary procedure just the unfair dismissal claim that would go to a tribunal .

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by martyh

There is no proposal to remove the standard disciplinary procedure just the unfair dismissal claim that would go to a tribunal .

I didn't say there was a proposal for that - and I actually said "Dismissal via standard disciplinary procedures could still be used".

However there is more to this than simply removing the unfair dismissal claim - the point is to make it quicker and easier to sack people, not just prevent them from going to a tribunal afterwards. Removing unfair dismissal doesn't just prevent people from going to a tribunal after a disciplinary procedure, it also enables the company to sack someone without needing that procedure in the first place, as no dismissal would be "unfair" (unless discriminatory of course).

The proposal actually talks about something the author calls "Compensated No Fault Dismissal" - which would enable companies to sack people with "basic redundancy pay and notice", without having to go through the standard disciplinary procedure of different stages of warning (which would have no notice or pay at the very end, but obviously take a lot longer due to the stages).

A company could follow the disciplinary procedure, and give someone a verbal warning, written warning, final warning, and finally dismiss them... With no "threat" of being taken to a tribunal.

Or... A company could dismiss someone via "Compensated No Fault Dismissal", where the employee does actually get notice and a form of redundancy pay, but is removed far faster than via the disciplinary route.

If all the proposal involved was removing unfair dismissal so that those removed via disciplinary proceedings could not take action against their former employer, the author would not have also mentioned "Compensated No Fault Dismissal" and also would not have admitted that his proposal could lead to employers sacking people simply because they "did not like them".

[Pauls9]

"Unproductive" can be a relative term. Referring back to the American "at-will" employment system,it's not unusual for staff to work on long after their contracted finishing time every day so as not to be the first out and therefore classified as the least productive and the top of the dismissal list.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Pauls9

"Unproductive" can be a relative term. Referring back to the American "at-will" employment system,it's not unusual for staff to work on long after their contracted finishing time every day so as not to be the first out and therefore classified as the least productive and the top of the dismissal list.

It's quite simple. Most companies will have targets, and those targets will be set at a rate that makes the company money. If an employee falls below that target and they are costing the company more money than they are making. There is no point in any companies employing people like this.

As someone said earlier, having a job is not a right, you have to earn the place at interviews etc, and then prove that you are as good as you said you are. And then you have to maintain that standard.

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

It's quite simple. Most companies will have targets, and those targets will be set at a rate that makes the company money. If an employee falls below that target and they are costing the company more money than they are making. There is no point in any companies employing people like this.

As someone said earlier, having a job is not a right, you have to earn the place at interviews etc, and then prove that you are as good as you said you are. And then you have to maintain that standard.

This is where I'm confused. Can you explain why this can't be resolved using the current disciplinary processes?
Granted it takes time under the current processes but I don’t see a need for change.

[chris9991]

How will productive tragets be set for people like engineers who go out fix problems. An engineer could be told they have to respond to ten different events each day, but they could get to the first one and it does take day to resolve because it is a really serious problem. In this instance they've failed to meet their ten-a-day target and could then be labelled lazy and got rid off which the firm could back up with the reason why.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by gazzae

This is where I'm confused. Can you explain why this can't be resolved using the current disciplinary processes?
Granted it takes time under the current processes but I don’t see a need for change.

It can, but the current process can take a very long time. Not good if a lazy worker is costing your company a fortune.

I'm not expert, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can still go down the unfair dismissal route even after going through the current discplinary route.

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

It can, but the current process can take a very long time. Not good if a lazy worker is costing your company a fortune.

I'm not expert, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can still go down the unfair dismissal route even after going through the current discplinary route.

Yes you can but that is the crux of the proposal eg the removal of basically the right to appeal to ACAS.

I have employed people as a sole trader and also within the capacity of a director. The red tape reached proportions where we hired a HR specialist to make cases to stay within the law and avoid expensive ACAS settlements.

Anything which removes the safeguards which have built up will throw open a return to the past where nobody is safe and it is easy to build a case against anybody, not that building a case would be needed.

Doing a job diligently and to the best of one's ability is no safeguard against this proposal. If somebody else could and is willing to do the same job for less the replacement effectively is more productive than the the current worker which by default makes the current worker comparatively unproductive.

This proposal will never see the light of day because in effect it would create open season on a race to the bottom with wage\salary battles. Business may love the idea but it would be mayhem socially.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Traduk

Yes you can but that is the crux of the proposal eg the removal of basically the right to appeal to ACAS.

I have employed people as a sole trader and also within the capacity of a director. The red tape reached proportions where we hired a HR specialist to make cases to stay within the law and avoid expensive ACAS settlements.

Anything which removes the safeguards which have built up will throw open a return to the past where nobody is safe and it is easy to build a case against anybody, not that building a case would be needed.

Doing a job diligently and to the best of one's ability is no safeguard against this proposal. If somebody else could and is willing to do the same job for less the replacement effectively is more productive than the the current worker which by default makes the current worker comparatively unproductive.

This proposal will never see the light of day because in effect it would create open season on a race to the bottom with wage\salary battles. Business may love the idea but it would be mayhem socially.

I can see your point, and agree with you. However I haven't looked into this in detail, as it is only a proposal.

The idea is good, but there need to be safeguards built in to protect against employers who will use it as a weapon. An example would be staff who aren't actually productive due to the nature of their job. An example would be Firefighters, who apart from their fire safety work are reactive rather than productive. So in their case employers who need to make budget cuts could just say that Joe Bloggs isn't productive, so we will get rid of them. Then the worst case scenario would be when lives are lost due to their not being enough firefighters.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

It can, but the current process can take a very long time. Not good if a lazy worker is costing your company a fortune.

I'm not expert, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can still go down the unfair dismissal route even after going through the current discplinary route.

If the company has evidence of poor performance they have honestly got nothing to worry about. They can implement performance targets in the contract even if needed.

To me this proposed change of legislation is nothing more than to allow companies to sack people on the whim when they need a quick cash injection.

Osborne pondering to businesses again.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

If the company has evidence of poor performance they have honestly got nothing to worry about. They can implement performance targets in the contract even if needed.

To me this proposed change of legislation is nothing more than to allow companies to sack people on the whim when they need a quick cash injection.

Osborne pondering to businesses again.

I am sure that under European law there would be some protection to prevent this.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Maternity leave is a matter of human rights surely?Firing someone because they have reached a certain age is a matter of human rights..equal pay for both genders is a matter of human rights?

Hmm I'm sure I remember some one at work banging on about that now he was past retirement age the firm could just get rid of him no questions asked, no reason given.

My own view is that in the last 4 years I've seen our company taken to court a dozen times for wrongful dismissal and every case I can recall has been pretty tame and the amounts demanded ludicrous and all save a couple have ended up being settled out of court as each one defended costs thousands before it even gets to the tribunal, perhaps a better way forward would be instead of abolishing it just to cut the shysters out, make the defendant and his evidence stand or fall before the tribunal without sleazy lawyers milking everything further.