Unfair dismissal could be abolished

Originally Posted by gazzae

I fail to see how these lazy people are getting away with it. If you give someone tasks to do and they don't do them then give them a verbal warning (following rules - formal meeting, right to be accompanied etc.). If it happens again a written warning (same rules) - set them targets for improvement a reasonable time for improvement. If still no improvement then another formal meeting, issue final warning, set more targets etc. Still no improvement then sack them.
Seems simple to me, manage them properly.

works fine in principle ,long winded and usually expensive for the company involved or the tax payer if it happens in the public sector .Private companies usually have no problem in identifying the slackers but getting rid of them is a long winded process

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Ah, the old coalition public sector bashing.

Just out of interest, how can you assert that this is factually correct, especially your "especially" comment?

What is the quantifiable basis for your assertion?

nothing to do with the coalition (don't know where you get from)but anyway ,i see it and experience it everyday.I see manual workers for local authorities (who i work alongside of)doing just enough to stay the right side of the negotiated work rate which is embarrassingly low,I experience the loss of work because some paper pusher within the local authority has continually done a half assed job on a scale that would not be tolerated anywhere else .Only today on an estate i am fitting on we have discovered that 85 windows have been manufactured wrongly because the council ,or more precisely ,someone within the clerk of works dept didn't check the specs properly ,and not for the first time ,so that now means they have to be re manufactured and refit at great cost to the council which in turn means that roughly 9 houses won't get new windows ,which will be a loss of work for the company i sub contract to ,all because someone couldn't' be arsed or didn't know their job well enough .
I feel sure that everyone knows someone at work who coasts along doing the bear minimum and in my experience the public sector is awash with them

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

.... in my experience the public sector is awash with them

So, it was intended as an "in my experience" statement, thanks for clearing that up, cheers.

[chris9991]

Just thinking about how the ECHR could stop this. I wonder how firms can get away with firing people unfairly in the first twelve months at the moment. If the ECHR applies to the unfair dismissal rules then wouldn't it apply from day one of employment, as it stands?

Originally Posted by chris9991

Just thinking about how the ECHR could stop this. I wonder how firms can get away with firing people unfairly in the first twelve months at the moment. If the ECHR applies to the unfair dismissal rules then wouldn't it apply from day one of employment, as it stands?

I don't see where the ECHR comes in at all unless they have been fired as a result of discrimination, in which case it would apply from day one but would be hard to invoke as they got the job.

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?

Employment Law may not be enshrined in the ECHR but Employment Law came about because of the application of human rights.If unfair dismissal were to be abolished then the workforce will just turn to the ECHR for clarification and I predict they would get the support they would be looking for.

[chris9991]

I would have thought that if the ECHR applies to dismissals then someone 'unfairly' dismissed within their first year of employment would have tested this in the courts by now, as the ECHR has been law in this country for more then ten years. My suspicion is it ECHR doesn't apply directly to dismissal law.

If the timescale was to change to unlimited then any court case raised by the former employee may need to funded by that person.

I don't think their case would qualify for a share of the reduced legal aid budget and the government is trying to eliminate no-win-no-fee. Therefore someone without an income is going to have to risk their finances to clear their name

Originally Posted by chris9991

I would have thought that if the ECHR applies to dismissals then someone 'unfairly' dismissed within their first year of employment would have tested this in the courts by now, as the ECHR has been law in this country for more then ten years. My suspicion is it ECHR doesn't apply directly to dismissal law.

If the timescale was to change to unlimited then any court case raised by the former employee may need to funded by that person.

I don't think their case would qualify for a share of the reduced legal aid budget and the government is trying to eliminate no-win-no-fee. Therefore someone without an income is going to have to risk their finances to clear their name

I can see unions giving it a go though.

[chris9991]

I think they would try to, just I'd have thought they would've given it a go by now. Especially with the Government change last year

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?.

It would be a matter of discrimination which covered by the ECHR but there isn't a human rights violation if someone is fired simply because they were disliked personally or as a quick way to get someone of the books. Presumably the latter is a matter of employment law.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

So, it was intended as an "in my experience" statement, thanks for clearing that up, cheers.

didn't say it wasn't and i'm positive that it is the case in other peoples experience as well

[Pauls9]

Compare the USA's at-will employment system, where, since an employee can leave a job for any reason, in turn an employer can terminate the employment for any reason.

any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

[Tim Deegan]

Some people are getting over excited about this. If you read the headline "Unproductive workers should lose their right to claim unfair dismissal, a leaked government report says".

Well if you are an employer, and there are people working for you who don't do their job properly, and instead of being productive, they actually cost the business money, then it is very difficult to get rid of them. The changes are to make it easier to get rid of unproductive workers, and not productive ones.

We need to remember that unproductive workers have a knock on effect for all of us, pushing up production costs, and therefore prices for consumers.

If you do your job to the best of your ability, then there is nothing to worry about. But if you are lazy, and do the bare minimum, then move over and let someone else do your job instead.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Some people are getting over excited about this. If you read the headline "Unproductive workers should lose their right to claim unfair dismissal, a leaked government report says".

Well if you are an employer, and there are people working for you who don't do their job properly, and instead of being productive, they actually cost the business money, then it is very difficult to get rid of them. The changes are to make it easier to get rid of unproductive workers, and not productive ones.

We need to remember that unproductive workers have a knock on effect for all of us, pushing up production costs, and therefore prices for consumers.

If you do your job to the best of your ability, then there is nothing to worry about. But if you are lazy, and do the bare minimum, then move over and let someone else do your job instead.

Absolutely spot on ,any company will want to keep productive workers so they have no worries .A lot of money is spent by companies trying to get unproductive workers off their books or trying to get them productive or fixing the problems they cause.People have to remember that a job is not a right and if you are lucky enough to have one then look after it .Also why the hell should a person who has built up a company over a number of years put up with unproductive workers who are costing them money

[looselipsuk]

So they abolish the retirement age and plan to maybe bring this in instead. Would be a way of removing older people who are not as productive as younger people.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Some people are getting over excited about this. If you read the headline "Unproductive workers should lose their right to claim unfair dismissal, a leaked government report says".

Well if you are an employer, and there are people working for you who don't do their job properly, and instead of being productive, they actually cost the business money, then it is very difficult to get rid of them. The changes are to make it easier to get rid of unproductive workers, and not productive ones.

We need to remember that unproductive workers have a knock on effect for all of us, pushing up production costs, and therefore prices for consumers.

If you do your job to the best of your ability, then there is nothing to worry about. But if you are lazy, and do the bare minimum, then move over and let someone else do your job instead.

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