Unfair dismissal could be abolished

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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

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).

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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

It's not going to leave them anywhere Maggie .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 .

And I'm quoting from the original article.

John Philpott, chief economist at the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development, said the changes would be counterproductive and would not address the real problems.
"If you look at the evidence on unfair dismissal, I mean there isn't actually anything to suggest that watering down those rights would create any more jobs and indeed the job insecurity it would create would actually be bad for the economy and businesses.
"I think if you look at our productivity problem, it's down to poor investment, poor training and poor management."

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

Originally Posted by Maggy J

And I'm quoting from the original article.



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

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

[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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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..

[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.

[Hom3r]

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

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

I should also add her mum worked in HR.

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..

stop twisting things maggie ,you should know better

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

[chris9991]

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?

Originally Posted by chris9991

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?

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

[mertle]

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.

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.

Originally Posted by martyh

stop twisting things maggie ,you should know better

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

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.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by martyh

It's not going to leave them anywhere Maggie .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 .

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

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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

Originally Posted by The Telegraph

(snip)

The radical recommendation to scrap the concept of unfair dismissal is made by Adrian Beecroft, a venture capitalist, in a report commissioned by David Cameron.

(snip)

The report concludes that there is nothing in European law that would prevent the Government from abandoning unfair dismissal laws – although regulations preventing dismissal on the basis of a person’s gender, race or sexuality would remain.

However, Mr Beecroft warns that simply scrapping the law would be “politically unacceptable�.

He therefore recommends a replacement regulation, called Compensated No Fault Dismissal, which would allow employers to sack unproductive staff with basic redundancy pay and notice. Mr Beecroft concedes that a “downside� under his new scheme is that employers could fire staff because they “did not like them�.

(snip)

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