gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Agree with this, up to a point. I think the previous twelve month limit was proportionate.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Labour Government
- Thread starter SkyBlueFlux
- Start date
Very simple then, adhere to employment law, do due diligence when employing staff, have a reputation as a good place to work and you won't be taken to a tribunal.
It’s not that simple. The process for dismissing someone who is not up to the job is a long (and stressful) process, especially for small and medium businesses who don’t have the time, resources or money to have a robust HR department.
Currently at two years you should have an idea during that time if they are capable. I would argue two years is too long.
But one day? You don’t know anything about the new employee. You’ve had one, maybe two interviews.
I said small and medium businesses, not a Tesco or an Amazon who can afford this.
If Bill from Bills Butties takes someone on, trains them and then realises they aren’t up to the job, under the new proposed bill he now has to go through the long process of dismissal whilst at the same time continuing to pay the wages which will hurt small businesses.
So saying do “due diligence” on staff for small businesses is not practical. We’re not talking hiring people on LinkedIN here! Are you expecting 60 year old Bill who runs a 20 seat capacity cafe to have a HR department or spend hundreds of pounds a month they don’t have on an external HR advisers?
Agree with this, up to a point. I think the previous twelve month limit was proportionate.
I agree, 12 months is enough, I would go further and say 6 months is enough. But 1 day? It’s crazy.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Think six months is too open to exploitation.I agree, 12 months is enough, I would go further and say 6 months is enough. But 1 day? It’s crazy.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
This post is predicated on the basis that every defendant to a claim for unfair dismissal is liable.Very simple then, adhere to employment law, do due diligence when employing staff, have a reputation as a good place to work and you won't be taken to a tribunal.
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
Agree with this, up to a point. I think the previous twelve month limit was proportionate.
If the Tories hadn't have fucked around with it, it probably wouldn't have been touched. But they did so it's payback time for the workers.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I get that, but how does that ‘payback’ help the workers who have previously been unfairly treated, or the companies who currently try and do the right thing?If the Tories hadn't have fucked around with it, it probably wouldn't have been touched. But they did so it's payback time for the workers.
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
I get that, but how does that ‘payback’ help the workers who have previously been unfairly treated, or the companies who currently try and do the right thing?
It doesn't directly but it should hopefully prevent those same abuses.
If some companies can't cope they can always go out of business and be replaced by others who will.
I doubt it's the companies doing the right thing who will struggle with this.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 14,262
That is so utterly ridiculous and very extreme, and will have damaging implications for many SMEs. But I very much doubt it will happen.The proposed new employment rights bill has some concerning implications for small/medium businesses who are already struggling.
Going from two years service to one day for unfair dismissal rights is too extreme and is not practical. There are more bad employees than there are bad employers yet the rights that are being proposed are too one sided.
It doesn't directly but it should hopefully prevent those same abuses.
If some companies can't cope they can always go out of business and be replaced by others who will.
I doubt it's the companies doing the right thing who will struggle with this.
“If some companies can’t cope”
SME’s employ 61% of the working population.
Go down any town high street tomorrow and ask all the small shops who their head of HR is on minimum £28k a year or which HR advice company their are paying a £500 retainer each month. I can tell you the answer….zero.
And you think there is another group of people willing to invest thousands to start up a business in their place with a chance that hiring the wrong employee could cause them stress and the cost of thousands of pounds just to get rid of them?
Workers rights should be protected 100% but not to the extent that they aren’t any jobs to give workers those rights in the first place.