The Labour Government

[Mr Kobayashi]

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?

Why not just give them a paid trial shift?

Or pay decent wages and attract better applicants.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

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.

Bringing it down to a day is madness, why not a year ? We have employed people who turn out to be absolute nightmares after 5 or 6 mths. Not many admitedly but a fair few. And despite loads of effort to try and make things work on our part, with things like additional training and consessions, we have still had to let them go. This legislation if it is enacted will make it so hard to do that and potentially open the doors to claims left right and centre.

As pointed out before I believe there are many more bad employees than employers. It's these businesses that bring in the tax revenue to the exchequer aswell. Could easily be very counter productive.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

“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.

It's called creative destruction. It's a capitalist idea, I'm told.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Bringing it down to a day is madness, why not a year ? We have employed people who turn out to be absolute nightmares after 5 or 6 mths. Not many admitedly but a fair few. And despite loads of effort to try and make things work on our part, with things like additional training and consessions, we have still had to let them go. This legislation if it is enacted will make it so hard to do that and potentially open the doors to claims left right and centre.

As pointed out before I believe there are many more bad employees than employers. It's these businesses that bring in the tax revenue to the exchequer aswell. Could easily be very counter productive.

Let's wait until it comes in first.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

“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.

Bingo. SMEs can't afford any HR person or have any free time to deal with issues like these. Running a small buiness is hard enough.

Why not just give them a paid trial shift?

Or pay decent wages and attract better applicants.

This is pie in the sky stuff I'm affraid. We pay decent wages and yet a few still take the piss.

 

[WNRH]

Why not just give them a paid trial shift?

Or pay decent wages and attract better applicants.

Again, your coming at this as if I’m defending Amazon or Tesco.

How can a business owner who runs a newsagent attract a better applicant to do a minimal skill job?

Are there people searching for chippy jobs or carpet fitting on LinkedIN?

Have you seen the state of some tribunal cases these days? Anything can get passed through there nowadays.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Let's wait until it comes in first.

It won't, I'm sure the government will take advice and see the clear errors in these ideas.

 

[law74]

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?

"Bills Butties are currently recruiting for a new full time member of staff. Hours will be 37 hours per week and salary depending on experience.
Please leave in your CV and two references if interested."
The CV with coffee stains can be shredded, as can the one with "Jimmys a good lad, always buys his round in the Nags Head on a Friday night"
I would also imagine that the 20 seat cafe won't have applicant's from miles away, so should be fairly easy to find out a bit about the applicant before the interview, and if they are trouble, don't employ them, and don't employ the 17 year old lass JUST because she looks good in a mini-skirt

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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.

I think many will. Or at the very least, it will make them far more reticent in terms of recruitment.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

"Bills Butties are currently recruiting for a new full time member of staff. Hours will be 37 hours per week and salary depending on experience.
Please leave in your CV and two references if interested."
The CV with coffee stains can be shredded, as can the one with "Jimmys a good lad, always buys his round in the Nags Head on a Friday night"
I would also imagine that the 20 seat cafe won't have applicant's from miles away, so should be fairly easy to find out a bit about the applicant before the interview, and if they are trouble, don't employ them, and don't employ the 17 year old lass JUST because she looks good in a mini-skirt

This is sarcasm right?