No fault dismissals

[pap]

Yesterday, the coalition was at loggerheads over a proposed new piece of legislation - no fault dismissals. Under the proposals, firms with ten people or less would be able to dismiss staff without providing a reason or justification.

 

The Conservatives hope that less red tape will encourage more small firms to take people on. Vince Cable, the Lib Dem business secretary, has already gone on record:-

 

"British workers are very co-operative and they are very flexible," the business secretary told the BBC. "So we don't need to scare the wits out of workers with threats to dismiss them. It is completely the wrong approach."

 

A chap on the PM show made a couple of good points for the case against last night. First, he stated that it was wrong for people working for small firms ( 10 people or less ) to have worse employment rights than those working for larger firms.

 

Personally, I think the legislation is unnecessary. If I'm not mistaken, current employment law allows for probation periods and any member of staff working for an organisation for less than a year is pretty easy to fire. It's also the sort of thing that once in, would be silently extended to cover more roles. Finally, as Vince Cable points out - we're already pretty flexible when it comes to employment law in the country.

 

Thoughts?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/may/22/vince-cable-tory-plan-sacking-workers?newsfeed=true

[bridge too far]

I think I'm right in saying that one of the reasons the car industry is doing so well in this country is the flexibility of the workforce. The recent announcement about the new Vauxhall production at Halewood (?) suggested that the UK won over other European countries for this very reason and also because of the high productivity rates.

 

Aggressive approaches such as those proposed will be counter-productive IMO.

[pap]

I've worked with a few "bare minimum" people in my time, those who have managed to get through their probation period, and just enjoying the gravy train - so I understand the other side of this argument. That said, if a firm doesn't have the wherewithal to determine whether someone will fit in within a year, then it's really the firm's fault.

 

And yep, it is counter-productive - particularly for the economy. People tend to spend money when they know there is a good chance of getting more of it. I'd imagine you'd be a lot more cautious with your cash if you were only one disagreement away from your P45.

[trousers]

It does seem like the proverbial 'sledgehammer to crack a nut' solution.

 

I think we can all agree that there is a problem with "can't be arsed" workers hiding under the protection of employment law but just how big the problem is I've no idea.

 

Maybe there isn't a solution here. Maybe we've simply got to tolerate the 'shirkers' amongst the work force rather than deal with them efficiently and clinically to prevent them being a drain on the business?

 

I've worked for multi-national companies and small five man businesses and I know that an ineffective worker would serious impact the small company because everything you do (or don't do) is much more visible and impactful. Whereas, a large corporation can usually absorb the work shy because they have more fat.

 

Difficult one.

 

Yes, there's a "problem"...but is it big enough to warrant a "solution"?

 

I don't know enough about the stats to answer that one.

 

I'm guessing this is another case of 10/10 to the Tories for trying to tackle a problem but 5/10 for the proposed solution.

Edited 22 May, 2012 by trousers

[Joensuu]

As an employee, you'd think twice about joining any company with less than 10 staff. If you did join you'd probably view it as a temporary position. I'm thinking this could actually make things more difficult for small businesses.

 

(out of interest, does anyone know if you can hire non-sales staff on an OTE basis, with their wage directly linked to the money they generate?)

[trousers]

I've worked with a few "bare minimum" people in my time, those who have managed to get through their probation period, and just enjoying the gravy train - so I understand the other side of this argument. That said, if a firm doesn't have the wherewithal to determine whether someone will fit in within a year, then it's really the firm's fault.

 

 

I've known people to 'play the game' during their probation period and then take the **** thereafter. There's some crafty people out there. But, again, is the 'problem' as widespread as the business leaders and Tories are making out?

Edited 22 May, 2012 by trousers

[bridge too far]

I think changes to current legislation could seriously impact on people who, for whatever reason, don't 'fit'. My SiL is a teacher and he was, in effect, driven out of his previous post because the head teacher took a dislike to him. He hadn't done anything wrong and went beyond the call of duty, so to speak, by running after school sports training and other unpaid work.

 

Fortunately for him, he found another post where he is held in very high regard by the head teacher, colleagues, children and parents. He's doing nothing different.

 

He could have been out on his ear if the first head teacher had had her way, even though he'd done nothing wrong - if there had been no employment protection in place. Interestingly, her school has one of the highest turnovers of teaching staff in the county.

 

So the rules need to stay to protect the innocent - and I bet there are more of those than there are shirkers.

[trousers]

I think changes to current legislation could seriously impact on people who, for whatever reason, don't 'fit'. My SiL is a teacher and he was, in effect, driven out of his previous post because the head teacher took a dislike to him. He hadn't done anything wrong and went beyond the call of duty, so to speak, by running after school sports training and other unpaid work.

 

Fortunately for him, he found another post where he is held in very high regard by the head teacher, colleagues, children and parents. He's doing nothing different.

 

He could have been out on his ear if the first head teacher had had her way, even though he'd done nothing wrong - if there had been no employment protection in place. Interestingly, her school has one of the highest turnovers of teaching staff in the county.

 

So the rules need to stay to protect the innocent - and I bet there are more of those than there are shirkers.

 

But, devil's advocate alert, it was probably the best thing for him anyway (to leave).

 

A law making this easier to happen could actually be mutually beneficial. No point clinging onto a job where it's not going to work out (even for the wrong reasons)

 

But, I have reservations too.

[bridge too far]

But, devil's advocate alert, it was probably the best thing for him anyway (to leave).

 

A law making this easier to happen could actually be mutually beneficial. No point clinging onto a job where it's not going to work out (even for the wrong reasons)

 

But, I have reservations too.

 

Yes it did work out for the best - but let's suppose he was unable to find other work. He would have had no recourse to law if these proposals were in place at the time and would have been unemployed with no recompense through no fault of his own.

 

It does beg the question as to why this particular head teacher has a high turnover of staff and why it hasn't been investigated.

 

Here's another report on the change of heart by Dave - similar to the Guardian article:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cable-forces-uturn-on-fire-at-will-job-reform-7771343.html?fb_action_ids=3863955767737&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_source=other_multiline#access_token=AAADWQ6323IoBAEQeYDsKV86LZBdgLGqDwx9CPTOf8p5WfgWWlndkGV37ZBCsZAMJnon1vIVZBRTHpaK9INBdnUJT6P2HllMsEXiR4ZCnGcQZDZD&expires_in=6387

[Turkish]

I think this legislation is a great idea. Especially in small companies a good team spirit and work ethic is highly important. You can't carry "bare minimum" people as it has been put or personality clashes causing disharmony for everyone else. There will always be individuals who clash andif that's the case then they need to be proactive is sorting out their differences and getting on or leave. It happens all the time in my industry, perform or go, that is why we are a motivated proactive and successful company. This will reward the hard working and flexible and make the bare minimumers work harder and make more effort to fit in.

[pap]

I do wonder who this legislation would actually target, particularly given that there are already incentives to do well at work ( career elevation / better money ). Almost stands to reason that a person you'd ship under these rules wouldn't be interested in either of these things. Are they that difficult to spot?

 

Does seem absolutely mental to downgrade a load of people's rights simply because of the actions of a few.

[pap]

I think this legislation is a great idea. Especially in small companies a good team spirit and work ethic is highly important. You can't carry "bare minimum" people as it has been put or personality clashes causing disharmony for everyone else. There will always be individuals who clash andif that's the case then they need to be proactive is sorting out their differences and getting on or leave. It happens all the time in my industry, perform or go, that is why we are a motivated proactive and successful company. This will reward the hard working and flexible and make the bare minimumers work harder and make more effort to fit in.

 

Thing is Turkish, you can get rid of people in the first year without any fear of unfair dismissal tribunals. A year should be enough time for a business owner to decide whether someone is going to make the cut.

[Turkish]

I do wonder who this legislation would actually target, particularly given that there are already incentives to do well at work ( career elevation / better money ). Almost stands to reason that a person you'd ship under these rules wouldn't be interested in either of these things. Are they that difficult to spot?

 

Does seem absolutely mental to downgrade a load of people's rights simply because of the actions of a few.

 

Unfortunately in the blame everyone else and woe is me culture we have in this country it seems the only the way. The ones with the right attitude won't be effected, just the lazy and useless or those that blame others for their failings. What boss in his right mind is going to get rid of someone who is a good employee for no reason?

[Turkish]

Thing is Turkish, you can get rid of people in the first year without any fear of unfair dismissal tribunals. A year should be enough time for a business owner to decide whether someone is going to make the cut.

 

I don't disagree but sometimes people can hide. In my industry it can often be a year for people to see the fruits of their labour, so it's quite easy to "blag it" if youre that way inclined. In fact a lot of people make a good living in my industry by earnings huge basic and moving from job to job for a year to eighteen months before moving on again because they didn't get on with their boss or other lame excuses.

[pap]

I don't disagree but sometimes people can hide. In my industry it can often be a year for people to see the fruits of their labour, so it's quite easy to "blag it" if youre that way inclined. In fact a lot of people make a good living in my industry by earnings huge basic and moving from job to job for a year to eighteen months before moving on again because they didn't get on with their boss or other lame excuses.

 

And that's fair enough - but you'll also know that employees are not alone in taking the mickey. Plenty of firms take their staff for granted, ask too much of them timewise or put em in a "box". I've maintained for some years that the best way to get more money or a better position is to change jobs. Not really taking my own advice, but there you go

 

Whatever - completely agree with you that employees are capable of playing the probation period game. Where we perhaps differ is our proposed solution. I don't think we solve this problem through legislation. Puts people at risk of being fired because of personality clashes.

[Saintandy666]

It does seem a bit extreme, and from my own work and from what you lot have just said, it doesn't strike me as impossible to sack someone who is just lazy at the moment. People have been sacked where I work for the very same(I believe it is 2 warnings then you are out), though apparently there can be a lot of red tape involved in the actual sacking, so maybe there can be a way of reducing that a bit as opposed to just allowing sacking without reason.

 

Good to see a bit of Liberal Democrat influence at work in the coalition though.

[Turkish]

And that's fair enough - but you'll also know that employees are not alone in taking the mickey. Plenty of firms take their staff for granted, ask too much of them timewise or put em in a "box". I've maintained for some years that the best way to get more money or a better position is to change jobs. Not really taking my own advice, but there you go

 

Whatever - completely agree with you that employees are capable of playing the probation period game. Where we perhaps differ is our proposed solution. I don't think we solve this problem through legislation. Puts people at risk of being fired because of personality clashes.

 

I've never got the whole thing about leaving because you don't get on with the boss either. Are people really that Lilly livered and childish that they're too frightened to ask their boss what the problem is?. Stamp on it early and its never a problem in my experience. I haven't always got on with my bosses but have never shyed away from trying to resolve problems or at worst tolerate each other knowing that at the end of the day we both want the same thing, just our methods are different. I do agree some companies take the p*ss but again set your stall out early and don't be scared to say no. Generally the more you do the more they expect.

[pap]

I've never got the whole thing about leaving because you don't get on with the boss either. Are people really that Lilly livered and childish that they're too frightened to ask their boss what the problem is?. Stamp on it early and its never a problem in my experience. I haven't always got on with my bosses but have never shyed away from trying to resolve problems or at worst tolerate each other knowing that at the end of the day we both want the same thing, just our methods are different. I do agree some companies take the p*ss but again set your stall out early and don't be scared to say no. Generally the more you do the more they expect.

 

Hmm, I don't know.

 

First, I suspect that you are probably as gobby as I am in the workplace. Not all people are as confident about expressing their concerns.

 

Plus, mileage does vary considerably. Worked for two firms in Liverpool that did pretty much the same thing, yet the differences in approach could not have been more pronounced. One firm went for the best people it could find, while the other generally has a strategy of "employ recent graduates who don't know any better and work them until they've burned out". Understandably, my opinion of the latter firm is not great - and I'd have to wonder how "setting your stall out" in a firm that is resolutely bent on working a certain way would work in practice.

[trousers]

Anyone on this thread got any ideas for solutions to this thread: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?38142-Tommy-Forecast

 

[Ken Tone]

The thing is ,this recommendaton was >>>> Beecroft's most controversial recommendation – that employers should be allowed to sack unproductive staff without explanation in a scheme known as no fault dismissal.

 

That is a contradiction in terms. If the employee is unproductive there is a fault. What the recommendation would have meant in practice, is that anyone the boss felt like sacking could be sacked for any reason, or even no reason at all -- without any need to show that he or she was at fault in any way. No one's job would be safe.

 

I've worked for an irrational, bullying boss in my time -- in fact I was her no.2 -- which was a very difficult position to be in, because I had to be loyal to her whilst seeing how unreasonable she was being to staff. If she had the power to sack on her whim, without having to show good reason there would have been chaos.

[thefunkygibbons]

The reason why it is 10 employees or fewer is because really small firms struggle with HR law, and don't have a full time HR manager

 

However, it is wrong

 

The proposed change should apply to all employees in all companies.

 

If employees could be asked to leave (with paid notice) but with no fault needed, the time and cost saved would be huge. And getting a new job would be easier.

 

Just compare how easily the US creates jobs compared to France

[Whitey Grandad]

Thing is Turkish, you can get rid of people in the first year without any fear of unfair dismissal tribunals. A year should be enough time for a business owner to decide whether someone is going to make the cut.

 

In practice it's eleven months. And a year is not long enough.

[pap]

In practice it's eleven months. And a year is not long enough.

 

Are you honestly saying that an employer can't get a "read" on an employee in eleven months? If they can't do it within that timeframe, then I'd argue that no length of time is long enough.

[Whitey Grandad]

Are you honestly saying that an employer can't get a "read" on an employee in eleven months? If they can't do it within that timeframe, then I'd argue that no length of time is long enough.

The eleven months is because of the notice period. The danger is that someone could play goody-goody for 11 months and then start swinging the lead once the initial period is up. It happens all the time, talk to any small employer.

[Johnny Shearer]

I've never got the whole thing about leaving because you don't get on with the boss either. Are people really that Lilly livered and childish that they're too frightened to ask their boss what the problem is?. Stamp on it early and its never a problem in my experience. I haven't always got on with my bosses but have never shyed away from trying to resolve problems or at worst tolerate each other knowing that at the end of the day we both want the same thing, just our methods are different. I do agree some companies take the p*ss but again set your stall out early and don't be scared to say no. Generally the more you do the more they expect.

 

What if its not you that has the problem but your boss does. If you have asked them whats wrong and what can be done to rectify the situation? Its not always easy just highlighting the issues. Your boss could just be a sh*t, who may not want to take the issues into account. P

 

Previous company I worked for, the manager was not a people person. Who, if they were having a bad day would take it out on the staff. Several people complained to the head of department but the concerns were just ignored. Why would you want to work in an environment like that, even when you are trying your best its just not worthwhile.

 

I think you have been fortunate to work in decent places where that isn't an issue.....I presume.

[saint1977]

Some very good and considered posts on here from Pap, BTF and Trousers in particular. My view being CIPD qualified originally before moving back into ops management later is that in my experience, that of colleagues and of a family friend who is a retired ET chair employees don't get a lot out of taking an employer to an ET. ET's have swung more back towards the employer over the last 3 years and contrary to the irrational ideological myths spouted by Liam Fox, the Telegraph (even the Mail won't support this) and the IoD, the maximum payout anyone usually gets is a year's salary and even then, that's only for the most blatant discrimination and where clear financial loss has been incurred. As we know, a year's salary doesn't pay the mortgage for long and there is a real problem with employees with an ET case on their CV being branded unemployable, particulary in the current market. Unfair maybe, but very true.

 

Cable and the PM are also right to be concerned about the fear this would spread through the wider economy so at a time when the Euro crisis threatens banking liquidity again, the priority is to increase confidence, not destroy it further. Beecroft does also make some valid points to be fair but there is a dual problem for the PM. Firstly, he has set his stall out on promoting the family and policies that support families. The Conservatives have always made great play on this as a USP from Labour so if Cameron hadn't omitted the worst anti-family flexibility aspects of the report, he'd be sunk on this point electorally. Secondly, Beecroft lacks the intellectual and moral credibility to be the figurehead for this report having made his money it would appear as a loan shark. Wonga.com have had some awful publicity in the last 2 years.

 

For me, this demonstrates that Cameron is far more fit to be Tory leader than Liam Fox ever will. It is straightforward to dismiss employees if you do it professionally, irrespective of the size of business.

[pap]

The eleven months is because of the notice period. The danger is that someone could play goody-goody for 11 months and then start swinging the lead once the initial period is up. It happens all the time, talk to any small employer.

 

I've no doubt that it happens, but I disagree that it happens "all the time".

 

In truth, most people do a decent job. Some don't. We're talking about a tiny subset of people here. i.e. People who do a good job for 11 months and then decide to be a hellion afterwards. Happens all the time? Please.

 

Given the tiny scale of this problem in context, removing rights from the vast majority of decent workers because of the calculated actions of a few is completely unjustifiable - especially since most firms already have instant dismissal for gross misconduct and can use existing employment law to issue warnings.

 

If a firm genuinely can't sniff out a blagger in eleven months, that's their problem.

[saint1977]

The eleven months is because of the notice period. The danger is that someone could play goody-goody for 11 months and then start swinging the lead once the initial period is up. It happens all the time, talk to any small employer.

 

I don't want to appear a nitpicker but legislation introduced last month means that the unfair dismissal qualification period has doubled from 12 to 24 months although this is not backdated I understand for people that started in post before April 2012. Surely two years is enough? I'm mystified as to why a small ideological segment of the political and commercial worlds are so obsessed with, we've already got some of the most dynamic employment laws in the West, surely to drive up productivity we should focus (as Willets, Cable and Cameron do seem to be doing to an extent) on investing in R&D and rewarding and exemplifying the best performing staff. For every poor performer, there are probably 100 good performers and surely it's better for the economy to focus on retaining and developing those into leaders?

[Whitey Grandad]

I've no doubt that it happens, but I disagree that it happens "all the time".

 

In truth, most people do a decent job. Some don't. We're talking about a tiny subset of people here. i.e. People who do a good job for 11 months and then decide to be a hellion afterwards. Happens all the time? Please.

 

Given the tiny scale of this problem in context, removing rights from the vast majority of decent workers because of the calculated actions of a few is completely unjustifiable - especially since most firms already have instant dismissal for gross misconduct and can use existing employment law to issue warnings.

 

If a firm genuinely can't sniff out a blagger in eleven months, that's their problem.

 

Thereby hangs the crux of the matter. As a small business owner who might be considering taking on an extra member of staff, in the current economic climate, as the Mafia boss says in that film (Goodfellas?) 'Why take a risk?.

[pap]

Thereby hangs the crux of the matter. As a small business owner who might be considering taking on an extra member of staff, in the current economic climate, as the Mafia boss says in that film (Goodfellas?) 'Why take a risk?.

 

That's a weak argument, Whitey Grandad.

 

You don't look at employing people unless you're reasonably sure that they will have something for them to do and that you'll see a return on your investment.

 

New positions are normally created because your existing staff can't handle the collective workload. In that scenario, the bigger risk is not addressing your resource requirement. In short, you either need someone or you don't.

 

Why take the risk?

 

Well, existing staff could burn out or leave. Quality of work might not be up to scratch because people don't have enough time, which can ultimately result in loss of residual sales and tarnish your firm's reputation.

 

Employment law is not the hurdle. As others have pointed out, UK employment law is already more flexible than many of our competitors. We shouldn't legislate against our citizens to paper over cracks in firms' hiring and assessment practices.

[Whitey Grandad]

That's a weak argument, Whitey Grandad.

 

You don't look at employing people unless you're reasonably sure that they will have something for them to do and that you'll see a return on your investment.

 

New positions are normally created because your existing staff can't handle the collective workload. In that scenario, the bigger risk is not addressing your resource requirement. In short, you either need someone or you don't.

 

Why take the risk?

 

Well, existing staff could burn out or leave. Quality of work might not be up to scratch because people don't have enough time, which can ultimately result in loss of residual sales and tarnish your firm's reputation.

 

Employment law is not the hurdle. As others have pointed out, UK employment law is already more flexible than many of our competitors. We shouldn't legislate against our citizens to paper over cracks in firms' hiring and assessment practices.

 

Going from, say three, employees to four is a big increase in overheads and fraught with difficulties. And what do you do when the economic climate turns sour? Try looking at it from the employer's point of view. Some staff can be nothing but hassle.

[pap]

Going from, say three, employees to four is a big increase in overheads and fraught with difficulties. And what do you do when the economic climate turns sour? Try looking at it from the employer's point of view. Some staff can be nothing but hassle.

 

I think we do enough for business owners already. In fact, when "business interest" comes up against "public interest", business wins 9 times out of 10. A good example of this is the UK's membership of the EU. It's reckoned that a majority of private individuals want out, yet business wants us in. Therefore, we're in - screw public opinion.

 

No-one is forced to start their own business. Of those that do, no-one is forced to employ people. Seems to me that business owners have massive potential rewards if their plans go well. This proposal would make the arrangement between employer and employee even more one-sided.

[dune]

I've never got the whole thing about leaving because you don't get on with the boss either. Are people really that Lilly livered and childish that they're too frightened to ask their boss what the problem is?. Stamp on it early and its never a problem in my experience. I haven't always got on with my bosses but have never shyed away from trying to resolve problems or at worst tolerate each other knowing that at the end of the day we both want the same thing, just our methods are different. I do agree some companies take the p*ss but again set your stall out early and don't be scared to say no. Generally the more you do the more they expect.

 

Exactly, but at the same time don't fight petty battles, but reserve confrontations for the big issues that seldom arise. I always say yes to a request. Better to do this than draw attention to yourself by saying no. Whether I actually comply with the request is another matter...

[pap]

Exactly, but at the same time don't fight petty battles, but reserve confrontations for the big issues that seldom arise. I always say yes to a request. Better to do this than draw attention to yourself by saying no. Whether I actually comply with the request is another matter...

 

All the management in a previous firm had to take a Belbin personality test. That particular piece of advice came top of my list.

 

Good advice for any walk of life - pick your battles, and try not to fight more than one at a time.

[um pahars]

Going from, say three, employees to four is a big increase in overheads and fraught with difficulties. And what do you do when the economic climate turns sour?

 

Then you enter a period of redundancies. You don't have to pay any more than Statutory minimum which is effectively a weeks work for every year. Not a huge burden on a company.

[Lord Duckhunter]

In my experience it's not the people who are out and out lazy that are the problem, those type of people are normally quite easy to "manage" out of any business. The problem is the people who do the bare minimum, they turn up on time, dont take much sick, and keep their noses clean. However, they effect morale, frustrate people and generally cause issues. These are the hardest to shift, as many will have been there a long time. I only have knowledge of big companies, but I've found weak management has allowed these people to just drift along. Not a problem in good times but a pain in the arse now.

 

The Company I work for has made a conscious decision not to recruit until these people are dealt with. The hierarchy believe that the Company have enough hours to do what we need, but that only applies if everybody is highly skilled and highly motivated. Therefore my department is struggling because I have a few of these ******s that I inherited from my weak predecessor. There are 2 types of performance issues Conduct or Capability. Conduct is easy to deal with, but capability is much harder particulary if they've been doing the job for years and "getting away with it". I also have people who thought they were doing a good job, until I told them otherwise. And in one case, I had a employee who had been there 13 years, and nobody had discussed his performance in all that time.

 

These new rules would be a god send to me, as I could clear out my dead wood and start again. However, I dont agree with them. Unscrupulous employers or Managers could get rid of people without due procees, pressure could be put on people to work overtime or through breaks and I've seen too many people promoted on the back of friendship to believe that cronyism and personalities wont be involved in sacking people.

 

At the end of the day, a decent manager will be able to judge anyone after 11 months. When I do recruit it's fixed term 6 month contracts, which I renew if they're good and then make a decision after 11 months. If you cant judge someone's suitability after 11 months, then you cant really call yourself a Manager.

 

Sex discrimination/harressment is not covered in all this, so unfortuatly you cant go round pinching the areses of the new female staff.......

[Turkish]

Exactly, but at the same time don't fight petty battles, but reserve confrontations for the big issues that seldom arise. I always say yes to a request. Better to do this than draw attention to yourself by saying no. Whether I actually comply with the request is another matter...

 

True, generally people that i've found that dont get on with their bossses are ones that are are offended by everything and too pathetic to stand up for themselves or with a massive sense of self importance and unable to accept authority.

[dune]

In my experience it's not the people who are out and out lazy that are the problem, those type of people are normally quite easy to "manage" out of any business. The problem is the people who do the bare minimum, they turn up on time, dont take much sick, and keep their noses clean. However, they effect morale, frustrate people and generally cause issues. These are the hardest to shift, as many will have been there a long time. I only have knowledge of big companies, but I've found weak management has allowed these people to just drift along. Not a problem in good times but a pain in the arse now.

 

The Company I work for has made a conscious decision not to recruit until these people are dealt with. The hierarchy believe that the Company have enough hours to do what we need, but that only applies if everybody is highly skilled and highly motivated. Therefore my department is struggling because I have a few of these ******s that I inherited from my weak predecessor. There are 2 types of performance issues Conduct or Capability. Conduct is easy to deal with, but capability is much harder particulary if they've been doing the job for years and "getting away with it". I also have people who thought they were doing a good job, until I told them otherwise. And in one case, I had a employee who had been there 13 years, and nobody had discussed his performance in all that time.

 

These new rules would be a god send to me, as I could clear out my dead wood and start again. However, I dont agree with them. Unscrupulous employers or Managers could get rid of people without due procees, pressure could be put on people to work overtime or through breaks and I've seen too many people promoted on the back of friendship to believe that cronyism and personalities wont be involved in sacking people.

 

At the end of the day, a decent manager will be able to judge anyone after 11 months. When I do recruit it's fixed term 6 month contracts, which I renew if they're good and then make a decision after 11 months. If you cant judge someone's suitability after 11 months, then you cant really call yourself a Manager.

 

Sex discrimination/harressment is not covered in all this, so unfortuatly you cant go round pinching the areses of the new female staff.......

 

Like you say times are changing fast, especially now there is a shortage of jobs mainly caused by the influx of eastern Europeans, but also because customers are putting the squeeze on. Lot's of the "old school" come from an On The Buses generation and are now coming to the end of their working lives and you won't change them no matter how hard you try. To be honest I get on well with these people. They know how to play the game, and you can learn a lot from them.

[Whitey Grandad]

Then you enter a period of redundancies. You don't have to pay any more than Statutory minimum which is effectively a weeks work for every year. Not a huge burden on a company.

 

That's not the problem, it's the fear of unfair dismissal if you get the slightest detail of the procedure wrong, which would make the dismissal automatically unfair. Don't forget that small businesses don't have a personnel department and access to advice is time-consuming and not cheap.

[Whitey Grandad]

I think we do enough for business owners already. In fact, when "business interest" comes up against "public interest", business wins 9 times out of 10. A good example of this is the UK's membership of the EU. It's reckoned that a majority of private individuals want out, yet business wants us in. Therefore, we're in - screw public opinion.

 

No-one is forced to start their own business. Of those that do, no-one is forced to employ people. Seems to me that business owners have massive potential rewards if their plans go well. This proposal would make the arrangement between employer and employee even more one-sided.

You're right, no-one is forced to employ people. The whole point of the proposals is to make small businesses more likely to employ people and everyone should have the right to employ whoever they choose.

[pap]

You're right, no-one is forced to employ people. The whole point of the proposals is to make small businesses more likely to employ people and everyone should have the right to employ whoever they choose.

 

So you say, although I wouldn't necessarily agree with you.

 

Why should someone have fewer employment rights if they happen to work for a micro-firm? Indeed, why would anyone willingly join a micro-firm knowing that they could be sacked for no reason at any point in their careers? Wouldn't this legislation instantly make smaller firms less attractive to work for? Business owners take the risk and get to reap the rewards. Salaried staff should be entitled to a bit of stability.

 

I know that existing employment law may seem like red tape to you, but you're not really taking in any of the counter-arguments. I completely agree with Lord D. If you're unable to determine whether someone has the right stuff in 11 months ( or 23 months if the unfair dismissal process really has gone up to two years ) then it's a failure of management. Why should anyone working for a firm with less than 10 people lose their existing rights because of poor management?

 

It's a really poor idea. You want to create more jobs? Fine, put some demand in the economy. You don't do that when you introduce legislation that has anyone working for a small firm worrying about their jobs and future income.

[suewhistle]

You're right, no-one is forced to employ people. The whole point of the proposals is to make small businesses more likely to employ people and everyone should have the right to employ whoever they choose.

 

They can employ whosoever they want who fits the role, they can give them a probationary period, but they must have adequate reason for sacking them. They can also employ agency staff if it's a temporary work peak. If they've taken enough care to recruit the right people it shouldn't be an issue, and if it is they will just have to take similar [or more] care in dismissing them for appropriate reasons. By the end of my time in a large company I was demoralised and depressed and more importantly bored: I probably wasn't very productive and didn't get anywhere trying to get a transfer. I was so glad to get out and now I'm an enthusiastic and (I hope) effective teacher. In a small firm I doubt the situation would have got as bad as my issues would have been more visible and I probably wouldn't have been as bored, what with the variety a small firm can offer.

 

As people have pointed out bosses can be incompetent and irrational, particularly small firm owners. If you look at teaching forums you'll see plenty of case histories of good teachers really appreciated by colleagues, parents and pupils who were victimised in other schools on somebody's whim. This is altogether a bad idea and would be jusst another blow to worker and business confidence.

 

If the government really thinks this is a major issue in what is already a flexible labour market in first world terms, they should think of other strategies than trying to become a second class economy. How about a small business HR advice service if it really is as big a problem as they say.

 

Frankly a far bigger problem at the moment is the lack of working and investment capital, but the policy is all of a piece with the destructive, negative and self-interested policies of this despicable government.

[aintforever]

It's a retarded idea, the economy is doing badly enough as it it. If people have zero job security they are not exactly likely to go out spending their cash, they will just stick it in the bank in case their boss sacks them because he's in a bad mood.

[pap]

They can employ whosoever they want who fits the role, they can give them a probationary period, but they must have adequate reason for sacking them. They can also employ agency staff if it's a temporary work peak. If they've taken enough care to recruit the right people it shouldn't be an issue, and if it is they will just have to take similar [or more] care in dismissing them for appropriate reasons. By the end of my time in a large company I was demoralised and depressed and more importantly bored: I probably wasn't very productive and didn't get anywhere trying to get a transfer. I was so glad to get out and now I'm an enthusiastic and (I hope) effective teacher. In a small firm I doubt the situation would have got as bad as my issues would have been more visible and I probably wouldn't have been as bored, what with the variety a small firm can offer.

 

As people have pointed out bosses can be incompetent and irrational, particularly small firm owners. If you look at teaching forums you'll see plenty of case histories of good teachers really appreciated by colleagues, parents and pupils who were victimised in other schools on somebody's whim. This is altogether a bad idea and would be jusst another blow to worker and business confidence.

 

If the government really thinks this is a major issue in what is already a flexible labour market in first world terms, they should think of other strategies than trying to become a second class economy. How about a small business HR advice service if it really is as big a problem as they say.

 

Frankly a far bigger problem at the moment is the lack of working and investment capital, but the policy is all of a piece with the destructive, negative and self-interested policies of this despicable government.

 

Round of applause.

[Whitey Grandad]

Round of applause.

There's a big difference between large companies and small ones.

[Frank's cousin]

Like you say times are changing fast, especially now there is a shortage of jobs mainly caused by the influx of eastern Europeans, but also because customers are putting the squeeze on. Lot's of the "old school" come from an On The Buses generation and are now coming to the end of their working lives and you won't change them no matter how hard you try. To be honest I get on well with these people. They know how to play the game, and you can learn a lot from them.

 

Didn't think you would miss a trick to spout your boll ocks again...

[Special K]

Seems to me those that are rallying against this have no experience working in small firms and have yet again fallen into the trap of sweeping generalisation. This proposal is aimed at very small organisations who will feel the effects of economic turbulence more readily than larger firms, so i don't see much of an issue with this.

 

In my experience i have found small firms to be, on the whole, better run and more open and creative than larger ones. Certainly not run by irrational and incompetent people who care little for their staff. The majority would have been set up by people who were fed up with working for larger companies anyway and seek to plough their own furrow with the lessons learned from previous experience. I have found business owners of small firms generally care for and treat their staff better than bigger ones.

[pap]

Seems to me those that are rallying against this have no experience working in small firms and have yet again fallen into the trap of sweeping generalisation. This proposal is aimed at very small organisations who will feel the effects of economic turbulence more readily than larger firms, so i don't see much of an issue with this.

 

 

In my experience i have found small firms to be, on the whole, better run and more open and creative than larger ones. Certainly not run by irrational and incompetent people who care little for their staff. The majority would have been set up by people who were fed up with working for larger companies anyway and seek to plough their own furrow with the lessons learned from previous experience. I have found business owners of small firms generally care for and treat their staff better than bigger ones.

 

Fairly wrong on this front, Special K - at least with me anyway. I've worked for companies ranging from 3 people to 9K employees. I've worked for family run businesses, 30 people companies, government agencies and multinationals.

 

I appreciate that you are speaking from your own experience, but it's a fallacy to weigh in on all the positives of small firms without touching on the problems that smaller firms present for employees when they don't fit your model. I'd actually say that people were more at risk of being treated badly in a small firm than they are in a large org. Far more personalities, far less process and power invested in far fewer people.

 

When it works, it's amazing - and I'd take being a hero in a well-run small company over being a cog in a corporation anyday. However, I suspect that you're doing a similar thing you're accusing others of doing here - commenting on the characteristics of working for a small business without having worked for enough to really qualify your opinion.

 

When it doesn't work, small businesses can be hell for anyone who doesn't have a stake in the company - and if you are presenting your own experiences of small companies as overwhelmingly positive, I'd say you've been very lucky. Mileage varies a lot, and the notion that small companies are all cuddly and altruistic outfits is a bit of a nonsense one.

[Special K]

Fairly wrong on this front, Special K - at least with me anyway. I've worked for companies ranging from 3 people to 9K employees. I've worked for family run businesses, 30 people companies, government agencies and multinationals.

 

I appreciate that you are speaking from your own experience, but it's a fallacy to weigh in on all the positives of small firms without touching on the problems that smaller firms present for employees when they don't fit your model. I'd actually say that people were more at risk of being treated badly in a small firm than they are in a large org. Far more personalities, far less process and power invested in far fewer people.

 

When it works, it's amazing - and I'd take being a hero in a well-run small company over being a cog in a corporation anyday. However, I suspect that you're doing a similar thing you're accusing others of doing here - commenting on the characteristics of working for a small business without having worked for enough to really qualify your opinion.

 

When it doesn't work, small businesses can be hell for anyone who doesn't have a stake in the company - and if you are presenting your own experiences of small companies as overwhelmingly positive, I'd say you've been very lucky. Mileage varies a lot, and the notion that small companies are all cuddly and altruistic outfits is a bit of a nonsense one.

 

I have worked for 3 small firms as well as much larger ones in my time and currently own my own small business. And yes I do employ people. I also happen to take their welfare, security and job satisfaction very seriously. But like most small businesses trying to make a go of it, if the economic situation kicks me in the arse, i would rather have the flexibilty to let staff go (very reluctantly i may add) than risk the whole company folding. If that means this legislation can be useful in part, to achieve that, then i am all for it. Added to that if i employ someone who proves to be deceitful and disruptive, then i want the ability to let them go. However, i do agree that an employee should be sussed out within a year.

 

But pap, your posts are equally fallacious to focus solely on the problems rather than the benefits of working for small firms. Experience tells me that a situation outlined in my original post is the more likely and it was posted to provide a balance to the usual shop steward nonsense on this forum.

 

Incidentally, you appear to have worked for a number of firms, who long did you last at the small firms?

[pap]

But pap, your posts are equally fallacious to focus solely on the problems rather than the benefits of working for small firms. Experience tells me that a situation outlined in my original post is the more likely and it was posted to provide a balance to the usual shop steward nonsense on this forum.

 

Incidentally, you appear to have worked for a number of firms, who long did you last at the small firms?

 

I said that I'd rather work for a well-run small firm than a large corporate. Doesn't that give you a clue as to the value I place on well-run small firms?

 

My career has been on the go since 1996/97. I've worked for a number of small firms - longest job in a small company was three years. Was promoted until I got to the level where the only people above me owned part of the company. Left to form my own small company afterward, which runs to this day.