Jump to content

Tories


Yes or no.   

21 members have voted

  1. 1. All Tories are bellends, including anyone who votes for them



Recommended Posts

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Simples and if you follow this any tribunal is simple and no need for any legal repersentive.

 

 

No, because the employee will then claim that you sacked them for every other reason under the sun than the actual reason. The costs of defending yourself in such cases are such that the employer often settles cases that they would most likely win, which is a fairly perverse state of affairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, because the employee will then claim that you sacked them for every other reason under the sun than the actual reason. The costs of defending yourself in such cases are such that the employer often settles cases that they would most likely win, which is a fairly perverse state of affairs.

 

So fight the case. What is your problem with due process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scratch2000uk

Being as there is no demand for employees this must just be another another tax dodge for the rich, whilst removing any responsibility to an employee, Genius.

For those who are fortunate to be in work and are supporting these benefit cuts and employment rights, for those who are less fortunate.

Keep looking over your shoulder, you may well be one of them, soon. :titanic:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being as there is no demand for employees this must just be another another tax dodge for the rich, whilst removing any responsibility to an employee, Genius.

For those who are fortunate to be in work and are supporting these benefit cuts and employment rights, for those who are less fortunate.

Keep looking over your shoulder, you may well be one of them, soon. :titanic:

There's plenty of benefits paid to those who are a lot more fortunate than me. Does Mrs Thatcher need her winter fuel allowance, or Tony and Cherie Blair their child benefit?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scratch2000uk

That's not true.

 

There is some demand, but where's the evidence that they aren't recruiting because of employee's rights,? there's already temp employment contracts and job agencies out there, that don't lump an employer with someone they don't want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scratch2000uk

There's plenty of benefits paid to those who are a lot more fortunate than me. Does Mrs Thatcher need her winter fuel allowance, or Tony and Cherie Blair their child benefit?

There are efficiencies that can be made from all kinds of benefits paid to those who do and don't need them, clearly these people don't need them, that's the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are efficiencies that can be made from all kinds of benefits paid to those who do and don't need them, clearly these people don't need them, that's the difference.

They do very little to get them it's almost automatic. Make it less automatic and I wonder how many will get collected. I can't see Maggie Thatcher (or her carer these days) queuing up at her local post office in order to get her winter fuel allowance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is some demand, but where's the evidence that they aren't recruiting because of employee's rights,? there's already temp employment contracts and job agencies out there, that don't lump an employer with someone they don't want.

It's expensive to use temps as well though. If you are looking at taking more people on, you would look at the benefits and costs, put simply having to carry people who turn out not to be good employees because it costs too much to part company with them or having to face the costs of tribunals makes it a less attractive option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scratch2000uk

It's expensive to use temps as well though. If you are looking at taking more people on, you would look at the benefits and costs, put simply having to carry people who turn out not to be good employees because it costs too much to part company with them or having to face the costs of tribunals makes it a less attractive option.

 

Maybe so, but the temp contracts are still less expensive than employing permenant staff, and, it exempts employers from any consequential employees, rights for redundancy, maternity leave.

In effect, what's being suggested is little more than legalising victimisation. Employers will be able to harrass and bully their workers, and, if they complain, they can be simply sacked without recourse.

With all due respect, This Is a step backwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe so, but the temp contracts are still less expensive than employing permenant staff, and, it exempts employers from any consequential employees, rights for redundancy, maternity leave.

In effect, what's being suggested is little more than legalising victimisation. Employers will be able to harrass and bully their workers, and, if they complain, they can be simply sacked without recourse.

With all due respect, This Is a step backwards.

My place just spent nearly £40k on legal fees place several weeks of numerous managers time defending a case where the claimant's solicitor made the case that the dismissed person had been such a dreadful employee for a number of years that there must be something fishy about the fact that she hadn't been offed earlier. I was in the dock for 3 hours explaining about things my company wasn't even accused of doing, ("third party racism"). Honestly, when you've been through that you know that the current system is stacked against employers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scratch2000uk

My place just spent nearly £40k on legal fees place several weeks of numerous managers time defending a case where the claimant's solicitor made the case that the dismissed person had been such a dreadful employee for a number of years that there must be something fishy about the fact that she hadn't been offed earlier. I was in the dock for 3 hours explaining about things my company wasn't even accused of doing, ("third party racism"). Honestly, when you've been through that you know that the current system is stacked against employers.

And i have been at the other end where an employer acted grossly unfairly, So to say it's some kind of one-way system, isn't the case.

AFAIK isn't there preliminary hearings before a full blown tribunal takes place, to see wether there is a case to answer?

Maybe, it's at that stage that things should be looked at more thoroughly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's plenty of benefits paid to those who are a lot more fortunate than me. Does Mrs Thatcher need her winter fuel allowance, or Tony and Cherie Blair their child benefit?

When Mrs Thatcher was rarely seen in public and suffering on-going health problems between 2006 and 2011, did she need to claim £535,000 in state hand-outs from the Public Duties Cost Allowance, available to ex-PMs to assist with additional office costs, which they are liable to incur because of their special position in public life?

 

Did Tony Blair need to claim his ex-PM allowance of £115,000 in 2011, to support ‘public duties'? BTW Gordon Brown rejected his allowance entitlement because it was too generous.

 

Some may look upon these as another form of benefit fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically leeslover argues for a victorian world where the low paid / low skilled (cant think of a more PC word) are treated like utter garbage... As do the Tories... All in the name of aiding the already stinking rich...

 

Be careful what you vote / wish for...

Edited by oafc0000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like Tories, and I don't like what Labour have become. Lib dems are dead in the water, and for the minutes of sense that Farage sometimes displays (see an earlier video posted in this very forum) I can't get away from the feeling that UKIP are just a Tory reject party. Realistically, that leaves the Green Party. *shrug*

 

With little more than a fag paper between all of them, democracy and politics just isn't diverse enough any more. For those of us that do vote (and even though the menu of candidates is so bland and uninteresting, I still do) we don't even get an equal say as the majority of voters don't vote for a MP that represents them (http://bit.ly/SRVmwP) - my vote was virtually worthless in Heywood and Middleton (http://www.voterpower.org.uk/heywood-middleton)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Maybe so, but the temp contracts are still less expensive than employing permenant staff, and, it exempts employers from any consequential employees, rights for redundancy, maternity leave.

In effect, what's being suggested is little more than legalising victimisation. Employers will be able to harrass and bully their workers, and, if they complain, they can be simply sacked without recourse.

With all due respect, This Is a step backwards.

Depends how long the temps are employed for. The same with agency staff. Essentially fixed contract workers and agency staff have the same rights as permanent staff after the same sort of qualifying period. Employment Tribunals and there subsequent appeals do a lot of good for the average worker as it means the employers have to follow due process to fire someone. I'm fairly certain that there is a minimum number of employees required before an employer can be taken to an employment tribunal but of the top of my head I don't know what that number is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scratch2000uk

Depends how long the temps are employed for. The same with agency staff. Essentially fixed contract workers and agency staff have the same rights as permanent staff after the same sort of qualifying period. Employment Tribunals and there subsequent appeals do a lot of good for the average worker as it means the employers have to follow due process to fire someone. I'm fairly certain that there is a minimum number of employees required before an employer can be taken to an employment tribunal but of the top of my head I don't know what that number is.

 

 

Temps/agency workers are usually paid less, they are more flexible and cheaper. The 12 week qualifying period is for pay rates, That doesn't necessarily mean the temps will demand the same rates though and, most come to an end before that length of time anayway

Temps cannot request flexible working, redundancy, occupational sick pay, occupational maternity/paternity pay and have no entitlement to pensions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...