Zorrro Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Join a union! Oh do :censored: off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share Posted October 10, 2012 Oh do :censored: off. Hopefully you'll realise before it's too late that they are in fact coming for you rather than some demonised other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share Posted October 10, 2012 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 So fight the case. What is your problem with due process? The process is defined by the legislation. The biggest winners in the current set up are the lawyers. It's effectively a tax on giving someone a job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 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. 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 If they want them, of course, but you already know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Being as there is no demand for employees That's not true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) http://www.guardian....ses-claim Edited October 10, 2012 by Scratch2000uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Who's suggesting legalising victimisation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Who's suggesting legalising victimisation? If you give up your rights to take an employer to a tribunal, it paves the way for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) 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 October 10, 2012 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 agency workers get 12 weeks before they qualify for the same right as permanent emplyees guess what happens after 11 weeks working with a company yep your moved and thats from personal experiance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.