Let's hope this 'new law' will apply to Dave too

[LadyBlaBlah]

making it easier to sack bad staff

I always think laws like this are ironically designed to protect the idiots.

People who aren't behaving like idiots don't need laws to protect them from being prosecuted. Anyone who isn't a twat wouldn't sack someone unnecessarily and unfairly so wouldn't need such a shit law to protect them from their own twatness.

But then again, this coaltion is all about protecting twats

[longfingernails]

This is an excellent pro-growth policy.

It is a tiny thing, set against the avalanche of EU red tape - but a step in the right direction nonetheless.

[TheCrackFox]

It is easy getting rid of an employee within the 12 months of them starting speaking as an ex-manager). More so if you put a probation period into their contract. You have to wonder exactly how crap a manager is if they don't notice before then that their new employee is not up to the job?

[nickelbabyjesus]

it's hard if you have had a new manager in that time, or if there have been a lot of changes in your workplace (other new staff, procedures etc) to tell if they're really crap or if they're slow to pick up new stuff.

or if they're so quiet usually that you can't tell it's them that are crap.
(especially if you wokr in a team, say in a shop, where it could be anyone who's crap - especially if they don't receive complaints - ie just not pulling their weight)

[longfingernails]

Yes - every manager worth their salt insists on a long probation period for all new staff - but according to the employment lawyers we use, there are all sorts of legal minefields, even with probation periods.

The "rights" of employees are mushrooming at a worrying pace - though Britain is competitive with respect to the other rich EU countries, we are extremely uncompetitive compared to most states in the US, the second tier of EU countries, and especially places like India and China.

[nickelbabyjesus]

oh, and if the previous manager doesn't think they're crap (because it hides theri own crapness) but a new manager realises that tehy are really crap after all.

[Blackduck]

This plays right into the hands of the employer and is not just about getting rid of bad staff - as TheCrackFox has said any firm worth its salt has probabtion periods etc and can get rid of poorly performing staff as they need to, but this allows firms to take people on for two years and then fire them. Nice....

[longfingernails]

2 years seems very reasonable to me.

[tiredemma]

This must be a plot to get Nick Clegg booted out.....

[Blackduck]

Well I think one (as it currently is) is more than long enough. If you can't work out how good/bad someone is in a year your business deserves to go to the wall.....

[Blackduck]

There's a little sign on a lamppost as I come into work that syas 'Clegg's small works' - always makes me smile....

[practicallyimperfect]

it is really hard to get rid of crap teachers. They need to sort that. I hate working with crap teachers and nothing can be done.

[Remotew]

I wondered how long it would be before they started eradicating employee rights. Agree it's a policy designed to make it easy to sack staff whether good or bad in favour of taking someone on who will work for less.

They will be having a go at holiday entitlement next.

[longfingernails]

Teachers are amongst the very worst offenders.

I would apply the same performance management techniques as in the best private sector companies - including sacking the x% worst performing teachers every year - but also rewarding the y% best teachers every year. The ideal value of x is probably around 3 or 4, whereas the ideal value for y is probably around 10.

[LadyBlaBlah]

What would you class as bad performance? How would you objectively measure bad performance?

[longfingernails]

The obvious measure of failure is persistent failure to improve grades relative to previous grades (for "normal" pupils).

Obviously, different metrics are necessary in the case of special needs children, exceptionally gifted children, etc.

[LadyBlaBlah]

There is a massive criterion problem in measuring work performance - look at in any detail and you will see it actually will come down to a subjective assessment by a boss - which itself introduces a very difficult scenario.

Do you think this sort of legislation designed to remove workers' rights might just inflame the unions further?

A fair and good boss does not need this legislation. Oh the irony.

[longfingernails]

Who cares if the unions are inflamed? Just neutralise them.

Already 10% of schools in the UK will be academies, outside union blackmail capability, in one year's time. Hopefully, that number will grow exponentially - by the next election, it might even be close to 30%.

Once headteachers can sack bad teachers, without the threat of union bully tactics, education in this country will improve immeasurably.

[LadyBlaBlah]

You are focusing on school LFN - I thought this was a great policy for growth? So not sure why your emphasis is on schools here?

I think there is a culture problem in schools of what happens with poor teachers. This law will make no difference to any of it. Schools have a full year of probation to get rid of shit teachers - why would they need 2 - why would this make any difference? Schools still won't sack shit teachers on the basis of this law.

This law is all about taking away rights from your normal worker in the private sector. And protecting shit bosses.

[granted]

Whoopie. Another step towards the Tory fantasy world of poorly paid workers with no rights working for a pittance, so the bosses can cream off all the fruits of their labour to blow on another mansion or two, another foreign holiday, etc.

We're now approaching the same level of inequality our society experienced just before the Great Depression. And we all know what happened then.

Workers rights and a more equal society are good for everyone.

I mean, ask Marie Antoinette.

[longfingernails]

Sorry, someone else brought up the issues with sacking bad teachers.

I think this law will be good news for the private sector. Making it easier to sack bad workers helps create jobs.

Notice how reticent multinationals are about investing in France - why is that? A big part is that it is almost impossible to sack people.

[LadyBlaBlah]

So why exactly can't companies sack bad staff now?

[LadyBlaBlah]

This law simply stops people being able to sue for unfair sackings, which therefore by definition means that this law is condoning unfair sackings. That's a great way for a country to be lead.

Anyone anywhere can fairly sack an employee

[TheCrackFox]

Employees are only entitled to redundancy payments if they have been with a company 2yrs+ so presumably this is next in the Tories line of fire.

[chibi]

that's an interesting theory longfingernails

i can think of other countries (canada for example) where you can't sack teachers on a whim, and they easily outrank us on PISA scores

quite possibly there might be more to having a good education system

[longfingernails]

When I sack a worker, I always have to run it through a lawyer first.

Very small companies just can't afford that - and then frequently get targeted by ridiculous lawsuits by the sacked employee.

To add insult to injury, it is almost always cheaper to settle than to go to tribunal - because the sacked employee hardly ever gets asked to pay the legal costs of the employer, even if they lose.