Watered down workers protection

You sound ridiculous, intelligence level in the toilet

The key here is UNFAIR dismissal. Not dismissal itself. Ie dismissal for a discriminatory reason. Why would being dismissed because you’re pregnant/black/old etc be unfair on month 6 but not unfair on day 1?

I feel I’m pointing out the obvious here? I’m constantly surprised by the level of simple mindedness here…

I’m also loving the fact that as a sop, they are lifting the cap on compensation for unfair dismissal. Duh - this compensation is based on your net lost earnings until you can reasonably be expected to find another job, and this means that the only people who will benefit from this change will be high earners - eg private sector execs and high earning civil servants. Only a tiny minority of claimants ever suffer recoverable lost earnings that come anywhere close to the statutory cap - certainly none of your ‘ordinary working people’. The only thing this wholly performative change to appease stupid back bench mps will do is encourage more unrepresented claimants to bring totally unrealistic ET claims, waste everyone’s time and end up v disappointed. Ridiculous.

And huge costs and administrative burdens to defend a tribunal claim even if it's bollocks. A minimum period before you can claim unfair dismissal at least gives employers a chance to weed out problems.

It’s a huge administrative burden to sack someone. That’s reasonable because employing someone is a responsibility which should be taken seriously. However, if you hire someone totally inappropriate for a job and it’s clear within the first few weeks, it’s madness to have to give them a series of warnings, put them on a performance management plan etc. before being able to dismiss them. It would create a massive barrier to taking on new staff. I think 2 years was too long for these protections to kick in but 6 months seems like an ok compromise.

Day one protection is an open invitation to people who just want to cause an issue for the employer - revenge or spite. They could engineer an issue and then tie the employer up in an expensive legal fight.

And they would still have been able to if they did it fairly.

Do you regularly unfairly dismiss your employees?

My friend is manager at a large well known diy store, the unsuitable new recruits usually dont even manage the min 4 hour first shift...just walk out so new laws dont apply !

It’s not just the right to claim unfair dismissal from the first day, the whole bill has been watered down.

Sharon Graham of Unite calls it “a shell of its
former self”.

The original bill put forward in the manifesto was never going to be delivered. It sent a message to voters, it appeased the Unions, who are most probably now furious. Has there been a statement yet from Angela Rayner? There will be in time, I guess.

Oh and let’s not forget business, who Rachel Reeves is bending over backwards reassure.

Again, Labour voters were lied to.

But they were going to get in anyway. They didn't need to appease the unions.

It's ridiculous. As an employee, I don't want day 1 protections in force, because I don't want to be saddled with inadequate colleagues.

Six months sounds about right. An employer should be able to sack an employee from hell quickly.

It was to appease the unions. To get their votes. I thought everyone knew that.

Surely Starmer is the ultimate sign off on the manifesto. The heave ho could be GE or sooner.

But they won't. There will be a "probationary" period where they can be dismissed and not be able to claim unfair dismissal.

As ever all these Acts do (purportedly to protect workers/Renters etc mean that employers won't employ/landlords sell up) is make it harder on occasion for those they purport to help.

Whoever wrote their manifesto deserves the heave-ho. They were always going to get into power so why tie their hands with all these ridiculous pledges?

The problem for Labour is day 1 was in their manifesto. So now they unable to say they haven’t broken it. MPs will struggle in media rounds.

I think this tends towards the lens of “ordinary working person versus big bad corporation” and feeling the latter shouldn’t be able to get away with dismissing staff at will
Agreed.
It appears that the 6-month rule is a compromise hammered out behind the scenes between big business and the unions. It's the ideologues in the Labour Party who want to stick it out for Day-1.

I think this tends towards the lens of “ordinary working person versus big bad corporation” and feeling the latter shouldn’t be able to get away with dismissing staff at will - when it’s obviously far broader and more nuanced and day one protections would affect the many “ordinary working people” who are themselves employers: working parents who employ a nanny; tradesmen who employ a labourer; the landlord of the local pub who employs a couple of bar staff; the hairdresser who owns the little hair salon on the highstreet who employs somebody to answer the phone, manage appointments, and wash hair. All people who are themselves workers and who can ill-afford to have a new employee who clearly just isn’t working out and who can’t shoulder the expense of fighting a legal case because the employee claims their dismissal was unfair.

Workers already have day one protection from being unfairly dismissed due to a protected characteristic, which is of course how it should be. I do agree that employee protections should be more aligned with a six month probationary period, which allows employers ample time to establish whether an employee is suitable and dismiss if not, rather than the current two years.

Day one is daft. I've had colleagues who took the proverbial piss from day one, dumping issues on those they worked with too! Define unfair and to who? Is it you think it is or an employer is being unfair, and how? Imagine those who'd join a company just to try to take them to the cleaners! Six month's is reasonable, although I've had colleagues that passed probation and then reverted to type!!

People set up a business to make a profit and give themselves a good lifestyle and freedom
There is so much red tape and it is increasing all the time. I am increasingly of the opinion that being a business-owner is a fool's game. It would be much easier to be an unsackable employee and let someone else worry about all the legislation, liability and compliance.
Labour are killing aspiration.

Other than bad experiences in the past, I can think of one reason why someone would want day 1 protection.

Start a job that is not their first choice, end up getting a good one, claim some spurious unfairness to get some compensation. Even a week's pay to settle without a tribunal would be worth a bit to someone who lives from week to week or has a hidden addiction.

I think the change is welcome, having worked and dismissed people in their six month probationary period.

My best one was the guy who started at 8.30
Was sacked by mid day
Utterly useless

I assume you have never ever owned you own business

Exactly
My local Labour candidite was 29
Did a degree in sociology
Was then a stay at home mother
Never worked in a business that had to make a profit to survive invest and pay staff
She was one who thought workers right from day 1 was a great idea
Of course she would - not a clue about the real world of business