King's Speech-worker's rights..

[CurlewKate]

Apparently, the government is proposing legislation that will make protection from unfair dismissal a day one right- not as it currently is and kicking in after 2 years. Huge if true.....

From what I am reading this change would mean that businesses might have to train and support staff, rather than just getting rid of them if they do not initially know how to do the job.

This is surely a good thing?

Businesses are normally aware of people’s levels of ability when they take them on.

But for example, we took on a new admin staff member last year. She had experience and we could train her on the things she needed to learn specific to our business. But then she took almost every Friday off after big night’s out, she was often late and fell out with the two other people in the office. It was handy to be able to just not continue her employment after probation as she was just not the right fit for us.

User6874356 · Today 00:30

'It does stop probation periods as unfair dismissal protection starts from day 1. If an employee can bring claims from day 1 then it means employers will face consequences even if they were entirely justified in dismissal as they will have to deal with the costs and hassle of a tribunal action. it will disincentivize employment- it works better to have a qualification period (it was previously 1 year) to maintain flexibility. Not sure why it “amazes” you that people understand there can be negative consequences for giving workers the right to bring claims with no qualification period.'

You are completely misunderstanding what is being proposed...

This is about unfair dismissals. It does not mean no one can be dismissed anymore.

If an employer follow a fair process they can dismiss an employee for poor performance, gross misconduct and so on.

Unfair dismissal is when an employer gets rid of someone for questionable reasons such as they don't like the person and that is never appropriate whether it is day one or whether someone has worked there for 5 years...

There are so many threads on this forum about people being bullied and forced out of job by dodgy managers and who can't challenge their employer because they have been in the job for less than 2 years and that is unacceptable.

I really don't equate 'flexibility' with being allowed to be a shit employer/manager.

I guess we have different standards.

if an employer wishes to get rid of anyone, after any time period, they can, proving unfair dismissal is very difficult, the Tribunal system is totally overwhelmed & will continue to be so as Labour plan on using these people from the lower courts to staff the criminal courts..... HR will now just follow a different process i.e "Your role has been removed.. Goodbye"

Bit like "No fault" evictions, if the LL wants to sell or move in, then the Tenant is gone, still not their fault but they are still evicted, really changes would be "you can only be evicted for non payment of rent or intentional damage.."

I support these changes but they are not the game changers people might think they are... now what Labour really need to do is revoke the anti strike laws, now that really would improve worker rights.

I think though we can agree that making these changes is better than not doing so, and we can hope is a first step in the direction of fairer employment rights, which ulitmately benefit both employers and employees.

The courts (employment tribunals)

This is a terrible idea that will result in some employers just recruiting 'safe' options, which will likely be white males.

At least with the current 2 years employers do feel generally safe to take some risks as it is easier to dismiss, so e.g. interview someone who has a ? over them but let's take a chance type thing. That will no longer be the case unless they protect the probation period but nothing stopping employers just increasing that to say 12m. Or they will just recruit on a temp basis initially.

I'm out of HR now but still on various HR groups and this is a concern for many.

It’ll be interesting to see the effect on temp contracts. We quite often hire on temp to perm to make sure there’s enough work for pickers and packers to go through busier periods.

Lots of bad managers on here. As part of a postgrad I did in Educational Management I had a meeting with the Head of HR for Ceredigion County Council. She had just banned temporary contracts unless there was a specific reason (eg maternity cover) because she said it was up to managers to have good recruitment policies and processes and then have faith in them. Do that and you don’t need to ‘rake a chance’ even on someone with little to no experience. You’ll have found out their strengths.
Plus it doesn’t stop probationary periods anyway.

😂 tell us you’ve never run a business without telling us you’ve never run a business.

Sorry, the real world of business doesn’t work like a PhD. Or like working for the council! They don’t have to make a profit do they?

Not sure why someone taking a chance on someone who might not tick all the boxes makes them a bad manager?

I'm not surprised though if you base your view on the opinion of a public sector HR person. They can be fairly inflexible and require every box ticked on the competency wishlist.

I think you mean "awful for the crap small employer or indeed any exploitative employer". I remember all the usual suspects claiming the introduction of the minimum wage would cost millions of jobs. Didn't happen.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to happen though, Starmer has already rolled back on his pledge to end all zero hours contracts.

Two years is too long but from day one is a charter for grifters, sadly.

Ironically, this may harm the most vulnerable as it becomes much riskier to hire a candidate you're unsure about

There are already day 1 protections if there's sex/race discrimation

Unworkable.

Quite literally the opposite - she just wanted people to stop taking advantage with short term contracts for permanent jobs. And this was a change if policy, so not standard for public sector HR. A council HR dept will look after the 8nterested of employee (them) and employer for a mind boggling range of jobs/professions. They have excellent skills and experience.

I haven’t got a PhD. I said post grad, that’s all.
Profit shouldn’t come from exploiting workers whatever your business.

what you do have @cardibach is a lot of time on your hands to post on mumsnet

Eh? You’ve replied just as much…
What a very odd thing to say to someone on a chat forum. Especially when you have no idea a)how long they are on and b)why that might be.
Seems a bit…obsessive of you to have noticed. No real comment about the topic then?

and not fulfilling her contracted hours etc etc would still be grounds for dismissal.

I'm not in UK. Probation here is generally 6 months, and during that time you can be dismissed, or resign, with 2 weeks notice - no reason needed. After that normal employment contract law applies. People get fired, people stay fired, and a few take their employer to court for not having followed correct procedure.

Industry hasn't collapsed because of it. People get jobs. People leave jobs. Frankly the 2 year thing in the UK is absolutely taking the piss.

"A council HR dept will look after the 8nterested of employee (them) and employer for a mind boggling range of jobs/professions."

That's the job of all HR people, not just public sector ones 😊

You're assuming those who think this is an awful idea are ok with dodgy employers. There is a much bigger picture though.

An inevitable result of day 1 full emp rights will be:

Some employers recruiting on temp basis initially

Longer probation periods possibly

Companies being so worried about recruiting the wrong person they only recruit those who are seen as a safe hire (so, white males)

More tribunal claims on an already overloaded system

That being said I think 2 years is too long and would support a return to 1 year.

Anyone who thinks this proposal is going to be a positive thing overall is extremely naive imo.

Ignored the second bit of the sentence you quoted there…my point was they have broader experience than many private sector HR departments, in answer to an ‘ugh, crap public sector’ tone in the post I responded to. I am aware of the function of HR, thanks 🤨

I'd be interested to know about the stats for ETs and who has won unfair dismissal cases over the last, say, 20 years.
I live in a country where it has been notoriously difficult to fire people for years. And yet a company managed to fire me while i was pregnant (because i was pregnant and i won my tribunal)

Some A lot of employers have shit/no recruitment practices. Why would you if you knew you could simply get rid of a mistake you made with no comeback ?

And people seem to be missing the fact this is protection from unfair dismissal. People can still be fairly dismissed.

Since this is the place it is, it would certainly afford protection to people who - having started a job - suddenly discover their views on (for example) womens rights aren't in alignment with the rainbow police. In fact generally I suspect it would benefit women (the real kind) more than men.

Well, an employer can get rid of someone via the redundancy process, at anytime, regardless of the "rights" period.

If a company need FT staff they will recruit them, if they need a temporary worker, they'll hire on that basis.

So the bigger benefit for the employee is the right to maternity pay sickness and holidays... which most larger companies offer from day 1 in anycase.

Its really not the game changer that some seem to think.

ZHC's can work very well for some people and jobs, the trick is to make it the genuine choice of the employee, not the employer.

Am I right in saying that you think that dodgy employers will find other ways to be dodgy as per the examples you have given?