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.....

Using FTCs won’t protect you.

And this will include those on FTCs who would also be categorised as employees.

I think FTC would protect you - the worker would have all the rights, but only for the period of their contract. After the (say) 6 month contract was up, the employer could decide whether to renew or not. Same with temps.

But surely there is an end in sight. The 12 months. The FTC is over and the employer is off the hook.

working some one out of the business can take much longer and cost more.

We'd be ok, I'd be able to put a case forward for the FTC being genuine, might just mean switching projects around to put the shorter ones on to the FTC'ers, easily done.

Wow! I wish you every success x

That makes sense. My final hearing is across three
days! (Different counts of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal)

Especially in Wales 😀

I still haven't seen any cohesive argument on this thread as to why this proposal is wrong...

This only apply to unfair dismissal.

Employers can still get rid of people who underperform or for gross misconduct. They can still make jobs redundant.

After all some people already have protection from day one (people with disabilities, people who are singled out for their race/ethnic backgrounds...) so this is just giving everyone the same rights not to be dismissed on a whim by their employer and that is a good thing.

it simply means that employers can't just fire someone because they don't like the look of them or because they want to install someone they know or like better into the role...

I assume the people who are complaining are also the ones who argued the world would end with the introduction of minimum wage, paternity leave or flexible/home-working.

If you've hired someone and they turn out to be just not right/nice or genuinely you just don't like them- why should you be forced to work with them.

Anyone could possibly hide their true colours for a few months - a year less so.

Agree two years bad - one year yes.

I don't want to be forced to work with someone I don't like just because I hired them.

Even valid claims cost time and money. It takes up a lot of internal resource of HR and line managers.

Getting hired for a permanent role will become more of an ordeal, and businesses will be very risk averse.

I really wish the three month time limit to make a claim would be extended.

Three months is an awfully short time to process what has happened and then to make a claim

I think it's a good move - not least because it will prevent businesses lazily relying on the 2 year rule in the absence of properly managed probation periods and performance managment - which I've seen them do over recent years.

Good businesses - large and small - use probation periods well and have clear performance managment processes. All this does (imo) is sharpen up the bad businesses.

The problem is abuse and mischief.

There are no disincentives to bringing a meritless employment claim. And it’s more attractive to pressure an employer with a bad claim after a short period of employment: the extent of compensation for unfair dismissal will be low, which makes the employer’s (irrecoverable) costs of fighting it even more disproportionate, which makes speculative claims with offers to settle all the more powerful.

There are some terrible employers. But they are far out-weighed by the very many terrible chancers who misuse the ET.

There’s a balance to be struck. “Day 1” rights strike it in the wrong place.

I’m in Wales. I don’t get this comment.

Nobody who was dismissed fairly ever attempts to claim unfair dismissal, do they?

They need to start making costs awards in more cases. It’s very rare to have an award of costs made in the ET. Claims in bad faith should absolutely have costs awarded against the claimant.

I would go further and suggest that good employers should be pleased about it, they would be dismissing fairly anyway, whilst their competitors may not.

True, businesses are usually risk averse and I assume this will shift behaviour from the start if there’s no probationary period

I don’t believe there are many claims made in bad faith at all. The vast majority truly believe that have been wronged in one way or another.

Claimants should be able to pursue a claim without being scared away by costs warning letters. That is a very common tactic used by respondents to scare claimants into dropping their claims.

Most claimants won’t know how rare it is to have to pay the other side’s costs. They end up dropping their claims due to this fear and the worries of the respondents just simply vanish.

Let’s not forget that many claimants represent themselves and the employment tribunal is set up to allow people to represent themselves.

Cost warning letters are a cruel procedure, mostly used because the respondent views the claim as a burden.

Employers will simply change how things are worded. Small businesses will have new starters on a strictly temporary fixed-term contract with no guarantee that they will make you permanent until you've proved yourself. Taking on new staff members is a huge risk for a small business. The 2 year "dismiss for any (non-discriminatory) reason", the lower minimum wage for younger less experienced workers, and the flexibility of zero hours contracts all helped to reduce this risk and allow businesses to create jobs in the hopes that this would snowball. Sometimes someone has to take a risk and when it work out the extra staff members mean you can take on more business and earn more money and take on more new starters and open up new branches in Droitwich and Guildford and the good news keeps flowing.

Take away these measure in the interests of workers rights - which yes are important - and fewer businesses will take those risks and the economy doesn't grow.

If there was a magic money tree the solution would be to partner each improved right for workers with a way to support employers with the additional costs that those new rights create.

Equalise the minimum wage - but give employers government grants of 25% of the wage bill for 2 years for any minimum wage worker aged under 19 or if over 19 has been in receipt of unemployment benefits for at least 12 months.

Remove the easy dismissal pathway for those in their job for less than 2 years - but create a grants system that businesses with a turnover under £X can recieve up to 50% of the employee's annual salary if the business has to instigate a (fair and legal) dismissal or redundancy process within the first 2 years.

Hopefully will protect the lowest paid with the least protection yet still have to live in a world of prejudice regarding housing and preferential interest rates etc. It's a massive problem for many through no fault of their own.

My friend has just been made redundant a few weeks before the 2 year milestone. She has exceeded all her targets. Similar happened to another friend just before her two year anniversary. It’s not fair.

They won’t be impacted though - redundancy will still be a reason to end employment.