To think two years is a long time?

[klaus6]

... to work somewhere before qualifying for certain protections?

For example, no redundancy pay unless you have worked somewhere for 2 years. You can't sue for constructive / unfair dismissal before 2 years UNLESS it's on discrimination grounds. In some companies you can't qualify for the pension unless you have paid in for 2 years so if you leave before that point you will have no employer contributions over that time period.

Those are the main things really - some companies will have other perks after 2 years such as more holiday, and that's fair enough.

But I think 2 years is a long time to work somewhere when you are at the start of your career especially. The company can get rid of you with statutory notice with no pay off for almost any reason as long as it's not discriminatory because you can do fuck all about it. Probation periods are pretty pointless really, all they would change if your notice period if the company uses longer than statutory notice in the contracts.

AIBU to think it should be 1 year instead?

It used to be 1 year but the Tories increased it to 2 years in 2012 arguing that it would encourage small businesses to hire more staff and reduce the number of tribunal cases. Whether it did or not I don't know.

I'm torn.

A year in a job is nothing in the grand scheme of things and from a business owners' perspective someone who's only been in the job for 12 months is still very much a newbie with lots to learn.

But the flip side is that employees do deserve protection from unfair treatment - I'm just not convinced that changing that time period to a year instead of two will really make any difference.

It was one year.

The Tories changed it. Yet another thing to add to the 'Tories made Britain worse' list.

Redundancy isn't worth anything unless you've been there a lifetime anyway.

• half a week’s pay for each full year you were under 22
• one week’s pay for each full year you were 22 or older, but under 41
• one and half week’s pay for each full year you were 41 or older

Sat redundancy is a joke. It should have a higher rate of pay as it is capped off after £643 per week in England and 20 years service.

I'm on the fence about the 2 year rule. I've used it as an employer to dismiss or end employment over the years. In all instances it was necessary and on grounds of gross misconduct and a few on capability. Due to the nature of the business I think two years is needed. But, as a new employee I wouldn't be happy about it or feel secure.

Sat sick pay and Mat leave are also not fit for purpose.

If it was gross misconduct or capability you didn't need the 2 year rule, you can dismiss using those policies.

Try living in the States. No employment rights what so ever. No paid breaks, no holiday pay, fire at will. It might not be perfect here, but it could be a whole lot worse.

Same here.

I used to work in a very small business in a technical role where there was lots to learn about a large and complex system. I think my employers were very fair and reasonable and acknowledged that it could be at least two years before someone was fully effective in that role.

I retired almost two years ago. Before I left a new hire was made to replace me. I spent some time training this person before I left in the areas where I had the most expertise. They obviously still had a long way to go but they knew enough to get started and the rest of the team were available to share their knowledge.

I recently heard that this person has been fired. According to an ex colleague it was apparent almost from the start that the new hire was prepared to make zero effort to progress. I assume my former employers hung on as long as possible to give this person a chance but eventually got rid of them before the two years made it difficult to do so and they found themselves with an expensive dead weight to carry.

If the employment protection had been only one year I guess they would have had to do this a year earlier rather than give them another year to sort themselves out. I know this company have a review process so I am sure this person would have been made aware of concerns before it got to that stage.

Working in HR & Finance, i think the 2 years is pretty fair - i see the back side of it all.
A year working somewhere is nothing, it's barely scratched the surface essentially.

Name me a company that doesn't pay ERS for 2 years on pension? It's law they put in a minimum of 3% and can only postpone for 3 months from employment start date or date employee reaches age/earnings threshold.

It's 1 year in Ireland for Unfair Dismissals protection, which I think is good. I wouldn't like effectively a 2 year probation.

Still 2 years for redundancy though.

Even though in 90% of the cases its was clear cut for gross misconduct, I kept the reasons vague. Gross misconduct can mean a lot of different things depending on the industry. Capability in my experience after the year cut off comes with a shit tonne of performance management and training schedules and frankly I don't have time for that.

It's costly and inefficient to performance manage someone especially when you know there will be no vast improvement.