The NI changes are going to cost my organisation £1000 per employee

[flashbac]

The NI changes are going to cost my organisation on average £1000 per employee, The lowering of the threshold alone is going to cost around £600 extra per employee.

We are heavily regulated with fixed income. We're a not for profit. Our customers expectations are increasing. We are now most likely going to have to somehow reduce our headcount now, and payrises for April are going to be off the table.

Just shaking my head really. Our employees don't deserve this. Hard to see how this isn't a tax on jobs.

The lowering of the threshold also means employers have to pay for more workers, because part time salaries are now dragged into it.

A lot of people reading this won't care. All I can say is this NI increase will also affect you. just think about Local authorities, childcare providers and other services. Do you think it won't affect your Councils services/tax bills, to give one example?

(I'm not a Tory bot btw, before anyone starts accusing me of being one. I voted Remain, don't support the Tories at all, can't stand Boris and his cronies.)

In the exact same position. I had a couple of job ads out in the autumn but had to pull them after the budget. It's just too tight for us and I think the extra costs could run the risk of pushing our business over the edge. I hate to say it, but we're looking at hiring a couple of remote workers in India now. I'd love to stand by my values and only hire British workers but, if we go under, there's 23 people out of a job. So I have to do what's best for the business and the workers I have already.

How do other European countries with far better employment rights and with much greater productivity manage?

France even stipulates 1.25 over time rate fro the first 8 hours and there after 2.0.

These countries, generally speaking, have lower govt borrowing costs and better GDP per capita.

I honestly don’t know 🤷‍♀️
As a small(ish) employer, with an ever reducing margin, adding increased NI with an increasing exposure to litigation, it just doesn’t make sense to risk hiring, particularly unknown/inexperienced staff. Especially, in an uncertain economic environment.

Well, it would be good to see evidence of that. Because most places I've worked do very thorough reference checks and yet still get claims.

But, it's not at all clear what you mean by "prone to making claims" or how you would know if someone had made a claim previously.

Not unusual for social care at all actually it’s going to cause havoc

Of course, you can cite thousands of unsuccessful claims. Not sure why you chose that one, maybe it was the "tried to sue for a million pounds" that did it. If you'd read it, you'd have seen she actually amended her claim to £25m.

Interestingly, the claimant withdrew her claim of constructive dismissal (it's not clear why) and there was a long discussion about the original search being out of time for the tribunal to hear as the main discrimination claim, so they had to decide if the later acts were racially motivated in order to show them as linked acts of discrimination.

But also interestingly, the judge made it clear that the employer had NOT acted reasonably. While they didn't find race discrimination, they did find a lack of care for process. And I'm sure we all agree that being strip searched is pretty ghastly, especially at work! So, I think this woman should be allowed to have her case tested by a judge. That's why we have courts.

I feel like some people here are of the "they're all criminals, why bother with a trial" school of thought.

I don't she was strip searched. She had to have a more thorough search in a private room which may not be quite the same. I only remember it because it was a case I noticed yesterday. I know someone who acts for local authorities and others who have masses of very spurious employment cases brought against them - so very many. it is a huge industry out there and unlike the private sector which might simply decide to employ fewer people (I choose to employ no one as the rules are so horrible and time can costs not worth it) those kind of state bodies so not have a choice - although even they use masses of agencies to find workers and companies like Capita get the workers so I suppose the complex employment laws have at least led to companies like that making profits so some gain may be for someone (I bet a lot of MN posters have a pension invested in companies like that so they gain from that too.

For many businesses it’s because business rates are lower or non existent in many countries, rents are often lower as they are less densely populated, energy costs are sometimes lower (especially France as they backed nuclear here) and, most importantly, customers generally pay more.

Well.. you don't find out through "very thorough reference checks" done by HR. You'll only generally find out when one manager speaks directly to another and asks completely reasonable questions such as, "You do not have to answer, but if a vacancy arose tomorrow would you rehire Eric to the role?".

Individuals will always bear the burden, because individuals own and work in businesses.

Most bigger businesses are "owned" by investors, i.e. individuals, often normal people who've either bought shares directly, or through ISAs, unit trusts, or their occupational pension schemes have invested in businesses to grow capital and produce an income to pay the pensions of individuals. Millions of people, for example, are investors in Tesco, either directly or indirectly and many will rely on Tesco and similar firms making a profit for their future pensions!

Not everyone is on a cushy gold plated public sector pension underwritten by the taxpayer!

Businesses need to generate profits to give a return to their investors, ie individuals, otherwise they'd never get any investment in the first place, which is essential to grow and even maintain a business.

Hilarious.

You're the one who said reference checks and claimed they aren't done. As if a big firm or public body could call a previous manager for every new recruit. Lol!

It said she had to take her clothes off, which is pretty much the definition of strip searched.

I've worked for a large company where this was done for every hire. As a direct consequence of the gaping holes that typical HR "thorough" reference checking missed causing massive disruption. If I'm dismissive of reference checking it's because the usual level of check is quite shallow.

It's not shallow in financial services, it's thorough. And managers in FS won't answer calls with follow up questions, they will only send the official reference.
I don't know anywhere managers would have time for that. Or care enough to even take the call.

Is FS set on taking over every employment related thread?

In the big world outside of FS you'd probably be surprised how many managers do take that call.

In all areas of social care, safer recruitment procedure dictates a follow up call to individuals who complete a reference is obligatory. And if they were not a line manager, then ideally a line manager should also be spoken with. Our regulator, Ofsted, check every new personnel file at every inspection to ensure this was done.

@Sandunesandseashells is correct. And CQC inspectors as well as Ofsted.

No job offer will be made until a conversation with previous employers has been satisfactorily made.

It's one of hundreds of the factors which demonstrates the (necessary) stringency of recruitment which costs time and money yet isn't factored into the price commissioners pay for social care.