Watered down workers protection

[PropertyD]

Am I missing something- why on earth would someone want a workers right bill that gives them the right to claim for unfair dismissal from DAY 1?

I know it’s been cancelled but just why would it have been put in the first place?

I’m an HR professional and all for workers rights but YANBU. Day 1 was a step too far, 6 months makes sense to me as it ties in with many probation periods.

In case you're unfairly dismissed? 🤔 I mean it didn't used to be 2 years, I think it was previously one year and the Tories increased it.

Personally I wouldn't have minded that protection. The fact I assumed I would only have any kind of protection after completing 2 years service is why I wholly suffered for those 2 years too scared to tell anyone I was struggling and not at all coping (although in hindsight I know under disability discrimination would have still been a thing from day one). It was only after those 2 years had passed it felt safe enough to tell my employer I wasn't coping and actually as it happens they were more than happy to help

Yeah I don't know it was obvious this would u-turn. Really weird.

After 1 day though! It sounds ridiculous but am open to be persuaded why it was there in the first place?

I think 6 months is fine. Two years was way too long and stopped me looking for a new job as I just couldn’t risk it being sole earner.

The party is called 'the Labour party'

Where are the rights for labourers?

Nonsense. Of course you should be protected from unfair dismissal from day one

But the point is, by making it a day 1 right you are making the issue litigious (potentially) immediately.

It’s entirely fair that a probationary period is for both employer and employee to be sure they both made the right decision without the threat of legal action. Which is why I support UD claims from 6 months.

When you’re in government you have an incredibly difficult balancing act to perform, and so far this government has boosted workers rights but have also listened to employers. It’s late but at least they got there.

I am still not understanding here Someone joins a company Monday morning and immediately has the 'right' to claim for unfair dismissal. What would be an example of this.

I personally dont like the right to sick pay from Day 1 either but that is a personal view.

6 months is about right and similar to many probationary periods.

It always was going to be nothing more than a job creation scheme for employment lawyers. I'm actually surprised the Govt. had the sense, and guts, to change it.

why on earth would someone want a workers right bill that gives them the right to claim for unfair dismissal from DAY 1?
You have 14 days to send a dress back merely because you don't like the colour or the fit isn't quite right. But Labour want to make it very difficult for employers, from Day 1, to get rid of an unsatisfactory employee who will cost £££ and lose staff goodwill/morale.
It's bonkers. They have no idea how the economy works.

I am hubby owner own business
We have had people sail thought probation then as year in become utterly hopeless
The easiest way to not get sacked is to be a good employee
I expect tp have the right to decide who I employ in a company with our name on it and who not to employ
People set up a business to make a profit and give themselves a good lifestyle and freedom
Not just for the privilege of giving someone a job whoi s useless

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

I assume you have never ever owned you own business

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

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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