Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Dismissing employees who coast along in the public sector. Worrying.

34 replies

BeeGrylls · 26/10/2011 07:51

A report commissioned by the Prime Minister recommends limiting the number of unfair dismissal claims by allowing organisations to dismiss 'unproductive' workers who 'coast along', particularly in the public sector.

Worrying.

It's a heavy-handed approach increasingly seen across the board in a number of areas lately (terrorism laws; Dale Farm):

"We're right because we say we're right and we're bigger and there's nothing you can do about it".

People's rights to defend themselves against any claim should be fiercely protected. This suggested change to employment laws would be yet another step in the wrong direction.

OP posts:
meditrina · 26/10/2011 07:55

Can you link exactly what changes are up for discussion.

This is an area where is would be very easy to create a bogeyman, if debate was driven by assumption of what it could mean, rather than by proper examination of what it actually does cover.

There's no reason to think employment law is immutable. Nor any reason to connect it to Dale Farm.

So what are the proposals?

josephinebonaparte · 26/10/2011 08:05

Yes all public sector workers are parasites living off the hard earned taxes of the private sector.[hhmm]

EttiKetti · 26/10/2011 08:11

I work in the public sector and can see many cases where this would be fabulous, people who lots of us genuinely cannot see how they're still in a job. But they stay, and it seems impossible to do anything about it, so this won't happen, I can guarantee it!

meditrina · 26/10/2011 08:17

What are the proposals?

I've seen claims of a leaked discussion paper, but what exactly is it putting up for discussion?

Downing Street's current posision is unchanged (increasing time for eligibility to take a case to a tribunal) and says more changes "unlikely". So not an urgent issue, but possibly an important one. But not one easy to discuss without knowing what it is actually saying.

Bossybritches22 · 26/10/2011 08:18

If someone is "coasting along" doing his/her job JUST well enough whilst the rest of his colleagues work their arses off then the bosses must be allowed to sack them.

As long as the usual support,offer of retraining, then warnings first before sacking are taken to give said slacker a chance to up their game then great.

This is the real world & it's a tough one. Why should lazy public sector workers be carried along by their harderworking colleagues?

meditrina · 26/10/2011 08:21

Press reporting of the actual proposals (just caught a bit) suggests the title of this thread is misleading. No proposals are specific to the public sector.

But we really need a link to the proposals themselves, or we could waste a lot of effort on the non-existent bogeyman, and miss the actual real issues.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 26/10/2011 08:23

"what exactly is it putting up for discussion?"

One specific discussion point being the length of time someone can be in a job before they are allowed to claim unfair dismissal. It's currently 12 months and the proposal is to increase this to 2 years. I'm not aware that organisations find it that difficult to sack incompetent staff at the moment however some people I know who work for my local council tell me similar things to EttiKetti.

meditrina · 26/10/2011 08:24

Bossybritches2: what you have described is the existing norm in the public sector. BBC reported that over 1,000 workers were sacked from DWP (1% workforce, for all reasons) over a year.

This is why I'm banging on a bit about surfacing the actual proposals, so discussion has a secure base.

meditrina · 26/10/2011 08:27

CES : that's been on the table for some time.

The press is reporting this morning that there is a leaked paper with further options on changes to employment law. It is those further proposals that I was asking to be linked (specifically to OP, but also to anyone else).

I've not been able to find it (yet).

Bossybritches22 · 26/10/2011 08:31

medritina

So a 1000 people were sacked on the grounds of.....?

Yuraye · 26/10/2011 08:33

Are you talking about this?:
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8848487/Older-and-underperforming-workers-face-sack.html

If so, it makes me worried as well.

meditrina · 26/10/2011 08:34

All causes - no further breakdown published.

meditrina · 26/10/2011 08:38

Yuraye: we need OP to clarify - ideally with the actual proposals she meant.

That linked article doesn't seem to be about the same thing - OP echoes BBC report which included an adverse comment from Clegg. So I doubt something he's proposeing (as in the link) can be the same thing.

where is OP!!!! Please help straighten this out. I would be really interested to read the paper containing all this.

cookcleanerchaufferetc · 26/10/2011 08:42

If the OP comes back to clarify, I foresee a bun fight?

Also, when you say heavy handed approach at Dale Farm, are you referring to the weight of the bricks and planks etc carried by travellers/protestors/activities?

Bossybritches22 · 26/10/2011 08:51

Ok thanks Medritina, just wondered!

Is that really such a huge figure (sorry being thick here?)

PhyllisDiller · 26/10/2011 09:37

I found the proposal ridiculous to be honest. If you have a genuinely slack/lazy/underperforming worker then you CAN get rid of them under current law, you just do it properly and it takes time. I used to work in retail banking, they were very hardnosed, non performers would be managed out. It wasn?t pleasant (I don?t claim to be an expert on employment law) but it was legal.

Having worked years ago for a man who would sack someone because he just didn?t like them, or because they didn?t have a nice southern counties accent I find it really worrying. Workers in this country are stressed enough without the prospect that they could be fired at a moment?s notice hanging over them.

Original poster
BeeGrylls · 26/10/2011 12:44

Calm down dear.

I was posting in relation to this: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15456585

And PhyllisDiller - "Workers in this country are stressed enough without the prospect that they could be fired at a moment?s notice hanging over them" - Indeed - Entirely the point.

OP posts:
meditrina · 26/10/2011 15:21

BeeGrylls - that link doesn't either contain, or signpost to, any actual proposals.

Unless we know what they're actually talking about, it's hard to do anything more than a bit of non-specific and non-productive hand-wringing.

Has anyone seen the underlying leaked document?

Catkinsthecatinthehat · 26/10/2011 16:53

The Telegprah has the leaked document at the bottom of this story
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8849420/Give-firms-freedom-to-sack-unproductive-workers-leaked-Downing-Street-report-advises.html

What's worrying is that the author conceeds that employers would be able to sack people because they 'did not like them', but it's a 'price worth paying'.

crazynannawitchbitch · 26/10/2011 16:58

Well,the first under performing public worker to be sacked should really be Nick Clegg.

meditrina · 26/10/2011 17:03

Catkins: apologies, but I cannot find a link to (what I now know is called the Beecroft) report in that article. All I got was a press report on some bits of a fortnight old draft, with no obvious links to the report. Where exactly is it?

MooncupGoddess · 26/10/2011 17:14

The report is at the bottom of the Telegraph article, meditrina, with DRAFT stamped on it. It's not very long.

Catkinsthecatinthehat · 26/10/2011 17:15

Meditrina: no you're right, at the bottom of the story they link to the October 12 two-page executive summary of the report, not the full document.

The summary does indicate it's a detailed study, so perhaps there are more revelations to come?

MooncupGoddess · 26/10/2011 17:20

I don't really see a need for these proposals, given that employers can dismiss at will at up to a year's service (soon to be two years) and there are also ways of dismissing inadequate employees afterwards (by setting them targets, analysing their performance, giving them a certain time to approve, and then dismissing them if they are still underperforming).

Of course there are no doubt many employers who fail to deal with underperforming employees, but that's not the fault of the employment legislation.

meditrina · 26/10/2011 17:29

Thanks catkins - I thought I'd been dim and missed something, and I had!

As it includes the Exec Summary, I'd be surprised if the main thrust of the report were much different. But if there are any "devil in the detail" points, then they remain hidden.

It is interesting that he asserts that the current unfair dismissal rules are UK self-imposed, not driven by EU, and so therefore readily amendable - which raises the question of what are the arrangements in EU or other comparable countries, and is there any information on what impact this has on the morale/capability/stability/satisfaction of the workforce?

I was glad to note that the proposed No Fault Compensated Dismissal would not apply in cases where discrimination legislation would apply.

Really not sure what to make of the Summary - and would be very interested in views from other countries.