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

[BeeGrylls]

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.

It is worrying.

Young female employee just got married and you're worried she might go off on pesky maternity leave soon? Compulsory No Fault Dismissal.

Someone off on maternity leave and their replacement is doing a better job? Or you just get on with them better? Wait until a suitable amount of time has passed after they come back and... Compulsory No Fault Dismissal.

A mate you know who's really good and is looking for a new job? Pick the unlucky sod in your team who's in for Compulsory No Fault Dismissal.

That new girl in your team just got together with the guy you fancy? Open a can of Compulsory No Fault Dismissal all over her ass. (Ok that one's a stupid example, but just to illustrate the point really)

The document says "the employee should be given a chance to argue his or her case, and to suggest (but not demand) that they be given time to improve or transfer to a less demanding job". Surely there would need to be an independent body to review these cases, otherwise the employer (with the government's authorisation) becomes judge, jury and executioner? Just because you call something 'Compulsory No Fault Dismissal' doesn't mean that it's not also unfair dismissal.

Also - are there not already provisions in place such as probation periods etc, to prevent the problem of employers taking a risk on 'unknown quantities'?

Stupid The Government.

Well, it doesn't look as if the Government is more than lukewarm about this, so perhaps it's actually Beecroft who has been stupid in being the fall guy on this one. Does anyone work for one of his companies, and what are their standards like?

doobeezenees: sadly, cases like this happen all the time. Usually by trumped up competency proceedings or redundancy. Even if a case is later won, reinstatement is rare, and the costs time, effort and emotion often for quite small pay out.

I'm not championing these proposals (I've not seen the detail, especially of protections; and would take a hell of a lot of convincing). But it appears that any people selected for this type of dismissal any people would get higher payoffs and longer notice than the current system.

The author of this report is the owner of Wonga.com, which is unsurprising given that the firm amounts to a legal loan shark.

The government have said they're unlikely to pursue this so it's all theoretical really.

But there are employees in every company/organisation who are deadwood. They coast along doing the bare minimum and often even less than that.

There is a real problem with getting rid of people like that. A friend of mine recently was promoted into a management position (private firm) and it was an open secret that this lady there was a waste of space. But successive managers had ducked the issue and she was allowed to really get away with murder. So he set about trying to sort this out. Performance plans, HR involvement. She claimed she was being victimised, stress you name it. In the end she took a very generous redundancy package (6 figures) and the day after the cheque cleared, launched a claim for unfair/constructive dismissal.

Another friend of mine who works for the council says there are a lot of people in his dept who in his words "take the piss" but managers again are too frightened to tackle this because the employee will claim sexism, racism, whateverism and tie everyone up in so much legal red tape that its simpler to turn a blind eye. I guess its been easier up til recently when you are in the public sector and you don't have a bottom line to worry about.

Basically the proposals were to make it easier to get rid of unproductive workers. So unless you are one of those then I really fail to see what anyone would be worried about.

So niceguy2 you believe that campaigns to get rid of people target only dead wood and the rest of us need not worry?

It's funny how nobody ever thinks of themselves as one of the unproductive workers.

Niceguy: in the examples you give, the problem is that managers 'ducked the issue' and find it 'simpler to turn a blind eye'. It's not employers can't fire incompetent staff using the current system; it's that they're too lazy or afraid to try.

Taking away someone's job should be difficult.

Losing your job can have a massive impact on the rest of your life. Why isn't that the lesson that this recession has taught us?

Without getting into the technicalities, I feel the principle behind this is valid but can see how it would be easy to abuse it to remove staff for reasons, other than being 'unproductive'.

I have worked in the public sector for 16 years now and have lost count of the number of staff I have come across who are, to be blunt, a total waste of space - I do feel the public sector attract them.

They are also easy to spot as they have had numerous roles and been moved from one department to another, and then to another etc etc as nobody wants to tackle the issues with them so they just sidestep them and move them on (and often to a higher-paid job). And then, before you know it, they are retiring on a good pension and everybody breathes a sigh of relief

As someone has said, the procedures are in place to tackle the issues - the managers/organisation just feel it is easier not to.

Hmm I'm sceptical of those who think claims alleging sexism, racism or ageism are likely to be brought by those who are in fact just lazy workers.

In my experience the un-productive are not always the ones who get 'managed out', more often it is the un-liked: to make room for someone's best mate or for middle management's savings to boost their performance related pay or to push out someone who has just done all the work on a project to enable those remaining to take the credit and get promotion.

It is dog eat dog in the public sector. I am not sure how retirement works but there are cases of those being forced out just before retirement so that organisations don't have to stump up the full pension.

As to forcing out, the methods are so transparent it is pathetic. I saw one poor lady whose computer screen was fixed with the tiniest of fonts and another whose keyboard changed to a completely duff one. Others simply dont send out letters which have been dictated so that staff are then faced with complaints about a particular member. Others simply decide frequent hot desking is the order of the day, or make loud comments about (non existing) BO.

I think the unions have lost their way and need to come back before families start starving.

@Limitedperiodonly. In principle I have no issue with it. But as with most things the devil is in the detail.

But let's ask this question. Why would an employer want to get rid of a productive and performing employee?

And as I said before, it's all theoretical since the govt have no plans to act on the report's recommendations.