Tory psychopath wants employers to be fire staff at will.

[ttosca]

Firing People Will Be Easier Under A Tory Government, Says Party Chair Grant Shapps

---

Conservative party chairman Grant Shapps said a future Tory government would stop bosses having to invent "disingenuous reasons" to get rid of staff due to outdated employment laws.

Revealing the Tory party's plans for the 2015 election, Shapps said: "In the next Conservative manifesto you will see an attempt to make employment law reflect the realities of modern Britain and proper business rather than a fantasy world where you only have two options and both are completely inadequate for both the employee and the firm."

Shapps cited his own struggles with "crazy" employment laws, saying: "I started a printing company 23 years ago, it still runs to this day, and we always sat there and wondered how it is that when you know that somebody is not working out right for the company, they are just not fitting in to that role, you have to effectively end up coming up with disingenuous reasons why you need to change that role.

"Either you have to say that role itself is now redundant and re-engineer the way the department operates or you have to say that person was so bad at their job that you must fire them, and it's disciplinary and will go on their record.

"That means there are only two ways of dealing with wanting to bring a contract to an end. You either have to pretend the role has gone, or you have to fire the person.

"That is crazy, it doesn't stack up to what really happens out there in the real world.

"We should be honest about this, we should as a country say there should be a way of saying to people 'thank you very much, it hasn't worked out but here's a decent package for you to move on from this role and the support you need to gain another job' so it's not a hire and fire thing either.

"Those are the sorts of changes the Conservatives would like to see that have not been able to introduce in this parliament because of the coalition."

"I'm not in favour of an insecure workforce, I don't think that's a good thing or healthy for the country. I am in favour of making sure that businesses can flourish and we have to have more honesty in employment law in order to get that."

Ian Murray, Labour?s Shadow Business Minister, said: ?Grant Shapps appears to be admitting that he has broken the law by making up 'disingenuous reasons' to sack his own employees.

"The Government should be making it easier to hire people, not easier to fire people - but now the Tory Chairman is raising serious questions about his own record as an employer. He needs to come clean and clarify exactly what he meant by these comments.

?If the only solution the Tories have for sorting out their economic mess is illegally firing workers it?s no wonder people think they?re out of touch.?

Shapps' questioning about employment law followed Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's criticism of zero-hour contracts earlier in the day.

LIKE HUFFPOST UK POLITICS ON FACEBOOK | FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

The Tory chair avoided responding directly, but said: "I do think, as a broader generalisation, that it is the case that we should have employment laws that reflect modern work practices, (and) support employees and employers."

Asked about reports that Buckingham Palace and Cineworld had hired staff on the controversial 'zero-hour' contracts, Clegg said Vince Cable's business department was examining the contracts.

"We do need to look at the effects of zero hour contracts," the LibDem leader said.

"I am a huge advocate of flexibility in the British labour market. It is one of the reasons why we haven't suffered the spike in adult unemployment that we've seen in other developed economies which have had to deal with the consequences of the 2008 crash. I do want to protect employers' rights to employ people flexibly.

"But there has to be a balance. There can be a really worrying level of insecurity if you are an individual employed on a zero-hour contract, where you are told by your employer you will be given a timesheet by Wednesday on how many hours you will work next week and actually you don't get it until Sunday evening, and you then go in to work from 7.30am to 7.30pm and only get paid for five hours.

"For people, particularly with families, who have got to pay bills and have to got to plan - everybody has to plan for what their income is and what they have to pay out - that can cause very intense anxiety and insecurity indeed.

"I want to look at this carefully, but I know that the Business Department is looking at this over the summer to see whether we need to make any adjustments or not. I'm not going to second-guess that process... but I'm very interested in seeing what evidence they come up with."

"We need to get the right balance between flexibility in the labour market, but not at the cost of what I would suggest are unacceptable levels of individual insecurity."

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/31/tories-sackings-easier-shapps_n_3682235.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Some of the worst small employers I've come across were doctors' surgeries. This is going back a decade or so, but some GPs really didn't understand that they had obligations as employers. Thank heavens for practice managers, otherwise there would be LOTS of GPs in court.

As a lowly employee - just a minion really- further erosion of my rights would certainly add to the reasons DP and I don't sleep well at night.

But obviously I know my place... How audacious to expect to be treated as if my life had some value..

How your employer treats you determines whether your life has value? Really?

The way I see it is that working for someone is a simple business transaction. To tie up your whole life around it is ridiculous. No-one should be forced to employ anyone, no more than anyone should be forced to work for someone.

We should be a country where hiring and firing people is easy. It serves no-one in the long term to force firms to keep on people they have no use for anymore.

Why on earth do you think it is so unreasonable to need actual grounds for firing someone?

Tabitha you talk rubbish. Since when has any employer been forced to employ someone?

And if you want to treat employment like a business transaction, then understand that like any other business transaction there are parameters and boundaries. You don't just do what you like.

Employees however are people, not robots, so best to treat them that way if you want the best out of them.

Do you think an employee should need actual grounds for leaving their job? What is wrong with employers having the same freedom?

Do any of you actually employ people?

I believe Tabitha's point is that there is I equality of obligation - an employee can resign on notice for any reason, but an employer can nly dismiss for one of 5 reasons and usually only after following quite an involved process.

I personally don't think employers should be able to fire at will, but I can see the argument about unequal obligations.

The relationship is unequal so the law has to protect the worker

An employer has more power, sets the terms and conditions, working hours etc etc. so of course the law protects the employee.

So Tabitha you still talk rubbish.

No, I just have a different opinion to you.

The employer has no more power than the employee. Terms and conditions. working hours etc are a negotiation between the two.

Of course I want to be treated as if my life matters - I work unsociable hours. I work public holidays, Christmas Day and Boxing Day, I work nightshifts - 10.30am til 8am. This has real impact on my family life and on my health.

Fortunately my employer is fair to me - they recognise that employees should have some rights - knowing I have rights to sick pay, annual leave entitlement, pensions means I work hard give good service am reliable and there on Christmas Day while employers are opening another bottle of bolly.

There is a theory that developments which came out of silicon valley could only have happened in the States because of their employment at will. Because people were able to move freely with no price periods or restrictive covenants, they were able to cross pollinate ideas much more rapidly than (for example) in Europe.

Tabitha - are you on the sane planet, negotiate hours? Do you work in PR or something?

Do you think an employee should need actual grounds for leaving their job? What is wrong with employers having the same freedom?

Um, well, because if an employee suddenly finds themselves without a job, they could lose their house, not to mention their means of putting food on their place, whereas a business which loses an employee is in a much better and safer position, relatively speaking.

Was that a serious question?

Tabitha - I am PMSL. You obviously don't employ anyone or you're confusing contractors with employees.

William-

I agree with Emmeline on most points.

I also don't think we should be comparing ourselves to the EU whose economies are hardly booming.

Many european economies are doing better than the UK (as measured by real GDP growth rates):

www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=66&r=eu&l=en

That includes France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, and the netherlands. The source of the data is the CIA world factbook 2012.

But ttosca it's not hard to do better than the uk economy and its triple dip! So comparing against the uk is a bit of a ruse.

A lot of employers despair at the employment laws in places like France and the complete inflexibility of it, as others have noted below. It doesn't attract new business.

All i think is being said is that there needs to be a better balance between employee rights and flexibility for potential employers.

If an employer can sack any employee out of hand at any time and for any reason then the employee has no rights. You are effectively doing away with all existing employment rights including ones around discrimination and maternity etc in one move. That isn't balance, it's putting all the cards in the employers hands and is an invitation for employers to exploit and mistreat.

William-

And my point was that, despite the complaints from employers, these countries are doing better than the UK. Germany has much stricter employment laws than the UK and it is the powerhouse of europe.

So what evidence is there that further weakening the already lax labour laws in the UK and where unions have little power will improve the situation?

Perhaps it would be better to instead pay people a fair wage to stimulate spending and invest in people with education and training at the work place.

Ttosca how can you say that employment laws in the UK are lax or that unions have no power? Compared to France maybe not but compared to the rest of the world unions and employees have a lot of power.

I would hate to go back to a world of 1970s unions. And in my experience working in the private, public and charity sector the balance has usually been tipped in favour of the employee. I dare say that may not be the case in small business....

So I'm kind of struggling to understand what needs to change for employees exactly. I do think people's attitudes do need to change somewhat - recognising that jobs are no longer for life (I have come across many parochial people who still cling to this idea) and training throughout one's career is necessary to stay up to date and flight of foot.

A law has just been brought in saying that to take an employer to a tribunal is going to cost the employee £1200. How is someone on minimum wage going to find that kind of money.

How is someone on a low wage who has been sexually harassed by their employer or a co worker going to find the money.
Because you can bet your bottom dollar in our victim blaming society, it will be the person who is being harassed who gets the blame.

Eroding all these emplyees rights will not only affect women who become pregnant.
It will also leave them at a greater risk of being sexually harassed at work because having no rights and the fear of losing their job means that many women will choose to put up with it. I find this very worrying.

Jeez - it's so easy to sack someone. I'e seen it done. I've seen people performance managed out for not meeting ridiculous targets set by HR people who have no bloody idea what doing the job entails. I've seen people disciplined (the first step in being managed out) for having a day too many off sick - this was someone with 40 years in the company with NO previous time off sick ever, I've seen disabled people sacked because they were ill too many times, despite there being laws to prevent this - big companies will always find a way round things - and then - if you get to a tribunal, they will lie under oath. But it's your word against theirs.

My observation on Germany is cultural. The Germans have a very strong work ethic, so despite protective employment laws (but less so than other European countries) most choose to come to work and be productive.

As said above when the law changes employees will need to pay a £1200 tribunal fee to start an unfair dismissal case.
Also under the existing law employees can be sacked without any reason (except discrimination) in the first 2 years so we already have and have always had a system where you can be sacked without cause in the first year or two years. That is nothing new.

American-style fire at will wouldn't do anyone any favors. The American friends and family I've just visited work well over 40-hour weeks because they feel under pressure to, not because they love their jobs or take pride in what they do. They do this despite a severe lack of benefits and incentives - they get less than half of the vacation and sick days I get, and just a third (max) of the family leave I'm allowed. My oldest friend is under a draconian noncompete clause, and yet has to put up with fire at will.

Fire at will allows companies that acquire smaller firms to let the acquired staff go with no severance package. It also allows companies to whittle away benefits that are taken for granted in the UK because hey, if you make a fuss about it, someone else can replace you easily.