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said a future Tory government would stop bosses having to invent "disingenuous reasons" to get rid of staff due to outdated employment laws.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

As a previous manager I always saw myself as, as good as my staff. If someone had potential I was more than willing to go in on my days off and give them extra training. A staff force with proper training and high morale are far more productive than people working under a climate of fear.

I think more emphasis needs to be put on training I had staff members coming with a c grade GCSE maths but didn't know 2 50ps make a £1 but with the right training they can succeed. I think employers are far to quick to pass the buck these days and far too many people are basing their management technique on the apprentice.

It may sound soft but I take genuine pride in hearing on ex employees moving on to bigger and better things.

I've seen both sides of the coin. I've worked in the US where you can pretty easily fire someone at will. Nit great for the employees at all.

I've seen French laws in action where it's nigh on impossible and was threatening to bring down the entire company which couldn't slash its wage bills despite a fall in sales and by extension work.

personally I think in the uk we have the balance about right. Overall I cautiously support the changes to the tribunal system since so many were simply taking the piss with no risk to them claims. Time will tell if the system had swung too far the other way

You can already fire people in the first two years, which should be long enough to establish whether they are a good fit for the job. He seems to be talking about poor (or not quite good enough?) performance or cost-saving.

I once had to say to someone (after a lot of effort on everyone's part to improve performance) that they would be getting a formal warning for poor performance. Once this happens it goes on your record so makes it difficult to get another job. He resigned to avoid this.

The politician said "there should be a way of saying to people ' 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".

You can already ask someone to leave voluntarily, for any non-discriminatory reason, and offer them a package. But if they won't go voluntarily, facts are facts: they're being fired!

I'm on the fence about this.

On one hand people do need job security and I certainly wouldn't like to see a 'fire at will' situation as in the US.

On the other hand, I think it is currently too difficult to get rid of employees who whilst not being so terrible that they can be fired, are really not very good at their job. The type that do the bare minimum and expect their colleagues to pick up the slack.

In practice, companies usually do find a way of getting rid of people like this, but it is an unnecessarily long and drawn out process that wastes a lot of time and money.

But softsheen, doesn't current law enable employers to define - within reason - poor performance? If people aren't performing well enough, by the standards set by their employer, they can be fired.