Let's hope this 'new law' will apply to Dave too

[LadyBlaBlah]

making it easier to sack bad staff

I always think laws like this are ironically designed to protect the idiots.

People who aren't behaving like idiots don't need laws to protect them from being prosecuted. Anyone who isn't a twat wouldn't sack someone unnecessarily and unfairly so wouldn't need such a shit law to protect them from their own twatness.

But then again, this coaltion is all about protecting twats

[LadyBlaBlah]

I cannot understand why you would need to consult a lawyer if you are fairly sacking someone. In my younger days I sacked many people and never consulted a lawyer once, because it was done fairly.

Also, it is total rubbish that it is cheaper to settle than go to tribunal. If there is no case to answer and you will win the case because you have treated the employee fairly then there will be no cost

[ISNT]

Companies have no problem sacking staff if they follow procedure correctly.

Extending the period where people can be sacked with no recourse if it is unfair, simply gives leeway to employers to sack people unfairly for longer.

Note the article also talks about reducing the time that companies have to pay sick pay if someone is ill.

LFN "I would apply the same performance management techniques as in the best private sector companies - including sacking the x% worst performing teachers every year - but also rewarding the y% best teachers every year. "

Which seems to indicate that there is currently no issue with fairly sacking people, from your point of view as well. So you appear to be contradicting yourself.

Personally I have no desire to see workers in the UK working under the same conditions and for the same pay as people in India or China. Anyone who wants this (ie the Tories) is totally callous IMO.

[longfingernails]

Frivolous and baseless lawsuits abound - there is little to no cost to the sacked employee, on a no-win-no-fee basis.

Many lawyers will take on frivolous lawsuits on no-win-no-fee, knowing the likelihood is that the company will usually settle even if it is totally baseless - the legal costs and risks of fighting the case are often higher than the settlement.

Lawyers are expensive.

[LadyBlaBlah]

But LFN there is no risk if you have sacked someone fairly.

[longfingernails]

I don't want the same working conditions as India and China. However you have to recognise that our laws are ridiculously uncompetitive by comparison.

When they can afford it, they need more employment legislation, frankly. Some of the working practices are scandalous.

On the other hands, the employment laws in our society have gone too far in favour of the employee.

[longfingernails]

Yes there is - the risk of frivolous, baseless lawsuits. Lawyers aren't free.

[ISNT]

The companies I have worked for over the years have sacked people.

I think that this "problem" is made up TBH.

There is a concern amongst HR depts about sacking people who are suffering ill health - but that is a different situation to the one being discussed here.

[LadyBlaBlah]

If they are frivolous baseless lawsuits there is not a single no-win no-fee lawyer in the land who will take on the case

And should a company be sued and it be found that the allegations were frivolous and baseless, then the costs of the lawyers would be reimbursed.

This is a ridiculous argument even by your standards

[ISNT]

No win no fee firms do not take on cases that they do not think have any chance of success.

This law will leave the door open to companies to sack women who become pregnant, for longer. Maybe that is the real target of the legislation?

The more I think about it, the more I think that it's terrible that people can be sacked out of hand, with no recourse, if they have done absolutely nothing wrong.

So many studies say that happy, well looked after workers work better, are more flexible and more loyal. Why do so many employers overlook this for short term gain?

[LadyBlaBlah]

It is absolutely condoning the sacking of people unfairly.

Why any reasonable company require such a ludicrous law is beyond me.

[TheCrackFox]

So what you are telling us, in a roundabout way, Longfinernails, is that you aren't a good manager.

I have sacked people (not pleasant) and I haven't needed to speak to a lawyer or had baseless lawsuits.

[LadyBlaBlah]

Let's remember the depressing point is that it is not just LFN who thinks like this, it is the bloody government who also think like this.

It literally makes my head want to pop off that people can be so dim to think this will help productivity and growth. And that is not even starting on civil unrest issues - I don't get why the Tories like to rile people.

[longfingernails]

I have never had an employment tribunal against me, by any sacked employee. Or even a complaint.

I am required to consult a lawyer by HR.

And there are no-win-no-fee lawyers who are very happy to take on frivolous cases. As I have already explained, for most companies it is cheaper and less stressful to settle than fight the case in court. And legal costs are seldom awarded to companies, even if the court finds in their favour.

[practicallyimperfect]

Teachers don't have a probationary year after thier very first year of teaching. Often poor teachers are given good references and passed on to another school.

I have seen poor teachers stay for years as it difficult to get rid once union get involved.

[ISNT]

This isn't about teachers though, this is about everyone.

There does seem to be a problem with schools not feeling they can sack teachers - and as someone said upthread that is a cultural thing which is unlikely to be affected by this change in the law.

The only thing this law will change, is that it will allow companies to unfairly sack people for up to two years after they have hired them. That's what it's for, it does what it says on the tin. The govt want employers to be able to unfairly sack people.

[BeenBeta]

Sorry but this is a bad thing and will be abused by employers. Employers like retialers with a lot of low pay low skill wokers will employ people for 1 year and 11 months then sack them and employ a whole set of new people. That way they can constantly have a workforce who never has any employment rights.

I've been saying this for several years - it becoming more and more like the Victorian 'hiring fair' in the world of employment with 1 year temporary contracts and zero hours contracts the norm except for an elite of very highly paid managers/financiers who have lavish contractual protection, pay and pensions.

I regret voting for Cameron. I see he also just officially anounced that there will be no cap on bankers bonuses.

[GooseFatRoasties]

Agree with beenbeta and granted.

This is terrible.

[Remotew]

Most companies will have some sort of advisory package included with their payroll regarding best practice when it comes to dismissing employees, or if not then ACAS will help. No reason to need a lawyer or fear expensive tribunals if you are following correct practise.

I also disagree that no win no fee lawyers would take on 'frivilous cases'. This is protecting bad employers. This will be just the start of the attack on employees rights. I wonder if maternity and holiday entitlement is protected, obviously sick pay isn't. I remember the last Tory government so am not at all surprised by these moves.

There was also talk under that last government of making it compulsory for companies to contribute to pension schemes. Not sure if this is still going through.

[BeenBeta]

Employees who have been employed for more than 2 years will also be targeted for redundancy. That way the employer can rehire after 6 months but the new employees will have far less rights than the old employees.

[bobthebuddha]

Agree with BeenBeta - this isn't about 'growth' and productivity, but cheap labour. I fail to see how jobs growth is ensured to if a merry-go-round of hiring & firing becomes practice approved of in law, under the facile umbrella of 'getting rid of bad workers more easily'. I'm sorry you regret your vote so quickly, BeenBeta. I flirted with the idea and am relieved my natural instincts held me back

[nickelbabyjesus]

that's right - farmers used to be employed on yearly contracts, too. It meant that they could be employed by the same farmer each year after being laid off, and only having to be paid farm-hand wages- I think it was that after a year, they had to get a pay rise and effectively a promotion to the next level.

This is going to be just the same - they employ the inexperienced workers, then they lay them off before they have to give them more money.

[ampere]

I wonder whether those crowing about what a great idea this will be have any DCs? I wonder whether they'll feel the same way once their own have been treated in this way? Or perhaps they believe it'll never happen to Bruno and Octavia.

Be careful what you wish for.

Middle class California voted wholesale for the 'three strikes and you're out' laws (3 crimes/misdemenanors = a criminal record and incarceration, I think?...) right up until it was their own teenagers getting busted for the third time for small drug possession etc. Suddenly didn't seem like such a good idea.

[ampere]

misdemeanors!

[huddspur]

When I got my job after I graduated I was on a probation period for the first 6 months where they could have got rid of me if I wasn't very good/suited to the company etc. I appreciate why they did it and it certainly ensured I got out of bed in the morning but I did feel very stressed during that period. Not sure its that good to be honest.