What's this I hear about a change in employment law?

[IAmNotACowbag]

I was just wondering really, following a short conversation in our office - are there to be changes which mean employers will have the right to dismiss employees for no good reason within 3 years of employment instead of the usual year?

It was suggested here that if this is the case employers will only keep employees on for 3 years before firing them to avoid any future issues re: firing/redundancy etc.

This makes me feel panicky. Why would the government want the few people who have jobs to feel even less secure?!

I think, but don't know for sure, that it will only apply to workers who have been/are going to be employed after a certain date. I could of course be completely wrong - but that's what I remember reading...

Good old Tories
This is after they've worked like a dog for the agency for 4 months, then had unpaid Xmas factory shut down for 3 weeks then finally getting taken on, at a lower rate than expected is it?
Good
So long as I know

I thought it only applied to companies who employ less than 8 workers (or should that be fewer?).

Hate to let the facts get in the way of a good Tory bash but..

From April this year employees employed after April 2012, will have to have two years' continuous service before they can bring a case of unfair dismissal at Employment Tribunal.

Agency Working Regs were brought into effect Oct 2011 to protect agency workeres so that they are NOT on a lower rate of pay than an equavalent permanent employee.

watfordmummy is correct. Just to add that someone dismissed before they have had 2 years service may still be able to bring a case for discrimination or on certain other grounds, particularly if the dismissal is automatically unfair.

Cheers all! I'm not really aware of politics tbh, and I don't really get who's who and what's what enough to tory bash etc.

It was just hearing this made me all "argh!"

Gaw, I come across as right fick don't I? I promise I'm not, ignorant maybe!

Not at all, just happy to help

Actually you're not being "fick" at all. The changes to minimum service as described above are already on the statute books and I think you are referring to something slightly different: no fault dismissals (Google it, you'll get loads of stuff).

This was a scheme suggested by the Conservatives that would have allowed "micro-firms" (those with fewer than 10 employees) to dismiss employees after any length of service by paying an amount of compensation.

In the last few days there has been a public backlash from the Lib Dems which is probably what you've seen and the plans now look likely to be shelved.

In the last couple of months various organisations have criticised the plans including CIPD. I can't link as on phone but again a Google will find it.

My personal opinion is that anything that erodes employment rights is bad - they're there for a reason - but this scheme was particularly bad because it not only removed one of the key principles of employment law (the right to protection from unfair dismissal) it did so for a particular type of employer. Laws, if they are fair and just, should apply to everyone.

This proposal is the most stupid proposal I can think of! The conservatives need to think through the consequences rather than just listen to sill macho american 'advice

1. Making employees vulnerable means they will invest less in mortgages and banks will lend less to them
2. Which means that house prices will slump
3. Other credit will be judged more risky
4. Which means spending and consumer confidence will slump.
5. Developers building houses now will not get expected returns, retail and other consumer spending will not grow as expected, and banks may seem to make more from increased interest BUT will lose long term credit reliance.
6. Employers will have employees who will see no value in relying on a career with that employer, so will a. have split loyalties and b. seek moves more often and this will result and c. more hand-overs, recruitment costs and lack of continuity.
7. Going on about it too much will highlight the rights employees currently have - and so all those employers who are effectively donig this already because employees aren't aware of their rights. may challenge more often
8. There are further risks - current protection discourages bosses who fire for personal and not professional reasons from hiding incompetence by blaming - which is better for company performance - this legislation will allow poor managers and managers who are risky for the business to fire anyone showing promise, or anyone who will reveal their poor ability. That is bad for productivity and UK Plc will undoubtedly suffer (we can see how often managers act like this even when they can get caught, so we know this will increase).
9. Reducing protection for employees does NOT increase productivity or GDP, so it is wasted effort.

10. no fault dismissal could be used a. 'legítmately' - eg reduction in work, business can't afford, restructure new tech etc - that is already a defence and a legally protected and managed process b. illegitimately - to get rid of one person to employ another - that has associated costs of handover, inertia loss, recruitment etc or c. maliciously. I can only see a reasonable increase in the maliciously - since any otehr reason capability or conduct is already manageable. 11. Vulnerability in general in a workforce destroys teamwork, increases paranoia, results in protectionism and game-playing, and reduces motivation - so where is the win? 12. It is likely to depress wages, as a more vulnerable workforce negotiate less well - seems good, but depressed wages when prices are rising and we are in a recession will cause further economic collapse.

I mean, on you go if you like, but our government will be in danger of being a triple-dip government if employees are more vulnerable.

As an addition, employees who are vulnerable and/or out of work have plenty of motivation and time to become a massive headache, not to mention motivation to stimulate the black economy - and, um greece is a great example of what encouraging black/hidden economy leads to!

As far as I'm aware,it used to be that you had to work 2 years for your employer before you got employment protection.It changed to one year and has been that way for years.
Then,very quietly,this government changed the qualifying period back to two years before you have the right to go to an employment tribunal to claim unfair dismissal (unless the dismissal is unfair under statute).

I thought there were also plans afoot for there to be a 'fee' to go to employment tribunal,supposedly to stop all the frivolous claims made....Is this correct?

The government has consulted on the possibility of introducing fees for employment tribunals. The consultation closed in March. As far as I am aware the government has not yet made any announcement on what it intends to do.

Just for clarity, the no fault dismissal proposal is from a report by Adrian Beecroft that was commissioned by the government and is not currently official government policy. Beecroft argues that the change will make businesses more likely to hire staff, suggesting that small businesses in particular are deterred by the potential costs. He does not provide any evidence to support this contention. My understanding is that surveys of businesses suggest they would take on more staff if no fault dismissal was introduced but studies comparing actual outcomes in various countries (very difficult due to all the variables involved) suggest that it would have little or no effect.

Oh, and many employment lawyers think that putting the qualifying period for unfair dismissal back up to 2 years will have little or no effect on the number of tribunal cases. They expect we will see more cases for discrimination or on the grounds that the dismissal was automatically unfair.