Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Ash4781

Cbi Targets Employment Law

Recommended Posts

http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/news/d...loyment_law.php

Employers' body the Confederation of British Industry will today unveil plans to revolutionise employment rights by introducing an "alternative to redundancy" (ATR) scheme to get workers to stay at home in return for £128 a week.

The body has already briefed the government on the proposed scheme which would allow employers to place employees on an ATR register for up to six months.

During this period workers' contracts would be effectively frozen and they would receive the equivalent of job seekers' allowance, currently £64.30 a week for the over-25s, from the government, topped up by the same amount from the employer.

But the affected employees would not be eligible for other support, such as Housing Benefit and Council Tax bene- fit, typically received by the formally unemployed.

Crucially, during this period the employer could decide to make the workers redundant with just four weeks' notice no matter their contractual notice period.

There would also be an incentive for a worker to seek other work if they are only receiving the equivalent of a £6687 annual salary, thus freeing the employer from making redundancy payments.

CBI deputy director-general John Cridland said the measures were intended to soften the impending rise in joblessness and allow com-panies to retain skilled staff so they could participate in the later economic upturn.

"It is a scheme designed for people who frankly have reached the end of the road unless things improve very rapidly.

"It should avoid short periods of unemployment. The worst thing I think is when a business needs to let somebody go because they have run out of cash and then recruits them again three months later."

He added: "It is not revoking (workers') employment rights. They will get their redundancy if that is the stage things reach. It is suspending the employment contract."

The CBI envisages that employees will be offered ATR as an alternative to standard redundancy proceedings.

The plan would require legal changes because it involves the suspension of employment contracts and the CBI believes it would need to be implemented by the autumn to have an impact before unemployment is expected to peak in the second quarter of next year.

But unions are sceptical. Trades Union Congress general secretary Brendan Barber said: "There will be worries about whether employees who took up this option could end up losing redundancy rights and the big cut in income they will face, without any cushioning redundancy pay for the first six months.

"It is also better to keep people in work and training with their employer even if on short-term working, rather than sitting at home, which is why unions and other employer groups are campaigning for the kind of wage subsidies that are now common in the rest of Europe."

The CBI says the UK Government cannot afford wage subsidies and they are hard to direct at viable companies.

On top of the ATR plan, the group also wants the consultation period for orthodox redundancy proceedings cut from the current 90 days for those employers with more than 100 staff.

But Barber said "The 90-day period provides the opportunity to explore alternatives to redundancy and can both help keep workers in jobs and make businesses better prepared for an upturn."

The CBI made a further call for a pull-back in employment regulations which it claimed had cost businesses an additional £73bn since 1998.

Among the measures it highlighted for potential cost-cutting were maternity leave regulations, the right to request flexible working and the national minimum wage.

Barber said: "People are losing their jobs not because they have gained some modest rights in recent years, but because we are going through a deep recession caused by a breakdown in the financial system caused by out-of- control banks."

The CBI was unable to confirm what impact its plans might have on unemployment levels.

Cridland said: "We do not make claims that this would have a huge impact on unemployment numbers but I think it could be key to particular groups of workers in particular businesses."

Blimey :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Employee's should not accept suspension of contracts of employments. These shouldn't be chopped and change at the whim of the employer. They play fast and loose as it is. And certainly not for a crappy £128 p/w and no other form of support! :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Employee's should not accept suspension of contracts of employments. These shouldn't be chopped and change at the whim of the employer. They play fast and loose as it is. And certainly not for a crappy £128 p/w and no other form of support! :angry:

You obviously haven't seen Traktion's argument - he'd tell you £50 a week is enough to live on here. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone remember when the CBI raised concerns that executive pay was getting out of control and something needed to be done to close the ever widening gap between the income of the top 5% and the rest of population?

No, neither do I. :lol:

The CBI also predicted that if a minumum wage was ever introduced, the river thames would turn to blood and cats and dogs would rain from the sky- or something like that.

As far as I can discern this organisation only has one policy- allow the employers to do whatever they like at all times, otherwise civilisation will fall into the abyss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't see this backfiring at all.

Loads of companies who really had no intention to make redundancies use this put to fallow staff just to improve the profits a bit. Besides, only a tiny fraction of the working population could actually survive under such circumstances, unemployment in all but name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.....................My Engineering company is not busy.............will watch this one closely

Thanks Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
During this period workers' contracts would be effectively frozen and they would receive the equivalent of job seekers' allowance, currently £64.30 a week for the over-25s, from the government, topped up by the same amount from the employer.

But the affected employees would not be eligible for other support, such as Housing Benefit and Council Tax bene- fit, typically received by the formally unemployed.

-=Logic error=-

Benefits > than topup.

Edited by Tom Peters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

It's all about hope, unemployed people will hope they can find a job then get immediately fired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Besides, only a tiny fraction of the working population could actually survive under such circumstances, unemployment in all but name.

Surely it's worse than unemployment?

If you're unemployed you can claim housing benefit, mortgage payments, etc, which will amount to significantly more than 128 pounds a week. If the company put you onto this scheme you can't afford to live, so before long you'll have to resign: which means the company won't have to pay you redundancy and the government won't have to pay you benefits.

Seems like a brilliant plan for the government and business fat-cats, but lousy for the workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
Seems like a brilliant plan for the government and business fat-cats, but lousy for the workers.

It turns the entire unemployed into a pool of casual shift workers that can be called up at any time then instantly demobilised at no cost. Basically a "just in time" system for labour, the private labour force will work on a contract limbo similar to the crooks that are controlled by the Gangmasters Licencing Authority.

Edited by sillybear2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It turns the entire unemployed into a pool of casual shift workers that can be called up at any time then instantly demobilised at no cost. Basically a "just in time" system for labour, the private labour force will work on a contract limbo similar to the crooks controlled by the Gangmasters Licencing Authority.

Sounds a fantastic thing for those hawking 25 years future income in the form of a mortgage, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely it's worse than unemployment?

If you're unemployed you can claim housing benefit, mortgage payments, etc, which will amount to significantly more than 128 pounds a week. If the company put you onto this scheme you can't afford to live, so before long you'll have to resign: which means the company won't have to pay you redundancy and the government won't have to pay you benefits.

Seems like a brilliant plan for the government and business fat-cats, but lousy for the workers.

Correct.

Almost constructive dismissal, as many employees would have no choice in finding other work or ?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
Sounds a fantastic thing for those hawking 25 years future income in the form of a mortgage, doesn't it?

Indeed, job insecurity and high debts go hand in hand, best to tax them hard and destroy the private pension system too :ph34r:

This is basically the employment law equivalent of 'Assured Shorthold Tenancies' a system of "never really hire, never really fire".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely it's worse than unemployment?

Only if you're sensible enough not to have savings

If you're unemployed you can claim housing benefit, mortgage payments, etc, which will amount to significantly more than 128 pounds a week.

I can't i have savings.

Seems like a brilliant plan for the government and business fat-cats, but lousy for the workers.

It would work pretty well for me, but i'd hate it to come in at the expense of others.

Edited by slurms mackenzie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
******ing with contracts is pure poison.

That's exactly what employment law statutes do.

Collective bargaining independent of government is the ideal.

Overall, UK workers are going to have to compete with Asia. No way around it, short of trade barriers.

Either way, the debt society is doomed.

Edited by okaycuckoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
Only if you're sensible enough not to have savings

Indeed, but only an idiot would have savings, the state requires you to maintain a negative savings rate (i.e. debt) to artificially prop up demand, it's your duty as a citizen. People with private means have a semblance of security, we cannot have that, we need desperate people always willing to sell their labour at the lowest price possible. Citizens need to look at their regular utility and council tax bills and constantly ask themselves "how am I going to pay this?", ideally if these bills could double so would the incentive!

Edited by sillybear2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realise that if you are in a final salary pension scheme, not only do your wages get whacked, but your pension gets hit also.

If you are nearing retirement you get double whammied.

Don't forget, most final salary pensions are an average of your last 3 years employment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For many people it would be better to quit their jobs immediately.

Certainly for those renting, HB + CT benefit + JSA might equal 250 per week on average, a good deal better than 128.

For those with a mortgage? They should have known better....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
You do realise that if you are in a final salary pension scheme, not only do your wages get whacked, but your pension gets hit also.

Don't worry, those things only exist in history books. A decent hard working citizen dies doing the work he loves, selflessly avoiding any expensive capital equipment as he drops, thus avoiding the need to halt production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For many people it would be better to quit their jobs immediately.

Certainly for those renting, HB + CT benefit + JSA might equal 250 per week on average, a good deal better than 128.

don't think you get any allowances if you voluntarily leave your job, certainly for some months - has to be enforced

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
don't think you get any allowances if you voluntarily leave your job, certainly for some months - has to be enforced

If you make yourself unemployed (leave a job without good reason) you forfeit access to benefits for 5 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds quite good on one proviso - after the 6 months is up you get a choice - take the job back or get normal redundancy. £554 a month income for 6 months for taking a holiday and looking for another job would suite me just fine should it come to that - better than redundancy at 2 weeks notice and then nothing (I'm single with >£16k savings so would get nothing).

If after the six months you can't find another job you're no worse off than you were before - at least you got double the JSA for 6 months. If you get the job back then bonus, if not you'll get redundancy anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   289 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.