Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Dave Beans

Lord Young - Small Firms Should Be Able To "sack At Will"..

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325791/Lord-Young-Small-firms-free-will.html

Companies should be able to fire staff more easily, one of the Coalition’s key advisers said yesterday. Lord Young, who served as Employment Secretary under Margaret Thatcher, said firms were reluctant to create jobs because it was too difficult to get rid of staff. The peer has been asked by the Prime Minister to come up with a ‘brutally honest’ report on how to overturn the ‘institutional bias’ against small businesses.

But he also favours freeing up firms from the layers of red tape imposed over the past two decades. He said yesterday: ‘Back in the early 1980s, when we had very extensive employment protection, we took it away and as a result employment went up. Firms are inhibited from taking people on if it’s too difficult to let them go if things get tough.’

The peer also took a swipe at government plans to force all employers to pay into pension plans.

He said: ‘Things that big companies take in their stride, small companies find difficult.’ His intervention came as the Government announced a range of measures to provide a lifeline to Britain’s 4.8 million small firms – including extending a loan guarantee scheme. David Cameron admitted that it was difficult to find ways to get banks to lend.

‘You can go for lending agreements with the banks. The trouble is, what I find with lending agreements is that they will promise to do a certain amount of lending to one sector, but they’ll shrink it somewhere else,’ he said on a visit to a business park in Hertfordshire. The measures where unveiled by Business Secretary Vince Cable, Business Minister Mark Prisk and Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude. Ministers are also considering a fee for employment tribunals to deter opportunistic claims.

And the Government wants to double the length of time employees have to work for a firm before they make a claim against their bosses, from one year to two. Industry groups welcomed the measures. David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said: ‘The Government’s move to bring together policies to support smaller businesses will be seen as a vote of confidence by the firms that really drive the UK economy.

‘We are pleased that the Government has committed to extending the Enterprise Finance Guarantee, which has helped many businesses secure the working capital they need.

‘Moves to simplify public sector procurement processes will also be welcomed.’

Meanwhile, a government contractor who triggered ministerial fury by demanding cashback from smaller suppliers yesterday relented. Serco, an outsourcing firm which runs nuclear facilities, prisons and schools, has scrapped plans to pass on the Government’s spending cuts to its small contractors. Serco’s finance director, Andrew Jenner, sent out a letter to the contractor’s top 200 suppliers, asking them to offer the firm a 2.5 per cent rebate.

Edited by Dave Beans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats fine as long POLICE are provided to protect employees.

This is one sided enough....

If the person is useless...document and be prepared to prove it.

if its a spiteful sacking...be prepared to suffer a consequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the same Lord Young that can never be sacked from his 'job' (and expenses) in the House of Lords?

Who created the skewed playing field in favour of his global corporatist chums in the first place?

You had your chance matey, you sold off our assets, deregulated the financial system and turned the entire country into a greedy bankstering hedge fund.

Retire yourself so you can't do any more harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one sided enough....

If the person is useless...document and be prepared to prove it.

One sided ? Yes, in favour of employees, massively.

If an employer decides thinks a member of staff isn't pulling their weight, first the employer has to investigate the matter, then write to the employee laying out in detail their concerns, provide evidence and invite them to a disciplinary hearing.

Hearing takes place, evidence is presented again, the employee gets to give their side of the story. The employer then has to go away, make a judgement then write to the employee with their findings and the outcome of the meeting.

If the employee isn't happy at this outcome, they have the right to appeal and have the case heard by a superior, or in the case of a small company an independent tribunal (at the employers expense). The employment barrister will then write to the employer, and employee asking them to provide more evidence, and then they'll visit the premises and conduct another hearing. Then, the barrister will make their findings known to the employer and employee. Even if found in favour of the employer they still foot the bill (usually at least £1000). I know first hand, since I had an accounts lady who didn't post a single item into the accounts software for 3 months straight and couldn't justify why, and made me jump through those hoops to expedite the matter. The barrister we had to call in was at a complete loss why this employee had challenged the original disciplinary decision, it was so black + white.

If an employee decides they don't want to work for a company, they can just get out of their chair, walk out of the office never to return. Sure, they have a contract, but except in very rare circumstances will the employer hold them to it (and even less chance of receiving compensation for their loss).

Large companies have the capacity to deal with all this red tape, but small firms (as per the subject of this conversation) simply don't, and it can be very expensive (relatively) and hugely time consuming.

Yeah, the downtrodden workers, I feel for them. <_<

Edited by exiges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there's me thinking risk taking attracted high rewards :rolleyes:

How about employers taking the responsibility for hiring the incompetent in the first place?!? But then how can this happen when every single private sector employer is a super human wealth creator? These guys don't make such mistakes surely!? So why create more state legislation to protect them from… themselves?

Edited by PopGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One sided ? Yes, in favour of employees, massively.

If an employer decides thinks a member of staff isn't pulling their weight, first the employer has to investigate the matter, then write to the employee laying out in detail their concerns, provide evidence and invite them to a hearing.

Hearing takes place, evidence is presented again, the employee gets to give their side of the story. The employer then has to go away, make a judgement then write to the employee with their findings and the outcome of the meeting.

If the employee isn't happy at this outcome, they have the right to appeal and have the case heard by a superior, or in the case of a small company an independent tribunal (at the employers expense). The employment barrister will then write to the employer, and employee asking them to provide more evidence, and then they'll visit the premises and conduct another hearing. Then, the barrister will make their findings known to the employer and employee. Even if found in favour of the employer they still foot the bill (usually at least £1000). I know first hand, since I had an accounts lady who didn't post a single item into the accounts software for 3 months straight and couldn't justify why, and made me jump through those hoops to expedite the matter.

If an employee decides they don't want to work for a company, they can just get out of their chair, walk out of the office never to return. Sure, they have a contract, but except in very rare circumstances will the employer hold them to it (and even less chance of receiving compensation for their loss).

Yeah, the downtrodden workers, I feel for them. <_<

you are assuming a top notch employer.

A small business can sack anyone for any reason they choose up to 2 years.

An unscrupulous or poor employer will hound people out.

its up to the employee to fund the appeal, provide the evidence and then theyll get a couple of grand, no job and all the hassle.

Mrs Loo was very much bullied by her new boss....joining a union and reminding the employer of common courtesy ( the Bloo Loo Way) has fixed it a bit. But there is NO procedure to fix this amicably..the employer has all the cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One sided ? Yes, in favour of employees, massively.

If an employer decides thinks a member of staff isn't pulling their weight, first the employer has to investigate the matter, then write to the employee laying out in detail their concerns, provide evidence and invite them to a disciplinary hearing.

Hearing takes place, evidence is presented again, the employee gets to give their side of the story. The employer then has to go away, make a judgement then write to the employee with their findings and the outcome of the meeting.

If the employee isn't happy at this outcome, they have the right to appeal and have the case heard by a superior, or in the case of a small company an independent tribunal (at the employers expense). The employment barrister will then write to the employer, and employee asking them to provide more evidence, and then they'll visit the premises and conduct another hearing. Then, the barrister will make their findings known to the employer and employee. Even if found in favour of the employer they still foot the bill (usually at least £1000). I know first hand, since I had an accounts lady who didn't post a single item into the accounts software for 3 months straight and couldn't justify why, and made me jump through those hoops to expedite the matter. The barrister we had to call in was at a complete loss why this employee had challenged the original disciplinary decision, it was so black + white.

If an employee decides they don't want to work for a company, they can just get out of their chair, walk out of the office never to return. Sure, they have a contract, but except in very rare circumstances will the employer hold them to it (and even less chance of receiving compensation for their loss).

Large companies have the capacity to deal with all this red tape, but small firms (as per the subject of this conversation) simply don't, and it can be very expensive (relatively) and hugely time consuming.

Yeah, the downtrodden workers, I feel for them. <_<

Maybe you should brush up on your management skills then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should brush up on your management skills then.

Typical abdication of responsibility post.

If the staff are rubbish that must be because of a failing in management. <_<

Edited by exiges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the same Lord Young that can never be sacked from his 'job' (and expenses) in the House of Lords?

I'm glad i'm not the only one who spotted that irony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats fine as long POLICE are provided to protect employees.

This is one sided enough....

If the person is useless...document and be prepared to prove it.

if its a spiteful sacking...be prepared to suffer a consequence.

Sure...as long as SME employer get legal aid and free state sponsored HR and HSE advice to deal with that...

Think most SME have enough government forms and tax/vat returns to deal with that to deal with more paper work in order to

fire somebody. If the worker adds value, it will be crazy for the employer to fire him/her to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical abdication of responsibility post.

If the staff are rubbish that must be because of a failing in management. <_<

Can be either, or both.

A good manager would give some "friendly advice" before even thinking about going down the officall warning route. Or do you prefer your staff nervous and agitated?

So you think the state should protect you from bad employees then? What was that about abdication of responsibility again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if you have ever worked for an agency, but the work is called precarious work for a reason. It is very easy for them to get rid of staff, and lots of large companies employ a percentage of their workforce through agencies nowadays so they can treat their workforce like a warehouse inventory of a 3PL company using JIT to maximise profit and use the minimum amount of labour required.

Now this is all well and good from the business point of view.

However, the staff aren't very keen on this policy and soon quit. In the long term its going to damage your business, as the best staff leave or just tell you to f off and walk out, whilst you have a constant trickle of non English migrants coming through the door of diminishing quality.

I'm not saying you should have employees holding up a company to ransom, and we constantly hear in the media of silly coont using equality laws to get compensation from a job they were probably never very god at. But we don't want employees being treated like a a batch of low quality smart price goods for your local Walmasda.

I'll tell you what it stopping people start a business. As I'm contemplating starting one. Hundreds upon hundreds of pages of law and bureaucracy. And massive investment of capital.

If I want to start a small brewery (up to 5000HL pa) and take advantage of progressive beer tax, I'm going to need to employ a lawyer, accountant, a few manual labourers, maybe a chemist, security guard, general form fillers and sales staff. I'm going to need to rent a large warehouse, pay through the nose for water, electric, business rates, equipment and stock.

I'm on the bloody dole, I have nothing, I'm from a poor background and starting out in life, and the only help they give you at the job centre, is the ability to speak to someone over the phone who will then email you the laws on taxation, you reply by email requesting further information and then they ring you, you miss the call, because your 10 days into the fortnight and the £100 to last the fortnight has been decimated by food, gas, portion of council tax, portion of rent, electricity, stamps, you can't afford to ring back till giro day. But all you want is further information sent via email.

Why not reply by bloody email?

Then the more you think about it, you think and realise your better off emigrating to a less restrictive country, making a product there and then exporting it to UK plc.

I can brew some good beer, and I like to drink it, I'm a bloke. I could easily do it to make money, but not when I have to legally calculate the duty at every single point of the process and have a license for every part of the process and premises on which it is carried out. You need about 5 bean counters to make a few beans.

People will revert to drinking black beer as start up breweries favour it due to duty reasons.

For what it is worth, I might aswell to continue to sign on and grow a bit of weed, £1000 start up and £4000 every 3 months. No bureaucracy involved, just a 2nd hand sawn of shotgun stolen in a farm burglary for security purposes. And I can continue claiming the dole, housing and council tax benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be all very well if all employers were paragons of virtue. However, they're not.

You need a job. So if your employer wants to bully you, make you work unpaid overtime, grope you, etc, you'll have to put up with it or be sacked for being 'incompetent'.

Or you could resign and try for one of the thousands of vacancies that apparently will be out there. That'll work.

Would you like your husband, wife, brother, sister, mother, father, son or daughter to be in that situation? Would you like it yourself?

Edit: missed bits

Edited by Snugglybear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good manager would give some "friendly advice" before even thinking about going down the officall warning route.

I agree. What makes you think that didn't happen ?

I don't think the state should protect employers from bad employees, I'm saying that rights and protection are stacked massively in the favour of employees.

Again, to repeat, in the case of small companies with perhaps 2-3 employees we're not talking about organisations with the capacity for that kind of financial/time distraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One sided ? Yes, in favour of employees, massively.

If an employer decides thinks a member of staff isn't pulling their weight, first the employer has to investigate the matter, then write to the employee laying out in detail their concerns, provide evidence and invite them to a disciplinary hearing.

Hearing takes place, evidence is presented again, the employee gets to give their side of the story. The employer then has to go away, make a judgement then write to the employee with their findings and the outcome of the meeting.

If the employee isn't happy at this outcome, they have the right to appeal and have the case heard by a superior, or in the case of a small company an independent tribunal (at the employers expense). The employment barrister will then write to the employer, and employee asking them to provide more evidence, and then they'll visit the premises and conduct another hearing. Then, the barrister will make their findings known to the employer and employee. Even if found in favour of the employer they still foot the bill (usually at least £1000). I know first hand, since I had an accounts lady who didn't post a single item into the accounts software for 3 months straight and couldn't justify why, and made me jump through those hoops to expedite the matter. The barrister we had to call in was at a complete loss why this employee had challenged the original disciplinary decision, it was so black + white.

If an employee decides they don't want to work for a company, they can just get out of their chair, walk out of the office never to return. Sure, they have a contract, but except in very rare circumstances will the employer hold them to it (and even less chance of receiving compensation for their loss).

Large companies have the capacity to deal with all this red tape, but small firms (as per the subject of this conversation) simply don't, and it can be very expensive (relatively) and hugely time consuming.

Yeah, the downtrodden workers, I feel for them. <_<

This thread is ******. I have worked at a few places where their attitude towards recruitment of staff is somewhat akin to a kid in a sweet shop.

I would suggest that this flimsy example of someone fundamentally not doing their job flags up faults in the day to day management and you (your company's) interviewing process, perhaps you should look at that before wanting to erode the somewhat pathetic safeguards employees have in SMEs.

Without any union protection employees at SME get shafted, the excessive and unpaid hours, erosion of pay through freezes, the inconsistant whims of management - lets hire people who already have a job and get shot at a drop of a hat if the work doesn't come off/client goes elsewhere, piss all pension provision. Work somewhere for 9 years and get 9 weeks pay if kicked out.

Your post is a joke.

Edited by Brave New World

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is ******. I have worked at a few places where their attitude towards recruitment of staff is somewhat akin to a kid in a sweet shop.

I would suggest that this flimsy example of someone fundamentally not doing their job flags up faults in the day to day management and you (your company's) interviewing process, perhaps you should look at that before wanting to erode the somewhat pathetic safeguards employees have in SMEs.

Without any union protection employees at SME get shafted, the excessive and unpaid hours, erosion of pay through freezes, the inconsistant whims of management - lets hire people who already have a job and get shot at a drop of a hat if the work doesn't come off/client goes elsewhere, piss all pension provision. Work somewhere for 9 years and get 9 weeks pay if kicked out.

Your post is a joke.

Plus the 9 years wages ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that this flimsy example of someone fundamentally not doing their job flags up faults in the day to day management and you (your company's) interviewing process, perhaps you should look at that before wanting to erode the somewhat pathetic safeguards employees have in SMEs.

So someone interviews well, they're intially good at what they do, but they have personal problems at home, and turn to drink, and become useless in the workplace.

How would interviewing them have prevented that ? How would day-to-day management make them more effective in their work ?

The naivety and assumptions made in this thread are sad, but not all that surprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure...as long as SME employer get legal aid and free state sponsored HR and HSE advice to deal with that...

Think most SME have enough government forms and tax/vat returns to deal with that to deal with more paper work in order to

fire somebody. If the worker adds value, it will be crazy for the employer to fire him/her to begin with.

that agrees with my point...there is no-one you can call to help either side...no POLICE in the workplace.

Its one area where an inspector could be useful....would need to be better trained than thousands of no smoking enforcement officers, but really, If a constable can be expected to make arrest decisions and start a prosecution file after 10 weeks induction and then help from managers, then thats all that would be needed for an employment workplace Police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. What makes you think that didn't happen ?

I don't think the state should protect employers from bad employees, I'm saying that rights and protection are stacked massively in the favour of employees.

Again, to repeat, in the case of small companies with perhaps 2-3 employees we're not talking about organisations with the capacity for that kind of financial/time distraction.

I do understand your point of view, however you must realise that not all employers are like yourself and able to adequately police themselves. Otherwise these laws would never have been needed in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So someone interviews well, they're intially good at what they do, but they have personal problems at home, and turn to drink, and become useless in the workplace.

How would interviewing them have prevented that ? How would day-to-day management make them more effective in their work ?

The naivety and assumptions made in this thread are sad, but not all that surprising.

Ah but what happens when the employer develops problems at home, indulges in alcoholism, loses the plot/client base, and is next to useless etc etc?

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So someone interviews well, they're intially good at what they do, but they have personal problems at home, and turn to drink, and become useless in the workplace.

How would interviewing them have prevented that ? How would day-to-day management make them more effective in their work ?

The naivety and assumptions made in this thread are sad, but not all that surprising.

Err day to day management would show that she was not doing a fundamental aspect of her job and sought the reasons why in a timely manner, and i must have missed the point where uk plc became a a gordon gecho-esque pantheon of US hire and fire 'em culture...............a culture which is on its ****, or will you enlighten me Exige in some US corporate bounce that i have some how missed?

All the original stiff in the lords is promoting is further erosion of employee rights at time when boardroom profit is soaring, a duty of care to employee's nah screw that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Err day to day management would show that she was not doing a fundamental aspect of her job and sought the reasons why in a timely manner, and i must have missed the point where uk plc became a a gordon gecho-esque pantheon of US hire and fire 'em culture...............a culture which is on its ****, or will you enlighten me Exige in some US corporate bounce that i have some how missed?

All the original stiff in the lords is promoting is further erosion of employee rights at time when boardroom profit is soaring, a duty of care to employee's nah screw that.

Very small companies don't have the time, or resources, for that sort of large company clap trap. It's just the MD/owner flying by the seat of his pants whilst answering the telephone, generating the paperwork and working for HMRC sorting out PAYE and NI deductions and payments. If an employee is useful, they stay, if not they must go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can only go to a tribunal after you have been employed 12 months unless its for reasons of sex or racial discrimination which has no 'length of service entry point'.

Therefore all the arguments about bad hires etc are moot, if you don;t know in a year then its your own performance that needs looked at. Employees need protection from poor employers and employers need protection from poor employees. A robust review process before any sacking doesn't take up that much effort for any business....statutory redundancy payments are around 250-300 per year of employment plus pay in lieu of notice. UK employment law is very very weak in comparison to most of Europe.

This story is BS and a reduction in rights will actually lead to a net loss of Jobs as corporations will always sack in the easiest place......

Edited by abroad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Err day to day management would show that she was not doing a fundamental aspect of her job and sought the reasons why in a timely manner

Some things are beyond the control of the employer.

.. when boardroom profit is soaring

You're confusing large FTSE companies with small companies (the topic of this thread).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 145 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.