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

[abroad]

I too had a "fat cat" view of my employers when I was an employee. Driving around in their fancy cars, paying themselves a big wage while I "did all the work".

However, I wonder how many of you would retain your idealistic views after starting up your own business, managing employees. Not many, but it's easy to pretend otherwise without having done it.

Nice car the exige;)

[cock-eyed octopus]

Always had a problem with the whole employer/employee thing. I've never understood why someone who pays me money for doing a job should be expected to do so whether the work is there or not.

I've been self-employed (agency, after the government changed the rules) most of my working life, & it always made sense to me. I knew I could be out of a job at any time, so I built up a cash reservoir to tide me over lean times.

[dubsie]

Same old excuses from tired badly run British companies. Are we honestly meant to believe that employers would employ more people if they relax the rules on redundancy.

They will just employ people just for the hell of it but as long as they can sack them that's fine.

France and Germany have some of the tightest employment laws in the world but they manage to be more productive and successful. I think these companies need to take a long hard look at how they are running things before they start blaming the staff.

This country is going down the pan, time to leave for Europe.

[Bruce Banner]

Always had a problem with the whole employer/employee thing. I've never understood why someone who pays me money for doing a job should be expected to do so whether the work is there or not.

I've been self-employed (agency, after the government changed the rules) most of my working life, & it always made sense to me. I knew I could be out of a job at any time, so I built up a cash reservoir to tide me over lean times.

It makes sense, within reason, particularly in a small company, to keep your key staff even if you have no work, as without them you could not do the work when some comes in.

A company with four employees can't lay off 10% of the workforce when work dries up, it's 25% or nothing.

Agency workers are a possibility, but I found most agencies to be self serving and unreliable. I had agency workers who hadn't a clue how to do the work they were supposed to be expert in, one even hid some of his failed attempts in his toolbox.

[Shmoo]

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

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.

I don't know where you are getting your legal advice, but as an employment solicitor I can tell you that there's no way a small firm should have a barrister hearing an appeal. that wouldn't be expect of a multinational company.

Your post in no way reflects the reality of small companies dealing with disciplinary hearings.

[Injin]

It makes sense, within reason, particularly in a small company, to keep your key staff even if you have no work, as without them you could not do the work when some comes in.

A company with four employees can't lay off 10% of the workforce when work dries up, it's 25% or nothing.

Agency workers are a possibility, but I found most agencies to be self serving and unreliable. I had agency workers who hadn't a clue how to do the work they were supposed to be expert in, one even hid some of his failed attempts in his toolbox.

As it's not a long term relationship, it's pretty much the same profit to fake it as to be capable.

That's one of the reason the long standing employee relationship occured in the first place.

[Bruce Banner]

When the rewards and responsibilities are handed out equally, then treat it as a partnership, otherwise gtfo.

What a good idea, all the partners can sit down and have a meeting to decide what to do every time a decision needs to be made .

[Injin]

What a good idea, all the partners can sit down and have a meeting to decide what to do every time a decision needs to be made .

Oh no, the partners can allocate one of their number to make decisions. Perhaps that can be why he gets paid his share.

There is zero reason bar exploitation I can see why a long term relationship would be anything other than partnership.

[Bruce Banner]

Oh no, the partners can allocate one of their number to make decisions. Perhaps that can be why he gets paid his share.

There is zero reason bar exploitation I can see why a long term relationship would be anything other than partnership.

Did you hear that the wall came down years ago, communism is dead, thank God.

[OnionTerror]

Oh no, the partners can allocate one of their number to make decisions. Perhaps that can be why he gets paid his share.

There is zero reason bar exploitation I can see why a long term relationship would be anything other than partnership.

...or a co-operative?

[ken_ichikawa]

Did you hear that the wall came down years ago, communism is dead, thank God.

Nah communisn didn't die.... It just hid for a while and came back.

[Injin]

Did you hear that the wall came down years ago, communism is dead, thank God.

I'll take this irrelevency as proof you've either got no argument to make or have already admitted to yourself that you are going to lose it.

[CrashedOutAndBurned]

It all comes down to high house prices. No, really.

Employees mortgage themselves to the hilt and have to continue in jobs they can´t stand-

With low living costs employers would need to provide better incentives rather rely on grudging loyalty from mortgage slaves... and if it was just not working out employees would leave before they were pushed, everyone a winner.

[Injin]

...or a co-operative?

Theres something wrong with a situation where you can offer people a crap, one sided deal and they'll take it.

As we know, it's all those taxes to pay and that fiat money to use that make it. Sadly, people like Brucey Bonus here are doing alright out of the way things are and so don't want to look at it objectively or logically.

[Nickolarge]

Typical abdication of responsibility post.

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

What would you call it? Successful management?

[Injin]

It all comes down to high house prices. No, really.

Employees mortgage themselves to the hilt and have to continue in jobs they can´t stand-

With low living costs employers would need to provide better incentives rather rely on grudging loyalty from mortgage slaves... and if it was just not working out employees would leave before they were pushed, everyone a winner.

Exactly

With equivalency of costs, then it'd be fair working relationships (read partnerships for longer term stuff) or gtfo.

[Bruce Banner]

I'll take this irrelevency as proof you've either got no argument to make or have already admitted to yourself that you are going to lose it.

I can't be bothered to spend the whole night arguing with the you. It's pointless, you are a communist and I am a capitalist, we will never agree, goodnight.

[Injin]

I can't be bothered to spend the whole night arguing with the you. It's pointless, you are a communist and I am a capitalist, we will never agree, goodnight.

No, you are a facist and I am a free market capitalist.

The problem you have with talking to me is that you don't get to keep the lie that you are all about the freedom if you do.

Good night. Come on back if you grow a pair.

[cock-eyed octopus]

It makes sense, within reason, particularly in a small company, to keep your key staff even if you have no work, as without them you could not do the work when some comes in.

A company with four employees can't lay off 10% of the workforce when work dries up, it's 25% or nothing.

Agency workers are a possibility, but I found most agencies to be self serving and unreliable. I had agency workers who hadn't a clue how to do the work they were supposed to be expert in, one even hid some of his failed attempts in his toolbox.

So, presumably, you sacked them? That would be logical & surely correct.

I came to the conclusion that most of the firms I worked for needed a core staff of employees to preserve the expertise & a floating pool of contractors they could hire & fire as necessary. Not perfect (nothing is), but it gives the company a chance of flexibility.

Also sometimes a contractor can prove his worth & be persuaded to go on the payroll; much better than couple of hours interview.

[shipbuilder]

I can't be bothered to spend the whole night arguing with the you. It's pointless, you are a communist and I am a capitalist, we will never agree, goodnight.

Imagine I didn't have to work. (Assuming you aren't retired) What could your business offer me as an employee? Why would I work for you? Sell me one of your jobs.

[Charlie The Tramp Returns]

The reason I retired from my business as a partner was I found I was working for the Inspection Body we were forced to join, forced to comply with European Directives, and fight tooth and nail with Insurance Companies who did not like small Companies, although we had the same technical competence as the big Companies. Prior to all this claptrap we were a very successful Company earning great profits, more efficient, and highly recommended. The cost of qualifying for the inspection body obtaining ISO 9002, paying for inspections of the company by a invisible bodies sitting in an office, a day of in house inspections conducted by an inspector who had never worked in my industry at a cost of £40k for the set up with annual fees of £3k.

It got to the stage where 2 Employees were earning more than myself and my business Partner. S*d that for a game of soldiers, goodbye said I for a peaceful life in retirement.

BTW we had some great contracts with very well known Companies, both in the Financial Sector, Utilities, very rich individuals, and foreign CEOs of their companies with branches in London.

Nah communisn didn't die.... It just hid for a while and came back.

Many sitting now in the EU Commission and Parliament with The European Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso, forgetting his past as the Leader of the Maoist Party in Portugal until the People`s Republic of China cut off their funding.

[sammysnake]

A happy workforce is a productive workforce

It simply amazes me that company bosses believe that by placing unreasonable demands, and expecting employee's to do unpaid overtime, and reduced salaries due to the "credit crunch" will help morale, thus increase happiness and loyalty?

Sorry, it's been far to one sided with employers of late. 99% of people will do a fair days work a fair days pay, life of Brian style.

[Nickolarge]

The arrogance of youth, if you don't understand, attack .

I don't own a company now, I sold it in 2008 and retired .

The arrogance of a typical old git

The presumption that age and experience is everything and that anyone who disagrees doesn't understand.

On the subject of experience, you only have to look at most car drivers over a certain age to determine whether experience alone makes you an expert.

[Charlie The Tramp Returns]

On the subject of experience, you only have to look at most car drivers over a certain age to determine whether experience alone makes you an expert.

Being colour blind and driving for 50 years I have always got by at traffic lights by noticing which light was the brightest.

I did at first get confused at level crossing lights flashing red alternatively until I realised I had a second to drive through between the flashes.

Going for a voluntary Driving Test next month and hope the Examiner does not jump out my car as the last one did.

The reason I love my boat, no traffic lights, level crossings or zebra crossings, never saw that Coaster when I hit it, should not have been showing 3 different coloured lights at the same time. :angry:

[Bruce Banner]

So, presumably, you sacked them? That would be logical & surely correct.

I came to the conclusion that most of the firms I worked for needed a core staff of employees to preserve the expertise & a floating pool of contractors they could hire & fire as necessary. Not perfect (nothing is), but it gives the company a chance of flexibility.

Also sometimes a contractor can prove his worth & be persuaded to go on the payroll; much better than couple of hours interview.

I never used agencies again after that, there were a few good self employed people that I did use occasionally, but never agencies.