Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Mr. Miyagi

Firms Get Powers To Sack The Slackers

Recommended Posts

The new “employers’ charter” will allow companies to sack workers during the first two years of their employment without the threat of being taken to a tribunal for unfair dismissal.

Currently an employee can bring an unfair dismissal claim after only a year.

To reduce the number of vexatious allegations, workers will face a fee when lodging an employment tribunal claim.

The Daily Telegraph can disclose that the Government is also launching a review that is likely to see small companies excluded from some stringent employment laws. The length of time that firms have to pay workers statutory sick pay is set to be reduced as part of the shake-up.

David Cameron hopes that relaxed employment laws will help to boost the private sector and encourage firms to take on thousands of new workers.

Downing Street will host a jobs summit on Monday at which some of the biggest employers – including Tesco, McDonalds, Microsoft and Shell — will promise to take on thousands of recruits and create apprenticeships for school leavers.

The issue of jobs is likely to dominate the first day of the new parliamentary session as MPs return after the holiday recess.

The Coalition will try to focus on its plans for economic growth, rather than public spending cuts.

Mr Cameron said: “We can only get our economy back on track by creating a climate in which the private sector can grow and develop, creating jobs and opportunities for people across the country. This year the Government is determined to help deliver many thousands of new jobs and I’m delighted that the companies joining me today are part of that.

“Across a whole range of areas you’re going to see the most pro-business, pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda ever unleashed by a government.

“It’s time we looked forward to a positive, strong, confident Britain. By developing the right skills and jobs I am determined that the many, not the few will share in the country’s prosperity.”

In total 19 major employers will attend today’s summit with other firms including Balfour Beatty, Centrica, Jaguar, Land Rover and Marks and Spencer.

Downing Street said the Prime Minister would talk to employers about “what more the Government can do to enable employers to get Britain working again”.

Currently workers can pursue a claim for unfair dismissal after a year of full-time employment.

This is expected to be increased to two years, a move that does not require new legislation.

A similar rise was introduced in the 1980s, leading to an increase in employment. The one-year limit was proposed in 1996 and enacted by the Labour government.

Claims for discrimination can be lodged after any term of employment.

Companies also have to pay statutory sick pay of at least £79.15 for up to 28 weeks to those unable to work. The period of payment by employers may be reduced in future.

Mr Cameron is expected to order a wider review of employment laws to slash the red tape for smaller companies.

These firms are seen as the key to securing the economic recovery and encouraging the next generation of entrepreneurs.

Many small and medium-sized firms complain that they are being hindered by employment rules introduced over the past decade.

Ministers are expected to contrast the “employers’ charter” with the European-led social charter introduced by Labour which boosted workers’ rights.

A Whitehall source said: “The thrust of the initiative is that to persuade companies to hire people we need to make it easier to fire those workers who aren’t up to the job, so there is less risk in taking on new people, especially the

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8249491/Firms-get-powers-to-sack-the-slackers.html

Classic Tory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely making it easier to employ people is a good thing?!

I would rather have a job where an employer can fire me than have no job at all.

I also like the idea of concessions for small businesses.. hope it goes through!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supermarket chain Morrisons says it will create 6,000 new jobs in 2011, with Tesco promising 9,000 and Sainsbury's 6,500. Asda has pledged to create 15,000 retail apprenticeships.

Since when did stacking shelves at a supermarket require an apprenticeship?

The world has gone mad,these people are demeaning the work of the skilled tradesman by requiring retail workers to do an 'apprenticeship'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did stacking shelves at a supermarket require an apprenticeship?'.

Making sure the beans have the labels facing the customer is a skill that takes years to master..get with the program

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did stacking shelves at a supermarket require an apprenticeship?

The world has gone mad,these people are demeaning the work of the skilled tradesman by requiring retail workers to do an 'apprenticeship'.

I totally agree. It's typical management BS Bingo being played out here. "Ooo, the Government wants lots of things called apprenticeships to help young people get into work who don't go to Uni and we need to be a part of this trend! I know, lets re-lable any under 20 getting a basic job with us as an apprentice and we can stick this big number of apprenticeships on all our marketing literature and look really good. Of course we'll do very little extra then what we did previously (no rotating round all the different departments and being trained up as a supervisor etc) but that doesn't matter, apprenticeships all the way, we've got to be seeing to do our bit!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did stacking shelves at a supermarket require an apprenticeship?

The world has gone mad,these people are demeaning the work of the skilled tradesman by requiring retail workers to do an 'apprenticeship'.

You think many "tradesmen" coming through today have done an apprenticeship?

5 day course from the back of the newspaper is more like it.

I'm sure the supermarkets will be eligible for lots of funding by using the word apprenticeship to describe their basic training procedures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a basic principle, employers - and especially larger ones - shouldn't just be allowed to sack someone just because they don't like them: if it is for 'slacking' or incompetence, they should be required to produce evidence of that. I do however agree with changing the employment tribunal system to discourage frivolous cases. One change I'd like to see is that when an employee takes their boss to an employment tribunal backed by a trade union, the union can be made liable for the entire costs, including defence costs and without limit, if it loses the case. I'm sure that would discourage a lot of public sector slackers who go straight to an employment tribunal with union backing whenever anyone tries to do anything about them, with the usual result that the employer pays up before it gets to the hearing in order to limit their costs. If the union knew that it could be facing a six-figure bill if it loses the case, it might think twice before starting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely making it easier to employ people is a good thing?!

I would rather have a job where an employer can fire me than have no job at all.

I also like the idea of concessions for small businesses.. hope it goes through!

+1. I'd also like to see the current upper limit (~£60k) for wrongful dismissal apply to age, sexual, racial discrimination, where's there's currently no limit.

Good to see the proposed small fee in advance of bringing claims, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree. It's typical management BS Bingo being played out here. "Ooo, the Government wants lots of things called apprenticeships to help young people get into work who don't go to Uni and we need to be a part of this trend! I know, lets re-lable any under 20 getting a basic job with us as an apprentice and we can stick this big number of apprenticeships on all our marketing literature and look really good. Of course we'll do very little extra then what we did previously (no rotating round all the different departments and being trained up as a supervisor etc) but that doesn't matter, apprenticeships all the way, we've got to be seeing to do our bit!"

Don't forget that if the job has been labelled an apprenticeship they are only required to pay a minimum wage of £2.50 an hour (£100 a week) to apprentices compared to £3.64 for 16-17 year old workers, £4.92 for 18-20 year olds and £5.93 for those 21+. They must truly be creating all these apprenticeships out of the kindest of their hearts.

Edited by rented

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

Don't forget that if the job has been labelled an apprenticeship they are only required to pay a minimum wage of £2.50 an hour (£100 a week) to apprentices compared to £3.64 for 16-17 year old workers, £4.92 for 18-20 year olds and £5.93 for those 21+. They must truly be creating all these apprenticeships out of the kindest of their hearts.

Hire someone on an apprenticeship at 2.50 an hour, at the end of the year fire them no questions asked, hire another apprentice = permanent workforce at 2.50 per hour. Lovely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not necessarily in favor of this, however we've all heard about the untouchables in the public sector who laze around all day, wouldn't it be nice to dispose of them?

Might be nice to but they're in the permanent job category and are expensive to get rid of. Better to ensure all the lower level (younger) workers can be endlessly fired and rotated every few months/years so that never becomes a problem again.

Surprised to not see anyone comment on this before - banks set to ask for over 2 years of wage slips in future before giving a mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a basic principle, employers - and especially larger ones - shouldn't just be allowed to sack someone just because they don't like them: if it is for 'slacking' or incompetence, they should be required to produce evidence of that. I do however agree with changing the employment tribunal system to discourage frivolous cases. One change I'd like to see is that when an employee takes their boss to an employment tribunal backed by a trade union, the union can be made liable for the entire costs, including defence costs and without limit, if it loses the case. I'm sure that would discourage a lot of public sector slackers who go straight to an employment tribunal with union backing whenever anyone tries to do anything about them, with the usual result that the employer pays up before it gets to the hearing in order to limit their costs. If the union knew that it could be facing a six-figure bill if it loses the case, it might think twice before starting it.

I agree that employers should have to prove the slacking, it seems a great excuse to get rid of people they don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that if the job has been labelled an apprenticeship they are only required to pay a minimum wage of £2.50 an hour (£100 a week) to apprentices compared to £3.64 for 16-17 year old workers, £4.92 for 18-20 year olds and £5.93 for those 21+. They must truly be creating all these apprenticeships out of the kindest of their hearts.

look on the bright side , it augurs well for HPC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hire someone on an apprenticeship at 2.50 an hour, at the end of the year fire them no questions asked, hire another apprentice = permanent workforce at 2.50 per hour. Lovely.

Absolutely great for employers , I fear for my children. Houses will be worth nothing soon tho... 80% of the population will be skint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Used to work for Shell.....dreadful company to work for, if the oil didn't flow under its own pressure theres no way Shell could make it happen. Thirty managers all back stabbing involved in every decision, a total dinosaur................the new man is shaking it up and the share price is certainly improving but I'd not recommend them as an employer......dreadful low rates as well....

Conversation with an agent last week........Me: whats the rate ? Agent: well.....err....its x (x being about 15% lower than my current rate) Me: you're joking aren't you ? Agent: no its Shell everone wants to work for them Me: yes, once....if you have anything else coming up at market rates let me know Agent: ha ha, your the third person to say the same

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be nice to but they're in the permanent job category and are expensive to get rid of. Better to ensure all the lower level (younger) workers can be endlessly fired and rotated every few months/years so that never becomes a problem again.

Surprised to not see anyone comment on this before - banks set to ask for over 2 years of wage slips in future before giving a mortgage?

And, of course, it's a serious disincentive for anyone looking to move jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think many "tradesmen" coming through today have done an apprenticeship?

5 day course from the back of the newspaper is more like it.

Many sites now require workers to have a CSCS card, to be a 'skilled operative' like a carpenter, brickie etc, then they need to have sent proof of training i.e. NVQ certification on their application.

No card, no work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current legislation that allows sacking up to 12 months with no tribunal is perfectly adequate. All this will do is allow.is exploitation of workers by a few dodgy employers.

Is there really a huge difference between an employee's first year performance and their second year? If there is all this will do is move the drop-off to the third year :rolleyes:

Look at any organisation and you'll find the slackers have been around longer than 2 years. It takes them that long to learn their way around the rules and procedures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not necessarily in favor of this, however we've all heard about the untouchables in the public sector who laze around all day, wouldn't it be nice to dispose of them?

how will this 2 year rule help with that? It only applies to workers less than 2 years.

I question that you can't tell after one year if someone is a slacker and I doubt someone goes from super hard working to slacker after 1.01 years. So this seems more like just a way for employers to abuse employees by sacking them for no good reason. If there is a good reason they already can make them redundant etc. If the problem it is hard to prove someone is incompetent that should be fixed, not just allow employers to sack for no reason anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely making it easier to employ people is a good thing?!

I would rather have a job where an employer can fire me than have no job at all.

I also like the idea of concessions for small businesses.. hope it goes through!

the only issue is employers could misuse this !!

and there could increase in probationary period.. say 9months !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did stacking shelves at a supermarket require an apprenticeship?

The world has gone mad,these people are demeaning the work of the skilled tradesman by requiring retail workers to do an 'apprenticeship'.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadly in the uk shelf stacking is one of a few skills needed in the UK,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree. It's typical management BS Bingo being played out here. "Ooo, the Government wants lots of things called apprenticeships to help young people get into work who don't go to Uni and we need to be a part of this trend! I know, lets re-lable any under 20 getting a basic job with us as an apprentice and we can stick this big number of apprenticeships on all our marketing literature and look really good. Of course we'll do very little extra then what we did previously (no rotating round all the different departments and being trained up as a supervisor etc) but that doesn't matter, apprenticeships all the way, we've got to be seeing to do our bit!"

you forgot to mention that the minimum wage for an apprentice is lower, that is more likely what is driving this announcement, a great opportunity to give new entrants a pay cut...

edit: ignore this post, did not see "rented" had commented on page 1...

Edited by frenchy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you forgot to mention that the minimum wage for an apprentice is lower, that is more likely what is driving this announcement, a great opportunity to give new entrants a pay cut...

edit: ignore this post, did not see "rented" had commented on page 1...

Well worth saying twice though :)

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.

  • 312 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.