"Firms should be given right to sack people without explanation" - No. 10

#21
...
It goes on: “A proportion of employees, secure in the knowledge that their employer will be reluctant to dismiss them, work at a level well below their true capacity; they coast along.”
...
Well that's a large part of UK PLC's shirk force at risk of being replaced by faster handed foreigners. Being a bit sullen and slow moving is something that is in the average native's DNA, a problem not help by the lofty unengaged managerial style of their over rewarded betters.

I doubt removing employees protection will lead to a sea change, the English have always had leadership issues and it often comes down to fine grained class sensitivities.
 
#23
You all seem to be assuming that companies are run by large rooms full of ruthless and disconnected management types. Companies like that exist, but the majority of people in the UK are employed by small companies with a few employees, run by people like you and me.

In addition, making people redundant and firing them is different. It's actually quite easy to make a person redundant if you're getting rid of their role in the company. What's difficult is replacing someone who isn't pulling their weight.
 
#24
What's difficult is replacing someone who isn't pulling their weight.
Do you have a proper procedure of appraisals, remedial action, verbal and written warnings? Because if you do, it's not that hard to bin someone who consistently underperforms. Many small companies run into trouble because the boss hates bullshit, deals with employees 'man to man' and then sacks some useless fecker in a fit of annoyance, deservedly but without having followed the required process.

Seriously, have a look through your management procedures and see where the gaps are, then crack on.
 
#25
It might be a fundamental principle of the criminal law but being sacked from a job - whether for poor performance, breach of contract or gross misconduct isn't the same, in principle or in practice, as being charged by the CPS or Crown Office.
Yet the practice of 'blacklisting' was ruled unlawful in the UK.

'If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear' has already been bruited on this thread: why shouldn't this apply equally to management decisions as employee performance?
 
#26
You all seem to be assuming that companies are run by large rooms full of ruthless and disconnected management types.
I'm not. I'm assuming that the companies whose tune CMD is dancing to are. Cui bono?
 
#27
Erm - current situation has to be changed because large chunks of the public sector particularly are tearing the arse out of it, government report suggests something draconian which will allow bosses to turn employees into soap and sell their children into slavery, actual reform occurs somewhere approximately midway between those two points with everyone claiming to have won. Caravan moves on.
The trouble with the Public Sector is that they are reluctant to sack because they do not suffer any financial penalty for not doing so.

If you run your own business then you become aware of how much failure costs your business. If you have an employee who can't, or won't pull their weight then it could bring the company down or, at least, severely affect productivity. The company look at the problem and say "How much is this employee going to cost me if I allow them to stay?"

The Public Sector only think about the possible repercussions of their actions if they sack someone who then brings a successful claim. They will put up with unproductivity because inefficiency is expected and rarely effectively measured whereas 'employee relations' are carefully monitored.

So, on the one hand, you have the Private Sector who say "We can't afford to retain this person". On the other you have the Public Sector who say "We can't afford to get rid of this person."

It all boils down to who is going to make the brave decision. Dismissal does not automatically mean a claim will be brought although in Today's increasingly litigious society the chances are increased. The Public Sector has a habit of promoting difficult or unproductive people so that they become someone else' problem which compounds the problem because you then have unproductive , inefficient managers!

We don't need a change in legislation, what we need is for the Public Sector to make a decision based on the common good rather than that of the individual concerned.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#28
Monday - Call Me Dave gets spanked in the HoC by his right wing backbenchers over EU referendum.

Wednesday - No10 (note not CMD) announces ultra right wing policy designed to have said right wing backbenchers becoming moist.

Anyone notice a possible connection?
 
#29
Not being an expert on employment law. Is there a probationary period where new workers can be asssessed for attitude and competance; if not, should there be and would this help or make the problem worse?
 
#30
Two questions from me:

1. If poor performing workers can be sacked without explanation, how are they going to know what behaviour caused them to get the sack? Isn't it a fundamental principle of British Laws that a person can only be accused under law in an open forum?

Quite agree.

2. Are those under-perfoming employees to include those inside of the boardroom, whose performance never seems to get in the way of remuneration? Or is this measure only for people the PM didn't go to school with?
Paragraph 2 is way beneath you Carrots.

The boardroom is a far more volatile place than the shop floor. Most on the board are shareholders so if the company performs they will be remunerated accordingly. If they are salaried and bonused then they will only receive the bonus if they have met the criteria for them to be bonused upon. If you don't know how their performance is judged then you can hardly know if they earned remuneration. If the shareholders agree a package then it will be because the individual has earned it.

I think you're confusing Cameron with Blair and letting your class insecurities show. Even in the Public Sector there have been major senior management clearouts. The higher up you go the more your individual performance is judged, no matter what school you went to.
 
#31
Yet the practice of 'blacklisting' was ruled unlawful in the UK.
Which has nothing to do with sacking people for the reasons I mentioned. "Unlawful dismissal", and the blacklist was to do with trade union membership and health and safety complaints - both of which are specifically illegal to sack somebody for, is very different from "unfair dismissal". And the blacklist was illegal under the DPA and prosecuted by the ICO, with subsequent individual dismissal cases brought for "automatically unfair dismissal for exercise of a statutory right" (one of the lawyers will undoubtedly correct me if I've got the legalese slightly, or wholly, wrong).

'If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear' has already been bruited on this thread: why shouldn't this apply equally to management decisions as employee performance?
"If you've nothing to hide ..." is a piss-poor excuse for far too many things. Regardless, is there any suggestion that this change in the law (which I'm not in much favour of, certainly without seeing the small print of any draft - IMHO it would still not be applied in far too many deserving cases, especially in the public sector, for reasons already mentioned by others, and applied in too many undeserving ones) wouldn't apply to managers and their performance?
 
#32
Not being an expert on employment law. Is there a probationary period where new workers can be asssessed for attitude and competance; if not, should there be and would this help or make the problem worse?
Depends on your employment contract, many specify a three or six month probationary period. Unfair dismissal usually only kicks in after a year, IIRC unlawful dismissal kicks in immediately.
 
#33
Not being an expert on employment law. Is there a probationary period where new workers can be asssessed for attitude and competance; if not, should there be and would this help or make the problem worse?

Until they have worked for twelve months continuous they are unprotected employees and can be binned at the drop of a hat. There are one or two call centres in this neck of the woods who have a policy of sacking people after eleven months and then rehiring six weeks later.

It goes on: “A proportion of employees, secure in the knowledge that their employer will be reluctant to dismiss them, work at a level well below their true capacity; they coast along.”
How many managers in large companies or the public sector weigh their personal dislike of conflict against someone else's wage bill and take the easy route? Slightly different when it's your company or you are actually in full control of your budget.
 
#34
Until they have worked for twelve months continuous they are unprotected employees and can be binned at the drop of a hat. There are one or two call centres in this neck of the woods who have a policy of sacking people after eleven months and then rehiring six weeks later.
Some (ex)employees might benefit from looking up the differences between "unfair dismissal" and "wrongful dismissal" cases, as well as their employment contracts. It might give some particularly petty managers a serious shock.
 
#35
Do you have a proper procedure of appraisals, remedial action, verbal and written warnings? Because if you do, it's not that hard to bin someone who consistently underperforms. Many small companies run into trouble because the boss hates bullshit, deals with employees 'man to man' and then sacks some useless fecker in a fit of annoyance, deservedly but without having followed the required process.

Seriously, have a look through your management procedures and see where the gaps are, then crack on.
Now, what you say is great in theory but not so great in practice. The vast majority of companies in the UK are SME's. They just don't have the resources to carry out the full procedures. Let me give you an example.

When I first started out I took on a secretary/clerical worker whose job, amongst other things was to get me appointments with customers from a target list. I kept her on for far longer than I should have (2 months) during which time she cost me her wages, tax etc, agency fees for the agency that found her for me and massive lost productivity for me because I was spending so much time in the office trying to get her to do the basics. In the end I had to let her go because another month and the company would have gone under. Nowhere was there time for formal appraisals, performance reviews, remedial action etc.

Unless you have first-hand experience you have no idea how much a bad employee can cost you. Take a bad delivery driver I took on. He was charm himself with everyone in the office but surly and uncooperative with customers. He cost me 10 customers in one week and was gone, I wasn't about to wait around for him to lose anymore. I did manage to recover the 10 customers but that, in itself, wasn't easy.
 
#36
I love this, perhaps if I went to Eton I would understand...

Mr Beecroft insists that making it easier for firms to sack under-performing staff will boost employment, rather than increase unemployment.

How does putting someone out of work boost employment
Whilst at the same time as said employee signs on the dole he decreases unemployment?????
Couldnt script it!!!
 
#37
The only people who anything to fear are people not doing a good job.
Despite the febrile fantasies of many, employers don't like getting rid of good staff but all to often when they do need to shed staff, its currently often less painful to shed the good ones rather than the PITA's who will fight you every inch of the way.

I've worked for a number of American firms in the past who had 'at will' employment contracts and they didn't go on random sacking orgies and the contracts had clauses agreeing not to sack you except for failing to meet satisfactory performance or disciplinary standards, both of which were clearly laid down in the contracts.
And you still think Members of Parliament are going to vote for this?!:shock:^_~
 
#38
I'm somewhat torn by this question. On the one hand, the missis works for a large city firm and I wouldn't want her to feel insecure about her career every time she loses a client, has a bad day, or calls in sick.

On the other hand, I run a growing business and this is a very real problem. Unless you go through an agency, it is very easy to get stuck with employees who simply aren't able/willing to pull their weight. There's an attitude in this country that it's acceptable to do the bare minimum and that it's your "right" not to be called to account.

For those complaining that employers shouldn't be allowed to do this, consider this: I pay my employees from a pot of money I would otherwise take home myself. If times are hard, they get paid and I don't. I (and the rest of my staff) shouldn't be forced into carrying someone who isn't pulling his weight. The lengthy and costly dismissal procedures currently in place require the person to have done something wrong on paper. In short, it would be extremely difficult for me to fire the person simply for being an idle **** with a bad attitude - and he would be well aware of this.

In addition, a change to the law along these lines should mean that opportunities become available more often and that the people who really deserve them get into them. Properly implemented, it ought to ensure that anyone with work ethic benefits along with employers and the economy itself.
Your argument is funamentally flawed, sacked for having a bad attitude? how does that work?
Who recruited these people in the first instance?
Then had a year before employment rights other than statutory rights were acrued???
Obviously talking shoite!!
 
#39
How does putting someone out of work boost employment
Whilst at the same time as said employee signs on the dole he decreases unemployment?????
Couldnt script it!!!
If you make it easier to fire, you make it easier to hire.
 
#40
Mr Beecroft insists that making it easier for firms to sack under-performing staff will boost employment, rather than increase unemployment.

How does putting someone out of work boost employment
You are confusing individual cases with the net effect. There is hard evidence to show that where it is more difficult to dismiss somebody - France is the usual example quoted - firms are very reluctant either to take anybody on until they are desperate (therefore resort to overtime or casual or agency workers) and to take on "marginal" people. The latter, in the UK, often leads to the HR-sponsored vice of credentialism.
 

Latest Threads

Top