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

#41
If you make it easier to fire, you make it easier to hire.
Still does'nt seem to make much sense economically. Unless you intend to hire two people for every person you fire you're not going to have a meaningful impact on unemployment figures.
 
#42
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.

[good examples of mongs]
But in both cases, you identified who the mongs were, and got rid of them double-quick. So really, by your own testimony, the present system enables you to get rid of mongs.
 
#43
What about the employment lawyer? Won't somebody please think about the lawyers?

(Currently sat in Watford Employment Tribunal on day two of an unfair dismissal case!)
 
#44
It is extremely difficult to call, I brought in a HR 'specialist' for 15 hours a week and hand on heart she meant well but was bonk. Her response to issues was to reel off verbatim the chapter and verse every time. I, personally dont trust any defined process that doesnt allow for any flexibility and certainly wasnt prepared to have the piss taken out of me by people who profess to 'know' the system inside out and as such play on it.

To put it in context and as a former employer of a fair few people my burning issues were timekeeping, not just in getting to the yard if need be to pick up stores ect but getting to the job on time, another belter was those taking Mondays off on a regular basis then getting their Doris to ring in saying 'he isnt well but will phone later to let you know if he'll be in this afternoon', I had a 3 strike rule, which was unbeknown to the lads and I bounced the 2 main culprits within a couple of months.

Same applied with quality of work, sending someone out on a Saturday with a snagging list on a few jobs is the norm but having to send back full teams to square away someones **** ups is again, unacceptable and some were duly binned for that. Fact is HR elements are now virtually the most powerful bods within the company structure, image a situation where you have an operations team, facilities and I.T. to include post room/security/maintenance/soft and hard service contract management, marketing team, finance department, compliance, quality ect ect and all under the same proverbial roof , most process's of all those departments will invariably involve some liasion with HR throughout and ultimately the HR decision remains the last, its bollocks..

To explain how bad it can be, a mate of mine won a job to install fibre optic cabling for a University, it was a 6 month job and the lad he put on to run it was qualified and had shown himself capable many times before, long and the short was the whole job was written off for various reasons, he sacked him on the spot then had to pay him out months later after a tribunal, the knock on effect of the project outcome finished him off, he spent Christmas Day last year in his office with a bottle of Bells and himself for company.

Having the ability to sack without recourse is inherently wrong on all levels, but being a business owner who cant shave off his dead wood and fuckwits for fear of ACAS being unleashed is also wrong, I always took into account someones family situation, personal problems when considering but in the end if they arent doing the job they applied to do, to the required standard then it should be a tablet and a 'theres the door'.

It will only get worse :)
 
#45
It's fairly easy for employers to pot people if the needs arises whether it be outsourcing or not. Most large firms have a set way of doing this believe it or not although I can only speak for the private sector. They carry out a points based system on each individual where that person get's a score 1-5, this covers attendance, attitude, skills set, adaptability etc. You then add these sections up to give the person a score, those who don't make the cut are then potted. It's all legal and the individuals can appeal but as far as I know no one has been able to claim unfair dismissal.
 
#46
Still does'nt seem to make much sense economically. Unless you intend to hire two people for every person you fire you're not going to have a meaningful impact on unemployment figures.
It does if the alternative is not hiring anyone and not growing your business,
 
#47
What about the employment lawyer? Won't somebody please think about the lawyers?

(Currently sat in Watford Employment Tribunal on day two of an unfair dismissal case!)
This stands about as much chance of happening as the Referendum on EU Membership; if the gub'mint were dumb enough to make these changes in the Law, lawyers would tear them apart in a feeding frenzy that would make Jaws look positively restrained.

This announcement is:

1)A bright idea by some financial services genius who has about as much experience in the Real World as Professor Hawking has of Powerlifting.

2)A classic bait-and-switch: float an idea so absurd and extreme it never stands a chance of making it into Law. Then admit 'defeat' and quietly make the much less dramatic changes you intended to all along.

3)A Good Day to Bury Bad News: this is a distraction for something else the gub'mint is trying to slip under the radar.

Cynical? Moi?
 
#48
. It's all legal and the individuals can appeal but as far as I know no one has been able to claim unfair dismissal.
But people will try it on (or will try it to ensure they get more benefits) and business owners get advised (see above) to 'settle' claims for less than £10K
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#49
Give firms freedom to sack unproductive workers, leaked Downing Street report advises - Telegraph

Britain’s “terrible” employment laws are undermining economic growth and should be overhauled, according to the confidential report obtained by The Daily Telegraph (Published below).

It says that British workers should be banned from claiming unfair dismissal so that firms and public sector bodies can find more capable replacements.

Under current regulations, workers are allowed to “coast along” and employers are left fearful of expanding because new staff may prove “unknown quantities” who are impossible to sack, the report says.
If they researched the applicant's referees, employment history & qualifications, etc, they wouldn't be in such a dilemma. It's not difficult to get an accurate history on aperson's true background. It doesn't cost much to get someone else to do it if you can't do it yourself either. As for the rest of the story, it appears to be nothing more than another Tory attempt to get one over on the Unions and the EU. Industrial tribunals are not one sided affairs and claimants are made aware that vexatious claims if proven, will see them foot the costs of their former employers. Quite a few issues surrounding crap employees in Councils (and no doubt other parts of the public sector) is down to nepotism. Pure and simple. Getting your mates in over and above outsiders who are better qualified is more important to quite a few managers. Well, you reap what you sew. For those of you who would support these 'proposals', wait until you leave the safety of the Army and come into the real world. Some people get pretty insecure around ex mob because their presence shows people up for what they are. If you were seen by your boss as a 'threat', believe me...you'd be the first to feel the brunt of this shit.
 
#50
It does if the alternative is not hiring anyone and not growing your business,
OK, I was always crap at Maths, but if you fire one person and hire another, you have made no impact at all on the Unemployment figures. This only makes sense if the bad employees are somehow twice as expensive to keep on as it is to hire two good employees.

As far as I'm aware, there is no money to grow businesses. 'Bad' employees - and lets be clear I have no sympathy for those who refuse to do the job they are paid for - are not the biggest problem. I venture to suggest that Banks who refuse small business loans have a much worse effect on the economy. But of course Banks are a far tougher target...
 
#51
OK, I was always crap at Maths, but if you fire one person and hire another, you have made no impact at all on the Unemployment figures. This only makes sense if the bad employees are somehow twice as expensive to keep on as it is to hire two good employees.
No, the point is that firms won't take a gamble in taking someone on if it then proves very difficult to get rid of them if they are useless or idle. Therefore they will try and manage using existing resources or not try and expand.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#52
But people will try it on (or will try it to ensure they get more benefits) and business owners get advised (see above) to 'settle' claims for less than £10K
Then they should employ better legal representation. You are only ever advised to 'settle' if there is a likelihood that you will lose. And if that were the case, you were wrong to begin with.
 
#53
The old etonians bugger about with huge cuts in the infrastructure, jobs, pensions, uncle tom cobbly and all and now they want to consider changes to the law so people can be sacked just like that. I honestly do doubt they would try to implement this. I know many might not agree with me but if it were to become genuine tory policy, it could be the beginning of the end of the tory party as an electable entity. Who seriously would vote for a party who propose these kind of drastic measures.
 
#54
Well from my perspective I would welcome some moves to make it easier to get rid of under performing employees. I wouldn't go as far as what is being proposed by this Beecroft chap but I certainly think we need to move in this direction.

At the beginning of this year I inherited a team that was under performing. It had been badly managed previously, staff were unfocused and the team was full of spanish practices. Most never tried to exceed work targets and only ensured they did enough to scrape by their performance reviews. Naturally, I've been doing my best to change this. I've raised expected targets, documented poor performance, rewarded good performance, removed the spanish practices that went on and I've done some work to improve work systems to make their jobs easier.

Luckily for me three of my consistent under performers saw the writing on the wall and left and most of the staff are now on board. However, I've got 6 staff who quite frankly are a pain in the arrse. They've all been with the company for several years (8-12 years) and are firmly rooted in their 'safe' jobs. They're all canny enough to know as long as they just meet targets I can't touch them on the work performance front. They're a constant source of bad morale in the team always putting a downer on everything and sometimes it seems to me that they're souring any new staff that join my department. They've become a bit of an obstacle to moving the whole team forward. I can't even devote that much time on dealing with them as I manage 25+ staff and am heavily engaged in a very time consuming project.

If employment laws were changed I might find it easier to get rid of them but at present I worked out that by following everything by the book I could be looking at 6 months plus to get rid of some of them and that's if it all goes smoothly.
 
#56
No, the point is that firms won't take a gamble in taking someone on if it then proves very difficult to get rid of them if they are useless or idle. Therefore they will try and manage using existing resources or not try and expand.
I understand your point, but this pre-supposes that firms have the resources to expand, even if they are allowed to impose employment conditions on their staff that would make an Einstazkommando Officer wince. There Is No Money and allowing firms greater freedom to get rid of the dead wood will not magically create more cash.

Once again, anyone taking the money but not doing the job should quickly find themselves in an exciting new career selling the Big Issue. And we can start with the majority of MP's. I have zero sympathy for slackers. But even if these changes are made, and there's not a snowball's chance in Hell of that happening, it won't begin to address the real problems.
 
#57
However, I've got 6 staff who quite frankly are a pain in the arrse. They've all been with the company for several years (8-12 years) and are firmly rooted in their 'safe' jobs. They're all canny enough to know as long as they just meet targets I can't touch them on the work performance front. They're a constant source of bad morale in the team always putting a downer on everything and sometimes it seems to me that they're souring any new staff that join my department. They've become a bit of an obstacle to moving the whole team forward.
Translation - "I have some underlings who do everything I demand of them, but think I'm a ******. Worse still, there are others who plainly agree with them. I'd like to sack them out of spite but I'm not allowed to."

Has it crossed your mind, that perhaps that you are indeed the ****** they think you are?
 
#58
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.
but you currently have 12 months to kick them out where they can't bring an unfair dismissal claim, surely thats long enough to suss out a wrong-un
 
#59
Hmm, not being a rabid leftie. Nor am I a supporter of the unions because I believe they have had their day and are now an anachronism. I am still concerned by the attitudes shown on here to this report.

The private sector I am in (IT) has an attitude of delivery is everything. What they also have an attitude of is 'do more with less'. Put another way we expect you to do 2 peoples work for one persons wage.
Am I therefore looked at by managers as being unproductive because I put my family first. I refuse to work at weekends ( not in contract). I will put the occasional bit of overtime in when needed (unpaid) but it is not the norm and purely to get the job done.
What I am seeing is more and more people who are afraid to say no to demands to 'deliver' when management refuse to properly resource projects. They turn up before their contracted hours, stay at their desk until long after their contracted hours are over and don't take leave.

I do my job, I deliver when needed and I maintain good relations with customers on all sides of the fence. I however refuse to be trodden on by penny pinching management types. So does that make me somebody they will want to fire as unproductive because I refuse to do 2 peoples jobs and inform them of where they are going wrong in resourcing with a documented email trail?

Maybe, just maybe I was a little presumptuous in my statement that the trade unions are an anachronism. The fact that I am a Tory supporter through and through and am thinking this should perhaps worry those in the hallowed halls of Tory HQ. It won't because, as everyone knows, the buggers in Parliament don't give two shits about normal people.
 
#60
Translation - "I have some underlings who do everything I demand of them, but think I'm a ******. Worse still, there are others who plainly agree with them. I'd like to sack them out of spite but I'm not allowed to."

Has it crossed your mind, that perhaps that you are indeed the ****** they think you are?
You're probably right I am the ****** they think I am. But I have a job to do and targets to meet, that's why I'm employed to manage the team. I would also imagine they don't like me because I was brought in from another department and promoted over them after working there less time than them in the company (I know that they all applied for my role when it became available). But you're right it's defintely not the fact that for the first time in a few years they've been made to reach their workload targets and can't slope off early in the afternoon. I must be the ****** they all imagine me to be.
 

Latest Threads

Top