Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by tuffy52, Apr 28, 2012.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
This guy wants to make it easier to sack you.....
Liam Fox: Make It Easier To Fire People
Remind me, why isn't he defence secretary anymore?
Something to do with unlawful access to industry whilst employed in a public office?
Is this the "Thatcherite" right wing of the Tories coming out against the Lib Dems?
Sort of reinforces the "posh boys who don't know the pint of milk", and as a former GP what would he know about wider job market? Pure "New Right" 1980s drivel.
New Right ideas were developed in the early eighties and took a distinctive view of elements of society such as family, education, crime and deviance. In the United Kingdom, the term New Right more specifically refers to a strand of Conservatism that the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan influenced. Thatcher's style of New Right ideology, known as Thatcherism, was heavily influenced by the work of Friedrich Hayek (in particular the book The Road to Serfdom). They were ideologically committed to neo-liberalism as well as being socially conservative. Key policies included deregulation of business, a dismantling of the welfare state, privatization of nationalized industries and restructuring of the national workforce in order to increase industrial and economic flexibility in an increasingly global market. Similar policies were continued by the subsequent Conservative government under John Major and the mark of the New Right is evident in the New Labour government, first under Tony Blair, then Gordon Brown
Thank you for that detailed explanation of the political climate in the 1980s as I missed much of it.
Probably about as much as a tom or former tom.
Conservative policies have no intellectual content. It is a blind faith in privatisation, dismantling of employment protections and (sadly) dismantling of the justice system.
Whilst, of course, the other options are flawless.
The way I look at it Harriet Harman, Ed Balls and his rancid wife are exactly the kind of people I hate.
The "detached Tories"? Labour is led by the Oxbridge educated son of a Marxist intellectual. And who here isn't an Oxbridge educated son of a Marxist intellectual? What could be more normal?
Or the lovely Diane Abbot. Apparently she loathes privately educated Oxbridge graduates. Bar her son, of course.
Out of interest how do you define 'intellectual content' and what would you site a the single most appropriate antonym for 'faith' in this regard?
Just for younger members who may not have got it, no offence was intended!
Anyway, I was cheating and reference from wiki.
I'm sure they would have the time for some intellectual content if they weren't too busy sorting out the last governments epic **** up - which I suppose was based on intellectual content. Remind me again who spent all the money?
LiveLeak.com - Dear Tories, sorry we spent all the money: Labour's farewell letter exposed as coalition sets out Â£6billion in cuts
Abbott being a grammar school educated Oxbridge graduate herself. All political leaders in the United Kingdom are out of touch.
With the notable exception of Iain Dunan Smith, no Conservative members of Cabinet have presented a robust empricial basis for any of their social, economic or legal reforms.
I exclude the deficit-reduction strategy from this, since the necessity of this to me seems fairly obvious. However the "belief" - and it is nothing more than that - that the private sector will step in to take up the drop in demand created by substantial public sector cuts is being steadily undermined by experience.
Similarly the "make it easier to sack people" argument, which suggests an erosion of employment protections will improve economic prosperity, is a normative rather than an empirical doctrine. If you care to study the statistics relating to employment tribunals - which is presumably the only means by which firing people becomes 'costly' - unfair dismissal represents a minority of claims. The bulk of claims relate to the European Working Time Directive.
I am no more pro-Labour than I am pro-Tory. Both are fundamentally inept.
Ok - serious answer.
The UK economy would probably benefit from an easier way of getting rid of under-performing workers - providing the proper checks and balances are in place.
I would personally favour 'no-fault' redundancies where the person being made redundant gets a minimum of 3 months pay and a further month's pay for each full year of service above three years. Someone being made 'no-fault redundant' after 6 years service and earning £30,000 a year would thus walk away with £15,000 tax free. (The benefits system would have to be altered slightly so that they weren't penalised for having the redundancy payment).
We live in an increasingly globalised economy where UK PLC competes for business against imports into the UK and by trying to export to other countries. The more inefficient a company is, the less effective it is at competing. Harsh though it may sound, providing a way to get rid of deadwood without the company going through expensive litigation (Industrial Tribunals, etc) can only benefit the UK economy as a whole. And knowing that you can be made 'no fault redundant' may also motivate people in work to perform better.
However, there must be checks and balances. There will always be unscrupulous bosses who will exploit the system. It must be made as difficult as possible for them to do so. As an example of this, 'no fault redundancies' might require approval at a very senior level in the company so that putting the system in motion would man that the manager initiating the request would know he would have to justify his decision to someone who could reverse it - any maybe harm the manager's promotion prospects.
We have to be realistic - our standard of living depends on the companies within UK PLC being efficient and competitive. The system has to allow for getting rid of under-performing workers.
You don't make people redundant, you make posts redundant. So there already exists "no-fault" redundancy.
People take their (former) employers to tribunal because their former employers either didn't follow their own procedures, or employment law when dismissing the plaintiff.
Was talking to a ex employee of Hotpoint yesterday, he pointed out that as recently as 1964 NOT doffing your cap to a manager was a sackable offence!
Clearly you have never been to an employment tribunal!
It is perfectly legal to sack underperforming workers and an employer who bothers to collate evidence that a worker is underperforming will have a satisfactory defence before a Tribunal that their basis for dismissal was reasonable.
However employers should not be granted carte blanche to dismiss on the basis of suspicion, or to use the smallest infractions as the declared basis when some other, undeclared agenda is the real motivation. This is what employment tribunals exist to prevent.
Finally, if employers want to stop incurring costs then they should stop hiring legal counsel before a tribunal! Employment tribunals are supposed to be inquisitorial rather than adversarial and there is no requirement for lawyers to be involved as advocates.
One of the more lucrative areas of law is Employment Law.
Separate names with a comma.