FabSwingers.com forum: worker's rights or business protection?

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Recently I saw one of those idiots on their soapbox, wanting to extend the period where workers need to work at least 2 yrs before they can file for unfair dismissal. Apparently it will protects business? In my opinion this just leaves big business an open door to treat workers unfairly knowing they can't be touched.

Your Thoughts???

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ENGUYMan
over a year ago

Hull

"Recently I saw one of those idiots on their soapbox, wanting to extend the period where workers need to work at least 2 yrs before they can file for unfair dismissal. Apparently it will protects business? In my opinion this just leaves big business an open door to treat workers unfairly knowing they can't be touched.

Your Thoughts???"

It used to be 2 years, but under Labour's rule, this was reduced to 1 year, which was one of their better introductions.

There are pros and cons for both employers and employees. From an employer's perspective, it could be to some advantage; as an employee and from my own bitter experience around a year ago, I'd a lengthy battle with my employers on some issues, in which my Union backed me too. I just scraped through the one year's employment mark before any final decision was made - I retained my job!

In this day and age with job insecurity and unemployment levels as they are, I think in some ways it will be detrimental, but for others, it may be welcomed.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Thats right. It used to be two years. If employers have good employment practices then they protect their business. For discrimination claims there is no waiting period.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Stronger worker's rights are essential. Thatcher's government eroded these rights, such that employees could be dismissed for upto 2 years, without any fairness: I hadn't realised it had been reduced to 1 year - which is still longer than it used to be.

I think once a probationary period, such as 6 months, has been completed, then employees should have a case for unfair dismissal etc.

The widening chasm between the wealth of the very rich, and the vast majority of this country has occurred since Thatcher, aided by Labour's years too, and many countries and very wealthy people now use any means that they can to avoid paying corporation and personal tax into this country. I don't believe these parasites deserve any stronger protection from UK legislation, and should be employing people subject to iron strong employee rights, to prevent them from wrong doing.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've just won an unfair dismissal case and the rules are being moved back towards the employer. Compensation levels are dropping and I understand costs for the company can be taken from any settlement awarded by tribunal.

Even as somebody who believes in unions I can see it was easy for people to make spurious claims in the hope it would be too expensive to fight. The Citizen's Advice lawyer I spoke to as good as made out I shouldn't bother, if it was money I was after. I was determined to clear my name, not get compo, so I did, had a great case, slayed the company and got my name cleared, with a settlement I couldn't have expected a tribunal to better.

The Citizen's Advice lawyer also gave me some shocking examples of what people have been sacked for after serving their probationary period. Eating a creme egg that was damaged? Sheesh.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

Your Thoughts???"

it was one of the reasons they use to hire so many temp workers.. and it was one of the things brought to try and protect them as much as possible.... they are also going mad as since saturday any temp worker who has been with a company 12 weeks now has the same rights as any permanent member of staff including holiday and sickness entitlements......

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Good for you lisa!! Since the tribunal system was hi jacked by lawyers it makes it very expensive for people to take claims to tribunals.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Well i believe that if they were using best practise things should never reach tribunal stage. As a manager for a large company i triple check everything before my decision to dismiss someone. Having been dismissed in the past I know what it's like on the receiving end of a dismissal.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Your Thoughts???

I kind of think contract workers need rights, protection etc, as at the moment it seems an employer's charter to get almost everything they want, whilst denying people their needs for security, protection and a decent standard of living. I avoid companies that hire large volumes of part time and temp. staff, instead of offering more permanent positions. I think consumers are starting to view much corporate activity with derision, and are voting with their feet.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The Citizen's Advice lawyer also gave me some shocking examples of what people have been sacked for after serving their probationary period. Eating a creme egg that was damaged? Sheesh."

Would that have been a creme egg that belonged to the worker who consumed it? Or did he/she think it would be ok to steal it considering it wasn't fit for sale? If the rules say "no eating of company property in permissable regardless of it's condition" then it's theft and an instantly sackable offence.

I'm fighting a Constructive Dismissal claim at the moment and I have a good case. I've already fought off a challenge from the other side to move the tribunal from Newcastle to down south so that's Round 1 to me lol.

As for extending the qualifying period back to 2 years, hmmm, that doesn't sit well with me as the obvious section of society I can see this affecting more than anyone else are women wishing to start, or continue growing, a family. I know they are still protected by discrimination laws from day 1 but an unscrupulous employer will always find a way around that, and as the employee will now have to find £1,250 to fight an unfair dismissal case I suspect that many claims will not be lodged.

A bad move Mr Osbourne as businesses that operate unscrupulous practices do not deserve to be in business and certainly don't deserve the support of the govt.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Good for you too wishy for fighting for your rights.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

Isn't it fantastic to see so many jobs ( employemnt opportunities if you'd rather ) "exported" away from the country.

He says sarcastically.

I have no intrinsic right for someone else to provide me with employment, paid or voluntary.

Like free air ( just ) i am grateful for many things.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Your Thoughts???"

All they are doing is making it easier for employers to get rid of problem workers. On the other hand after 12 weeks temps get the same rights as full timers. Both make sense to me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Most employers will now only hire agency workers for less than 12 weeks to avoid the cost implication.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

Cause and effect?

And having been on both sides of the fence, all i will add is that a good worker is invaluable.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *umourCouple
over a year ago

Rushden

"The Citizen's Advice lawyer also gave me some shocking examples of what people have been sacked for after serving their probationary period. Eating a creme egg that was damaged? Sheesh."

That is a shocking example? I have sacked a few people for stealing! Nothing new there, gross misconduct and would not be defended by any sane person.

It may have been damaged, but if eating damaged goods was allowed, how many other things would be "damaged" just so they could be eaten? I have even sacked a guy for spraying himself with deodorant in the warehouse.

That was one spray that couldn't be sold because it wasn't new and a tray of 23 that couldn't be sold because it was incomplete!

You can steal, but you had better make sure it aint my goods

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Most employers will now only hire agency workers for less than 12 weeks to avoid the cost implication."

Well the dirty tricks brigade works in the RAF too so if the government treat our troops like this they are not gonna kick up a fuss at those abusing the temps workers loophole.

My friends son served several tours of Afghanistan and he was sent home 3 days before the rest of his troop which meant he was short of his one years service abroad so they didnt have to pay him his bonus. He wasnt the only one this happened to.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

Cause and effect?

And having been on both sides of the fence, all i will add is that a good worker is invaluable."
+1

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread