FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

the job's a good 'un

Jump to newest
 

By *he_original_polo OP   Woman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

Should you have to pay a fee if you want take your employer to a tribunal?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

yes if you lose

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Should you have to pay a fee if you want take your employer to a tribunal?"

A token fee maybe, but finances shouldn't be a barrier

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_polo OP   Woman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

Would it mean those living hand to mouth would be more inclined to put up and shut up?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

Yep without a doubt

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Bit like paying £700 ta go bankrupt lol xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Would it mean those living hand to mouth would be more inclined to put up and shut up?"

I suspect it would.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_polo OP   Woman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

The Government seem intent on reducing the number of people making claims against their employers at industrial tribunals… a cost cutting exercise, but at what cost?

The changes to the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims which come into force this April will no doubt see some reduction in tribunal traffic; personally I think 2 years is too long. But it seems that is not enough for the Government and they would like to deter even more by introducing a fee.

The sad thing is…. the employees most likely to have their rights infringed, or dare I say violated, are those in the lowest paid employment.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

sounds like another stitchup then...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bfoxxxMan
over a year ago

Crete or LANCASTER


"Should you have to pay a fee if you want take your employer to a tribunal?"
That's where being a Union member pays off. If you have a problem there is someone on your side to help and advise you. Don't expect support from so called mates at work to speak up for you, they will be covering their arses in case they are next in the firing line, literally.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_polo OP   Woman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester


"sounds like another stitchup then..."

Indeed it does... and one which is not really being shouted about.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Far too many spurious cases made. There is no effect to the individual if they loose, practically a punt for the individual. For the employer there is a huge cost even if they win, as costs can't be claimed.

I also seem to notice it women who seem to make the most claims, the old sex discrimination, sexual harassment or bulling. Things that any competent grown up person, especially if they are in a high up, should be able to nip in the bud.

Course that's just my opinion.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


" That's where being a Union member pays off. If you have a problem there is someone on your side"
I'd agree with that..although i don't have much use for them right now, i'm a paid up member..and i know that some union reps get right the noses of my employers...which is always a comforting thought.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_polo OP   Woman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester


"Far too many spurious cases made. There is no effect to the individual if they loose, practically a punt for the individual. For the employer there is a huge cost even if they win, as costs can't be claimed.

"

Well a lot of that will be sorted out in April's reforms won't it, as all potential claims will be required to be submitted to ACAS in the first instance.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

If that's a free service and helps to sort out a peed off employee rather than wronged employee, then that must be a good step.

The no win-no fee, is a lot to blame. If the Law firms taking on the no win-no fee case actually got no fee if they lost, then a lot would be sorted out in the free consultation all law firms offer.

NW-NF case both law firms win, they get the work and they do get their costs covered by insurance.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

ACAS? What a toothless tiger that organisation is. Totally pointless as I found out last November. The CAB is no different either. They actually refused to give me advice because they weren't representing me, and they declined to represent me because they felt the resources spent on my case could be better used on a stronger case for someone else.

The erosion of an employees right to sue his or her employer can only lead to unscrupulous employers deliberately treating their workforce like little more than slaves. Introducing a fee to take an employer to tribunal will deter a lot of legitimate claims being taken forward and I think the govt need to rethink this policy.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

It's a regressive step and one where Labour and the Liberals seem to have just simply rolled over. I fully appreciate that the compensation and no win no fee culture has impacted on the number of employees who decide to just take a punt, but in my opinion having been an employee and employer a lot more employees are 'wronged' than decide to take the punt. The fact that it is currently relatively easy to take a case to tribunal acts as a deterrent to would be unscrupulous employers. It also encourages amicable resolutions in the overall majority of cases.

Rights that have taken generations to establish can easily be nullified by making it increasingly difficult to enforce those rights.

People should not forget that in many cases it's the low paid who find themselves wronged, they simply don't have the resources and employers will know this.

Supporters of these regressive policies will try to highlight the minority of dishonest cases. It's a 'Daily Mail' way of effecting change, I believe it's wrong.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_polo OP   Woman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

It’s pretty scary stuff when you think about it.

It has far wider and far deeper reaching implications than a banker’s bonus and yet it’s not exactly headline news is it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

[Removed by poster at 19/02/12 14:24:51]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"It's a regressive step and one where Labour and the Liberals seem to have just simply rolled over. I fully appreciate that the compensation and no win no fee culture has impacted on the number of employees who decide to just take a punt, but in my opinion having been an employee and employer a lot more employees are 'wronged' than decide to take the punt. The fact that it is currently relatively easy to take a case to tribunal acts as a deterrent to would be unscrupulous employers. It also encourages amicable resolutions in the overall majority of cases.

Rights that have taken generations to establish can easily be nullified by making it increasingly difficult to enforce those rights.

People should not forget that in many cases it's the low paid who find themselves wronged, they simply don't have the resources and employers will know this.

Supporters of these regressive policies will try to highlight the minority of dishonest cases. It's a 'Daily Mail' way of effecting change, I believe it's wrong.

"
Its the divde and conquer method they seem to favor, set one half of society against another, to effect change.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andKCouple
over a year ago

Norfolk

I went through all this last year and actually found the government website very helpful. I got banned for posting the url before but if you look on direct dot gov you will find the links. Fortunately I actually managed to get more out of my former employers than my solicitor said I would win if everything went my way at the tribunal. The worst thing I found was the potential delay in the hearing of anything up to a year when the employer doesn't have to pay you a penny if you declare your intentions.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Tra sued for unfair dismissal a couple of years ago. The Government department she worked for used some very big words in their statement and repeatedly told her she would lose her case. To be honest when I read the papers I was convinced she'd lose even tho I knew she'd been shafted. Until she went to the arbitration meeting at ACAS. When they realised she was going to dig her heels in on a point of principle and that it wasn't about money and they realised they were going to tribunal they rolled over. Sure,Tra feels like she sold herself down the river by taking the larger than expected sum they offered but then principles weren't gonna pay the bills. ACAS were a lot of help in her case.

Almost the first thing the Tories did when they took over was begin to dismantle the department she worked for and everyone will end up losing their jobs there. Given the lack of support she received from ex workmates,fuck em

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Far too many spurious cases made. There is no effect to the individual if they loose, practically a punt for the individual. For the employer there is a huge cost even if they win, as costs can't be claimed.

I also seem to notice it women who seem to make the most claims, the old sex discrimination, sexual harassment or bulling. Things that any competent grown up person, especially if they are in a high up, should be able to nip in the bud.

Course that's just my opinion."

Disagree with a lot of what you've said here, not all but a lot!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn

tis usually the underperformers who complain the most... in all sexes, creeds/colour, able bodied and lesser so, str8, gay, bi and transgender.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

There are alot of 'way ward souls'...p**s takers, to you and me..but they are pretty rare in the grand scheme. Its that rarity that makes them good fodder for news print...the government then wades in behind that popular opinion, normally these days cause they f***ed up else where, and need a distraction.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Bit like paying £700 ta go bankrupt lol xx "

ya mean you have to save up to go bankrupt

so if you've got £700 to pay that, then your not really bankrupt in my book

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Far too many spurious cases made. There is no effect to the individual if they loose, practically a punt for the individual. For the employer there is a huge cost even if they win, as costs can't be claimed.

I also seem to notice it women who seem to make the most claims, the old sex discrimination, sexual harassment or bulling. Things that any competent grown up person, especially if they are in a high up, should be able to nip in the bud.

Course that's just my opinion.

Disagree with a lot of what you've said here, not all but a lot!"

ditto,

the portrayal by the Govt and the right wing press is that the ET is only ever about people taking the piss for an easy bit of cash of some poor employer..

the ET are an open forum where the public may attend and they also publish past cases i believe..

therein lies the truth rather than the rhetoric..

an individual taking a case does not often do so 'just cos its easy'..

the ET will look at the cases before they get to a hearing, ACAS being one avenue of resolution..

its a very stressfull time for anyone taking on their employer and its usually after the employer or their 'managers'/ staff have treated folk disgracefully..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Everything will depend on whether the Employer has followed thier policies and procedures.

If they haven't, then the Tribunal is likely to find in favour of the employee. They don't decide if it's right or wrong (what the employer did), only that they followed their polices and procedures.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Did you catch what Liam Fox the Tory MP was saying on employee rights the other day, he wants the Govt to go a lot further and seems to have a lot of Ministerial support!

They want to scrap most of the employee rights because they see it as red tape, a cost on business and a block for companies taking on new people.

They seem to believe you'll reduce unemployment by making it easier to sack people.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

Been there, done it and won, not once but actually 3 times -

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

I can only comment on my own experience in industrial tribunals which have been mainly nasty vicious money grabbing eejits who are on the take.

Certainly to deter the fuckwits a fee may be necessary, but as so many companies settle as its cheaper in the long run its doubtfull it would make any difference.

As stated though this is just my experience.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland


"I can only comment on my own experience in industrial tribunals which have been mainly nasty vicious money grabbing eejits who are on the take.

Certainly to deter the fuckwits a fee may be necessary, but as so many companies settle as its cheaper in the long run its doubtfull it would make any difference.

As stated though this is just my experience."
I know what you mean and I have seen that, too - through clever manipulation. But then I have also seen and experienced the other side where employees were bullied and pushed out of their jobs - that is when I was glad I could help them win!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

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

Its a good move if it stops all the false claims and wasted court time. If you really do feel that aggrieved you will be happy to pay for a chance at justice.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top