Cable to consult on ending right to claim unfair dismissal at firms with 10 employees or fewer

They're slowly unpicking the employee-protection introduced by the previous administration. Bosses will always prefer being able to treat staff as a commodity like stationery or furniture.

The Companies Act 1986 makes it easy for e.g. a large Employer to create a separate Company for each Branch so that no branch employs more than ten people.

If there was a genuine desire to protect employers from frivolous claims by dismissed staff, it could be done by setting a minimum length of time in service - say two years.

These proposals which have come from Vince Cable are proof beyond doubt that the Lib Dems have finaly lost any sense of what Lib Dem values are supposed to be about, they have completely lost it.

Two years ago if anyone had said that these are going to be proposals from a Lib Dem minister, most people would not have believed it, and I cannot believe that I have voted for them in the past - but never again.

I sincerely hope that the Liberal Democrats are annihalated at the next general election, and I rather suspect they will be.

Sack the Brit and employ the Pole.,,as they are much more unlikely to make a claim,,(considering they havent been brought up in a claims culture like we have under zenu labour).

Er....... sorry for the pause - I think I was temporarily distracted by the sound of knuckles dragging along the ground....

To continue : it is perfectly possible for an employer to dismiss an employee if they have good reason to do so and follow their own previously-declared procedures for so doing. Thereafter they should have no real difficulty in defending their position at any 'enquiry' by an Employment Tribunal (eg).

What this government is opposed to is the very prospect of anyone having the temerity to appeal to an independent body a decision by an employer - however badly that employer may have acted. In an ideal Tory world ( and now similarly for the LibDems , it seems) employees would have no recourse to challenge any injustice - perceived or otherwise - short of expending huge sums on a lawyer to take up their case. It is simply just one more example of the love of bullying that appeals to the Conservative mind and those of similarly perverted and spiteful views...

Just sounds like an easy way to sack brittish people to me.

NIN said

“sack the Brit and employ a Pole.,, as they are much more unlikely to make a claim,,(considering they haven’t been bought up in a claims culture like we have under zenu labour).


The claims culture has been fed by lawyers, and I wonder how many of them vote for the Labour party.
You Tory’s keep forgetting just who it was that took us into Europe allowing the Poles and others in, and who it was that gave more and more of our rights away (I personally am Pro Europe). Your lot took us in, yet its also your lot that do most of the whinging and whining whilst blaming (like a true Tory) someone else.
The claim culture is not political, but a sign that instead of becoming more like the rest of Europe, as after all we are Europeans, we are diving headlong into the American way, Money, Money, Money.

This leaves a bad taste in the mouth as I have witnessed and been victim of indiscriminate 'sackings' in the years before to employee rights laws were overhauled....

More smaller employers need to be coached on the legislation, so that they will have all the correct contracts and procedures in place should an employee turn out to be unsuitable for the role or the company needs to make redundancies. The employee would also know where they stand at the outset of their employment.

NIN......I am a Tory and I would not want to go back to the days when a worker could be sacked for no reason at all. When it happened to me I was just a teenager and still living at home with my parents, so it wasnt so bad....but what if a man or women has children to feed and a mortgage to pay.....do they deserve to lose their jobs on a whim without the chance to defend themselves or the benefit of redundancy pay

More smaller employers need to be coached on the legislation, so that they will have all the correct contracts and procedures in place should an employee turn out to be unsuitable

Nissan uses agencies for that.
Only last Friday, neighbour was working in a warehouse attached to Nissan said tarra to his colleagues at 1700hrs. He got a phone call from the agency at 1730 hrs, saying his services were no longer required as he was too slow.
Now! I week in the establishment, on new forklift trucks and trying to find his way around - NO formal training OH NO! that takes time and money.

Actually the fellow is glad he it out. Signs state 8MPH MAX and it is accepted that "only a cissy does that slow" that the machinery is flying around. The management are advocating rule breaking, but will wash their hands of responsibility (of course) if someones puddins are squashed all over the floor!

IMO Cable's legislation is not needed. Infact, the present legislation HAS to be reviewed and tightened. MR Cable is making companies head for their Ladbroke Grove (RIP all deceased) and Hatfield (RIP all deceased) but will wash his hands of any suggestion that he helped create the circumstances which led to the run up of said incident. (should one happened)

IMO the Politicians and the CBI are no better now concerning safety as BR were before Ladbroke Grove and Hatfield! - It has not happened, ergo it will not happen.

Actually the fellow is glad he it out. Signs state 8MPH MAX and it is accepted that "only a cissy does that slow" that the machinery is flying around. The management are advocating rule breaking, but will wash their hands of responsibility (of course) if someones puddins are squashed all over the floor!

In truth, the law had no teeth anyway, so there's not much use in worrying about it's demise. The reason why the law was powerless is because of the problem listed above.

A lot of companies are restrained by safety regulations that come from a third party. It was probably not the company's idea to have a maximum 8 mph speed limit. What happens is that the company will not only allow the breaking of regulations, but will actively encourage it - but not on paper. If the company decides to fire an employee for whatever reason, they can easily state, "This employee repeatedly broke safety regulations by exceeding the speed limit on his forklift. He was a danger to the other workers and therefore had to be terminated." Whoops! And since the encouragement to break the rules was never issued formally and in writing, it becomes a "my word against the company's" case, and no one with any self-preservation abilities will stand up and back the claimant. Almost everywhere I've ever worked, breaking safety regulations was almost routine, especially in jobs where speed was crucial to success. However, the moment you break one of those regulations, even if you're told to do so by your boss, the company can now fire you at their leisure.

The next move will be a "Consultation" on removing the requirement for a Contract of Employment.

The Tory's claws are showing again.

Maybe I've misunderstood what's happening, presently if an employee is unsuitable it can take time and money to remove him due to "his/her rights" even though they are totally unsuitable for the job. He/she has the recourse to go to appeal courts irrespective of the reasons for them being dismissed.

The tightening of the law means that an employee can be dismissed (if unsuitable) if he/she has only works there for a short time. If they have worked there over 2 years they are protected.

Whats wrong with removing dead wood and freeing up a position for a more suitable candidate?

This seems to be only for shop floor dead meat. Iffin it means all the decaying - as in already dead meat (it is why they were moved UP in the first place) from the office can/will be ejected them goodenough for me!

This seems to be only for shop floor dead meat. Iffin it means all the decaying - as in already dead meat (it is why they were moved UP in the first place) from the office can/will be ejected them goodenough for me!

This seems to be only for shop floor dead meat. Iffin it means all the decaying - as in already dead meat (it is why they were moved UP in the first place) from the office can/will be ejected them goodenough for me!

So good you named it thrice.

The obvious alternative is to be one of those Director people, not a mere Worker. Not only do you get paid ten times as much but your pension will be enough to live on. AND NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

Re: Cable to consult on ending right to claim unfair dismissal at firms with 10 employees or fewer.

I dont understand, why the prick Cable seems to think it ok for employee;s from small companies to be tin-tacked for whatever reason, probably none, whilst an employee from a larger company enjoys more employement protection, according to many we already have a them and us Society, between employer and employee, now this fu*king coalition want to set worker against worker, divide and conquer and the bigger the divisions the easier it will be to conquer

All employee's should have the same working rights, no matter who they work for. Now this useless government wants to bring in more laws to prevent workers their right to with draw labour. It's a dangerouse game they are playing, they will say and do anything to try and enforce what they want on the workers. They say this latest pension offer is a good one, if it was offered to the bankers, MP's and others in higher office it would soon be rejected, a pittance is a pittance, now matter how they try and wrap it up. Work longer, pay more, and get less, thats what i call a good offer, but only if it is offered to MP's and the rest of the greedy sods.

oftenwrong wrote:They're slowly unpicking the employee-protection introduced by the previous administration. Bosses will always prefer being able to treat staff as a commodity like stationery or furniture.

The Companies Act 1986 makes it easy for e.g. a large Employer to create a separate Company for each Branch so that no branch employs more than ten people.

If there was a genuine desire to protect employers from frivolous claims by dismissed staff, it could be done by setting a minimum length of time in service - say two years.

No its not the big issue facing economy at all. employees have every right to have protection at work. it should stay as it is today. I employ 29 people and have no problems with this at all

Employment tribunals have been a longstanding way for workers to challenge their bosses at a court of law if they feel their employer has either mistreated them or failed to provide them with sufficient working conditions. Through tribunals and union power, workers have been able to somewhat secure their rights here in the UK – but that could all be about to change with the introduction of a whole host of new fees attached to opening a tribunal with your employer.
 

BBC wrote:Under the new UK rules, they will have to pay £160 or £250 to lodge a claim, with a further charge of either £230 or £950 if the case goes ahead.

 
Regardless of whether the case is successful, employees will have to pay £160+ to even begin the court claim. This will almost certainly serve as a deterrent for employees who want to take their employer to a tribunal and this raises a huge concern as to how workers will be able to protect their rights in the UK. If the employee decides to go ahead with a claim, then he faces further charges of either £230 or £930 if it gets approved by the court. This means that some workers could be facing a flat fee of £1200 in their bid to tackle abuse from their bosses.
 
This is an absolutely staggering amount to be forced to pay and it is part of one of the most dangerous reforms to workers’ rights in modern British history. In response, trade unions have been actively protesting against the new policy that will likely affect over 150,000 workers who file claims every year. The fact that so many workers are still facing violations in the workplace is a solid indication that the current tribunal system is necessary to secure the rights and welfare of ordinary working people.
 

TUC General Secretary wrote:Today is a great day for Britain’s worst bosses. By charging upfront fees for harassment and abuse claims, the government is making it easier for employers to get away with the most appalling behaviour.

 
Unite, under its leader Len McCluskey, has said that the union will pay all fees for workers with genuine disputes. Could we see union membership rise as a result of this? It’s a possibility that we could see a situation very similar to the pre-Thatcher era where unions were a prime part of the working community. Legal frameworks being directed through unions instead of individuals could also see another shift in worker solidarity and struggle here in the UK – a likely dynamic that would emerge after the aggressive austerity policies of the current Conservative government.
 
The Tories have justified the fees with the classic ‘burden on the tax payer’ argument. As quite a few powerful politicians once said, never let a good crisis go to waste. I fear that this is exactly the same logic being used by our current government to justify a systemic attack on workers, unions and public services.
 
---
 
This article has been cross-posted from the Critical Proletariat. http://www.criticalproletariat.com

"I'm not in favour of an insecure workforce”, says Grant Shapps, while announcing the Tories' plans to make it easier to fire workers if they win the 2015 election. The nasty little creep says that a future Tory government would stop bosses having to invent "disingenuous reasons" to get rid of staff due to outdated employment laws.
 
Ian Murray, Labour’s Shadow Business Minister, has commented:
 
“Grant Shapps appears to be admitting that he has broken the law by making up 'disingenuous reasons' to sack his own employees. The government should be making it easier to hire people, not easier to fire people - but now the Tory chairman is raising serious questions about his own record as an employer. He needs to come clean and clarify exactly what he meant by these comments. If the only solution the Tories have for sorting out their economic mess is illegally firing workers, it’s no wonder people think they’re out of touch.”
 
So there you have it. If you’ve got a job and you vote Tory in 2015, you will be voting for greater job insecurity. And of course, if you get dismissed and you think you’ve been treated unfairly, you’ll now need £1,200 to go to tribunal – though your union may well pay that, should you belong to one of those terrible organisations which the Tories hate so much.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/31/tories-sackings-easier-shapps_n_3682235.html

Employment rights are one of the less visible victims of the current governments.

With the dismantling of large parts of the public sector, a tradition of regular and fairly recompensed employment has been eroded, and employment practices that used to be acceptable to distinct parts of the population (zero hours contracts, casual work - that used to be the province of stay-at-home parents and students and similar groups) are now becoming the norm for anyone who doesn't have the contacts and educational credentials to get taken on in a quasi professional capacity.

We are heading back to a Dickensian scenario

All part of the tsunami of right-wing propaganda demonising the poor. Alongside "scroungers" and "benefit cheats" there are apparently anti-business wreckers.

What an ungrateful lot we are!

Aren't the majority of jobs these days filled via employment agencies anyway - meaning the employee can be hired and fired at the employer's whim anyway.....with no rights whatsoever.

Seems to be the way of it where I am - at least for employees without 'qualifications'

Temporary employees, it is true, have minimal rights against a rogue agency, but how long could a bad agency survive without willing applicants for work? Slavery is no longer fashionable.

As in many other situations, it takes two to tango. Temporary work suits e.g. Mums with schoolchildren, who therefore only want offers of work during term-time. Employment Agencies go to a lot of trouble to keep good temps on-team.

Tightening up of the criteria for receiving out-of-work (or indeed ANY benefits) does rather work to guarantee the employment agencies a steady flow of sacrificial victims - especially when local employers of unskilled labour are fully committed to recruiting through the agencies.

By continuing to capitalise on the readily available and highly trained temporary and interim market, businesses can adjust more easily and quickly to workload variations, and bring in specialist with the required experiences to run particular programmes,” he added.

Round here, the major use of temporary and zero-hours staff is for shelf filling, chicken carcass processing and other such 'highly skilled' occupations, which sort of makes a nonsense of that statement.
It's used very much in the chicken processing field, where repetitive strain injuries are common, to avoid the employer having to shell out for sickness pay. I'm not talking about a small scale chicken farmer here, but a pultry farming concern you'll have all heard of.
In the main, the smaller businesses are pretty decent to their staff.

Perhaps why they coined the phrase, "Normal for Norfolk".