Lawyers slam government plans to restrict unfair dismissal claims

  • Print
  • Comments (14)

Readers' comments (14)

  • Would this also apply to all the wasters in the house of commons?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In a company of six people in a Harrogate-based communications company I saw three staff leave in three months, two of them in tears. Since then the firm has had an entire new team approximately every 12 months for the last several years!! I was sacked just within the 3 month period for staying away from work with a heavy cold! I have an impeccable work record over thirty years and was told if I took any grievance (I lost another job as a result) it would be "malicious!" What is going to be done about abusive employers who use the law to wreck people's lives??

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The US economy has done ok without unfair dismissal law over the years.
    It was originally introduced into UK law to reduce the available pretexts for wildcat strikes at a time when Union power was at its height and being wielded irresponsibly.
    Now the Unions have been largely tamed and industrial relations law reformed, what purpose does it serve?
    It is a radical proposal, but one which deserves serious consideration.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Employers should be able to fire people "at will" - as they do in many U.S states. Many of these critics have never run a business, had to make a profit, had to hire people, or risk any of their own money. Solicitors - the most risk-averse and least entrepreneurial people on earth - are the last ones you shoudl be asking for comments about this.
    If you are fired, you simply get another job - or you create one. This is what happens in America and there is less stimga about being fired in the U.S because it seen as part and parcel of a normal labor market. You dust yourself down, have a few beers, and get a new job. If the playing field is level, it works fine.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A good suggestion, why should there be statutory interference in what is a matter of contract? The inability to dismiss employees without going through consultation and fair selection, which is potentially always open to challenge will increase the UKs competitiveness and allow employers to move swiftly rather than drag out a process where productivity diminishes due, in part, to uncertainty in the workplace. The minimum notice period should, however be looked to strike an appropriate balance between employer and employee.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What is completely missing from this debate the actual global perspective. The UK government already boast about how the UK is ranked 1st in the EU and 4th in the entire world by the World Bank in the index of places where it is "easiest to do business"
    http://www.ukti.gov.uk/investintheuk/whytheuk.html
    The fact is that it is already remarkably easy to sack people in the UK when compared to the rest of the developed world.
    Workers rights are not holding back the economy. It's multi-millionaire venture capitalists like Beecroft who wrote this outrageous report who are really responsible.
    http://collectiveinvective.blogspot.com/2011/10/enemy-of-blog-2.html

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I suspect the whingeing is more a result of lots of lucrative unfair dismissal defence work evaporating.
    Mangwana says: "Worse still, this proposal would allow employers to sack staff who are performing productively and effectively with impunity.”
    What the hell would they want to sack them for if they were performing productively and effectively?
    Employment law has become a legalistic nightmare - just try reading some of the Court of Appeal judgments, usually public sector cases funded by unions, to see how absurdly compicated the law is, and how incapable of comprehension by a lay employer.
    These lawyers who are quoted seem to think that an employee should have a right to a job. They don't. They are employed for a purpose, and if that purpose disappears or they are no longer performing it properly it should be possible to fire them with the minimum formality.
    Sadly, we are now having to live in the real world, where we are having to compete with countries like India and China, where employment law is an oxymoron. We no longer have captive markets, and subidising superfluous employees indefinitely is no longer an option.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It would appear to me that the last commentator has not worked in the US where lack of employment protection has created a workforce, particularly at senior management level, that is paranoid and terribly insecure, not a great model to emulate in my opinion.
    A far more sensible suggestion would be to allow costs to be awarded in ET's where it is clear that either an employee or an employer has been vexatious. That might focus the mind a little of employees who feel that they can bring a spurious claim with few consequences for themselves.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Employment lawyers slam plans to reduce employment law cases
    Amazing

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I doubt this will come in. More likely it's been leaked so that the proposals which emerge from the current red-tape challenge will seem moderate in comparison. This proposal would make no difference at all to the complex cases referred to by City Gent. It would just serve to make people more insecure, even less likely to spend (therefore counterproductive from the perspective of what prompted the report in the first place), subject to the arbitrary whim of their boss and more likely to claim discrimination (which is largely exempt from interference due to EU law).
    Yes, it's a matter of contract but why ignore the human element and the impact on the individual (and any dependents) of losing a job?
    In any case, as the qualifying service period for unfair dismissal will shortly be increased to two years, I think the balance is about right. It's fairly easy to dismiss for redundancy already if the role is no longer needed. Gross misconduct dismissals are equally easy to carry out with a fair process. Moderate underperformance which isn't quite bad enough to justify the sack is more difficult, but all the more reason to manage employees properly especially during the first 2 years of employment.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (14)