Such loyalty to employees. I CAN SACK YOU.

[Kenb 0]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/laws-sacking-workers-easier-220725917.html

[RichardH 0]

Just opens the doors for bad management.

[lee1 1]

ITCHY wrote:

Just opens the doors for bad management.

[firehawk 0]

ITCHY wrote:

Just opens the doors for bad management.

From my previous 2 jobs, there is plenty of that already. It just means that they would be able to get away with it instead

[smilinjack 0]

I think we're entering a new Victorian Age. Exploitation is the order of the day-immigrants brought in to force down wages & create a pool of surplus exploitable labour. Rights being eroded, and wealth most definitely being redistributed upwards. Be afraid people, be very afraid.

[Macie_UK 0]

Personally I think that it's a good thing - although I notice that the employer will still have to pay compensation - as I believe that employer's already have too many restrictions on how they can operate. Too many people over the last few years seem to think that is a right to have a job and that merely attending, as opposed to performing, is acceptable and at the first hint of possible sanctions start preparing for an ET or decide to play the 'stress' card.

Let's face it, if an employer wants you gone, it is eminently achievable whilst 'covering their back' through various avenues anyway, the only difference with the proposals is that they don't have to waste 3 or 4 months going through the hoops / charade (for example) of a formal PIP.

I don't doubt for a second that there are poor managers out there, but legislation doesn't really change that, they just find new and legally compliant ways of being crap.

[BanditMike 0]

@Macie_UK wrote:

Personally I think that it's a good thing - although I notice that the employer will still have to pay compensation - as I believe that employer's already have too many restrictions on how they can operate. Too many people over the last few years seem to think that is a right to have a job and that merely attending, as opposed to performing, is acceptable and at the first hint of possible sanctions start preparing for an ET or decide to play the 'stress' card.

Let's face it, if an employer wants you gone, it is eminently achievable whilst 'covering their back' through various avenues anyway, the only difference with the proposals is that they don't have to waste 3 or 4 months going through the hoops / charade (for example) of a formal PIP.

I don't doubt for a second that there are poor managers out there, but legislation doesn't really change that, they just find new and legally compliant ways of being crap.

The legislation needs changing. I've seen it to often, poor staff still employed because it's too difficult and expensive for the employer to get rid of them. And when they do get rid, the employee just goes to an ET as they know it won't cost them anything but the employer still has to pay! Maybe if the unions were doing their jobs rather than striking for unrealistic pay and conditions and the union bosses drawing 6 figure salaries it wouldn't have ended up like this?

[Stue11 0]

@BanditMike wrote:

@Macie_UK wrote:

Personally I think that it's a good thing - although I notice that the employer will still have to pay compensation - as I believe that employer's already have too many restrictions on how they can operate. Too many people over the last few years seem to think that is a right to have a job and that merely attending, as opposed to performing, is acceptable and at the first hint of possible sanctions start preparing for an ET or decide to play the 'stress' card.

Let's face it, if an employer wants you gone, it is eminently achievable whilst 'covering their back' through various avenues anyway, the only difference with the proposals is that they don't have to waste 3 or 4 months going through the hoops / charade (for example) of a formal PIP.

I don't doubt for a second that there are poor managers out there, but legislation doesn't really change that, they just find new and legally compliant ways of being crap.

The legislation needs changing. I've seen it to often, poor staff still employed because it's too difficult and expensive for the employer to get rid of them. And when they do get rid, the employee just goes to an ET as they know it won't cost them anything but the employer still has to pay! Maybe if the unions were doing their jobs rather than striking for unrealistic pay and conditions and the union bosses drawing 6 figure salaries it wouldn't have ended up like this?

well said Mike.

[Kenb 0]

Poor standard workers is a symptom of PPM (Piss Poor Management), they employed them and failed to understand how to get the best from them. Problem is PPM will be the judge of you keeping your job or not. Many excellent employees risk being sacked because they are not flavour of the month.

If you were running your own business how many of your present/past managers will you employ.

[Macie_UK 0]

@Kenb wrote:

Poor standard workers is a symptom of PPM (Piss Poor Management), they employed them and failed to understand how to get the best from them.

Disagree! While crap management will lead to unmotivated and miserable staff, there are an awful lot of people out there that want to do the absolute minimum that they can with no concern for the business as a whole, safe in the knowledge that that can play the system with the protection of over-regulation. [1]

I've never yet interviewed anyone that sits there and says "employ me because I will do as little as possible, take loads of days off sick when I want an extra holiday, actively cause friction between my colleagues, slag the company off to clients and start diarising events and emails immediately in case I can get my house insurance company to pay for me taking you to an ET in a year, yet these people are about Ken.

Quite often though the line manager didn't do the employing, it was either someone senior or an HR bod. That doesn't excuse one-dimensional management though and there is a lot of that about - 4 of my 6 directors at my last place were exceptionally inflexible in their management style. The positive of that is that they were very easy to appease individually (manage your manager ). I also had depot and department managers that nearly lost good staff because they didn't understand how to motivate or lead them [2], but they also had poor staff that they kept on way past their sell-by date because they were bound by restrictive legislation.

@Kenb wrote:

If you were running your own business how many of your present/past managers will you employ.

Managers that worked for me - 13 out of the last 16. Managers that I worked for - all but 2 out of the last 20 odd years. The proviso of course, is that they would be employed in a role that would fit their strengths, so you keep the bean counters away from managing people, keep engineers away from setting budgets and keep sales guys away from anything whatsoever that required organisation or administration!

[1] Call me an over-simplistic draconian pig-dog, but I have real issues with this kind of crap. If it's *my* business and *my* money and I want to cease your employment because you have p***** me off, then I should be able to, without some muppet from ACAS telling me I have to pay you for another 3 months while I make your position redundant. Likewise I have turned down a job offer in the dim and distant past because it was a requirement that I join the union. that - if I don't like it then I can either live with it, deal with it or leave and work somewhere else.

[2] FWIW the least capable type of generalist manager I have encountered have been internal candidates that have been with the company a long time and over-promoted as a reward for their longevity.

[Kenb 0]

My point is if there is a problem with employees, it is a management problem.

Management employed such people and its likely they alone contributed to what they now don't like about the person(s), and have failed to address the problem. Any half decent management would identify the problem(s) and resolve issues to the satisfaction of all involved. Always remember when "dirty tricks" have been threatened or played there is always a payback time.

Of course in todays climate, threats of redundancy increase thus assisting PPM to rule by fear.