Firing our staff could become much easier

Firing our staff could become much easier

Didn't find your answer?

Replies (20)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Roland195
10th Jan 2011 10:54

Missing Something

Have you forgotten the link?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
10th Jan 2011 11:14

Yes I had

Thanks for the reminder :)

 

Thanks (0)
Universe
By SteveOH
10th Jan 2011 11:43

I have to start from the standpoint that I am not an employer

I use subcontract staff where necessary. So I am prepared to get shot down in flames.

However I think that, even though in my opinion employment legislation is overly complex and slanted too much in the employee's favour, one year is sufficient time to find out if an employee is lazy, rubbish at their job, doesn't fit in etc etc.

It does seem to me a bit unfair that an employee would have to wait for 2 years before they had any redress.

Thanks (0)
By Moonbeam
10th Jan 2011 13:09

Poor recruitment methods and poor employment practice

Too often I have heard complaints from the owners of small companies that certain staff are incompetent. Such companies often don't know the best way of recruiting and don't want to go on an ACAS course to find out how. They are also pretty hopeless at monitoring employees' work and at training and supervision in general.

Hopeless employees tend to be this way from the start, but nothing is done about them. Because they are hopeless, they have no idea how much better they could be, so are not in the best position to monitor their own performance. If the boss is equally hopeless then it seems rather unfair to leave it for 2 years before dismissing the person concerned. In a fairer world, it would be the boss that was dismissed!

 

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
10th Jan 2011 13:17

2 years

Like any relaxation of any legislation, there will be some bad employers who use it to their advantage in ways that was perhaps unintended.

But like has been mentioned by others, if an employer needs 2 years to recognise a bad employee then surely that makes them a bad employer.

Any decent employer would be unaffected because they will have got rid of any bad employee within weeks.

Of course there are some employees who try their best while they are on a trial period but then slack off once the trial period is over but it still shouldn't take 2 years to identify this and act accordingly.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By thisistibi
10th Jan 2011 13:25

Hmm

Moonbeam, that is not my experience at all.  Some time ago I worked at a small accounting practice, where two apparently strong juniors were hired.  On paper and in interview they seemed ideal candidates (and anyway it was impossible to find anyone better).  Both okay to start with and then soon bummed around doing the minimum amount they could get away with.  I think [***] takers is the term.  The parter managed to get rid of one during his trial period, but the other was much harder to dismiss after spending longer at the firm.

Now in industry, I have observed one of our finance team taking extended sick leave - to which I initially had the greatest of sympathy, until it was clear that the individual was coming into the office for a few days to ensure their continuing employment, then carried on failing to come into work again.  They must have got well over a year's salary (albeit perhaps not full wages) before the HR team could navigate through the employment laws and actually get rid of them.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cathygrimmer
10th Jan 2011 13:27

2 years is too long

When I had staff working for me, it never took me a whole year to work out if they were lazy/incapable etc etc! And let's not forget that it is still possible to sack someone after 1 year for being incompetent etc provided you follow the correct procedures. The one year limit just means the employer has to show good grounds after that time - which (as someone who has been employee and acting as employer) doesn't seem unreasonable.

I have seen people give up a good job on the strength of promises made by a new employer, and then sacked within the one year time limit for reasons completely unconnected with their attitude or ability. This will just allow that to happen over a longer period.

I think this is a retrograde step.

Cathy

[email protected]

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Roland195
10th Jan 2011 13:50

Incompetent Employees

In response to Moonbeam, if we follow the example of the large corporate entities (and let's throw in HMRC, DVLA etc for fun) who we know have fully staffed HR departments who have been on all the latest courses and rigorously applied policies then by your logic, they should have no incompetent/lazy employees at all? Is this your experience?

Why should this be any different for smaller companies without the "advantage" of full time HR advisors?

The point is that when you realise you have a bad apple (it happens to all employers sooner or later - people lie) it should not result in the position where it is easier & cheaper to keep them rather than get rid.

 

 

Thanks (0)
By Moonbeam
10th Jan 2011 14:46

Employer/employee relationship

I did not mean to tar everyone with the same brush, and I accept that there are all sorts of permutations of bad behaviour on the part of employee and employer. Given that rather a large number of employees seem to want parenting from a company as well as a job, it sadly falls to the employer to keep an eye on his/her employees to nip in the bud the sort of bumming around you refer to. I fully accept that's difficult in a small firm, but if staff don't feel anyone cares/notices what they do, one or two will inevitably cease trying hard almost as a form of rebellion. It's not reasonable or fair to their employer, but that is life.

In larger organisations the opportunities for employees to swing the lead are even greater, given their range of benefits, and no amount of HR involvement can replace the responsibility of the line manager to ensure their staff are working effectively and having their particular concerns addressed.

Very many managers have been promoted not because of their people skills but because they did the job they had before well (I assume).

Far too many of them are not the right people to supervise anyone in my experience of being an employee. On the other hand, both I and my two siblings were very needy people when we all started work (at the age of 16). All three of us in our separate employments had a very kind male boss who was happy to be a father figure to us until we got our act together.

Some of my clients complain that they are required to fill this role now, but because they are kind and authorative they have the respect of their employees and it oils the wheels of their business.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
10th Jan 2011 15:19

In two minds

I find this whole thing rather confusing.

Firstly if staff are recruited properly, and treated properly, then there should very rarely be any need to fire them.  I sometimes think that potential employers should have to pass some kind of "exam" and get a permit to employ others, as there are certainly some companies out there who shouldnt be allowed to employ anyone.  

Previously I have referred to the risk to small firms of employing women of child bearing age and then being stuck with 1/4 of the workforce on materity leave for months - of course during the first two years these proposals will sort that problem out, if they get pregnant - fire them.   I wonder if that has been considered as a possible side effect of this relaxation of the laws?

I would imagine it will also affect agency workers. After all why pay an agency for 12 months, when now you can hire staff at half the cost of paying an agency, and just fire them at the end of the year.

In other words I do think that it should be made easier to get rid of staff who dont perform, but, I'm concerned that it will lead to perfectly good employees being abused.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By 3569787
03rd May 2016 18:47

Easier to sack the better

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
10th Jan 2011 23:09

I disagree

Someone can become lazy and incompetent after 2 months, 2 yrs or 20 yrs. Time frame doesn't matter.

tooltip();

 

Posted by 3569787 on Mon, 10/01/2011 - 18:24

 

I disagree.  If a previously good employee becomes incompetent or lazy after years then there is clearly a reason for it, and a decent employer will find out why.

Contrary to what some employers think, employees have problems (debt, failing marriages, illness in the family, etc) and people cant just "switch off" when they get to work. Any decent employer will find out why a previously good employee is failing, and will take steps to help them. 

I really do think that employers whose first instinct is to simply fire an employee deserve to be sued. When you fire someone you are doing something that has the potential to have a disasterous effect on their lives, and anything that stops employers doing so without extremely good cause and without first exploring every other option, is to be encouraged. 

 

Thanks (0)
By Moonbeam
11th Jan 2011 09:14

Bless You CD!

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By WhichTyler
11th Jan 2011 09:39

Automatically unfair

CDsaid: Previously I have referred to the risk to small firms of employing women of child bearing age and then being stuck with 1/4 of the workforce on materity leave for months - of course during the first two years these proposals will sort that problem out, if they get pregnant - fire them.   I wonder if that has been considered as a possible side effect of this relaxation of the laws?

At present dismissing someone because they are pregnant  is classed as 'automatically unfair' and the present one year limit does not apply(i.e. the employee is protected from day 1), and I haven't seen this changed in the proposed revision. Of course employers may disguise their reasons by saying that it is a competence issue, but the law is trying to prevent this. See here: http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1073793717&lan...

And of course dismissal on the grounds of sex, age, race, sexual orientation etc is unlawful: http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1080648870&lan...

 

Thanks (0)
By Steve Holloway
11th Jan 2011 09:44

Pendulum!

Employment law swings back and forward and I think it is healthy that it does. Having spent 5 years in HR in the mid to late 90's and being married to a current HR consultant I am constantly staggered just how much the regime has moved in favour of the employee over the last 10 years. Despite Moonbeam's contention that it is easy to manage out a poor performer, that simply is not the case. Certainly in any organisation with union recognotion agreements there will be a muti-stage process which can take many months to follow through and at every stage an employee may delay or fudge to extend the process. More often than not such employees will get signed off sick with stress and then they are virtually untouchable under the DDA.

I have often said on here that I will never employee anyone again and I think I was a pretty sucessfull manager in business. I am just not willing to take all the financial risk and have no control over such matters. How many other people out there are like me? Give more control back to employers and you will have more jobs ... no doubt in my mind.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By 3569787
03rd May 2016 18:26

Putting words in my month!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
11th Jan 2011 22:30

3569787

How many employers would hire more staff if it was easier to reduce staff levels as and when THEY desired.

Many jobs would be created this way. It is a long time since 'a job for life' existed in our society and NO employee should ever think that their current job will last until retirement. tooltip();

 

Posted by 3569787 on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 19:48

 

Utter rubbish.

A good employer hires according to the business's need for staff and it's ability to pay them and keep them in employment - NOT how easy it is to fire them. In 40 years I have dismissed ONE employee - and that was for theft. I've nerver even considered it on any other occasion, although I've had to help staff throgh problems (sick family members, divorces, etc) many times.  Sometimes a period of leave has been required while they sort things out, and that's always been arranged and steps taken to ensure it doesnt cause them money problems.   And "jobs for life" do exist - if I employ someone the stated intention is that they will stay until they retire, - and they do. My role is to make dam certain that there is work for them and the money to pay them - and I mean pay at a good rate, not some minimum wage slave labour rate. Well paid employees who are treated properly and with respect make happy & reliable employees.

If you find you need to reduce staff levels then that is YOUR fault for employing staff you didnt need or failing to maintain sufficient work to keep them busy. Indeed if anything you should fire yourself as it is YOU that is the failure.

I have absolutely no concerns about employment tribunals, because the chances of being taken to one are zero. Those who fire staff when it suits the company withour caring about the devastating effect it can have on the staff deserve to be before a tribunal, indeed in many cases, they deserve to be driven out of business.

 

 

Thanks (0)
By Moonbeam
12th Jan 2011 09:42

Steve makes some good points

I never said it was easy to manage out a poor performer. I took on a part-timer some years ago and within a few weeks it was obvious that (due to my own poor recruitment process) this person was willing but not capable of understanding what was required. I then took another month to try to do the right thing by her by spending hours of my time explaining in more detail and monitoring her work, knowing in my bones it would never work. I dismissed her in the kindest way I could after that. That was an easy case compared with what other companies have to put up with.

I have been involved with a 30 person company who took someone on who clearly wasn't right from day one, and the sort of person who was only interested in an easy life, who then announced she was pregnant. The MD, who was very skilled in HR legislation, quickly set up procedures aimed at her eventual dismissal, but it all took hours of the MD's time and was grossly unfair to the company and dragged on for months due to the maternity situation.

So I agree entirely that where unions are involved and employees have knowledge of how to drag things out it can be very costly for the employer. I accept that employment legislation can be very burdensome in these cases and should be looked at again. I do just worry that for every rogue employee, there are many more unpleasant managers/business owners. It is so hard to get the balance right.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By lawmaniz
14th Jan 2011 18:28

Two-year limit to claim unfair dismissal.

The effect that the Coalition Government's proposal to increase the time limit an employee has to be employed by an employer before the employee can make a claim for unfair dismissal from one year to two years is likely to be that labour market mobility will be reduced.

Fewer skilled and experienced workers who have been continously employed by their present employers for a year or more are going to risk moving to another employer and being dismissed with a week's or a month's notice if their faces don't fit or they don't get on with their new colleagues.

As for the Welsh Dragon's suggestion that the new two-year limit will make it easier for employers to dismiss their workers who get pregnant or want to take maternity leave, doing that would lead not just to a claim against them for automatically unfair dismissal but sex discrimination too. It would be a breach of the EU Framework Equal Treatment at Directive (2000/78/EC) that has been transposed into the domestic law of the UK that is a Member State of the EU.

The purpose of the change is to make it cheaper and easier for employers to sack workers whom they have employed for two years or less in that these workers would have no right to make claims for unfair dismissal. All that employers need to do to dismiss successfully is to give the workers the correct period of contractual notice together with any contractual and statutory benefits (e.g. accrued holiday pay) to which they are entitled.

Incidentally, if the government does decide to increase the limit from one year to two, it is likely to be challenged by female workers who tend to take breaks from their employment to have children and would be more affected than male workers (who take far less career breaks than women) when attempting to re-enter the jobs market and would need to be employed for at least two years before they gained the same statutory right to claim unfair dismissal as men had.  

In 1985 the two-year limit was chosen in order to reduce the burdens on business. However, in the case of ex. p Seymour-Smith (1994), the House of Lords said that there was no evidence that the two-year qualifying period increased the availability of jobs than did the previous one-year period.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
14th Jan 2011 18:57

lawmaniz

As for the Welsh Dragon's suggestion that the new two-year limit will make it easier for employers to dismiss their workers who get pregnant or want to take maternity leave, doing that would lead not just to a claim against them for automatically unfair dismissal but sex discrimination too. It would be a breach of the EU Framework Equal Treatment at Directive (2000/78/EC) that has been transposed into the domestic law of the UK that is a Member State of the EU.

tooltip();

 

Posted by lawmaniz on Fri, 14/01/2011 - 18:28

 

Correct - BUT, the whole point is that during the first two years they do not have to give a reason, so the fact the employee is pregnant is irrelevent.  If you read my comment I stated it would make it easier to get rid of emplyeees who become pregnant DURING THE FIRST TWO YEARS.

Under these proposals no reason need be given - simply "your fired".

Thanks (0)