It Should Be Easier To Fire People

The government are currently making noises about making it easier for businesses to fire people. But, as usual, the human rights idiots are totally against it.

This really pisses me off. I run a business and I should be able to fire who I please. Take Rita for example, she's been with us just under two years, and while she dresses smartly, is always on time, and is professional at all times, she is simply doing the bare minimum to justify her salary. I want to get rid but my lawyer says I don't have the grounds to fire her. It seems she has to punch me in the face or abuse a customer for me to have grounds to dismiss her.

How crazy is that! If someone isn't pulling their weight it should be easy to get rid of them. There are nearly 3 million people unemployed right now - I'm sure I could get someone ten times better than Rita for the same salary and make my company more efficient and productive. Shouldn't this be the right of every business?

The law forces us to keep these plodders, it's about time the law caught up with reality - the best people should be in the jobs, not the average.

you tell us you run a business on a weekly basis....

in a way I agree, but i also disageee given the state of unemployment in this country and the greediness of company big-dicks.

our company is now doing it, staff are leaving and not getting replaced, profits are going down, customers are gradually getting unhappier...but the directors bonus's stay the same or get better.

create a rule to allow staff to be 'sacked' on a whim and you create an environment were nobody's job is safe - companies can just fuck employees off if the company has had a bad year due to recession, bad management or both.

again, an idea that reeks of Cameron's 'make the rich richer and fuck the REAL workers' ideology...

for the record, I earn a good salary and am pretty good at my job, I just dont see why the rich or powerful (or natasha for that matter) should find it even easier to become richer and more powerful by fucking up working class, low income families lives...

Reebok_Rebel wrote:you tell us you run a business on a weekly basis....

in a way I agree, but i also disageee given the state of unemployment in this country and the greediness of company big-dicks.

our company is now doing it, staff are leaving and not getting replaced, profits are going down, customers are gradually getting unhappier...but the directors bonus's stay the same or get better.

create a rule to allow staff to be 'sacked' on a whim and you create an environment were nobody's job is safe - companies can just fuck employees off if the company has had a bad year due to recession, bad management or both.

again, an idea that reeks of Cameron's 'make the rich richer and fuck the REAL workers' ideology...

for the record, I earn a good salary and am pretty good at my job, I just dont see why the rich or powerful (or natasha for that matter) should find it even easier to become richer and more powerful by fucking up working class, low income families lives...

Typical, make it about class!

This isn't about class, or the rich, or the poor. It's about workshy wankers who think it's ok to do the minimum, not put any effort or thought into their job, and still expect a salary and secure job at the end of the day.

Only those good at their job should feel secure.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:you tell us you run a business on a weekly basis....

in a way I agree, but i also disageee given the state of unemployment in this country and the greediness of company big-dicks.

our company is now doing it, staff are leaving and not getting replaced, profits are going down, customers are gradually getting unhappier...but the directors bonus's stay the same or get better.

create a rule to allow staff to be 'sacked' on a whim and you create an environment were nobody's job is safe - companies can just fuck employees off if the company has had a bad year due to recession, bad management or both.

again, an idea that reeks of Cameron's 'make the rich richer and fuck the REAL workers' ideology...

for the record, I earn a good salary and am pretty good at my job, I just dont see why the rich or powerful (or natasha for that matter) should find it even easier to become richer and more powerful by fucking up working class, low income families lives...

Typical, make it about class!

This isn't about class, or the rich, or the poor. It's about workshy wankers who think it's ok to do the minimum, not put any effort or thought into their job, and still expect a salary and secure job at the end of the day.

Only those good at their job should feel secure.

...........

I think its another pretentious article about you telling us about how you run a company personally...

didn't you once date David Nugent? I remeber that being a regular post of yours on another forum a while back...

nothing to do with class, even people regarded as 'working class' can own a company and hire and fire people.

my gripe is when companies expect people to do twice as much work so the owners/shareholders and directors can take bigger cuts for doing next to fuck all, while not offering a raise in salary...even though you have say 5 people doing the work of 10.

its just a government cop-out to make the economy look better and the conservative sponsoring corporate big-wigs richer, all the while increasing unemployment in the country.

but hey...looks good for the UKs credit rating... so who gives a fuck?

Like i said, i agree in a way, I just feel the 'rights' will be abused... a lot.

I actually think employment law is already too far weighted in favour of employers as it is.

To dismiss someone, all you need is "reasonable belief" they have committed an act of gross misconduct and to conduct a disciplinary process which has an appearance of fairness. So what you do if you really want rid of someone is, get two of your staff to do something dodgy and them submit witness statements saying that the employee you want rid of told them to do it. That's then "reasonable belief" in employment law.

Only if the employee has been with you two years do they have the right to an employment tribunal, which takes anything between 6 to 18 months to occur. The employee can represent themselves but will have an uphill battle against a company who can afford a barrister and a solicitor. So many just move on and look for another job.

If a tribunal takes place, the employer still doesnt have to prove the employee committed a sackable offence. They have to show that sacking the employee was "within a reasonable range of responses". The tribunal can only find in the employee's favour if the employee can demonstrate this isn't the case. Which on the face of it, it is, because the employer has two witness statements which show it is. Even if, with the same evidence, the tribunal wouldnt have dismissed the employee, they are entitled to note this in the outcome statement but still can't consider this unfair dismissal.

So, any change to the law which makes it even easier to get rid of someone, no thank you. All big companies are wankers and have no respect for front line staff and will be all over this, sacking people whose attitude they don't like, whose sickness record they don't like, etc etc.

largehat wrote:

So, any change to the law which makes it even easier to get rid of someone, no thank you. All big companies are wankers and have no respect for front line staff and will be all over this, sacking people whose attitude they don't like, whose sickness record they don't like, etc etc.

I'm specifically talking about my small business here, but sickness can cripple my company. Don't get me wrong, if someone has cancer they shouldn't be coming into work, I have no problem with people taking time off for serious problems.

I'm talking about those staff who take a week off when they have a cold, or they always have a bad back, or the worst one - depression! People use these minor ailments to take weeks/months off every year and they know there's very little the employer can do.

Admit it, you've all got someone in your office who takes as much sick time as they can get away with - surely you don't think it's fair they should have a secure job?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

largehat wrote:

So, any change to the law which makes it even easier to get rid of someone, no thank you. All big companies are wankers and have no respect for front line staff and will be all over this, sacking people whose attitude they don't like, whose sickness record they don't like, etc etc.

I'm specifically talking about my small business here, but sickness can cripple my company. Don't get me wrong, if someone has cancer they shouldn't be coming into work, I have no problem with people taking time off for serious problems.

I'm talking about those staff who take a week off when they have a cold, or they always have a bad back, or the worst one - depression! People use these minor ailments to take weeks/months off every year and they know there's very little the employer can do.

Admit it, you've all got someone in your office who takes as much sick time as they can get away with - surely you don't think it's fair they should have a secure job?

Natasha... I assure you depression is not a laughing matter.

I have 2 experiences of dealing with it (I dont mean i was depressed) but 2 people very close to me.

Natasha Whittam wrote:
I'm talking about those staff who take a week off when they have a cold, or they always have a bad back, or the worst one - depression! People use these minor ailments to take weeks/months off every year and they know there's very little the employer can do.

Admit it, you've all got someone in your office who takes as much sick time as they can get away with - surely you don't think it's fair they should have a secure job?

I do have some sympathy with the situation where a small business is lumbered with someone who is taking the piss with sickness but the answer I will give you is that you have to manage that by conducting back to work interviews and eventually, occupational health. You'd be surprised how many employees realise the game is up when their sickness is managed properly or they have to submit themselves to health assessment.

As for genuine sickness, that's just the way it goes, employers should factor a reasonable level of employee absenteeism into their business planning.

I'm sorry but just being able to sack people when it suits you is draconian and blatantly unfair and yet another reason I, as a lifelong Tory voter, and really upset with this government.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

Natasha... I assure you depression is not a laughing matter.

I have 2 experiences of dealing with it (I dont mean i was depressed) but 2 people very close to me.

Rebel, just FYI, we covered mental health issues and depression in some detail on here a couple of months ago. That mention of depression by Natasha was intended to wind people up. She doesn't seem to understand, or chooses not to understand, what it is and how debilitating it can be.

largehat wrote:

Rebel, just FYI, we covered mental health issues and depression in some detail on here a couple of months ago. That mention of depression by Natasha was intended to wind people up. She doesn't seem to understand, or chooses not to understand, what it is and how debilitating it can be.

For the record I'm talking about made up depression i.e. no doctors note or professional diagnosis. Someone just feels a bit down so they claim depression. Please don't deny it happens.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

For the record I'm talking about made up depression i.e. no doctors note or professional diagnosis. Someone just feels a bit down so they claim depression. Please don't deny it happens.

Fair enough - just seemed odd you chose depression as an example rather than stress, which is far more common in the workplace, both real and fake.

You cant have more than 3 days off work without a doctors note...

Even with depression...

Yeah but a doctor tends to take their patient's side, Rebel.

If you turn up at your doctor's looking a bit rough and say you haven't slept or eaten properly for days and are worried about shit at work, he'll sign you off for at least two weeks, no problem. It's your doctor's duty to care about you, not worry about your employer's productivity targets.

largehat wrote:Yeah but a doctor tends to take their patient's side, Rebel.

If you turn up at your doctor's looking a bit rough and say you haven't slept or eaten properly for days and are worried about shit at work, he'll sign you off for at least two weeks, no problem. It's your doctor's duty to care about you, not worry about your employer's productivity targets.

this is very true...

and its wrong that people can play the system that way, I was just stating that 'genuine' depression can be horrendous.

to cut a long story short, I had a very good friend who killed herself at 16 years old and have also had a friend who got divorced, lost his job, house and car in a matter of months, he was a true and propper mess, was on medication for about a year and is still not the same person now...

once people get on that slope, its a hard slog back up it...

largehat wrote:

Fair enough - just seemed odd you chose depression as an example rather than stress, which is far more common in the workplace, both real and fake.

Stress is another made up "illness". A better word is "pressure", and some people can't hack it. Doesn't mean they are ill.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:
and have also had a friend who got divorced, lost his job, house and car in a matter of months, he was a true and propper mess, was on medication for about a year and is still not the same person now...

once people get on that slope, its a hard slog back up it...

I feel for your friend, that's a rough ride, but nothing a new girlfriend, job & car wouldn't sort out. It's not an illness, it's just bad luck.

It makes me angry when people talk about depression in the same way they would cancer or leukemia.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:
and have also had a friend who got divorced, lost his job, house and car in a matter of months, he was a true and propper mess, was on medication for about a year and is still not the same person now...

once people get on that slope, its a hard slog back up it...

I feel for your friend, that's a rough ride, but nothing a new girlfriend, job & car wouldn't sort out. It's not an illness, it's just bad luck.

It makes me angry when people talk about depression in the same way they would cancer or leukemia.

no seriously, it made him ill...

he tried to take his own life on more than one occasion - properly too, not just a slight nick across the wrist or a few paracetamol.

he stayed with me for a bit until he ended up in the 'secure' part of the hospital.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

he stayed with me for a bit until he ended up in the 'secure' part of the hospital.

Which part of the hospital were you in Rebel ?

Reebok Trotter wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

he stayed with me for a bit until he ended up in the 'secure' part of the hospital.

Which part of the hospital were you in Rebel ?

I did ask for that...

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

no seriously, it made him ill...

he tried to take his own life on more than one occasion - properly too, not just a slight nick across the wrist or a few paracetamol.

And that's a shame, but it's still not an illness - it's a reaction to a bad spell in his life.