Employment Rights Bill

[PR1Berske]

A Bill to make provision to amend the law relating to employment rights; to make provision about procedure for handling redundancies; to make provision about the treatment of workers involved in the supply of services under certain public contracts; to provide for duties to be imposed on employers in relation to equality; to provide for the establishment of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body and the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body; to make provision about trade unions, industrial action, employers’ associations and the functions of the Certification Officer; to make provision about the enforcement of legislation relating to the labour market; and for connected purposes.

Link: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3737
Government link: What does the Employment Rights Bill mean for you?

News coverage:

BBC: Employment Rights Bill: How will it affect you?

Big Issue: Labour's employment rights bill: What will it actually change for workers?

People Management:

Employment rights bill: what businesses need to know

Ahead of the publication of the government’s hotly anticipated legislative changes, People Management explains the key details from the proposals

www.peoplemanagement.co.uk

 

[Pickman's model]

Link: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3737
Government link: What does the Employment Rights Bill mean for you?

News coverage:

BBC: Employment Rights Bill: How will it affect you?

Big Issue: Labour's employment rights bill: What will it actually change for workers?

People Management:

Employment rights bill: what businesses need to know

Ahead of the publication of the government’s hotly anticipated legislative changes, People Management explains the key details from the proposals

www.peoplemanagement.co.uk

that's the largest content-free post i think i've ever seen. have you any opinion on the matter to start off discussion?

 

[PR1Berske]

that's the largest content-free post i think i've ever seen. have you any opinion on the matter to start off discussion?

I've given the forum the legislation, the context, and the press coverage. That's more than enough to provoke a reaction, unless the forum doesn't want to, in which case the thread fails, and we all move on with our lives.

 

[Pickman's model]

I've given the forum the legislation, the context, and the press coverage. That's more than enough to provoke a reaction, unless the forum doesn't want to, in which case the thread fails, and we all move on with our lives.

Usually people use the op to give either their opinion or set some parameters for the thread. You do neither. You've seen my reaction yet I response I see no view on this matter from you. I don't suppose you have a view and I wonder why you started a thread on a subject you can't be fucked to have an opinion on. Why should anyone click on your links if you won't defend them?

 

[PTK]

I fink, from wot I've heard on the wireless, that the new laws are a good fing.

 

[VivaE]

From the brief look I've had, the one that seems to need careful thinking about are the repercussions of the day one right to unfair dismissal.

A day-one right to unfair dismissal has significant consequences for businesses

Should the proposed legislation make it through parliament and be implemented, employers will need to consider several factors, explains Helen Crossland

www.peoplemanagement.co.uk

 

[MickiQ]

My thoughtsd feel free to agree/disagree

Give protection against unfair dismissal from day one, while allowing employers to operate probation periods

Unfair dismissal protection from day one subject to a mandated and shorter probation period is a good idea. Being able to pretty much freely sack someone for the first two years is ridiculous. It's never affected me personally but loads of my kids friends and the kids of friends have fallen to this losing their jobs after 1 year and 11 months. If a company can't spot someone is a deadbeat in 6 months then that's their lookout.

Establish parental and bereavement leave from day one

Good idea in principal but I can see some employers being more reluctant to take on young especially married women. This needs policing.

End exploitative zero hour contracts

End unscrupulous practices of fire and rehire and fire and replace

Fuck Yeah can anyone seriously justify not supporting these?

Make flexible working the norm where practical

Good idea in principal again but I can see endless disputes over what flexible working is and what 'where practical' actually means.

Deliver stronger dismissal protections for pregnant women and new mothers

Yup no problem with this but again I wonder to what extent it might result in employers being less willing to take women of childbearing age.

Establish a new Fair Work Agency with new powers to enforce holiday pay

It needs to be able to do a lot more than just this, where most employment legislation falls flat is the lack of anyone with the statutory power to enforce it. Usually if you want to stand up for your rights you have to do it yourself bar those who are lucky enough to have the backing of a union. There needs to be someone who can enforce employment laws and punish those who break them.

Strengthen statutory sick pay

I presume this is political speak for just raise it.

The proof of the pudding is as always going to be in the eating, what actually comes into law without being watered down and enforced when it is but broadly I'm in favour of all this.

 

[Fez909]

If I was writing the bill, I would implement something along the line of the Norwegian collective pay bargaining processes and protections. I think this would do a lot more for workers than these wishy washy proposals in the Employment Rights Bill.

This is how your new pay will be decided – if you have a collective agreement

Working in Norway: Collective bargaining (tariffoppgjør), salary negotiations, pay bargaining (lønnsforhandlinger), trade union organisation (fagorganisering), collective agreement (tariffavtale)

frifagbevegelse.no

 

[PR1Berske]

Usually people use the op to give either their opinion or set some parameters for the thread. You do neither. You've seen my reaction yet I response I see no view on this matter from you. I don't suppose you have a view and I wonder why you started a thread on a subject you can't be fucked to have an opinion on. Why should anyone click on your links if you won't defend them?

You assume nobody on a broadly left wing party has an opinion on an employment bill. That's fine.

 

[InArduisFouette]

From the brief look I've had, the one that seems to need careful thinking about are the repercussions of the day one right to unfair dismissal.

A day-one right to unfair dismissal has significant consequences for businesses

Should the proposed legislation make it through parliament and be implemented, employers will need to consider several factors, explains Helen Crossland

www.peoplemanagement.co.uk

we've currently go the situation where an employer can tell someon to Eff off for any reason within the first 2 years of employment and it;s on the dismissed employee to provie that the employer's actions fall within the very tight limitations of the current day one rights

 

[The39thStep]

You assume nobody on a broadly left wing party has an opinion on an employment bill. That's fine.

What’s your view ?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

From the brief look I've had, the one that seems to need careful thinking about are the repercussions of the day one right to unfair dismissal.

A day-one right to unfair dismissal has significant consequences for businesses

Should the proposed legislation make it through parliament and be implemented, employers will need to consider several factors, explains Helen Crossland

www.peoplemanagement.co.uk

From brief look through that, it's just a long boo hoo from 'business'.

Who are the real victims here? Won't anybody think of the poor employers?

Management types are worried about this?

Good.

 

[Pickman's model]

You assume nobody on a broadly left wing party has an opinion on an employment bill. That's fine.

So other people have a view but you don't.

 

[Pickman's model]

I fink, from wot I've heard on the wireless, that the new laws are a good fing.

It's a pity you didn't start a thread on the subject then

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Unfair dismissal protection from day one subject to a mandated and shorter probation period is a good idea. Being able to pretty much freely sack someone for the first two years is ridiculous. It's never affected me personally but loads of my kids friends and the kids of friends have fallen to this losing their jobs after 1 year and 11 months. If a company can't spot someone is a deadbeat in 6 months then that's their lookout.

Yes.

While it's possibly a bit idealistic to have a situation where it's almost impossible to sack anyone no matter how useless or obnoxious they are, the current situation allows employers to turf people out for no reason at all up to the 2 year mark, and it's easy enough to say 'someone failed their probation' when what they mean is 'I don't like this person' - and in some cases the 'don't like' can be based on racism, sexism and so on - especially in the sort of organisation where the person doing the hiring isn't then the supervisor (although smaller firms can just decline people at the interview stage)

Or to get shot of people just before the 2 year mark and replace them, so as not to risk possible redundancy pay / unfair dismissal claim further down the line.

In theory, there's day one protection now on the 'protected grounds' basis, but it can come down to what you can prove rather than what you have a strong suspicion of / know but there weren't any witnesses.

If an organisation has a proper and transparent system for probation / training new people, not sure what the problem is.

Although employers could try and get round it by making even more jobs casual / fixed term.

End exploitative zero hour contracts

Yes, although there are some jobs that genuinely need casual staff - and some people who are genuinely ok about doing them if it's a sideline from a regular job, or semi retired, or student.

Some employers get round this now by offering something stupid like a one day a year contract with the option to do more.

If I was doing it, one thing that should be ended is employers expecting you to turn up (and have paid travel costs to get there) then saying there's no work that day, go away. Something like minimum half a day's pay if you turn up, maybe?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

It’s goes without saying that the Bill is a good thing. But:

a) is it the ‘biggest reform in a generation’ tilting the balance of power away from capital and towards labour? No.
b) the watering down of the commitment to outlaw zero hours contracts and fire and rehire is appalling, spineless and a betrayal of the promises made before the election. Any firm with a decent lawyer and HR department will easily be able to operate both.
c) the bill has also dropped the single status of worker provision which could have helped to end bogus self employment operations. Spineless.

The extension of parental leave and bereavement leave is good.

On unfair dismissal the commitment to ‘further consultation’ is a concern but the promising flexible working provision will be a massive boost for loads of workers (me included and the workers I am elected to bargain for) but I reckon a few ET claims will be needed before we know how much of one.

4/10..Labour has pulled off what it aimed to achieve. A mild sop to unions and mildly concerning some sections of business.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

If I was writing the bill, I would implement something along the line of the Norwegian collective pay bargaining processes and protections. I think this would do a lot more for workers than these wishy washy proposals in the Employment Rights Bill.

This is how your new pay will be decided – if you have a collective agreement

Working in Norway: Collective bargaining (tariffoppgjør), salary negotiations, pay bargaining (lønnsforhandlinger), trade union organisation (fagorganisering), collective agreement (tariffavtale)

frifagbevegelse.no

Spot on. Sectoral bargaining and a return to tripartite planning would be massively contingent and limited, but miles more impactful in comparison to most of the Bill.

 

[ska invita]

crumbs from the table

 

[hitmouse]

Obviously I'm not going to say no to having more rights at work, stuff like getting rid of the two-year window for unfair dismissals will obviously be a good thing etc, but I feel the big test will be how far they're prepared to strengthen collective rights rather than purely individual ones. From a look, it seems like they're talking about repealing the crap minimum service levels legislation that was brought in in 2023, but I'll be very interested to see if they follow through on things like repealing the 2016 Trade Union Act, let alone the older pre-Cameron ones.

 

[ska invita]

Minimum wage for kids is a significant material difference at least
Big picture it changes next to nothing though

 

[Elpenor]

There’s some stuff in the bill about modern slavery enforcement, which the new Fair Work Agency will presumably be in charge of. Think this is currently a police responsibility so may be spun off to the new organisation.

SSP from day 1 of an absence is ok I suppose. In practice it’s quite hard to earn low enough per week to not qualify, as an adult anyway, you’d need to be very part time at minimum wage; so perhaps a cleaner on a few hours a week. The real issue is how low SSP is and there’s no movement on that.

 

[ska invita]

The real issue is how low SSP is and there’s no movement on that.

Wasnt that long ago that SSP was paid by the State...now its paid by the employer...

 

[Elpenor]

Wasnt that long ago that SSP was paid by the State...now its paid by the employer...

It stopped being recoverable for employers quite a while ago.

A compromise would be to equalise it to the SMP rate which is £184.03 per week at the moment, so around 50% more.

 

[PR1Berske]

So other people have a view but you don't.

A discussion has occurred without my prompting.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

A discussion has occurred without my prompting.

You mean one has occurred despite your lack of input?

 

[PR1Berske]

You mean one has occurred despite your lack of input?

Yes.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Yes.

Imagine what it’d be like on here if everyone was the same as you. Even you’d stop posting. Possibly.

 

[Elpenor]

Imagine what it’d be like on here if everyone was the same as you. Even you’d stop posting. Possibly.

You’d expect someone on first name terms with politicians to offer up a bit more insight really

 

[ska invita]

It stopped being recoverable for employers quite a while ago.

out of interest do you have any idea when?

 

[Elpenor]

out of interest do you have any idea when?

Yes - see a previous post I made on this

As a tax-raising measure, in 1991, the recovery was capped at 80%, and in 1995 it was abolished, except for small employers whose SSP cost was above the 13% threshold that has applied since.

Small employers lost their recovery in 2014

I was wrong in my earlier cost, it’s not recoverable at all anymore even for micro employers. It was 80% recoverable initially, then dropped to 0% in 1995. So it’s a cost to employers, unlike the parental based absences which are for the most part recoverable. This needs to change. It’s notable if not surprising that no attempt to reverse this measure during the period 1997-2010 when there was a Labour government with a dominant majority.

Micro-employers lose SSP funding

From 6 April, small businesses are to lose the right to reclaim statutory sick pay (SSP) that they pay out… | Health | Finance | Finance | Government | Opinion | National |

bdaily.co.uk