Govt to remove right to employment tribunals

[ItWillNeverWork]

The Prime Minister's proposed 'employers’ charter' will allow companies to get rid of workers without the threat of being taken to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal.

As part of the shake-up of employment law, there is also expected to be a reduction in the length of time that firms have to pay workers statutory sick pay - currently at least £79.15 for up to 28 weeks - while some small companies could be released from some shackling employment laws altogether.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-staff-Britain-work-claims-David-Cameron.html

Well if that isn't enough to make your blood boil on a monday morning then I don't know what is.

 

[scifisam]

Wow. Just wow. At least they're being honest when they call it an employers' charter.

 

[butchersapron]

...and expect Employment Tribunals to be further commercialised, off putting fees to use them.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Christ

 

[Guineveretoo]

This on top of the closure of the Civil Service Appeal Board, thereby removing the right for civil servants to have an independent appeal without having to use lawyers etc. and go through an Employment Tribunal.

This change has not been publicised much, perhaps because people don't realise how significant it is, but it means that, when a civil servant is dismissed, only those who can afford a lawyer, or whose trade union is persuaded to pay legal fees, will be able to challenge that dismissal. It was one of the costcutting measures which was snuck through. It shows the ignorance of the Coalition Government, too, as it will increase costs, since it will mean that more cases go to Employment Tribunals, which are also paid for by the Government, but also the employers will have to pay legal fees, too.

Anyway, it has really incensed me, and I am disappointed that there isn't more of a fuss about it within the civil service!

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Well if the reader comments to the Daily Mail article above are anything to go by (and lets face it, if anyone is likely to wank a tory it's a DM reader), then the public are not going to support this measure one bit.

 

[butchersapron]

I can't quite understand this, or more accurately, the timing of this. Are they deliberately trying to ensure the unions are tied right into the centre of the anti-cuts movements or are they so tactically inept and drunk on power and 13 years of pent up frustration and the myth of the all conquering Maggie that they don't realise this is the likely outcome?

 

[trevhagl]

I can't quite understand this, or more accurately, the timing of this. Are they deliberately trying to ensure the unions are tied right into the centre of the anti-cuts movements or are they so tactically inept and drunk on power and 13 years of pent up frustration and the myth of the all conquering Maggie that they don't realise this is the likely outcome?

it makes ya wonder if they are deliberately provoking the unions ahead of the March 26th rally, maybe they fancy another miners strike?

 

[stethoscope]

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I can't quite understand this, or more accurately, the timing of this. Are they deliberately trying to ensure the unions are tied right into the centre of the anti-cuts movements or are they so tactically inept and drunk on power and 13 years of pent up frustration and the myth of the all conquering Maggie that they don't realise this is the likely outcome?

The only thing I can think of is they want to try and sell the public a line like "look how those awful unions want to hold back progress, hold the country to ransom just like the dark days of the 70s blah blah blah"

 

[butchersapron]

Well, they've tried that in small doses already - the inexorable decline in govt approval/cuts approval polling suggests it's failed.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Well, they've tried that in small doses already - the inexorable decline in govt approval/cuts approval polling suggests it's failed.

Quite, which leaves not a lot other than they simply don't give a fuck what anyone thinks, which is in a way an altogether scarier prospect.

 

[stethoscope]

Fucking Mail comment...

It should be easier for employers to hire and fire people and this generates a vibrant employment market that bounces back from down times more quickly. However the sector most in need of reform is the public sector -these employees enjoy conditions of work those in the private sector can only dream about. Poor performance is tolerated far more often and for far longer in tyhe public sector.
Libby, London

 

[joevsimp]

I distinctly remember half of fucking France being on fire when they tried this on 5 years ago

 

[Guineveretoo]

Unfortunately, there has been quite a lot of coverage in the media recently from employer representatives going on about how current employment legislation makes it difficult for employers to do business. This may be what is behind this. There was an awful HR woman on the radio and in the papers last week, who went on about how the Labour Government had introduced lots of legislation which gave unnecessary rights to individuals, when, in fact, the legislation to which she was referring was the discrimination law stuff, giving rights to disabled people, for example, which was only introduced following pressure from Europe, and certainly not willingly!

Anyway, I think we shouldn't underestimate the number of attacks on workers which will come from this government. They are already doing everything they can to move the emphasis/power back to the employer.

 

[Badgers]

This pisses me off greatly
Can something be smashed up or killed?

 

[fractionMan]

wankers

 

[magneze]

It seems that they're trying to do as much as possible as quickly as possible because they know that they won't last the whole 5 years. Shock and awe politics. People are still reeling from the cuts, now this.

 

[Guineveretoo]

I think they are trying to do as much as possible as quickly as possible in order to get support from the Daily Mail reading wankers and other traditional Tory supporters.

But I think they are making lots of errors, and that we should try a co-ordinated approach to reveal the errors and reveal these, and to muster public support for the retention of employment/discrimination legislation. The suggestion that an employee would not be able to claim unfair dismissal for two years, for example, which is how it used to be, pre-Labour, would simply encourage more mistreatment and bullying of workers.

 

[nino_savatte]

And they wonder why people refer to them as the "nasty party". ffs!

 

[Crispy]

I would say un-fucking-believable, but it's all too believable with this govt

 

[Badgers]

I would say un-fucking-believable, but it's all too believable with this govt

Yup....

Nice to feel powerless and fucked over isn't it?

 

[TopCat]

I can't quite understand this, or more accurately, the timing of this. Are they deliberately trying to ensure the unions are tied right into the centre of the anti-cuts movements or are they so tactically inept and drunk on power and 13 years of pent up frustration and the myth of the all conquering Maggie that they don't realise this is the likely outcome?

It is to be expected. Nothing out of the ordinary. I wonder how much the charge for bringing an ET will be? At the moment it is free and companies do get speculative claims that cost a lot to prepare for and defend with no prospect of recovering any costs. I support the status quo on this BTW.

 

[redsquirrel]

Well thank goodness for the Lib Dems, who knows where we would be without them holding back the Tories.

 

[butchersapron]

It is to be expected. Nothing out of the ordinary. I wonder how much the charge for bringing an ET will be? At the moment it is free and companies do get speculative claims that cost a lot to prepare for and defend with no prospect of recovering any costs. I support the status quo on this BTW.

£500 is the figure mooted.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well thank goodness for the Lib Dems, who knows where we would be without them holding back the Tories.

sometimes i think it's the other way round

 

[TopCat]

£500 is mental. Only those who can get a legal expenses policy or have the support of a trade union will be able to bring a case.

 

[past caring]

It is to be expected. Nothing out of the ordinary. I wonder how much the charge for bringing an ET will be? At the moment it is free and companies do get speculative claims that cost a lot to prepare for and defend with no prospect of recovering any costs. I support the status quo on this BTW.

I support the status quo too, but frivolous/vexatious claims can be a problem, particularly in the voluntary/charitable sector, where budgets are tight and organisations often cannot afford expert advice, especially when, as you say, there is no prospect of recovering costs.

An example - the advice centre where I work had to defend a claim a couple of months before Xmas from someone who argued that the failure to shortlist him for interview (for the job I got, as it happens) was discriminatory. This was on the basis that he was disabled. Now I *happen* to have seen his application form/person spec and the only thing that even hinted at his being disabled was his mentioning that he had been severely injured in an RTA several years ago. But there was nothing to indicate that he hadn't made a full recovery or that he was presently disabled. Further, he simply was not qualified for the job - and whilst this may have had something to do with his disability and may have been discriminatory (job is a welfare benefits casework supervisor funded by the Legal Services Commission - the LSC requires that the post holder meets the supervisor standard and the supervisor standard requires that the worker has done a set number of cases covering different aspects of social security law and has done x number of hours social security casework - all within the last 12 months) that was nothing to do with the employer - if he had any argument it is with the standards required by the LSC.

But it turns out that the thing still gets to tribunal and the director spends two days at the hearing. Also perhaps another week in preparation (always takes longer when you're not an employment specialist and cannot afford the services of an employment solicitor) - all of which is time down the drain for an organisation that is surviving on a shoestring (there were two months last year where we couldn't be paid on time and had to wait for a month 'til the budget improved). Worse, of course, he could have won or the trustees could have decided to settle for fear of losing. The bloke also turns out to be a serial complainant - this was the third claim he had made on the exact same grounds, though the previous two chose to settle.

One of the real problems with this kind of thing as I see it is that it is, of course, grist to the mill for those who wish to attack workers' rights.

 

[magneze]

£500 is mental. Only those who can get a legal expenses policy or have the support of a trade union will be able to bring a case.

It would be somewhat ironic if this measure increased union membership. Probably not quite what the government would be hoping!

 

[TopCat]

I support the status quo too, but frivolous/vexatious claims can be a problem, particularly in the voluntary/charitable sector, where budgets are tight and organisations often cannot afford expert advice, especially when, as you say, there is no prospect of recovering costs.

An example - the advice centre where I work had to defend a claim a couple of months before Xmas from someone who argued that the failure to shortlist him for interview (for the job I got, as it happens) was discriminatory. This was on the basis that he was disabled. Now I *happen* to have seen his application form/person spec and the only thing that even hinted at his being disabled was his mentioning that he had been severely injured in an RTA several years ago. But there was nothing to indicate that he hadn't made a full recovery or that he was presently disabled. Further, he simply was not qualified for the job - and whilst this may have had something to do with his disability and may have been discriminatory (job is a welfare benefits casework supervisor funded by the Legal Services Commission - the LSC requires that the post holder meets the supervisor standard and the supervisor standard requires that the worker has done a set number of cases covering different aspects of social security law and has done x number of hours social security casework - all within the last 12 months) that was nothing to do with the employer - if he had any argument it is with the standards required by the LSC.

But it turns out that the thing still gets to tribunal and the director spends two days at the hearing. Also perhaps another week in preparation (always takes longer when you're not an employment specialist and cannot afford the services of an employment solicitor) - all of which is time down the drain for an organisation that is surviving on a shoestring (there were two months last year where we couldn't be paid on time and had to wait for a month 'til the budget improved). Worse, of course, he could have won or the trustees could have decided to settle for fear of losing. The bloke also turns out to be a serial complainant - this was the third claim he had made on the exact same grounds, though the previous two chose to settle.

One of the real problems with this kind of thing as I see it is that it is, of course, grist to the mill for those who wish to attack workers' rights.

I (working for a charity) had to defend a TUPE case that was without any reasonable merit and it cost £17,000 to defend. A lot of cash. At least now I feel I can do the defence myself.