Govt to remove right to employment tribunals

[ericjarvis]

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.

That's what I think too. They are trying to blitz through as much as possible so that they can asset strip as many public assets as they can before they lose control of Parliament.

 

[TopCat]

I don't agree. They have a huge programme of attacking the working class to enact. What they have announced thus far is tiny compared to their future plans for benefits, the NHS, Council Housing, education etc.

 

[trevhagl]

£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.

thats the plan

 

[Guineveretoo]

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.

So do you think disabled or other disadvantaged people should not have the right to challenge employers who discriminate, because of a few "bad eggs"?

If not, what do you think is the solution?

 

[TopCat]

So do you think disabled or other disadvantaged people should not have the right to challenge employers who discriminate, because of a few "bad eggs"?

If not, what do you think is the solution?

A register of cases brought including those ones settled would identify serial piss takers.

 

[past caring]

So do you think disabled or other disadvantaged people should not have the right to challenge employers who discriminate, because of a few "bad eggs"?

Did you bother to read the last sentence of what I wrote before posting this?

If not, what do you think is the solution?

Something along the lines of what TopCat suggested, perhaps, with a particular emphasis on getting tribunals to record where they have found a claim to have been brought vexatiously and making that information available. Making it easier for organisations to recuperate costs - perhaps only in cases where the tribunal has found the claim to be entirely without merit/frivolous/vexatious.

 

[Guineveretoo]

A register of cases brought including those ones settled would identify serial piss takers.

Not necessarily. This could also demonstrate that someone was being discriminated against on a regular basis.

 

[laptop]

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

I'm already drafting the recruitment message for Thatcher's Children types who've never heard of "solidarity" but will, for sure, pay union subs as an insurance policy

 

[Guineveretoo]

Did you bother to read the last sentence of what I wrote before posting this?

Yes, I did, and I wasn't attacking you - I was simply continuing the discussion, because I thought you may have considered some solutions.

Something along the lines of what TopCat suggested, perhaps, with a particular emphasis on getting tribunals to record where they have found a claim to have been brought vexatiously and making that information available. Making it easier for organisations to recuperate costs - perhaps only in cases where the tribunal has found the claim to be entirely without merit/frivolous/vexatious.

An open list of vexatious cases might help, except that small employers could not be expected to trawl through such lists for everyone they interview for jobs, and they would need to guard against discriminating against someone because they had sought to assert their rights, which could lead to a charge of victimisation.

Costs can already be claimed (I think you mean recoup?) when a case is vexatious, but this is not likely to do much if the person is unemployed, for example. The rules on costs certainly stopped trade unions from taking cases just for the sake of it, or to test a piece of legislation lightly, but, so long as the costs claim would be against an individual, it's going to be difficult.

 

[past caring]

I was thinking the use of the list might be less for weeding people out at interview stage (that would not be on at all) but more being able to see that the claimant has form and this acting to persuade the employer to actually contest the case.

I have a friend who is one of the top discrimination/employment barristers in the country and her view is that there is a particular problem with middle-ranking and larger charities - it's just as/possibly more expensive to defend claims/get decent legal advice but the chief execs take the view that their time is too precious to be spending 2-3 days in court. And when they balance that against the potential additional costs if they lose, they will often play safe and settle even quite frivolous cases. For those organisations, they can maybe take a hit of £3k - £10k to settle, but for an organisation like ours it would, at a minimum, mean we didn't get paid that month.

The knowledge that the complainant has form might well persuade organisations to defend frivolous claims and that might in turn itself dissuade vexatious claimants. So not an open register - a closed register made available to an employer of the claimant's previous claims only once a complaint has been made.

 

[butchersapron]

Here's a report (pdf) that the TUC commissioned on the links between employee protection and job creation. Summary here:

Macro and micro evidence from across the globe shows that there is no significant relationship between employment levels and employment protection legislation and that countries with very different levels of regulation have equal levels of success in generating employment. As a recent literature review concluded: “our results suggest a yawning gap between the confidence with which the case for labour market deregulation has been asseted and the evidence that the regulating institutions are the culprits. It is even less evident that further weakening of social and collective protections for workers will have significant positive impacts on employment prospects. The effect of various kinds of deregulations on unemployment are very hard to determine and may be quite negligible”.

The link for the literature review mentioned is here (pdf).

So the argument that this proposal rests on - less employee protection = more jobs created as employers for some reason are just dying to get a workforce they can mistreat (if true it would lead to massive job replacement and shedding wouldn't it anyway?) and so would hire more people - is wrong. It's just a simple vindictive move designed to entrench bosses control of the workplace even further.

 

[TopCat]

Here's a report (pdf) that the TUC commissioned on the links between employee protection and job creation. Summary here:



The link for the literature review mentioned is here (pdf).

So the argument that this proposal rests on - less employee protection = more jobs created as employers for some reason are just dying to get a workforce they can mistreat (if true it would lead to massive job replacement and shedding wouldn't it anyway?) and so would hire more people - is wrong. It's just a simple vindictive move designed to entrench bosses control of the workplace even further.

I do know of organisations that will only use agency staff on short term hire to cover some jobs because of employment legislation. Anyway, fuck these proposals.

 

[The Black Hand]

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 seems like they have read Kleins Book 'The Shock Doctrine' and are just doing it! Everywhere is being attacked, have they calculated that if they throw everything then the opposition, which is diverse and fragmented, will have a hard job in focussing effective resistance? Lets be honest, I can't think of any English (or Welsh, my knowledge of the Scottish scene is limited) city with the ability to encourage, never mind launch, mass resistance.

 

[Streathamite]

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?

I think they have such utter contempt for the unions, that they don't belive they have anything to lose by making as big an enemy as possible out of them

 

[butchersapron]

I think they have such utter contempt for the unions, that they don't belive they have anything to lose by making as big an enemy as possible out of them

I'm not so sure it's that simple - unions are always useful social partners in flexibility - why provoke them? Why now?

 

[TopCat]

I'm not so sure it's that simple - unions are always useful social partners in flexibility - why provoke them? Why now?

Unions are weak now and the Govt are in power and want to effect change.

 

[Guineveretoo]

I was thinking the use of the list might be less for weeding people out at interview stage (that would not be on at all) but more being able to see that the claimant has form and this acting to persuade the employer to actually contest the case.

I have a friend who is one of the top discrimination/employment barristers in the country and her view is that there is a particular problem with middle-ranking and larger charities - it's just as/possibly more expensive to defend claims/get decent legal advice but the chief execs take the view that their time is too precious to be spending 2-3 days in court. And when they balance that against the potential additional costs if they lose, they will often play safe and settle even quite frivolous cases. For those organisations, they can maybe take a hit of £3k - £10k to settle, but for an organisation like ours it would, at a minimum, mean we didn't get paid that month.

The knowledge that the complainant has form might well persuade organisations to defend frivolous claims and that might in turn itself dissuade vexatious claimants. So not an open register - a closed register made available to an employer of the claimant's previous claims only once a complaint has been made.

I certainly agree that the knowledge might help. I am aware that some employers, including large ones, will settle a claim simply because it is easier and cheaper, or to avoid reputational damage, and often this backfires on them, because they seem like an easy target, or the person comes back with more claims, or whatever.

On the other hand, employers are encouraged to settle, including by ACAS, who get in touch in such cases.

I know of people who are serial complainers, including one person who rejected a settlement because he thought he would get more in the ET. Although he won, he was awarded less because he had failed to accept a settlement, and then refused to pay and subsequently sued the law firm who had been advising him! The law firm settled because they wanted a clean break, and didn't want the publicity of a case against them....

 

[The Black Hand]

I'm not so sure it's that simple - unions are always useful social partners in flexibility - why provoke them? Why now?

If you missed it, they've already provoked the unions. Why stop?

 

[butchersapron]

If you missed it, they've already provoked the unions. Why stop?

Because unions are always useful social partners in flexibility.

 

[Streathamite]

I'm not so sure it's that simple - unions are always useful social partners in flexibility - why provoke them? Why now?

this is doing my head in, thinking about it, because you're quite right, there is absolutely fuck all tactical sense to it. One answer might be that they are so committed to an all out onslaught on the workers and the poor - as they have been since day 1, clearly, - that this fits with it, and they're thinking 'this will only work if we go absolutely hell for leather on every single thing to shrink the state, kill workers rights & protection, and shore up the bosses'. In other swords, they calculate ther gains from crippling the workers and the poor with so many hammer blows will outline the losses from making millions mad as hell, triggering a year of riots, and making concerted TU action inevitable'.
Again, this is just off-the-top-of-the-head theorising, because the condems have been so wildly reckless from the start, I really struggle to 'get' their collective logic

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Because unions are always useful social partners in flexibility.

This government don't want that yet - they are doing everything they can to provoke a fight, a fight which they think they can win, and that will end up with an even further weakened union movment which will be willing to cut an even better deal for a quiet life.

 

[Streathamite]

This government don't want that yet - they are doing everything they can to provoke a fight, a fight which they think they can win, and that will end up with an even further weakened union movment which will be willing to cut an even better deal for a quiet life.

their belief the TUs are there for the taking has got to be factored in somehow, without it none of thisa makes sense. they want a miner's scalp'

 

[Guineveretoo]

this is doing my head in, thinking about it, because you're quite right, there is absolutely fuck all tactical sense to it. One answer might be that they are so committed to an all out onslaught on the workers and the poor - as they have been since day 1, clearly, - that this fits with it, and they're thinking 'this will only work if we go absolutely hell for leather on every single thing to shrink the state, kill workers rights & protection, and shore up the bosses'. In other swords, they calculate ther gains from crippling the workers and the poor with so many hammer blows will outline the losses from making millions mad as hell, triggering a year of riots, and making concerted TU action inevitable'.
Again, this is just off-the-top-of-the-head theorising, because the condems have been so wildly reckless from the start, I really struggle to 'get' their collective logic

I don't think they are specifically attacking "the workers and the poor". I just think they don't care about them, and see them as irrelevancies. In fact, I don't think they even care enough to aim any attacks at them, so much as just getting on with stuff and not worrying about the consequences. Much more evil, because there is no argument, since they don't even consider the workers.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

their belief the TUs are there for the taking has got to be factored in somehow, without it none of thisa makes sense. they want a miner's scalp'

Yep, in two years time we might have built back up, but at the moment after 13 years of social partnership with the government the unions are bloated and weak and unwilling and unable to fight, at least the government hope that is the case.

Also I wouldn't underestimate the utter hostility of most unions to the Tories, a Labour government may well find the unions useful partners in delivering an employer friendly country - a Tory government would find it much harder without inflicting real damage first.

 

[Guineveretoo]

This government don't want that yet - they are doing everything they can to provoke a fight, a fight which they think they can win, and that will end up with an even further weakened union movment which will be willing to cut an even better deal for a quiet life.

I am not sure about that. The strength of unions can only be in its members, and the attacks are certainly leading to an increase in union membership in the public sector. What unions now need to do is to build on that, and extend it into the private sector. That gives unions strength and relevance, regardless of the politics of the government in power. Also, unions are not going to want to cut anything if they have the strength of membership behind them. Right now, they don't have that, so the evil Tory shits can, and do, treat them as irrelevancies.

 

[kittyP]

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

This. It makes me disspear!!!

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I am not sure about that. The strength of unions can only be in its members, and the attacks are certainly leading to an increase in union membership in the public sector. What unions now need to do is to build on that, and extend it into the private sector. That gives unions strength and relevance, regardless of the politics of the government in power. Also, unions are not going to want to cut anything if they have the strength of membership behind them. Right now, they don't have that, so the evil Tory shits can, and do, treat them as irrelevancies.

I agree and I don't think I've said anything to contradict that. The Condems are gambling, it is not certain that they will "win".

 

[Guineveretoo]

I agree and I don't think I've said anything to contradict that. The Condems are gambling, it is not certain that they will "win".

I mean, I don't think they are actively seeking to provoke a fight. I think they are just doing what they want without even thinking about the unions. So, as far as they are concerned, there is no fight, and nothing to "win".

The unions need to provoke that fight, and to show they are not irrelevant.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

This is simply the next natural step, following on from the proposals to scrap legal aid entirely for all employment cases anyway.

 

[southside]

Jesus H Christ.


This can't be right can it? Surely the European court for human rights will have something to say about this, I think its made up crap. So no more sexual harassment cases then? Or if your boss is a racist munter etc.

I can't see this getting through and being made law. I think its typical bullshit from the daily fail.