Govt to remove right to employment tribunals

[laptop]

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.

That'll be bullshit fed to the Daily Fail. Then the lawyers say (about some of it) "sorry, can't do that" and they blame the Evil Brussels. Or the Evil Strasbourg (continuing falsely to claim it has something to do with the EU). Win both ways in convincing Fail "readers" to keep supporting the Tories.

 

[past caring]

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.

No. This announcement is about extending the length of time an employee needs to be with an employer before bringing an ordinary unfair dismissal claim - e.g. things like unfair selection for redundancy, failure to follow discipliniary procedures, constructive unfair dismissal. But the things you are talking about - discrimination on the grounds of sex or race (along with age, disability, pregnancy or maternity leave, religion or belief, sexual orientation, gender identity) is unlawful at any time in the employment relationship - i.e. the minute you walk through the door. They will not be able to change any of that without falling foul of the HRA.

 

[SpookyFrank]

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.

Sounds about right. I doubt any of those Tory cunts have any conception of what it's like to do an actual job, still less to live with that constant dread of getting the boot for some spurious reason or other and suddenly not being able to pay rent, eat, get drunk to forget about the unutterable misery of it all etc. Because Cameron is right, employers will always be happier the fewer rights they are required to give their employers. People will probably make a lot more money as a result of these changes. Maybe it genuinely doesn't enter a single tory head that letting a few rich people get even richer by letting them fuck poor people in the arse with even less lubricant than before is not actually a good thing. That is indeed a special kind of evil.

 

[The Black Hand]

Because unions are always useful social partners in flexibility.

I am not sure whether this is the case. It seems to me that they want to smash unions where they have high levels of membership. The ultimate in 'flexibility' is extremely low levels of union membership in the private sector, much as the states, and this seems to be where they are heading. A return to fairly pure economic liberalism, or neo liberalism as we have to describe it correctly.

 

[butchersapron]

Again, that's too simplistic. Modern management strategies concentrate on split work forces - core of stable, 'happy' unionised workers, surrounded by a variety of people on temp contracts, agency workers, external contract workers, self employed, part-timers, flexible workers - producing a segmented workforce all operating in different material conditions and with different experiences of the workplace, with all commonality wiped away, and all competing with each other (and often in different unions). Removing unions totally from workplaces would be a step towards homogenising those conditions and providing a very easy shared point of reference, an easy flag to rally around.

Of course, the ideal situation isn't one where there's high membership that can offer effective resistance or impose interests (think RMT) and they'll want to chip away at those but we need to separate situations like this from the far more usual ones in the private sector - the bosses won't be applying the same tactics to both situations.

 

[The Black Hand]

Again, that's too simplistic. Modern management strategies concentrate on split work forces - core of stable, 'happy' unionised workers, surrounded by a variety of people on temp contracts, agency workers, external contract workers, self employed, part-timers, flexible workers - producing a segmented workforce all operating in different material conditions and with different experiences of the workplace, with all commonality wiped away, and all competing with each other (and often in different unions). Removing unions totally from workplaces would be a step towards homogenising those conditions and providing a very easy shared point of reference, an easy flag to rally around.

Of course, the ideal situation isn't one where there's high membership that can offer effective resistance or impose interests (think RMT) and they'll want to chip away at those but we need to separate situations like this from the far more usual ones in the private sector - the bosses won't be applying the same tactics to both situations.

Thats classic Harvey from the 1980s.

I agree between pure models is where 'the truth' always lies, but I was describing the direction of movement.

 

[butchersapron]

(It's actually classic labour segmentation theory slightly modernised as developed by Reich, Edwards and Gordon in the decades before the 80s, which itself reflected already existing management practice - OT, and just put in for info in case anyone wanted to follow this line up for themselves - not for a row)

 

[DrRingDing]

Again, that's too simplistic. Modern management strategies concentrate on split work forces - core of stable, 'happy' unionised workers, surrounded by a variety of people on temp contracts, agency workers, external contract workers, self employed, part-timers, flexible workers - producing a segmented workforce all operating in different material conditions and with different experiences of the workplace, with all commonality wiped away, and all competing with each other (and often in different unions).

Yep but one of the problems is that temp workers don't feel represented by most unions....and to be fair there's not a lot unions can do to support individual temp workers. It's a shite state of affairs.

 

[butchersapron]

Yep but one of the problems is that temp workers don't feel represented by most unions....and to be fair there's not a lot unions can do to support individual temp workers. It's a shite state of affairs.

That's my point - union membership is often levered as a tool to split the workforce. You create what can easily appear as an internal aristocracy.

 

[DrRingDing]

You create what can easily appear as an internal aristocracy.

Absolutely, I've got it in my workplace....to an extent it makes me feel a little queezy.

 

[trevhagl]

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.

i disagree, i think they are going all out to provoke a war then they will turn round and say "gosh all these strikes, we must ban strikes!" and do what they always wanted to do

 

[trevhagl]

Yep but one of the problems is that temp workers don't feel represented by most unions....and to be fair there's not a lot unions can do to support individual temp workers. It's a shite state of affairs.

if Labour had really been Labour they would've made it compulsory for agency workers to have the same rights as ordinary workers

 

[treelover]

'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'.


awful news, Cameron has siad ''he will not make the mistake Blair made'', of not reforming welfare, the NHS, etc while the Govt is in its 'honeymoon period, though in his case thats over already.

it fits in nicely with their welfare to work plans as well, Atos(who will likely get the contract) will be able to push people into these hire and fire low pay/low esteem jobs..

 

[The Black Hand]

(It's actually classic labour segmentation theory slightly modernised as developed by Reich, Edwards and Gordon in the decades before the 80s, which itself reflected already existing management practice - OT, and just put in for info in case anyone wanted to follow this line up for themselves - not for a row)

Interesting, and many thanks for the information.

 

[The Black Hand]

i disagree, i think they are going all out to provoke a war then they will turn round and say "gosh all these strikes, we must ban strikes!" and do what they always wanted to do

Yes Trev, but they had every chance to abolish the Trade Unions laws, didn't, and instead made it harder to strike.

 

[RedDragon]

Wow, shocked to recently read...

Employment tribunal claims drop by 79% in a year Unison

 

[butchersapron]

Supreme court rules fees of up £1,200 are ‘inconsistent with access to justice’ and government may have to pay back £27m

The government has promised to stop charging employment tribunal fees and to refund those who have paid them, after a trade union won a landmark legal case.

The supreme court ruled in favour of Unison after the union argued fees of up to £1,200 were preventing workers – especially those on lower incomes – from getting justice.

The decision by a panel of seven justices, headed by the court’s president, Lord Neuberger, came after the union lost in the high court and court of appeal. The action was brought against the lord chancellor and justice secretary, Liz Truss.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

And how are they going to compensate those who couldn't afford to take action against law-breaking employers? Must be shit-loads of compo not paid.

 

[butchersapron]

More - and the chart shows just how many were put off as banhoff mentions:

 

[brogdale]

And how are they going to compensate those who couldn't afford to take action against law-breaking employers? Must be shit-loads of compo not paid.

No expert, but sounds like potential grounds for 'class-actions' organised by unions given that the Government's actions were unlawful?

 

[brogdale]

ITV report Unison saying that:-

...the Government will also have to refund more than £27 million to the thousands of people charged for taking claims to tribunal since July 2013, when fees were introduced by Chris Grayling, the then lord chancellor.

With interest, I take it?

 

[SpookyFrank]

The government will appeal I suppose?

 

[brogdale]

The government will appeal I suppose?

Supreme Court, innit?

Justice minister Dominic Raab said the government would cease taking fees for employment tribunals "immediately" and begin the process of reimbursing claimants, dating back to 2013.

He said: "We respect the judgement and we are going to take it fully on board and we are going to comply with it."

It would fall to the taxpayer to pick up the bill, he said.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Supreme Court, innit?

​

It would fall to the taxpayer to pick up the bill, he said.

He's such a cunt, trying to make out like we're all gonna be out of pocket by this.

Anyways, should come from Chris Grayling. Perhaps his colleagues from 2013 would like to exercise a bit of collective cabinet responsibility and all pay their share of the £27m+interest?

 

[brogdale]

He's such a cunt, trying to make out like we're all gonna be out of pocket by this.

Anyways, should come from Chris Grayling. Perhaps his colleagues from 2013 would like to exercise a bit of collective cabinet responsibility and all pay their share of the £27m+interest?

Complete cunt; look at us...we fuck-up and get so carried away by our own class-war that we break the law of the land...and you will pay for it.

 

[Guineveretoo]

And how are they going to compensate those who couldn't afford to take action against law-breaking employers? Must be shit-loads of compo not paid.

And this is the nub of the problem. It will be very difficult to identify the people who would have taken a case to an ET if there had not been fees and, of those, it would be impossible to know which ones would have been settled by the employer, and which would have been won at ET.

Unless the time limits were extended for everyone who may have had a case in the last four years, but it is clear the Employment Tribunal Service could not handle such a backlog even if they were not subject to the bastard Tory austerity cuts, which they are.

So, although this is fantastic news for the future, and a great vindication of Unison for persevering, etc. etc., it is not going to seem so brilliant for the many hundreds of people who were denied access to justice because of these fees, which have now been deemed to be unlawful.

 

[not a trot]

Complete cunt; look at us...we fuck-up and get so carried away by our own class-war that we break the law of the land...and you will pay for it.

Purpose is to get daily mail reading cunts up in arms.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Sometimes the world pleasantly surprises me.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Sometimes the world pleasantly surprises me.

It certainly brightened my day.

 

[William of Walworth]

Just read this. Brilliant news!

(I do also agree with Bahnhof Strasse about this though) :

And how are they going to compensate those who couldn't afford to take action against law-breaking employers? Must be shit-loads of compo not paid.