|
03 Oct 11 - 12:00 PM (#3233081) Subject: Con-Dems attack workers rights again... From: Richard Bridge Allegedly: - "Workers will not be able to claim for unfair dismissal unless they have been in a job for at least two years - not one, under government plans. The extension is part of Chancellor George Osborne's plans to help business by changing employment law" Arseholes. |
|
03 Oct 11 - 12:01 PM (#3233082) Subject: RE: Con-Dems attack workers rights again... From: Richard Bridge Oh shit, should have been BS. Sorry, please move. |
|
03 Oct 11 - 12:09 PM (#3233085) Subject: RE: Con-Dems attack workers rights again... From: McGrath of Harlow But there are still some potential safeguards, even if they manage to get away with this - "In order to claim unfair dismissal, you must have been continuously employed for at least one year. However, you can bring a claim for unfair dismissal within your first year of employment if you are claiming on the basis of race, sex, trade union discrimination, dismissal related to pregnancy, national minimum wage, working time rights, health and safety activities, making a protected disclosure, making an application for flexible working or, where in good faith, you seek to exercise a statutory employment protection right." (From here) Presumably this would apply within the second year of employment, if the ConDems pull off this fast one. |
|
03 Oct 11 - 12:17 PM (#3233092) Subject: RE: Con-Dems attack workers rights again... From: Richard Bridge Quite true. So far. And of course some of those have uncapped awards too. |
|
03 Oct 11 - 12:42 PM (#3233100) Subject: RE: Con-Dems attack workers rights again...(UK) From: GUEST,livelylass Hmm, and with so many employers now offering annual rolling contracts too.. |
|
03 Oct 11 - 03:34 PM (#3233200) Subject: RE: Con-Dems attack workers rights again...(UK) From: Richard Bridge Those at least now aggregate for continuity. When Thatcher was for that route, originally, they did not. |
|
04 Oct 11 - 04:08 AM (#3233500) Subject: RE: Con-Dems attack workers rights again...(UK) From: Penny S. I do get the impression that the Tories do not really get that workers are actually breathing people with lives like theirs. I definitely heard Philip Hammond (though I can't find the quote, I heard someone on Any Questions refer to it) suggest in answer to a question about more casualties on the roads if the speed limit was raised that this was acceptable if balanced against economic benefits. And given this curious blindness, the idea of workers' rights is obviously meaningless. |
|
04 Oct 11 - 04:21 AM (#3233507) Subject: RE: Con-Dems attack workers rights again...(UK) From: Dave Hanson Boy George Osborne also said they were introducing a charge for an Industrial Tribunal which would only be refunded if you win your case, this is a bloody disgrace, it is purely an attempt to price people out of doing it, if you can't afford to risk losing your money .......? Dave H |
|
04 Oct 11 - 05:39 AM (#3233536) Subject: RE: Con-Dems attack workers rights again...(UK) From: Richard Bridge And when compulsory forelock tugging returns, think of the benefits for the wig industry. |
|
04 Oct 11 - 05:42 AM (#3233537) Subject: RE: Con-Dems attack workers rights again...(UK) From: banjoman As someone who fought and won a claim for unfair dismissal back in the Thatcher era, I have no doubt that this present lot are reverting to type and putting as many obstacles as they can in the way of working people. I was amazed when watching the news yesterday to hear a boss, whose employees had agreed to a 20% pay cut a year ago to help the company survive, when asked if he was taking a pay cut replied "No because that won't solve the problem" and then went on to try and explain why he was closing the factory. Typical. |
|
04 Oct 11 - 05:49 AM (#3233541) Subject: RE: Con-Dems attack workers rights again...(UK) From: Bonzo3legs Longer opportunity to get rid of staff who are not up to the job! |
|
04 Oct 11 - 06:56 AM (#3233562) Subject: RE: Con-Dems attack workers rights again...(UK) From: Richard Bridge Check the law Bozo. "Not up to the job" (not the exact words of the section) is one of the grounds that may make a dismissal fair - so what shits like you gain is the freedom to dismiss unfairly, rather than for good cause. |
|
04 Oct 11 - 11:00 AM (#3233680) Subject: RE: Con-Dems attack workers rights again...(UK) From: GUEST,Shimrod " ... opportunity to get rid of staff who are not up to the job!" Still no opportunity to get rid of bosses (and bankers) who are not up to the job! Never mind, give them even bigger salaries, bonuses and tax breaks and I'm sure they'll soon realise 'which side there bread is butterd on' and 'knuckle under'. |
|
04 Oct 11 - 11:18 AM (#3233687) Subject: RE: Con-Dems attack workers rights again...(UK) From: akenaton You votes for Capitalism.....you takes what you get! and you deserve it! |