"Many regulations conceived in an era of full employment are designed to make employment more attractive to potential employees, That was addressing yesterday's problem. In today's era of a lack of jobs those regulations simply exacerbate the national problem of high unemployment." (Huffingtonpost.co.uk)
I fail to see how keeping someone in a job (whether they are lazy or otherwise) contributes to a problem of high unemployment.
Unemployment law in the UK is very detailed and sometimes complex, but if it is, that is because it has been honed to achieve the best balance between the employer and the employee. Having said that, the dismissal process is relatively straightforward, particularly for unproductive workers. How difficult is it to understand and implement a policy that is as simple as verbal warning, writing warning, final writing warning, out?
In my experience, all too often, unproductive workers are the result of the mismanagement of the employer. I have witnessed first hand an employee that literally sat with his feet up on the desk and got away with it over and over because the manager failed to follow the correct procedure for dismissal. Why did this happen? It wasn't because the law was ineffective, it was because the manager didn't want to deal with the problem and, when threatened by the employee (with an employment tribunal), didn't understand the process and the law enough to be confident to proceed.
While the employee must take responsibility for their own actions (or inaction), the employer must take responsibility for addressing those problems. Individuals must be given a fair opportunity to reverse the negative behavior and improve their performance. Existing laws ensure that all employees receive due process when being dismissed and that they have a right of appeal. Even with laws as they are now, anyone can be sacked for any reason; it's just a matter of cost!
I have also witnessed first hand someone being summarily dismissed because the manager wanted to replace them with a friend, so it's not as if unfair dismissal doesn't still happen, even with the laws in place.
If there was ever any doubt that the Tories have changed for the better, this report removes it in one fell swoop. They are the party of the rich and the party of business and they have once again demonstrated how, despite a young, fresh image, and a selection of moderate policies, the party is the same old wolf wearing the same old sheep-skin rug and hoping no-one will notice. But we have noticed.
I understand the motivation and I even understand the principles on which Conservative policies are founded - small government, less tax etc. But the problem with small government (ie. repealing laws and removing government and civil justice responsibility) is that it is always the guy at the bottom of the ladder that suffers. After all, shit falls downwards.
Beecroft goes on to say in the report that:
"The downside of the proposal is that some people would be dismissed simply because their employer did not like them," and adds "While this is sad I believe it is a price worth paying for all the benefits that would result from change." (Huffingtonpost.co.uk)
The unjust sacking of even one hard-working individual is a price that I am simply unwilling to pay. Mainly because that person could, one-day, be me. We need more job security in a recession, not less and I'm pretty sure if Beecroft or David Cameron had normal jobs, this idea would never have been thought of, never mind actually making it to consideration. .
No comments:
Post a Comment