Banning unfair dismissal

Or rather, banning people from claiming unfair dismissal.

The report concludes that there is nothing in European law that would prevent the Government from abandoning unfair dismissal laws – although regulations preventing dismissal on the basis of a person’s gender, race or sexuality would remain.

However, Mr Beecroft warns that simply scrapping the law would be “politically unacceptable”.

He therefore recommends a replacement regulation, called Compensated No Fault Dismissal, which would allow employers to sack unproductive staff with basic redundancy pay and notice. Mr Beecroft concedes that a “downside” under his new scheme is that employers could fire staff because they “did not like them”.

Yup, seems obvious to me that this is a good idea. Employment is a voluntary contract on both sides. Employees can quit whenever they like. Why employers aren\’t allowed to similarly decide that the voluntary association no longer holds I don\’t know.

Basic redundo, sorry mate, this contract just isn\’t working out. Byeee!

Companies that over use (over use being an entirely subjective interpretation by the work force) this power will find people they\’d rather like to keep going off to people who don\’t over use it.

People who don\’t use it at all will probably find their being urged to use it as tyhere\’s nothing quite so enraging as having to carry a lollygagging fellow worker.

And it will increase job creation too. The harder it is to fire people the less likely people are to take someone on in the first place.

11 comments on “Banning unfair dismissal

  1. I’ve always thought people treat employment contracts as asymmetric. I have come across this attitude on numerous occasions…….

    If they resign to go to a new job they expect to be released from their contract early. Yet same expect to get their full notice period plus and extra payment if you have to make them redundant.

  2. There’s as much likelihood of this being implemented as there is of me taking on an employee under the current rules – absolutely none.

  3. SimonF: ‘Ordinary’ people, perhaps. And in fairness, not even then: I worked my notice at my last place (which was not very onerous; it was only a week!), and have a friend in academia who is having to move away and is working her notice. But yes, lots of people will expect an employer just to roll over.

    Curiously, footballers’ contracts are really quite rigorously enforced (see Tevez, and the transfer market), which is probably a function of the high wages. Is it similar in the City?

    Tim adds: Yes, although it’s gardening leave that must be served. Once you’ve decided to go they don’t want you anywhere near the positions they’re taking. But they will make you sit at home for two, three months, before they’ll allow you to take the next job.

  4. just sounding the countdown for Arnald to come in like a wailing banshee about the” Tory Big Business bastards” etc.

  5. Simple first stage solution – cap all claims at the unfair dismissal compensation level and apply the 1 year qualifying employment period to all claims, race, sex, age, disability etc. This would weed out so many spurious claims which are only pleaded on a race, sex basis etc to avoid both the cap and the qualifying period.

  6. In some nations such as Italy, it is almost impossible to fire people, which explains to a degree the appalling jobless figures.

    Another consequence is that a lot of people prefer to use contractors rather than employed staff, even though this is not always the most rational solution.

  7. The last time I resigned from a job they held me to my notice period – “three months, which shall not include the months of July and August” – so it was five months in all. I didn’t grumble – they really did need me for that spell. Anyway, it was what my contract said. I did point out to my new employer that if only they’d got their finger out in a timely way the period would have been reduced to three months.

    Of course, those of you who work in the sort of business where everyone is assumed to be a crook may find this tale unfamiliar.

  8. In France it is expensive to hire someone because of the huge up front and on-going social security payments, and then it is very difficult and expensive to fire anyone.

    Result 25% unemployment among young people; lack of job security because people get 11 month contracts to avoid the employment laws.

    Many self-employed people in building, plumbing, etc work alone and refuse to hire because it is expensive in the first place and they cannot risk getting stuck with someone who is no use, just an overhead and a detriment to their business reputation.

    Small business as a consequence stay small.

    As an employer (in the UK) I did not fire good people whether I liked them or not, but I did on occasion have to follow the cat and mouse game of the dismissal procedure to get rid of some piece of dead wood, whilst their destructiveness upset other employees and harmed the business and distracted me from running the organisation.

  9. Employment is basically freedom of association and in turn, disassociation. So few occasions is this spelt out (I do my best) and it is good to see you do it here, Tim.

    p.s. I recall a rather too-smart-for-his-own-good chap thought he could resign, leave, take the month’s pay and work immediately at his new post. He was asked to report EVERY day, but touching nothing, to serve out his notice. His new role fell through and his cred was smashed.

    He tried to take the piss, but found himself caught short. Delicious.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.