The extension of employers rights.

David49

Whitewavemark2

David49

“An example would be my hairdresser who works for John Lewis - part time. The way the staff are treated is something many employers could learn from imo. However, many large companies are undoubtedly to be commended for the way they treat their staff.”

My wife works for John Lewis - Waitrose actually, they do treat staff well, part timers are living wage only but you get 20% off all JL products, that’s very valuable, they also encourage you to chat to customers.
However, JL has not been profitable in recent years and are trying hard to be more efficient.

But it isn’t because of workers relationship that they are not profitable - there are other underlying reasons for the difficult market.

They are trying to maintain department stores in a market where “online” undercuts price because of overheads, labour is one of those overheads. How do they compete when Amazon undercuts everything?.

Exactly

Thanks for the detailed info WwMk2, I shall have a good read around the subject. Welcome back, you have been missed

Oreo

It all sounds fine and dandy, as my Nan used to say and I’m all for workers rights but the govt need to be careful about this for small businesses if they want the economy to grow.It won’t happen for two years yet tho so time for some fine tuning.

If small businesses do not employ people, more people claiming benefits.
Which makes for more potential Labour voters?

Just saying.

Not true fancythat. If you look at the employment grouping by party votes at the last election, more voted for Reform and the Conservatives. Labour equalled the combined vote of those two parties for professionals.

yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election

I am seeing that the 2nd sentence is correct.
I am not understanding the first sentence.

More people in lower employment bands, which include unemployed, voted Conservative/Reform than voted Labour. Why would Labour gain a disproportionate number of votes from people on benefits, that being the case?

theworriedwell

As a senior HR manager I never had a problem with dismissals, had one person try to take it to a tribunal and they were refused. I always had very positive experiences with union reps. I think if you follow policy and are being fair you don't have anything to fear.

I’ve found the Union to be very supportive in terms of disputes with managers. Not certain the mangers saw it the same way.

Mollygo

theworriedwell

As a senior HR manager I never had a problem with dismissals, had one person try to take it to a tribunal and they were refused. I always had very positive experiences with union reps. I think if you follow policy and are being fair you don't have anything to fear.

I’ve found the Union to be very supportive in terms of disputes with managers. Not certain the mangers saw it the same way.

I'm certain they did, difficult staff member and a disciplinary situation and we all did a sigh of relief when they "threatened" us with the union. Unions also want fair conditions for all staff and I've had them ask for a break in a disciplinary meeting more than once. They have gone for a little walk with stroppy staff member who comes back seeing things much more reasonably.

Maybe they just saw us as good, reasonable employers and did not come in looking for a fight.

Sara1954

Cossy. Could be hard to prove though.
I, hope we have always been fair, we have given compassionate paid leave on several occasions.
We have kept a couple of employees jobs for long periods, over a year in one case.
But they were highly valued by us, our choice. We are not in a position now to pay people long term who are either not there, or are useless when they are there.
We are so careful these days about what we say and how we say it, knowing things can be taken out of context, this will all make it so much worse.

Quite right, no company, big or small, should keep people on who are not fitting the job role, not capable of their role or exceed company sick policies.

So long as law and due process is followed, both Employers and Employees should rightly be protected.

Casdon

Not true fancythat. If you look at the employment grouping by party votes at the last election, more voted for Reform and the Conservatives. Labour equalled the combined vote of those two parties for professionals.

yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election

I absolutely agree. Many people unemployed by choice, not through illness/disability/circumstance, are far more likely to vote for reform than labour.

Labour initially were the party of choice for the “working class”, the clue is in the name!

theworriedwell

Which actually highlights the fact that it doesn’t always work that way.

These proposals seem to be generally welcomed by employees and employers.
Good

Unions can't change the law. I was a rep, and the role is to support members in meetings with management or HR, and to (with help from lawyers where necessary) advise them of their rights in the event of a dispute or disciplinary hearing.

This can ensure that people feel confident that they will be treated fairly and in accordance with employment legislation, but that's as far as it goes. It would only impact on an employer who tried to circumvent legislation, whether accidentally or deliberately.

Every time throughout history when laws have been enacted that employers seem as detrimental to their business there are complaints that it won't work, the business won't be profitable. It happened when the hours of work for children were reduced with the 10 hours bill, yet miraculously factory owners managed to make their millions. When women were (theoretically) given equal pay but somehow businesses managed to survive. And many other improvements in workers rights.
If businesses can't operate without exploiting the vulnerable ( and it's never the high up staff that they do this to) maybe it's not a good business model and should rethink things
I'm sure that those who used slaves to make their profits weren't happy about it.
The sick pay from day one would mean that those on low wages, care workers, supermarket workers, would be able to stay home until they are no longer infectious, and I for one have seen such employees go into work when really they shouldn't have done because they needed the money

oodles. 👍

Doodledog

Unions can't change the law. I was a rep, and the role is to support members in meetings with management or HR, and to (with help from lawyers where necessary) advise them of their rights in the event of a dispute or disciplinary hearing.

This can ensure that people feel confident that they will be treated fairly and in accordance with employment legislation, but that's as far as it goes. It would only impact on an employer who tried to circumvent legislation, whether accidentally or deliberately.

Yes, I too was a rep, it’s important to understand that sometimes Employers do “cock- up” The number of cases I worked on which “failed” due to not following legislation and due process was far too high.

oodles

Every time throughout history when laws have been enacted that employers seem as detrimental to their business there are complaints that it won't work, the business won't be profitable. It happened when the hours of work for children were reduced with the 10 hours bill, yet miraculously factory owners managed to make their millions. When women were (theoretically) given equal pay but somehow businesses managed to survive. And many other improvements in workers rights.
If businesses can't operate without exploiting the vulnerable ( and it's never the high up staff that they do this to) maybe it's not a good business model and should rethink things
I'm sure that those who used slaves to make their profits weren't happy about it.
The sick pay from day one would mean that those on low wages, care workers, supermarket workers, would be able to stay home until they are no longer infectious, and I for one have seen such employees go into work when really they shouldn't have done because they needed the money

This! 👏👏👏👏

Let's hope they will do something about the rights of agency workers who are exploited by employers when they repeat the fixed-term contracts over and over, with no sick benefit or other perks of a permanent employee. My partner worked for years under these terms, and in the end he was "let go" without much of a bye your leave, after years of working for the company. The only reason he stayed was that he was getting on in age and there weren't many jobs going round in his niche area of expertise.

A multinational company I worked for employed a lady only for her to announce immediately that she was 2 months pregnant. She wore a very billowing outfit at interview.Due to H & S ( science lab) she was not allowed to do the work she was employed for. She was moved to a desk job. As a large company they could absorb any costs but small companies would/could go bust.

Plunger

A multinational company I worked for employed a lady only for her to announce immediately that she was 2 months pregnant. She wore a very billowing outfit at interview.Due to H & S ( science lab) she was not allowed to do the work she was employed for. She was moved to a desk job. As a large company they could absorb any costs but small companies would/could go bust.

Maybe she had only just found out she was pregnant when she started. Not many expectant mothers need billowing outfits at 2 months pregnant.

She admitted she knew she was pregnant when applying for the job but knew no one could ask.

This will happen with a small % of people in all walks of life -high or low - who try/succeed to make a "system" work for them

This doesn't mean that a law, or guidelines under it, aren't fair or necessary for the whole population.

I’m pleased with the decision on increasing employee’s working rights. The way many employees have been treated, especially just before they’ve completed two years at the company, has been disgraceful. The new rights will be a godsend for younger employees who are trying to get on the housing ladder, giving them more certainty and security.

It seems to me that, if the government stick to their principles people criticise what they’re doing and if they go against their principles people criticise them for doing that, too. Much easier to be a party without principles in the first place.

My husband and I ran a small/medium building business for many years. We complied with whatever laws or changes to laws that came into being. We worked incredibly hard. The stress became intolerable. We took the decision not to replace anyone that left. Over the course of maybe five years we managed to get ourselves in a position where there was just my husband and myself. He did the building joinery and roofing and we hired in bona fide electricians and plumbers when we needed them. We took on smaller jobs and did not accept larger contracts. Oddly enough we were no worse off.
Previously we had turned over larger sums of money but by the time everyone was paid there was not much left for us. We are so much happier and wish we had done this 40 years earlier. I cannot imagine small family businesses coping with these new laws. there was a thread on here during the last week where women were openly saying they would lie at an interview and not disclose that they were pregnant. People can now sue employers for wrongful dismissal even if they have only been employed for one day. Small and medium firms do not have the money to be put under this sort of pressure and to dismiss someone after one day would have to be for a serious reason. They might be a danger to others, thieves. There could be many reasons if they have been dishonest at interview. This government will be shooting themselves in the foot and increasing unemployment. Family firms may close down rather than put up with all this nonsense.