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

We are also up against the big online companies.
We have always tried to offer really good customer service, and have many loyal customers, but I’m not sure that in the future that will be enough.
We are moving with the times, but we are in an industry where customers frequently need advice and after sales service, but they tend to want all that at Amazon prices.

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?.

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.

With dismissals it's about documentation - all issues recorded by manager at the time & kept accessible - & communication with the employee.No-one wants to dismiss someone who can do the job adequately, hiring new is expensive & a minefield these days. Having the conversations & recording them meticulously makes dismissal of employees who can't or won't do the job possible. & often sorts the problem out so things improve.
We have a small business & just recruited an apprentice, I hope there'll be some leeway for age 16-17 apprentices not to get the adult minimum wage. We have to pay them when they're in college, we have to part-fund the training & spend time on practical training, we are really busy.They will get A levels equivalent in 3 years & they're earning while they do it. It's an ageing industry & needs young people, but we would look for an older person who already has some skills, can drive etc, if we had to pay a school-leaver the same, & a lot of that extra goes straight to the taxman anyway.

“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.

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.

As usual employers will work within the rules, zero hours contracts were bad but at the end of the day the rules apply to all employers. If that makes employees less efficient all businesses are affected which may increase the cost of their product.
So the customer pays, in fact they are already paying, it’s very hard to sack an unproductive worker now. In the same way minimum wage is likely to increase, this affects all businesses and the customer - you and I, pay.

Sara1954

I do believe that potential problems can be resolved with good will on both sides, but I also know that employers walk on eggshells a lot of the time.
We hate the them and us feeling that seems to have come about, it never used to be like this, and it hasn’t come from us, it makes me nervous.

It could be argued that this division has been caused by Cameron stripping away employees rights. When an employee can be dismissed out of hand with no explanation, or turn up in the hope there will be some work (zero-working) and fire and hire then you cannot expect nor deserve great loyalty etc. imo.

If employees are treated with respect and know that their mortgages are reasonably secure then we can expect a different attitude to prevail.

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.

Wyllow, I agree, I don’t think it’s about a law, I don’t know what it is, but it feels very uncomfortable
Before I begin to sound like every working day is hell, we have some fantastic, loyal, hardworking people, who enhance the business, who we like and respect very much, and I hope it’s mutual.
But there are a few who I know are potential trouble.

Much of this bill is re-introducing the protections that were in place until Cameron’s government took power.

There was no great call for employees protection to be reduced before that date, and economic growth that was achieved prior to the Cameron government was consistently higher than after Cameron took control , (except of course after the international banking crash - but even that was beginning to show improvement during Brown’s tenure).

So I’m not convinced that these protections will hit business detrimentally. They lived with the rules prior to Cameron.

I can understand the change in feelings, Sara, but I believe it's a result of a much worse economic situation all round. (rather than some specific law)

Clearly, from what you say, in the past there has been the capacity within your business to cope with long absences and maybe "carry" an employee who is less than ideal.

Stress levels higher all round with cost of living increases and worries about health and NHS etc for your employees, and your own rising costs as employers. Must have been really difficult with Covid, too.

I do believe that potential problems can be resolved with good will on both sides, but I also know that employers walk on eggshells a lot of the time.
We hate the them and us feeling that seems to have come about, it never used to be like this, and it hasn’t come from us, it makes me nervous.

Mollygo

^I think that if the employee is not capable of doing the job, providing you’ve given sufficient feedback and training, it won’t be “unfair dismissal”^
I agree in principle with that.
But there could be endless forms and procedures and claims and union consultations to go through.
People’s views on unfairness vary so much.

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.

GrannyGravy13

theworriedwell if you are a SME in a niche market, holding someone’s job open on the understanding they will return after maternity leave is difficult enough for a longstanding employee.

To do so for a relatively new employee who in all probability is still learning the ropes will be difficult to accommodate.

It is not always possible to get trained people for a short term contract to cover this leave.

I need to do a bit more research to see how short term contracts are going to be dealt with in this Bill.

If it's that much of a niche and you've taken on the best candidate it should be worth waiting for them. I always looked on maternity leave as a good opportunity to try someone out in a new role. I suppose it depends on how you look at it but either way it isn't a financial burden when you can claim back more than it costs. If they are in the early stages of pregnancy when you take them on they aren't going to be that new, most young women seem to work to very close to EDD nowadays.

To be honest as someone who was pregnant back in the days of basically being expected to resign if you were pregnant and statutory maternity pay a distant dream I am very much in favour of good maternity rights.

Welcome back whitewave
Will read carefully before commenting

GG13 I was also wondering about fixed term contracts to help small/new businesses as well, but couldn't find anything in the O/P summary.

Mollygo

^I think that if the employee is not capable of doing the job, providing you’ve given sufficient feedback and training, it won’t be “unfair dismissal”^
I agree in principle with that.
But there could be endless forms and procedures and claims and union consultations to go through.
People’s views on unfairness vary so much.

I don't think there is a way round this, to be fair to both sides there has to be arbitration if its contested.

theworriedwell if you are a SME in a niche market, holding someone’s job open on the understanding they will return after maternity leave is difficult enough for a longstanding employee.

To do so for a relatively new employee who in all probability is still learning the ropes will be difficult to accommodate.

It is not always possible to get trained people for a short term contract to cover this leave.

I need to do a bit more research to see how short term contracts are going to be dealt with in this Bill.

I think there will be a lot of small businesses closing down ... a Pyrrhic victory?

petra

Visgir1

This could backfire? An employer might think twice in hiring a younger woman if they think they, will be off in Maternity leave within months, then off for a year.

Zero hours that's not going to be helpful in the NHS. Most Bank staff are in that contract, overtime in some Trusts has to go via Bank as well.

I feel sorry for small companies.

A lot of employers have been thinking this way for ( in my experience) 10 years.

Employers can reclaim 92% of the cost of maternity/paternity/adoption leave so it is hardly a great burden. For small businesses that qualify for small employers relief they get 103%. Why would that worry a small business?

Hmm..if I ran a business I’d try to employ robots.

I think that there is a lot in this bill, which will protect our young members of the family.

I’m sure that most can recount incidents similar to what happened to my grandson. He was employed as a computer service engineer at 16 I think, and was very happy in the job and apparently well thought of, but a month before his 18th birthday, he was “let go”. Undoubtedly because of the employment laws. The company subsequently employed another 16 year old, who has recently also been “let go” at 17 and 11 months.

It completely knocked my grandsons confidence, who has given the company his loyalty and unpaid time over the years he was working for them. It would not have been so bad if he had known at the outset that this was going to happen.

He of course has gone on to complete his masters etc and is now properly employed by a company using his skills there, but it was very poor the way the company acted imo.

This will now be hopefully prevented - exploitation is wrong.

I think that if the employee is not capable of doing the job, providing you’ve given sufficient feedback and training, it won’t be “unfair dismissal”
I agree in principle with that.
But there could be endless forms and procedures and claims and union consultations to go through.
People’s views on unfairness vary so much.

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.