The extension of employers rights.

If someone steals from a company there would be no question of their winning a case for unfair dismissal. Similarly if they had been dishonest at interview, a court would very probably find against the employee. Unfair dismissal verdicts are not grated without good reason.

I have mixed feelings about pregnant women. They still need to eat, and still need to pay often extortionate rent, and in most cases if they declared their pregnancy at interview they wouldn't get the job. I understand that it would be inconvenient for an employer, but what is the woman to do if she needs to feed her baby and keep a roof over their heads?

I am not sure about the current rules around maternity, but it used to be the case that jobs had to be held open from before the birth to several months later, but women could then choose not to return to work after that period was over. Perhaps that could be tightened up, so that the job still had to be kept for them (in case the pregnancy or birth didn't go to plan) but they had to pay some of the post-birth maternity pay back if they decided not to return? Would that be fair? I don't know.

Sara1954

As employers we are concerned, we had already decided that if we lose some people, we won’t replace them, some are absolutely vital to the running of the company, others we feel we could do without.
We have one person who has a lot of time off sick, and to have to pay her from day one, will be annoying.
The protection from unfair dismissal from day one makes me never want to risk taking on anyone else, frequently we’ve employed someone only to find they’re really not suited, and after three months we’ve let them go
My husband hates all this, we’re a family business, we always try to be fair and flexible, we have struggled to survive post Covid, brexit has also made things more difficult we have made cuts in director’s salaries, which incidentally were never big, we have used all our personal money to prop it up during bad times, but still we are the bad guys.

I think many employers will feel as you do Sarah1954, sometimes you know from day one that a new employee is not a good fit or is simply unhelpful and you really do need the right to have a probationary period.
Where I worked we had one woman who announced that she was six months pregnant as soon as she arrived, and only worked two weeks after that maternity leave before she announced she was pregnant again.
Many companies will prefer not to recruit at all but to stagger on with the bare minimum of staff, so current staff will suffer. I don't blame the companies, I believe that most want to be good employers but cannot carry unsuitable staff indefinitely. Long-term sickness is a real problem, especially if it is put down to "stress" which is hard to define or prove in many cases.

Sorry Sara, spelt your name wrong!

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

Completely agree

There is a lot of support for employers on here, most if not all, thinking that they were good employers. But what abut the bad ones?

After moving to Suffolk in 1986 my DH lost his main client who had moved from London to Cheltenham but kept his London shop. He thought that it would be too difficult for furniture to be moved between London. Cheltenham and Suffolk.

I commuted to London for 6 months but then the department in which I worked, (non fee charging) moved to Milton Keynes.

I got a job as accountant to a solicitor and, after my interview was pleased because she seemed to be a reasonable, understanding employer. This feeling lasted for a few weeks only when I was asked to sit in the office of one of the other solicitors, who was being put on gardening leave, whilst he cleared out his desk.

There was a second solicitor who was supposedly leaving to go back to Ireland but the main reason was that he couldn't stand her.

Then the new applicants appeared on the scene - a trainee and a fully qualified solicitor, both of whom had the same first impressions as me.

I met my predecessor who apologised for not trying to inform me of the employer's true nature.

I used to go to a yoga class directly after work and on those days I would buy extra lunch so that I had something to eat before work. I left the roll on my desk and she saw this when she came into my office, after I had left. After that, the person whose turn it was to do the washing up removed it and put it in the fridge.

The following morning when I arrived at work she accused me of returning to the office after everyone else had gone. She had assumed that I had returned with an ulterior motive. By chance, after the Yoga class I returned to my car to find that I had a puncture and called out the RAC. I was given a report to sign and send back to them with the date and time on it. I was thus able to prove that I had not returned when she believed that I had.

She eventually got her comeuppance and was struck off by the Law Society.

A newly qualified excellent member of my team found herself unexpectedly pregnant. That co-included with her husband becoming abusive. She was one month short of qualifying for maternity leave. I told her I’d make a request to allow her mat leave. My immediate manager told me I must tell her to resign and an application for a vacancy from her after her baby was born would be looked on favourably. I argued and told the manager (an older woman) I would advise X to speak to her union.
Subsequently, the assistant director phoned me, after the union had approached him. He said X could take the mat leave.

cc

Sara1954

As employers we are concerned, we had already decided that if we lose some people, we won’t replace them, some are absolutely vital to the running of the company, others we feel we could do without.
We have one person who has a lot of time off sick, and to have to pay her from day one, will be annoying.
The protection from unfair dismissal from day one makes me never want to risk taking on anyone else, frequently we’ve employed someone only to find they’re really not suited, and after three months we’ve let them go
My husband hates all this, we’re a family business, we always try to be fair and flexible, we have struggled to survive post Covid, brexit has also made things more difficult we have made cuts in director’s salaries, which incidentally were never big, we have used all our personal money to prop it up during bad times, but still we are the bad guys.

I think many employers will feel as you do Sarah1954, sometimes you know from day one that a new employee is not a good fit or is simply unhelpful and you really do need the right to have a probationary period.
Where I worked we had one woman who announced that she was six months pregnant as soon as she arrived, and only worked two weeks after that maternity leave before she announced she was pregnant again.
Many companies will prefer not to recruit at all but to stagger on with the bare minimum of staff, so current staff will suffer. I don't blame the companies, I believe that most want to be good employers but cannot carry unsuitable staff indefinitely. Long-term sickness is a real problem, especially if it is put down to "stress" which is hard to define or prove in many cases.

The proposal is for a probation period of 9 months. The only problem would be if someone was dismissed unfairly and surely none of us agree with unfair dismissal?

Doodledog

If someone steals from a company there would be no question of their winning a case for unfair dismissal. Similarly if they had been dishonest at interview, a court would very probably find against the employee. Unfair dismissal verdicts are not grated without good reason.

I have mixed feelings about pregnant women. They still need to eat, and still need to pay often extortionate rent, and in most cases if they declared their pregnancy at interview they wouldn't get the job. I understand that it would be inconvenient for an employer, but what is the woman to do if she needs to feed her baby and keep a roof over their heads?

I am not sure about the current rules around maternity, but it used to be the case that jobs had to be held open from before the birth to several months later, but women could then choose not to return to work after that period was over. Perhaps that could be tightened up, so that the job still had to be kept for them (in case the pregnancy or birth didn't go to plan) but they had to pay some of the post-birth maternity pay back if they decided not to return? Would that be fair? I don't know.

I can see arguments for tightening up on the return to work but I agree there should be some safeguards, for example someone who worked in my old company had a baby who was profoundly disabled and I would not have been comfortable if they had then had a financial penalty because they found they couldn't return. Fortunately the top boss was more than sympathetic and he'd never have done it but of course some would if they could.

An expensive utopia. All of it. A scroungers charter

Goldieoldie15

An expensive utopia. All of it. A scroungers charter

Yeah. Workers? Rights? Horsewhip the blighters! That’ll show them what’s what, eh?

Goldieoldie15

An expensive utopia. All of it. A scroungers charter

You sound fun.

In practice new rules a new procedures for dismissal, it formerly was 3 written warnings and youre out, unless it’s gross misconduct. The difficult cases are the long standing employees that are resistant to change, don’t like younger colleagues promoted above them and end up obstructive. It’s often better to pay the redundancy due than risk an unfair dismissal case.

David49

In practice new rules a new procedures for dismissal, it formerly was 3 written warnings and youre out, unless it’s gross misconduct. The difficult cases are the long standing employees that are resistant to change, don’t like younger colleagues promoted above them and end up obstructive. It’s often better to pay the redundancy due than risk an unfair dismissal case.

Just do a performance improvement plan and monitor it properly. If they don't improve then they are out.

We have the tools, people just don't seem to want to use them or maybe they don't apply as workers are doing their job. Maybe just a face doesn't fit situation.

Goldieoldie15

An expensive utopia. All of it. A scroungers charter

And people don't believe we'd all be working a 60 hr week with kids up chimneys if it was up to some.

I think its possible life for small businesses being more and more difficult in the last 10 years (before these new laws): a struggling economy, covid, possible Brexit factors in terms of some rising supply prices and more red tape.

It hasn't been because of changing laws on employees,
(there haven't been as far as I am aware of changes except the minimum wage?)

Those pressures have taken away from small businesses the ability to be able to cope with longer term sickness and other employee difficulties.

And those here who have been really good with employees but find themselves being financially in competition with businesses using hire and re fire or zero hours contracts.

Having spent some years, during the 70s and 80s working on audits of SMEs I noticed how often the owners of the business did not value their workers. Fair enough, those people who started up a business deserved remuneration for their work and reward for their start up capital. But, as the businesses grew in size their owners often forget that it was their employees who were making the money for them.

A good example of this is Charlie Mullins, the founder of Pimlico Plumbers. When he sold he large of his business the turnover was £53.7m and it employed 350 plumbers. He developed the business by providing a good service for people who were prepared to pay for it. In the year ended 31 May 2021 (the last full year before the business was sold) the turnover was £49m and the cost of sales was £30m. The latter included remuneration of £6.6m and this figure included £910k director's remuneration. Admin staff wages are included elsewhere.

The reason I am using PP as an example is that Mr Mullins has been complaining about the amount of tax that he has had to pay but his earnings derived in the main from the labour provided by his employees and not from his own hands.

Business owners often seem to forget that.

Those figures might tell you something about his employees remuneration, Dinahmo but they don't mean much to me. Can you clarify?

The burden of regulation for small business owners is high these days, more so if you have employee's, trade associations try to keep members updated. It’s very easy to forget to update policy when you are doing all the admin.

Very small businesses will just cut back on staff. One I know already has as it's just not worth their while taking on the risk of more staff. It's all very well talking about big businesses and even medium sized ones but these new laws are a huge problem for small ones and trades.

Doodledog

Goldieoldie15

An expensive utopia. All of it. A scroungers charter

Yeah. Workers? Rights? Horsewhip the blighters! That’ll show them what’s what, eh?

We should never have stopped sending children up chimneys imo. It was the thin end of the wedge….

Aveline

Very small businesses will just cut back on staff. One I know already has as it's just not worth their while taking on the risk of more staff. It's all very well talking about big businesses and even medium sized ones but these new laws are a huge problem for small ones and trades.

I think here its worth mentioning that these changes are being brought in gradually, and one good reason for that is to give small businesses time to consider, when hiring, the use of probationary periods

(which have been strengthened by the new laws), and being able to use limited term contracts for flexibility.

Employees who want to work casually now and then will still be able to choose Zero hours contracts and again, this may suit small businesses where income and work is irregular.

Casual work is usually low skilled, several jobs and long hours if you need to earn a full wage, as distinct from self employed skilled work where many work up to the VAT threshold having a very good income.

MaizieD

Those figures might tell you something about his employees remuneration, Dinahmo but they don't mean much to me. Can you clarify?

£m

Turnover 49
Cost of Sales 30
Gross profit 19

Cost of sales represents material costs, salaries of the workers, including social charges and pension schemes but excluding admin etc. His remuneration of £910k included pension contributions for him.

I tried to attach the financial accounts for the year ended May 2021 that I used for these figures which came from the Profit and Loss Account plus the notes. Unfortunately, the Trading and Profit and Loss Account which gives a comprehensive breakdown of the various cost and expense overheads is not included. It rarely is.

The link was several lines long so I decided not to attach it but here's a link to the Company which should work

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02012715/filing-history

If you scroll down the filing history to 5 October 2021 you will be able to look at the accounts, if you wish.

Note 4 (page 15) shows that income from the supply of services was £40m.

Note 6 (page 16) shows that the average number of operators was 106

Here's a note regarding pay for the plumbers

"The average Pimlico Plumbers salary ranges from approximately £22,362 per year for Handler to £109,548 per year for Gas Engineer. Average Pimlico Plumbers weekly pay ranges from approximately £210 per week for Recruiter to £1,875 per week for Heating Engineer."

So, the way I see it is that CM is making a lot of money out of his workers. Unfortunately I can't delve further because the information is not there.

If the above figures are correct it illustrates just how much money tradesmen earn when qualified.

David49

Casual work is usually low skilled, several jobs and long hours if you need to earn a full wage, as distinct from self employed skilled work where many work up to the VAT threshold having a very good income.

I wasn't suggesting Zero contract for full timers but under the situations I described.