The extension of employers rights.

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.

NHS bank staff are not on zero hours contracts, they have contracts for the bank, which attract employment rights, at least where I worked.

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.

Whitewavemark2

Remember the scandal of the P&O sackings?

The transport secretary, Louise Haigh, said the new laws would close the loopholes exploited by P&O when it fired 800 crew without warning in 2022, and any company would now face unlimited fines for acting in such a way.
Provisions in the employment rights bill designed for seafarers will toughen laws around collective dismissal. The government will also pass regulations making cross-Channel ferry operators pay the national minimum wage of £11.44 an hour from 1 December under the Seafarers’ Wages Act.

Welcome back WWM2, we’ve missed you. I’m particularly pleased to see this, the terrible treatment of the P&O staff showed how inadequate the previous law was at stopping exploitation of workers.

Surely having a probationary period with clear guidelines balances employers concerns about being able to dismiss someone? But yes, Maisie the Tribunals will be kept busy

Brilliant to see you back WWM2, and thank you so much as ever for simply laying out the facts to allow discussion. Particularly glad to see minimum wage and fire/rehire addressed.

From the employers POV I looked at GG13's point

"I am concerned about maternity/paternity leave entitlements from day one. Reason being someone can be hired, knowing full well they are pregnant and not disclosing this fact. Small businesses will find this extremely hard both financially and physically (planning and managing workforce)"

I take the point, not sure how this can be addressed fairly.

Remember the scandal of the P&O sackings?

The transport secretary, Louise Haigh, said the new laws would close the loopholes exploited by P&O when it fired 800 crew without warning in 2022, and any company would now face unlimited fines for acting in such a way.
Provisions in the employment rights bill designed for seafarers will toughen laws around collective dismissal. The government will also pass regulations making cross-Channel ferry operators pay the national minimum wage of £11.44 an hour from 1 December under the Seafarers’ Wages Act.

There will still be a probationary period:

“ The probation period will be consulted on and introduced in autumn 2026 to coincide with the enforcement of the new rights. The government now favours a limit of nine months– lengthened after pressure from businesses – which caused some disquiet among trade unions which had asked for a limit of six months.”

Many thanks WW👏👏👏

GrannyGravy13

As an employer, I agree (and have had most of the above for many years)

I am concerned about maternity/paternity leave entitlements from day one. Reason being someone can be hired, knowing full well they are pregnant and not disclosing this fact. Small businesses will find this extremely hard both financially and physically (planning and managing workforce)

The probation period is there for a reason. Despite vigorous interview procedures and reference checking it is still in the first six months of employment that an employer gets the feel of whether or not the employee is the correct fit for their position, and in a SME that is vital.

I'm a manager and totally in agreement with this.

We work with extremely vulnerable people and the probationary period is so valuable...yes, we follow all the responsible checks and measures but that period is a much needed 'safety net'

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.

Bank staff, I believe, will be treated slightly differently.

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 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”

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.

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

Would that count as 'unfair dismissal'?

I can see Employment Tribunals getting very busy, though...

I agree with Gg13.

And the bit about it being nice ro see you posting WWM2.

Zero hours contracts, especially in the Care field are an absolute disgrace. Those who put up with whatever the agency throws at them get the work.
Terrible.

Businesses at risk of complete collapse may be able to alter terms and conditions if it is the difference between going bust.

That's a bit of a cop out, isn't it? I can see that loophole being well exploited.

I wonder if there will be any conditions which the business would have to comply with before being permitted to alter terms and conditions, such as producing a realistic Business Plan showing how the business intends to return to viability within a specified period?

I question whether it is worth it in the long run to prop up a failing business just for the sake of keeping its employees in work.

Thank you ww2, very informative.

Whitewavemark2

I'm being pedantic, but shouldn't the title read 'EmployEE's rights' and not 'EmployER's'?😳😳

Not used to posting😊😊

I presumed it was deliberate.

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'm being pedantic, but shouldn't the title read 'EmployEE's rights' and not 'EmployER's'?😳😳

Not used to posting😊😊

We did the same, fancythat, now with DH as the sole owner and worker, and a smaller enterprise, we are better off than we were with a larger business employing staff.

I'm being pedantic, but shouldn't the title read 'EmployEE's rights' and not 'EmployER's'?

Ilovecheese

How good to see you posting again ww2

I second that 👍

How good to see you posting again ww2

We partly closed one of our businesses because of all the "rights".

While we agreed with some, and I do some of the above, in total, some meant we felt the workers were better off than we were, In an increasing number of ways.
We questioned why we were taking all the risks.
It became not worth it for us.

So we quit.

DH now has opened another business, and the only employee is himself.
Especially at our age, we have no desire to employ anyone, ever again.

As an employer, I agree (and have had most of the above for many years)

I am concerned about maternity/paternity leave entitlements from day one. Reason being someone can be hired, knowing full well they are pregnant and not disclosing this fact. Small businesses will find this extremely hard both financially and physically (planning and managing workforce)

The probation period is there for a reason. Despite vigorous interview procedures and reference checking it is still in the first six months of employment that an employer gets the feel of whether or not the employee is the correct fit for their position, and in a SME that is vital.

Whilst I applaud much of this I don't see how all companies can afford it. I think we will see greater automation and tech solutions rather than staff with improved rights..