The new “employers’ charter” assimilation into the system has started,

[Moby-Dick]

So why do you not work for yourself?

I'd imagine because its "easier" to work for someone else than dilute your job by factoring in running a business as well - thats certainly the case for me ; I want to spent my working hours doing what I enjoy ,which isn't maintaining a business.

[Saracen]

I find that really bizarre even though in sense it is true, I guess the same could be said for people who own companies its a privilege to have people work for you not a right.

The difference is that the employee's rights are being enshrined in law, and changes are being discussed, while nothing in law says the employee has to work for the employer.

Peterb nailed it with

An employer/employee relationship should be symbiotic - mutually beneficial to both.

Sadly, that "should be" isn't always the case. Historically, there have been some outrageous, and extremely widespread, cases of exploitation by employers. It's why we have trade unions and it's why we have employment rights. Also, generally, the employer has the money and the clout and is in a stronger position to, for instance, resort to lawyers to 'resolve' a dispute.

So we need some protections for employees to prevent that.

The problem is that not all employees are competent, not all are trustworthy, not all are diligent and not all are honest.

Those rights that protect workers are, in my view, just fine if a worker is fulfilling his side of the bargain, but some aren't, and the issue is quite what those protections should be, and when they should kick in, and when an employer should be able to decide an employee doesn't provide what it said on the tin.

For instance, what if it turns out the employee lied on an application form? And I don't just mean some minor inaccuracy, like getting a date slightly wrong, but claiming you have qualifications you don't, or worked for a company you didn't. Such a case may mean that as a result of the lie, the candidate can't do the job (such as not having medical qualifications you claimed to have), but it also may not materially affect the ability to do the job. For instance, suppose I hire an accounts manager and only later find out that he lied about having a degree, or about the length of time he worked for his previous employer, or the nature of the job he did? To some extent, you can avoid that by taking up references, but by and large these days, such things rarely do more than confirm basic facts, like dates of employment and job title, and usually offer nothing much in the way of qualitative opinion, especially negative opinion, because to do so opens up legal risks.

Suppose, after some months (maybe 6, maybe 15) I find out that that person "resigned", rather than face theft allegations and a police investigation, yet I've hired them as an accounts manager and they have access to both cash and banking? Even if I can't prove active dishonesty, if they lied on an application form, I know I've got a liar working for me in a trusted role. Yet, after a minimum time period has elapsed, I've got to be able to prove dishonesty to be able to summarily dismiss, or I risk legal action. Is that lie on the application form enough to dismiss, even though I may have lost all faith in them because of their dishonesty?

It can take quite a while for someone's true colours to come out. I don't accept the notion raised earlier that if you haven't found out in 12 months, you're incompetent as a manager or employer, for the simple reasons that some patterns of activity can take a while to appear, some people will keep their head down for quite a while, and often, an initial adherence to standards will wear off after a while. For instance, there are times where a single act may be reasonable but a pattern of them is not. A case in point, going from "base" to customer site, round the far side of London's M25. If base is north, and site is somewhere south of London, you can go westbound or eastbound, but usually, one way will be longer than the other. The long way will sometimes be justified on the basis of traffic conditions or road works, but it can take a while to notice, then be sure, than an individual is always choosing to go the long way round because it maximises mileage claims, and perhaps adds to overtime claims. Not all abuses are overt and obvious, or easy to spot quickly. Then, of course, a reasonable course of action would be to have a quiet word and make then aware that you've spotted the trick and aren't going to wear it, then give then a chance to buck their ideas up.

Nor, for that matter, is the 12 month limit necessarily a good thing for good employees, because if an employer has doubts over one of several employees but isn't sure which one, it can force them to dump all the candidates before the 12 month limit rather than run out of time.

And, as I said, many forms of transgression are possibly capable of being dealt with by working with the employee to amend their errant ways, but that requires time, both to explain the problem, and for them to demonstrate that they get it.

It may well be, for instance, that a period of training or retraining will fix a shortfall in an employee's performance. It's not all about dishonesty or fiddling, but sometimes, about simple competency. It takes time for a pattern of problems to become clear, for persistent sub-standard performance to become apparent. But when it does, should the employer try to correct the problem and retrain, or simply get rid of the employee before the 12 months runs out, because after that, it's going to be far harder to do so.

These are all questions of balance. Nobody is suggesting no rights for employees, and indeed, even these changes still maintain fairly robust rights. But from what I can tell, what's being suggested is a fairly minor redressing of a balance that many feel has gone too far. And in these hard times (and they're about to get a lot harder), anything that reduces the disincentive to employ has to be worth a look.

[Saracen]

....

Then we have this"Government will not limit banks' bonus pools " sell out lib/cons,they have sold us out and uturned on what they said, how can you trust them.

It's off-topic for this thread to get onto bankers and their bonuses, or political promises, but do you mean you actually trusted what any politician said before this bonus pool thing?

Personally, I have long held to the view embodied by an old joke ....

Q. How do you know a politician is lying?

A. His/her mouth is moving and words are coming out.

And if it's during an election campaign, that has bells on.

If you did actually believe them, I'll contact the media ..... "Breaking story, elector believed election pledge shock!"


So a politician, of any party, says one thing to get elected and does something completely different once elected. What's the surprise in that?

[Saracen]

I'd imagine because its "easier" to work for someone else than dilute your job by factoring in running a business as well - thats certainly the case for me ; I want to spent my working hours doing what I enjoy ,which isn't maintaining a business.

Indeed.

Working for yourself adds a whole range of challenges. And costs.

If you work for yourself, you've got the structural things to worry about, like unlimited personal liability unless you set up a limited company (or LLP), and the costs and administration of that if you do. You've also got accountancy costs, more complex tax affairs including annual tax returns, probably legal bills to pay for contract preparation, etc, and in many cases, expensive insurance bills to pay. And if you do a job and make a mistake, you'll probably end up fixing it at your own cost whereas an employee will be paid even if he foes back to fix his own mistakes. And as self-employed, you get to pay for your own training, buy your own tools and equipment, etc, and while that latter is sometimes true of employees, it often isn't.

Then, of course, you've got to find work which will usually mean time and/or money or advertising and promotions. And, of course, you won't get paid for holiday time, time off ill or down time when no work is available. And you've got to have the willpower to work when you haven't got a boss breathing down your neck if you don't.

I've no idea what Michael does or whether it applies to him, but it's not uncommon for people in employment to think they'd earn more self-employed (and it's often true), but it's nowhere near as straightforward as people think it is if they haven't tried it, and it's a very different way of life, too. Oh, and while no employed job is utterly secure, it's still a lot more secure than working fir yourself. It's certainly a decision that involves a lot more than just earning a bit more.

[jim]

Having personally seen what self-employment can lead to (and don't get me wrong, I'm talking about a reasonably successful business here) I don't think I'd touch it with a bargepole.

I think if people actually thought it through properly, and considered all of the effects rather than just the obvious ones, a lot more wouldn't even bother in the first place.

[petercook7]

It's off-topic for this thread to get onto bankers and their bonuses, or political promises, but do you mean you actually trusted what any politician said before this bonus pool thing?

Personally, I have long held to the view embodied by an old joke ....

Q. How do you know a politician is lying?

A. His/her mouth is moving and words are coming out.

And if it's during an election campaign, that has bells on.

If you did actually believe them, I'll contact the media ..... "Breaking story, elector believed election pledge shock!"


So a politician, of any party, says one thing to get elected and does something completely different once elected. What's the surprise in that?

but this is coming from a guy who kept on saying labour party of the uturn.

[jim]

but this is coming from a guy who kept on saying labour party of the uturn.

Sorry, I don't understand what that means?

[ajones]

Sorry, I don't understand what that means?

Could it do with a little punctuation, for instance;

Labour, party of the U-turn

?

/confused too

[jim]

Labour Party of the Yukon?

[Saracen]

but this is coming from a guy who kept on saying labour party of the uturn.

Huh?

[opel80uk]

The argument that we have it better here then in other places, and because of that we should never complain, is nonsensical. As Human beings we should be striving to improve and raise conditions for people (or in this specific case workers) across the world, not have ours denigrated to a level that's nearer countries like China. Otherwise, where do we draw a line? Do we say because there are countries where healthcare is of a 3rd world standard, we shouldn't complain about any changes to ours that we perceive as detrimental? Of course not.

With regards to these specific changes, I don't think they are that drastic. It was labour that introduced the 1 year limit for unfair dismissal after all. I would suggest though that the £250 pound fee to go to Tribunal is wrong. Taking an employer to tribunal should be a universal right, regardless as to how much money your earn, and believe me there are some people who would be put off because they have to pay £250 regardless of how strong their case was. A much better way of doing it would be to fine or charge (in monetary terms) anyone deemed by the independent tribunal of bringing a frivolous charge to the tribunal, not one that was simply unsuccessful.

The fact is however that these changes do tip things further in favour, to how they stand currently at least, of the Employer. Not necessarily a bad thing IMO, but we need to ensure that these new laws are aimed at those who they are intended for, and not used by unscrupulous employers to get rid of employees who have done nothing wrong.