Do you want to discuss boring politics? (25 Viewers)

[Grendel]

It has pledged to ban "exploitative" zero hours contracts, end so-called "fire and rehire" practices, and introduce basic rights to parental leave, sick pay and protection from unfair dismissal from day one of employment.

It also plans to ensure the national minimum wage is a "genuine living wage", removing "discriminatory" age bands for younger earners, and has left open the door for a repeal of anti-strike laws put in place by the Conservative government.

In other words nothing other than getting employees to pay 18 year olds the same as anyone else - so let’s employ more experienced people.

There are already rights on everything else which I assume meet ECHR legislation surely?

 

---

[MalcSB]

Every action has unintended consequences, but it's pretty clear to me that workers' rights have slowly been eroded over the last 40 years. The law requiring unions to only hold strike ballots by post with a minimum turnout threshold is something we don't do for any other kind of vote in this country.

Why is that do you think?

Presumably to stop 3 people meeting at lunchtime, voting unanimously for a strike and then expecting the other 100 workforce to join them.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Every action has unintended consequences, but it's pretty clear to me that workers' rights have slowly been eroded over the last 40 years. The law requiring unions to only hold strike ballots by post with a minimum turnout threshold is something we don't do for any other kind of vote in this country.

Why is that do you think?

What is counterintuitive is the rules as they stand can make it more effective to not vote than vote against strike action, as that vote against will count towards turnout.

Forget the rights or wrongs, that in itself is bonkers.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Presumably to stop 3 people meeting at lunchtime, voting unanimously for a strike and then expecting the other 100 workforce to join them.

That isn't quite how it works as I suspect you're aware. Insisting on a postal ballot is quite deliberately done to make the turnout requirement harder to meet.

 

[Grendel]

Presumably to stop 3 people meeting at lunchtime, voting unanimously for a strike and then expecting the other 100 workforce to join them.

Yeah - open ballots are open to threats and intimidation

 

[MalcSB]

Yeah - open ballots are open to threats and intimidation

I’m sure that never happened in the past 🫤

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Yeah - open ballots are open to threats and intimidation

Which is why we don't have open ballots for any elections or referenda in this country anymore. Why do we also not have postal-only ballots for these votes?

 

[CCFCSteve]

What would you replace the probationary period rules with? I’m not sure if it’s the two year thing or 3 months in a contract tbh

Probationary periods, within reason, are sensible. Ones I’ve seen have been six months.

 

[shmmeee]

Highly unlikely.

And yet true.

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/06/09/stamp_duty_terrible_how_to_abolish/#:~:text=But%20the%20evidence%20shows%20that,than%20a%20semi%20in%20Blackpool.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

What would you replace the probationary period rules with? I’m not sure if it’s the two year thing or 3 months in a contract tbh

I wouldn’t have them replaced with anything, a new worker should have the same rights as ones who have been with the employer for longer.

 

[CCFCSteve]

I wouldn’t have them replaced with anything, a new worker should have the same rights as ones who have been with the employer for longer.

But have you tried to remove someone for poor performance/unsuitability for a role ? Its a nightmare these days….well if you’re a firm that operates within the legislation/rules it is. A probationary period can encourage employers to take a punt on someone, knowing if it isn’t a right fit, or the person isn’t suitable, they can both move on.

 

[Nick]

I wouldn’t have them replaced with anything, a new worker should have the same rights as ones who have been with the employer for longer.

That then gives an employee to take the piss from day one? In a smaller business with 10 or so employees that can make or break a business. 3 Months is usually enough to have a probation period before they start getting the benefits. If somebody joins a job and is worried about sick pay within the first month it would be a red flag anyway.

Corporate where there's millions of employees, not so much,

 

[PVA]

3 month probationary period is perfectly fine, and I've never had a prospective employee complain about it either.

 

[CCFCSteve]

That then gives an employee to take the piss from day one? In a smaller business with 10 or so employees that can make or break a business. 3 Months is usually enough to have a probation period before they start getting the benefits. If somebody joins a job and is worried about sick pay within the first month it would be a red flag anyway.

Corporate where there's millions of employees, not so much,

You’ve hit the nail on the head here. When most people think of employee rights, they’re understandably thinking about the big multi nationals v the man on the street, when in reality it’s SMEs that employ a majority of people in this country

 

[Nick]

You’ve hit the nail on the head here. When most people think of employee rights, they’re understandably thinking about the big multi nationals v the man on the street, when in reality it’s SMEs that employ a majority of people in this country

You can usually tell the people who have worked mostly in the bigger companies as opposed to the SMEs.

To an SME, you hire somebody and they go off long term sick on full sick pay, you have to hire another person to do their job and you are in the shit. If I was interviewing and somebody said "Do I get sick pay from day one" they wouldn't get the job.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

That then gives an employee to take the piss from day one? In a smaller business with 10 or so employees that can make or break a business. 3 Months is usually enough to have a probation period before they start getting the benefits. If somebody joins a job and is worried about sick pay within the first month it would be a red flag anyway.

Corporate where there's millions of employees, not so much,

It doesn’t as the new employee is still subject to the same codes of conduct and contractual obligations as anyone else. The probationary period is also open to abuse from the employer’s side is it not?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

3 month probationary period is perfectly fine, and I've never had a prospective employee complain about it either.

I wonder why!

 

[Grendel]

I wouldn’t have them replaced with anything, a new worker should have the same rights as ones who have been with the employer for longer.

So you have to go through a long process even if the person lied to get the job and doesn’t possess the skills? Someone should have same rights at 1 day as 40 years? Seriously?

 

[Nick]

So you have to go through a long process even if the person lied to get the job and doesn’t possess the skills? Someone should have same rights at 1 day as 40 years? Seriously?

I assume just expected to hire somebody else as well and keep doing it until somebody can do the job. You just pay 10 wages with 9 doing nothing.

Up the workers, the nasty employer deserves it.

 

[Nick]

It doesn’t as the new employee is still subject to the same codes of conduct and contractual obligations as anyone else. The probationary period is also open to abuse from the employer’s side is it not?

It gives honest businesses a way to get rid of somebody if they are no good fit the job. Let's face it, it's an employer wants to abuse the probation period they can find ways to get rid of little.

I've had a probation period in every job, never had an issue with it.

 

[shmmeee]

I think there needs to be some probationary period, even if it’s only a month. CVs and interviews are too easy to game.

 

[shmmeee]

But things like constructive dismissal, discrimination, etc should be in force day one. There’s still a right and wrong way of terminating employment no matter how long someone has been there. SSP is peanuts and should be backed by a doctors note, so not sure about that.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

It doesn’t as the new employee is still subject to the same codes of conduct and contractual obligations as anyone else. The probationary period is also open to abuse from the employer’s side is it not?

How so? There’s very few jobs in the market where it would benefit an employer to hire and fire within a probationary period. The investment and costs of hiring and training new staff, in reality, makes it often not worth it to the employer to take fail probations and rehire.

It works both ways too. My notice period is now 3 months whereas it is was one week before the probation period ended. I nearly left that job for another so that would’ve totally screwed my employer.

There’s still documented HR procedures too to prevent unfair dismissal claims too. I’ve been on both ends of the extending probation period.

It’s very difficult to get rid of someone who’s poor at their job once the probation has been passed so I personally don’t have an issue with that particular issue.

 

[PVA]

I think there needs to be some probationary period, even if it’s only a month. CVs and interviews are too easy to game.

Yeah this is the main reason.

 

[Philosoraptor]

I think I owe shmeee an apology.

Before I said the Centerists helped the Nazi's get into power.

I was wrong.

They just had the casting vote which destroyed German Democracy.

 

[shmmeee]

There should be triggers where employers can terminate a contract if you hit x% of sick time (something high like 40-50%). I’ve known examples of people who are off for six months back for one off again, or who go sick very shortly after joining. Then PIP or similar should be taking over IMO as it’s functionally no different from someone who can’t work.

 

[shmmeee]

A genuine loon

 

[Philosoraptor]

A genuine loon

See Shmeee, we can agree on some stuff

Can you see Society lurching to the right though when there is no counterbalance.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Can you see Society lurching to the right though when there is no counterbalance.

This has already happened.

 

[PVA]

Farage really does come undone with the most basic of questioning.

 

[MalcSB]

And yet true.

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/06/09/stamp_duty_terrible_how_to_abolish/#:~:text=But%20the%20evidence%20shows%20that,than%20a%20semi%20in%20Blackpool.

My “highly unlikely” response was to a suggestion that first time buyers relief might encourage FTBs to hold off and but a more expensive house. You have, again, responded to what you want to rather than what was said.

It is quite clear that the ending of a property related relief will have an inflationary effect on house prices. It happened on the late 80’s dual mortgage interest relief was stopped for new purchases. Prices boomed but then plummeted shortly thereafter.

The post covid stamp duty relief ahead a similar inflationary impact, in that there was a scramble to purchase before it ended. The relief did not, per se, cause the increase in house prices, it was the temporary nature of the relief.

Stamp duty is an awful tax as the article says. Abolishing it would not necessarily increase prices. It would certainly encourage older people, say like me, who live in a house that is arguably too big for them but don’t want to throw away £25k total moving costs. Council tax is also an awful tax and the comparisons with Westminster are bonkers.

 

[MalcSB]

That isn't quite how it works as I suspect you're aware. Insisting on a postal ballot is quite deliberately done to make the turnout requirement harder to meet.

I’ve never been on strike.

 

[Philosoraptor]

This has already happened.

And still is...

 

[Philosoraptor]

Whilst we're on politics...

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I’ve never been on strike.

Nor do you seem to know how it works