Originally Posted by cashman (Post 994012)

I assume yeh never been to an employment tribunal Guinness? The fact is they find in Employers favour 80% of the time. Fact.:rolleyes: according to ACAS only approx 6 weeks ago the employee or his union,if he happens to have one are liable for costs incurred if they lose.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 994016)

Also check out another fact, The Employee has to pay back "ALL" monies gained from benefits he accrued whilst waiting months fer the tribunal, if they win, another fact.;)

Originally Posted by Guinness (Post 994018)

Hmm..took a fair bit of wading through, but you're totally correct, useful to know

Originally Posted by Guinness (Post 994011)

Employment law needs reforming...it's extremely difficult to actually fire someone even if they constantly screw up.

You have to follow a long drawn out disciplinary process that is heavily weighted to the employee. Then you have to put up with union representatives arguing that you cannot fire the person because you didn't dot the 'i' and cross the 't' in the initial warning letter.

Then you have the appeal which goes over the same ground.

Then you get taken to tribunal anyway because the employee has nothing to lose and everything to gain because it doesn't cost them anything win or lose.

All this costs time and money to the employer, who usually settles by giving a couple of grand to the employee because it's cheaper in the long run even if the employer wins the case.

Imagine for instance, someone doesn't turn in to work for two weeks, no phone calls, no sicknote, nada...you have to keep that persons job open for him, you have to attempt to contact him, he doesn't turn up the third week, you then have to write to him, giving him a 'reasonable' (which is open to interpretation), amount of time to respond.

We are now in to week 5 without a response, you again have to write informing that a disciplinary will be held, again you have to give a reasonable amount of time for a response. You hear that he is posting on facebook that he is in Spain having a holiday, but you still have to keep that job open and follow procedure. No response by week 8 and you hold the disciplinary in his absence and fire him. You've lost eight weeks production. He finally responds by letter with a backdated sicknote saying that he has depression caused by work related stress and is taking you to tribunal for adding to the stress by firing him.

You now have reams and reams of paperwork to complete, you have pay for the time of all involved to prepare for and attend the tribunal..much simpler for the employer to pay a few grand to make this go away.

And the upshot is, the employer will not give anyone a chance in future, he'll make damn sure that he will only employ people with bona fide, rock solid references and work history. He won't take a chance on anyone who has been sick and trying to get back into work, nor will he give youngsters without a work history a chance. Once bitten, twice shy!

Employment law as it stands is a double edged sword, personally I'd put it on a par with the Human Rights Act in that it's open to abuse because it's been poorly legislated.

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 994033)

you live in clod cuckoo land the new employment laws mean if somebody dont like you whether its nationality race colour of eyes etc they can just consign you to the scrapheap of life .come into the real world.tories say buy your house get a mortgage buy your own council house etc.tories do create unemloyment create a atmosphere of fear in the work place give the banks loads of money for quantative easing but tell banks do what you want with money,so nobody gets mortgage and they keep it.there ideology is flawed they are a flawed and scummy so called political party,

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 994033)

you live in clod cuckoo land the new employment laws mean if somebody dont like you whether its nationality race colour of eyes etc they can just consign you to the scrapheap of life .

Originally Posted by Guinness (Post 994187)

Hmmm..you obviously don't know about the Equality Act 2010, Equal Opportunity Act 2010, Disability Discrimination Act 2005 amongst other laws that would prevent this'



Not really relevant to employment law, but I'll bite.

I'm not a lover of some of the current banking systems, however, with regard to mortgages they have simply gone back to what they used to do before the last Labour governments 'spend, spend, spend' attitude. i.e. they make sure that people have a deposit, so that they don't get into negative equity, and they risk assess that you have the means to actually pay the mortgage back.

I don't see that as Labour, Tory, or even Monster Raving Looney idealogy..just plain old 'real world' common sense.

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 994205)

ohhhh a bit dodgy that tory party chairwoman lol

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 994214)

Tommy Sheridan dodgy, or not quite that bad?

Originally Posted by Guinness (Post 994221)

You missed out Eric Joyce, Ken Livingstone, Dianne Abbot, Lord Taylor, Eric Illsley, Jim Devine, David Chayter, Margaret Moran, Elliot Morely etc..etc..;)

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 994226)

yep and most are idiots.they should be weeded out but if we tried to weed out the dodgy in the tory party they would cease to exist;)

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 994226)

yep and most are idiots.they should be weeded out but if we tried to weed out the dodgy in the tory party they would cease to exist;)