The Tories

[Guinness]

Originally Posted by cashman

I assume yeh never been to an employment tribunal Guinness? The fact is they find in Employers favour 80% of the time. Fact. 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.

Yeah I agree, and I've attended a couple.

But the point I'm trying to make is that it costs time and money for the employer to prepare and attend, and there is still a risk, even though its minimal.

Far easier, cheaper and totally risk free to pay a couple of months wages to get shut of the problem.

Which brings me back to the first line of my previous post, employment law needs reforming

Edit..didn't know about the acas ruling...i'll have to check that one out

Second edit..taken from the direct gov website..

'There is no charge for making a claim to an Employment Tribunal. So unless you are paying a representative (for example, a solicitor) there is normally no cost in making a claim.
However, the Employment Tribunal can order you to pay costs (known as expenses in Scotland) if it thinks you or your representative has behaved 'unreasonably' during the case.'

There's that word 'reasonable' again

[cashman]

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.

[Guinness]

Originally Posted by cashman

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.

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

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Guinness

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

No problem, have recently been helping someone prepare for one. n had to check if owt had changed since my day. Also worth taking into account that any worker not using a solicitor fer financial or other reason, has approx a 1% chance of winning their case, against n employment solicitor, unless the Firm has cocked up big time.

[cmonstanley]

Originally Posted by Guinness

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.

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,

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

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,

Me seems to think you don't live in the real world, tell me which legislation the Tories passed like trade union reform were rescinded while your beloved Tony and Gordon had the chance, the bottom line is the Tories bring in legislation that Labour would love to but daren't because they would lose their Union Cash Cow.

[Guinness]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

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 .

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'

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,

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.

[cmonstanley]

Originally Posted by Guinness

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.

labour brought them in. the tories want to destroy everything labour brought in

[cmonstanley]

ohhhh a bit dodgy that tory party chairwoman lol

[garinda]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

ohhhh a bit dodgy that tory party chairwoman lol

Tommy Sheridan dodgy, or not quite that bad?

[Guinness]

Originally Posted by garinda

Tommy Sheridan dodgy, or not quite that bad?

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

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Guinness

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

For their own safety Lucky Heather lives north of the border, in a li'l stab proof bothy, so might not have heard of the other dodgy people you listed.

[cmonstanley]

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

[garinda]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

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

I'm not disagreeing with you.

Just adding a little, unbiased, balance.

[Guinness]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

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

Speaking of weeding..Tony (Rent-a-speech) Blair, Gordon (bloody woman) Brown, 'Lord' John (Double standards) Prescott, Diane (Black supremacist) Abbot..etc.. 'nuff said