You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
This is simply disgusting What a shite Government
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15456585 ]BBC News Unfair Dismaissal[/url]
You sound surprised?
Its only the start. corrupt, useless and medacious
Did you really expect anything good from dave and his chums?...
What a shite Government
It's a Tory government. A Tory government more right-wing than Thatcher was.
It makes perfect sense that they should think employers must be freely allowed to treat people unfairly, and not forced to treat them fairly.
The what is a tad surprising, I'll grant you, is that because the British people didn't give the Tories a clear mandate to do what they are doing, the LibDems have stepped in to help them.
The LibDems are making all this possible.
The depth of betrayal by the Libdems to their own voters, never mind to the British people, is truly shocking.
To be rational ( not common here) they have commissioned a report and stated that they will probably not act further on unfair dismissal.
Don't let that stop you though 🙄
You sound surprised?
Not at all. Never would give these a vote
Written by a tory party donor un****ingbelievable
Downing Street says changes to unfair dismissal rules are "unlikely"
Why not read it before going on an anti Tory rant? Instead of just reading the headline, igniting your predudices, and typing?
....they have commissioned a report and stated that they will probably not act further on unfair dismissal.
So they have pissed money on commissioning a report on an issue which they have no intention of doing anything about ?
Sounds a little wasteful.
No surprises, it's a recommendation from a venture capitalist. As I understand it though, the subject of the leak is a proposal to streamline dismissal procedures for "underperformers" - dropping the need to go through exhaustive restoring efficiency processes before dismissal is considered.
The what is a tad surprising, I'll grant you, is that because the British people didn't give the Tories a clear mandate to do what they are doing, the LibDems have stepped in to help them.
The LibDems are making all this possible.
The depth of betrayal by the Libdems to their own voters, never mind to the British people, is truly shocking.
I know and this hurts my values ernie_lynch
totally frustrates my head and to think the Liberals are still standing by this for a small
slice of power
Clegg must be the most hated person to whom voted for them which includes myself.
It's only a report. It would help get rid of crap staff at our place. One has sued her previous employers on several occasions despite her actually being quite s***
Taff - Member
It's only a report. It would help get rid of crap staff at our place. One has sued her previous employers on several occasions despite her actually being quite s**
should sack your own staff for not getting a reference
you can't cry the faults of your own staff on here when easily should have been spotted
through procedure of reference checking of new employees .
ScottChegg - MemberWhy not read it before going on an anti Tory rant?
Have you read the article ScottChegg ?
[b][i]"The report, commissioned by the prime minister"[/i][/b]
This Tory prime minister commissioned a report into the possibility of allowing employers to sack people unfairly. People have every right to express their disgust.
Wedge, thin end of.
Only a report,
We'll only sack useless staff,
or he one's who make trouble about Health and Safety,
or the people who's face does not fit,
or one's that didn't get a degree
or one's that don't have connected parents or go to the right school or be members of the appropriate club.............
Mind you before this gets enacted it'll be financial meltdown, better start buying the bottled water and cross bows now..........
johnners - MemberNo surprises, it's a recommendation from a venture capitalist. As I understand it though, the subject of the leak is a proposal to streamline dismissal procedures for "underperformers" - dropping the need to go through exhaustive restoring efficiency processes before dismissal is considered.
Its very simple to sack someone for underperforming and can be done a a very few weeks. its s simple and straightforward procedure to sack someone fairly for underperforming. I have done it several times.
We'll only sack useless staff
Employers can already legally sack people fairly.
And they are allowed to sack people unfairly for the first 12 months of their employment. Many employers automatically sack staff before the 12 months is up.
Its very simple to sack someone for underperforming and can be done a a very few weeks.
Which utopia are you living in? In the UK it seems almost impossible to get rid of someone unless you spend 6 months monitoring and showing them how crap they are before they then go off on sick for 6 months before you have to start the whole process again! 🙄
Employers can already legally sack people fairly.
And they are allowed to sack people unfairly for the first 12 months of their employment. Many employers automatically sack staff before the 12 months is up.
That is so true, which is normally through redundancies or anything minor
find more so when the employer really wanted someone for short time period
But thats why most European countries have a business here has the employees are shite poor
and you are easily removed.
We are the near worst in central Europe for employees working rights.
That 12 month period should be re addressed
Which utopia are you living in? In the UK it seems almost impossible to get rid of someone unless you spend 6 months monitoring and showing them how crap they are before they then go off on sick for 6 months before you have to start the whole process again!
Oh brilliant......the Tory Boys start off by strenuously denying that the government would do such a thing, and then move on to suggest that it wouldn't be a bad idea after all 😀
......right I'm off
Firstly, its a BBC online 'article'.
Have you actually read it? Where does it say its going to happen?
LHS - I have done it on several occcasions - its simple and straightforward to anyone with a basic understanding of the rules.
You do not have to go back to square one if they have been off sick, it does not take 6 months to do.
Thats what happens with incompetent HR / management. With competent management it can be done in a month. 2 months is easy to do.
Which utopia are you living in? In the UK it seems almost impossible to get rid of someone unless you spend 6 months monitoring and showing them how crap they are before they then go off on sick for 6 months before you have to start the whole process again!
Agreed - this more closely reflects my experience than TJ's assertion.
Johners - that will be because the people controlling the process are incompetent as well.
I have done this on a few occasions, I have also defended people as a union rep.
the procedure is simple and straightforward and can be done in a short timescale if you are / have competent HR / management.
Unfortunately it appears that most HR are not competent and cannot manage this simple procedure.
That 12 month period should be re addressed
It is. The plans are to make it 24 months 🙄
I read it that the report suggest making it easier to remove lazy staff and not remove the unfair dismissal option.
I've worked with loads of work shy useless ****tards who have quite well paid secure jobs but because they have employment rights they're just tolerated.
On the other hand myself as salesman I very rarely have the luxury of employment rights because we as a rule are so heavily performance targeted and when companies want rid of salespeople they move the targets and get rid.
Hmm let's see...is the std stw political thread nonsense present?
TJ predicting the future...CHECK!
TandemJeremy - Member
Its only the start. corrupt, useless and medacious
ernie mis-reporting/inferring what suits his political bias...CHECK!
ernie_lynch - Member
So they have pissed money on commissioning a report on an issue which they have no intention of doing anything about ?
Daily-Mail type comments on employment law:
Taff - Member
It's only a report. It would help get rid of crap staff at our place. One has sued her previous employers on several occasions despite her actually being quite s
(maybe she actually had a claim because her employers *ed up?)
Hora and other non-big-hitters actually speaking sense...CHECK!
hora - Member
Firstly, its a BBC online 'article'.Have you actually read it? Where does it say its going to happen?
Pigface - Member
Written by a tory party donor un****ingbelievable
Anyway on a serious point, it seems to me that the rules could be relaxed for small businesses.
grantway - Member
The depth of betrayal by the Libdems to their own voters, never mind to the British people, is truly shocking.
THEY ARE A MINORITY IN A POWER-SHARING GOVERMENT. WHAT DID YOU ****ING EXPECT, LIB DEM POLICIES?
The thread title is a bit misleading, isn't it?
Unfair dismissal for lazy, unproductive people, no? Which seems fair enough to me. I thought that Tandem was against the compensation culture that appears to be infecting the country?
The Treasury said that more than 80% of applications made to an employment tribunal did not result in a full hearing.Almost 40% of applicants withdrew their cases, but employers still had to pay legal fees in preparing a defence, it said.
Live and learn.
IME Decent companies and good quality management have nothing really to fear from unfair dismissal cases, trouble is...
Oh brilliant......the Tory Boys
Not sure who you are referring to, I am Donkey (Democrat) through and through.
See, all you who voted LibDem, you're to blame for this.
By the way, getting annoyed about something that isn't happening is a bit silly!
It will happen. This is one that has been batted back and forward for ages. Last Labour government took the qualifying period from 2 years to one. I am sure the "leaking" of this report is a part of the softening up process so when they take the qualifying period back to 2 years it will seem not so bad as they have not removed the right to tribunals alltogether
The exec summary is on the Telegraph website. It is two pages long and couched in terms of the need for businesses to be more efficient and competitive so the UK economy can grow. The author argues employment laws hinder this aim, because employers put up with lazy staff (interesting he emphasises this is more often the case in the public sector).
If one accepts this argument, then surely one must also argue that there are too many organisations with poor managers. Manager who employ people who are either lazy, or were productive but became lazy under their watch. Do we really want to put the future of the UK's growth in the hands of managers who clearly can't manage their employees effectively?
This Tory prime minister commissioned a report into the possibility of allowing employers to sack people unfairly. People have every right to express their disgust.
Are you absoloutely sure that was what the report was commissioned to do? Was it perhaps a broader report and this was one of the recommendations? I can hear you getting copies of the Socialist Worker ready and a megaphone to object at the outcome of your own selective reading. Calm down, dear.
The exec summary is on the Telegraph website.
HE READ THE TORYGRAPH! BURN HIM!
😈
Mr Beecroft in particular highlights abuses of the law in the public sector, where managers have been forced to offer under-performing staff large settlements because they fear costly tribunal rulings. The report says that the unfair dismissal rules have made public bodies “reluctant to dismiss unsatisfactory employees”. “[They] therefore accept inefficiency that they would not tolerate if dismissal of unsatisfactory employees was easier.”It goes on: “A proportion of employees, secure in the knowledge that their employer will be reluctant to dismiss them, work at a level well below their true capacity; they coast along.”
Seems fair enough in the public sector I work in.
Here you go, you can read it without having to sully yourself:
It will, it won't, it's irrelevant really. Strangely, businesses usually do like to have people working for them, they won't just sack everyone for the hell of it.
Indeed capt John.
You have the first year of employment during which time there is no recourse to tribunal except under rare circumstances. If you cannot identify an under-performing member of staff in this time then it reflects poorly on you.
Even after the year it is simple and straightforward to sack an underperforming employee and can be done in a short time span cheaply so long as you follow a reasonable procedure to make sure its a fair dismissal.
If you as a manager cannot do either of these two things then it certainly calls your competence into question.
A myth has built up around dismissal for underperformace because incompetent managers and HR have mucked it up and been found to have unfairly dismissed people. Like all the "H&S gorne mad" myths it is beloved by the tory press and is often repeated so that people believe it.
I have worked this one from both sides - both sacking and defending people. Its simple and straightforward to sack someone fairly for underperfoming.
paulosoxo - Member
It will, it won't, it's irrelevant really. Strangely, businesses usually do like to have people working for them, they won't just sack everyone for the hell of it.
There speaks the voice of management 😉
TandemJeremy - Member
Indeed capt John.
What is even more worrying, THJ, is people who can't read.
Sack 'em both!
CaptJon - Member
paulosoxo - MemberThere speaks the voice of management
🙂
It sounds like a worst case scenario report, a deliberate attempt to highlight the worst possible outcome in order to shield the real plans.
Osborne has already announced the intention to double the length of unprotected employment from 12 to 24 months. This added to the fact that the average tenure in a job is going down could lead to large proportions of the public spending much of their working life's with no employment protection.
The lack of employment protection isn't just about losing jobs either, it creates an atmosphere of fear that allows employees to be manipulated, look how many people are now working 50, 60 or more hour weeks with no extra pay, because they fear that not doing so will cost them their jobs, its becoming the norm rather than the exception.
I couldn't honestly tell you if it is easy to get rid of lazy and sub-standard staff in the UK or not. In my line of work (banking) I can tell you that it's pretty straightforward, if you don't pull your weight, you are gone. Part of the reason so many foreign banks have their European headquarters in London is the flexible labour laws, we have employees in Germany and France that just shouldnt be in the industry but have been with the firm for a while and have local contracts that make them unfireable.
The author of the report is a private equity guy, their whole business model depends on being able to slash and burn and turn a business around fast. I'm not surprised he has a pretty medieval attitude to this but the government has other priorities, or should have.
This though
Incompetent teachers 'being recycled' by head teachers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10464617
Academy and Free Schools will sort that out.
I'd back up TJ's statements about the fact that you can remove underperforming people from their role but it's not quite as straightforward as he makes out and how complex or lengthy the process ends up being is dependent on other variables.
For example, if the person has been in their role for a quite a while, say more than five years, and there's never been a problem before then it could take six months to work through a fair process that doesn't land you in an unfair dismissal claim.
Things change and it's not unusual in private industry for a person's job to morph almost imperceptible over time as the competitive landscape changes.
Imagine someone who's been in a role for 15 years and while their role hasn't changed very much in that time, what they need to do to be successful in it has. Adapting can be hard and in this case you could find someone being sacked for failing to perform when in truth what should actually happen is that they are made redundant - the role has changed rather than the person has failed to perform.
I consider myself pro-business, right of centre and voted Tory in the last election. But I would strongly oppose these changes IF the government decided to enact them.
Two other observations:
One, the proposed changes are very like the system they have in the US. You have almost no legal protection there against unfair dismissal either. Based on my experiences of my American colleagues (I've always worked for US companies) trust me you don't want to allow this to be passed.
Two, this is an even more extreme step to the creation of an underprotected class of workers, namely the white middle class man in professinal employment.
I've experienced this myself; basically you extend unlimited protection to individuals on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc, which is how it should be, but in the absence of you being able to claim on the basis ofa 'protected characteristic' you become particularly vulnerable to dismissal. While the discrimination laws protect you from being targetted for being white and being male, the chances of you being able to claim or at least pressure your employer for discrimination against these characteristics is almost non-existent.
If you're black, female, gay etc, then it's much easier to play these cards in any dismissal case and so employers are far more wary about how they treat you. In effect, the overprotection of one characteristic leads to the underprotection of another.
Removing unfair dismissal will simple lead to white men being effectively unprotected and far more vulnerable when an employer is looking to make easy cuts to their staffing levels.
THEY ARE A MINORITY IN A POWER-SHARING GOVERMENT. WHAT DID YOU **** EXPECT, LIB DEM POLICIES?
No i did not vote on the idea of a coalition with the Tories what the ....
I would rather vote the complete opposite, if I would had known including most of the Liberal voters.
The Liberal party have gone against if not all of there values and for what Clegg said regarding
he as gone with the best party Only YOU I suppose would say yes.
lazy and sub-standard staff in this context = staff that won't work their lunch hour, staff that refuse to do unpaid overtime or come in at the weekend because they would rather be with their families.
Echo the sentiment that this is softening everyone up ... leak the exaggerated or worst case demands by the lobbyists paying into the Tory coffers, then Dave can turn round and say "look what we saved you all from, we'll only do a little bit of it". Still end up shafted for the demands of business at the expense of their employees, who become less enabled to challenge anything.
Simply Leading towards Modern Tory Victorianism
Looking though the propose process (I take it all the people expressing views for and against have actually done this?) it would appear that the proposed policy may actually be beneficial to both parties -
The employee should be given a chance to argue his or her case, and suggest (but not demand) that they be given time to improve of be transferred to a less demanding job at a lower wage. If no such agreement could be reached the employee would receive the same payment they would get if they were made redundant
As understand under the current legislation you go though a process to collect evidence that a person is under-performing and you dismiss them. Under the proposed system you don't have to demonstrate that you have collected evidence, but can't just dismiss them, you have to give them the equivalent redundancy payment. I heard on the R4 this morning that it was alleged that similar schemes existed in other European countries.
Of course the devil is in the detail of implementation, but in theory does it really sound so terrible?
**** me!
Facts
1) Unfair dismissal is not generally about the reason for a person being dismissed, its about the process used to dismiss.
2) You can actually dismiss someone and subsequently find out that the reason was incorrect and it still be fair.
3) Management recruit the staff, and manage them. If the staff aren't performing thats a management issue not a staffing one.
4) You can easily dismiss someone who is not performing, and it does not take months.
5) If you have recruited a tosser, you have 12 months to figure that out and you can act on it with complete impunity.
6) If someone has worked well for 12 months and now doesn't, perhaps finding out why might be a good place to start, rather than a knee jerk dismissal
Overall this whole issue is a complete crock which quite clearly holds no water and therefore presumably a smokescreen for something more insidious.
Looking though the propose process - I take it all the people expressing views for and against have done this?
How i am an employer I would simply use and manipulate and fire on there guide lines
But I have morals learnt from being an apprentice and being from a working class background.
But don't forget the Torys are also trying to make it harder for you to get legal aid
I've employed some right fekwits in the past, current legislation never stopped me from "go home, don't come back, hand your keys in now" routine.
I work in sales and it's very easy to be fired. There is a monthly target and if you miss it for three months you're pretty much out, such is the way of things in my line of work.
In other jobs where the KPI's are less cut and dried I am sure that it is less easy to be let go however this strikes me as a very unfair proposal largely designed to enable useless management to pass the buck. On the other hand I think we have all worked with people we have had to carry who managed to tenaciously cling to their jobs despite being pretty crap.
I work with quite a few US owned companies and they seem to be far more mercenary when it comes to hire and fire I'd hate our country to go the same way. Often I am hired to find someone better to replace someone who is performing well but just not as well as someone else might, which is harsh.
I think this is a great idea. I look forward to the most underachieving in the country being immediately sacked. The board and all the senior brokers at RBS must be shitting themselves
Incompetent teachers 'being recycled' by head teachershttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10464617
Academy and Free Schools will sort that out.
Should read "Incompetant head teachers recycle incompetant teachers" its a red herring IME. The route to getting rid of a teacher is pretty well established, but most jump before they are pushed, heads should take more care over reading references and who they employ, however teacher shortages make this difficult. Problems is posts need filling and supply and demand isnt in favour of the good teachers.
Will Academies and Free Schools help? I'm not sure they will, dont think they are able to fire teachers more easily and there will still be only the same number of good teachers.
Your right there Bandit, although as a Manager / Owner of a business employing 30 people I'm glad to see the balance coming back to Employers, you wouldnt believe the amount of time that is WASTED in UK businesses with Employee complaints.
Arn't the statics for number of employees invloved in complaints against there employers something like 1 in 4 in the UK at the moment ? and we wonder why were in the shite... employees in the Far East dont work like that !
You are right though, the laws work in both ways however, 3 out of 4 constructive dismissal cases have been found in FAVOUR of the employee.. there is a default to the Employer beeing at fault.. but if you step through the steps employees can avoid it.
In the end I feel that employees dont benifit from current rules, employers dont, but the legal profession does and the people who like owt for nowt do to.....
but think who covers the cost of all these claims against employers
Things could be helped greatly if employers actually followed stated dismissal procedures (if they have them stated at all). Many cases I've seen have come about because the employer simply do what they want or what they think is right (which turns out to be wrong) and leave themselves open to action. Wasn't there someone posting on here a couple months back as the employer in this situation, where they got rid of someone but didn't do it right and were having to pay compensation or something? Doesn't help when HR departments don't actually seem to understand it all and fail to advise employees and employers correctly.
Did anyone read the rest of the suggestion?
saying that they'd identified a problem was the use of "manufactured redundancy situations" which were being used to manage people out of a company, and that instead of a disgruntled employee launching an unfair dismissal process, [i]The employee should be given a chance to argue his or her case, and to suggest (but not demand) that they be given time to improve or be transferred to a less demanding job at a lower wage. If no such agreement could be reached, the employee would receive the same payment they would get if they had been made redundant.”[/i] - it goes on to say that despite the costs being higher for the employer, the added reassurance of no comeback afterwards would mean they preferred it.
fairly common sense really, we all know of cases where someone has been made "redundant" to get them out - but, if you relied on a newspaper headline to form an opinion, then it might well reinforce your inherent knee jerk reaction....
I'm glad to see the balance coming back to Employer
When was the last time it moved in the employees favour? I can't remember legislation being changed in the employees favour any time during the last 30 or so years.
Should read "Incompetant head teachers recycle incompetant teachers"
No. It should not read that at all.
MSP - qualifying period for tribunals went from 2 yrs to one in the late 90s.
However our employment legislation offers us much much less protection that the rest of europe - hence when one multinational wanted to close a plant they closed the british one a it was much cheaper to close than the German one
Your right there Bandit, although as a Manager / Owner of a business employing 30 people I'm glad to see the balance coming back to Employers,
As a someone who was general manager of a compnay at 21 and who has employed literally thousands of people in a 35 year career to date, I have to say I have no idea waht you are talking about. Never had any problems of that nature. Years ago I did speak with an ACAS advisor whose advice was if you're a crap employer you'll get crap employees. Very true in my experience.
you wouldnt believe the amount of time that is WASTED in UK businesses with Employee complaints.
You are not wrong, I probably wouldn't, not necessarily for the same reasons though.
Arn't the statics for number of employees invloved in complaints against there employers something like 1 in 4 in the UK at the moment ? and we wonder why were in the shite... employees in the Far East dont work like that !
I very much doubt whether that statistic is correct. If it is its the biggest single issue effecting our economy currently, running into many millions of complaints which I'm pretty sure it isn't.
and we wonder why were in the shite...
Mainly piss poor leadership both political and managerial in my experience.
employees in the Far East dont work like that !
In my experience, which is over the last 30 years of doing business in the Far East that is true and no bad thing either frankly
Generally though its the same there as here, the good companies have good management and employee relations and the bad ones don't.
3 out of 4 constructive dismissal cases have been found in FAVOUR of the employee.. there is a default to the Employer beeing at fault.. but if you step through the steps employees can avoid it.
That statistic may be right, however a case for constructive dismissal is incredibly difficult to prove, and for that reason it is quite rare for one to go before a tribunal. Personally having been through the experience of having been constructively dismissed (Definition: being put into a situation no reasonable person could tolerate; which in my case was my employer F'ing and B'ing down the phone at my 10 year old daughter, and then accusing me without any supporting evidence or investigation of gross misconduct). My brief reckoned I had a cast iron rock solid case, but the advice was that it was unlikely to run because it was all verbal and without independant witnesses, so frankly if someone gets done for constructive dismissal you can be pretty sure they deserve to be.
In the end I feel that employees dont benifit from current rules, employers dont, but the legal profession does and the people who like owt for nowt do to..... but think who covers the cost of all these claims against employers
Again in my experience, most cost is incurred by expensive briefs being employed by dodgy employers. My particular case was on a no win no fee basis, but with an upfront one off payment from me of £1000 (because it was constructive dismissal and usually they don't run).It did not get as far as a tribunal.
They are testing the water by putting the story out.
I've noticed they've done this with a few ridiculous ideas.
****s.
Like selling off 100% of the forests and then reverting back to the intital plan to cut it whilst leaving people like 38 degrees claiming a resounding success you mean?
Yup - a common way of dealing with getting policies they know the public will dislike thru without protest.
don't forget Cameron is a PR man.
Should read "Incompetant head teachers recycle incompetant teachers"No. It should not read that at all.
any chance you could explain why you think differently?
If this policy did come through though, STW viewing figures would significantly decrease...
Sorry, back to work 😳
LOL not in my case though, I'm the boss 8)
My sister works in HR for a large national company, and has dismissed many people. She has only ever lost one claim for unfair dismissal, which was the one time she didn't follow procedure. The simple procedures are in place to ensure that employees are not treated unfairly. If the employer is unable to follow simple procedures then the employee should not be dismissed.
What's so difficult about that?
any chance you could explain why you think differently?
Nope. Work it out for yourself.
any chance you could explain why you think differently?Nope. Work it out for yourself.
did you train at the Oxford debating society, because you've got me convinced your right 😆
With every new post you add, I am further convinced that you won't get it. 😥
However our employment legislation offers us much much less protection that the rest of europe
That's true TJ but there are very important reasons why there are differences and why those differences should remain. France and Germany operate their economies in vastly different ways to ours and the way they are structured means that this level of protection is both appropriate and necessary.
In the UK it would be at odds with our version of capitalism and would cause untold problems. It would constrain some of key competitive advantages.
Geetee - sorry I simply do not agree. Our "competitive advantage" should be not at the cost of adequate workers rights and is at least as likely to cost us jobs and investment as it does to gain them. there are several instances of plants being closed in the UK and kept open in the rest of europe because its cheaper to close the plants here.
We should not be a in a race to the bottom on this.
Tootall - your post makes no logical sense that I can see. Do you have an explanation?
Germany and France (let alone Spain and Italy) have much higher structural unemployment levels than the UK. All through the 90s up until the crunch we bumped along at 4-5% unemployed, Germany and France were double that number. There is a lot to be admired about those countries but an inflexible job market isnt one of them, again there's a reason so many foreign companies come to the UK.
The real problem is that we dont do enough high end manufacturing ourselves, the German Mittlestand companies show us a clean pair of heals. I think having a sense of all in it together is a big part of it. Workers, management, local banks work together without the poisonous industrial relations the UK is plagued by.
McBoo - the numbers on employment were much closer if you used the same counting methods.
Indeed industrial relations in Germany are better. A part of that is the better employment protection = less them and us.
Those same foreign companies also leave he UK more quickly and easily.
Do you really only aspire to be a low wage low regulation offshoot of the EU what a poor aspiration.
TJ - you're a bloody hypocrite!
just two days ago, you were telling us that departure from europe would be a disaster because:
Companies that use us for a low tax low regulation manufacturing entry intot eh EU would have no incentive to remain
So, either we're a low tax, low regulation economy, or we're not, which is it
Indeed industrial relations in Germany are better. A part of that is the better employment protection = less them and us.
Very true judging by discussions I've had with german colleagues working for my companies' German sites.
Thing is those discussions also suggested that it's not all one sided - eg management down - there were sites whose workers proposed a salary reduction because they thought it would make them more competitive. "Them and us" is a major issue here but both sides need to think about the way they deal with 'them'. Some of the posts on STW make that very clear.
Zulu - out of context as you know. I did not say that was a good thing that we were a low regulation low tax economy.
Nice line in insults as well.
We are a low tax low regulation economy and I think that is a bad thing. I would rather be like Germany , France, the Netherlands, Sweden and so on where the people come first.