General politics discussion thread

[The King Of Swing]

A senior Liberal Democrat has described a proposal to scrap unfair dismissal and allow managers the right to sack unproductive staff without explanation as "madness".

 

In a report seen by the Daily Telegraph and commissioned by Downing Street, the venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft suggests British workers should be banned from claiming unfair dismissal so companies can sack them and find more capable replacements, saying this would boost economic growth. The document has generated a furious response from trade unions.

 

Downing Street declined to comment on the contents of the report other than to say it was not "a final document".

 

But Norman Lamb, chief adviser and parliamentary private secretary to the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, said taking away protection from unfair dismissal would damage the economy because it would increase workers' fears that they could be arbitrarily sacked.

 

Lamb, a former employment lawyer, said: "I think it would be madness to throw away all employment protection in the way that's proposed, and it could be very damaging to consumer confidence.

 

"What we are talking about here is every single employee in the land being in a position where their employer could arbitrarily terminate their employment – and the impact that could have on consumer confidence, fear of losing your job, would potentially be very damaging. I just think it's also not right to throw away that sort of scheme of protection."

 

He warned that the "law of unintended consequences" could mean staff who criticise or challenge their employers could be dismissed as a result, pointing out that existing laws already enable employers to get rid of staff where there is clear evidence of underperformance.

 

"The existing law gives employers far more rights than many actually recognise, and it's easing the way to use those existing rights much more easily that I think is the right way forward," he added.

 

David Cameron's official spokeswoman said the government was committed to reforming employment law as set out in the coalition agreement.

 

"We are going to review it so that employers and employees can ensure they have maximum flexibility whilst protecting fairness and providing a competitive environment that we need for enterprise and growth," she said.

 

Unions hit out at the Beecroft proposal. Paul Kenny, the general secretary of the GMB, said the leaked report showed the true face of the "nasty" Tory party, while the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) said the proposal was based on an "ideological prejudice in favour of removing employee rights" and disputed his suggestion that the British economy suffered from a significant problem with slacking.

 

Beecroft claims that, under current legislation, workers are allowed to coast and employers are fearful of expanding their businesses because new staff could prove unknown quantities who are impossible to sack.

 

He suggests the introduction of "compensated no fault dismissal", which would allow employers to sack staff with basic redundancy and notice, but admits that a problem with the proposal is that employers could fire staff because they "did not like them".

 

According to the Telegraph, Beecroft writes: "While this is sad, I believe it is a price worth paying for all the benefits that would result from the change."

 

The document, dated 12 October, says the "terrible impact of the current unfair dismissal rules on the efficiency and hence competitiveness of our businesses, and on the effectiveness and cost of our public services" was a major issue for British enterprise.

 

He claims making it easier to sack underperforming staff would boost employment rather than increasie unemployment because businesses would be likely to grow as a result of becoming more competitive.

 

But Kenny responded: "That a well-heeled Tory venture capitalist should want the Tories to make it easier for workers to be sacked without comeback does not surprise the GMB after what the private equity owners did at the AA. There, they were brutal in sacking 4,000 of the 10,000 AA workers without mercy when they took over.

 

"This report shows the true face of the nasty Tory party who are, in fact, the political wing of the rich and the elite. That is why Tories have yet to make any move to curb the greed of bankers and financiers who had to be bailed out with billions of pounds of public funds."

 

Sarah Veale, the TUC's head of equality and employment, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that Cameron should throw the report straight in the bin.

 

"I really do wish the government would stop going on about how if you reduced employment protection laws somehow that would make the economy boom again and create growth – it is absolute rubbish," she said, adding that it was not fair for employers to get rid of workers on a "whim".

 

"This is just trying to reinvent history and make up myths about employers being dragged through the tribunals all the time," she added. "There is very, very low litigation in this country."

 

The CIPD said there was no evidence that watering down workers' rights would create more jobs.

 

John Philpott, the organisation's chief economist, told BBC Radio 5 Live Breakfast: "I think actually what we're hearing on this issue is largely based on prejudice rather than any evidence – ideological prejudice in favour of removing employee rights.

 

"If you look at our productivity problem, it's due to poor investment, poor training and poor management. And if anybody can actually find me chapter and verse evidence that there's a big problem of slacking in the UK economy, I'd be very interested to see it."

 

However, John Longworth, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, called on the government to act on Beecroft's proposal "without delay".

 

Longworth said many firms report that existing dismissal rules and the fear of costly tribunal claims stop them from taking on staff.

 

"Over 70% of firms see dismissal rules as burdensome to their business. At a time when we need all the business growth we can get, these fears must be removed quickly," he said. "This new dismissal route will bring confidence to employers, and boost productivity in the workplace, which is good for employers, employees and the economy."

 

But the Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey, accused the government of being "in thrall" to the business lobby and the right wing of the Conservative party.

 

"With every day they remain in office, this country becomes a more unhappy and unequal place," he said.

 

"UK workers are already the cheapest and easiest to sack in the European Union. Now David Cameron plans to take the nation further back to the dark days of hire and fire. That is not in any way a plan for growth – it's a pathway to workplace misery and a demoralised and less productive workforce."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oc...nfair-dismissal

 

A Team Leader in my office thought this was a good idea and he would welcome it. I asked what if they dismissed him, would it be a good idea then? He said that he is productive so it wouldn't happen to him. I asked him to prove his productivity in a format that shows it, he said he couldn't due to the nature of his job and then looked a little bit scared when it dawned on him.

 

Same old party then looking out for the rich few while leaving the rest of us to rot if the Lib Dems had any dignity they would sack this rotten Government off.

Edited October 27, 2011 by The King Of Swing

[John Galt]

Going back a while to the Dale Farm eviction, there's a Panorama documentary on now and there's something which I don't get about this. It's probably been talked about but they interviewed a woman who was talking about how this is the first place she's been with electric lights, combine this with the fact they've been there for a decade and I really don't understand why they don't just buy houses. This way of life just makes no sense to me at all.

[David]

Going back a while to the Dale Farm eviction, there's a Panorama documentary on now and there's something which I don't get about this. It's probably been talked about but they interviewed a woman who was talking about how this is the first place she's been with electric lights, combine this with the fact they've been there for a decade and I really don't understand why they don't just buy houses. This way of life just makes no sense to me at all.

Just because it doesn't make any sense to you doesn't mean they should simply knock it off and get with the program, does it? If they wanted to buy houses and live like the rest of us they would have.

[Kiffy]

Plus buying house's isn't quite that simple, deposits are lots of cash, on top of which you need good credit to get a mortage or buy somewhere. And living on the road doesn't give you great credit, cos by their records yoo don't exist.

And being given a bedsit on the council somewhere (if they'll house you at all, which as a traveller they won't be bending over themselves to do) really isn't the same.

[Dynamite Duane]

DELETED POST.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Dynamite Duane

[Mr.Showtime]

It looked like you were about to have a go at him for not following through with his political beliefs...but instead you have a go at him because he doesn't have a bit of cardboard on his forehead saying 'I'm a Homo'?!

[tom]

Oh yeah, if you scroll down to the bottom (no pun intended) it links him to the list of gay politicians.

LOLLLZZZ!!!!1111

 

You fucking suck. I suppose it's some sort of gay conspiracy; next thing you know, you'll be one of the Heart Throbs, or perhaps Pat Patterson, right?

 

Damn Those Gay Catholics

Edited October 28, 2011 by tom

[King Pitcos]

I pose the question if you are Catholic is it contradictory to be gay?

Yes. But you rarely have a choice in being either of those things -- nobody chooses their sexuality, and any adult catholic by necessity lacks the ability to evaluate religion and choose accordingly. But what the fuck has any of that got to do with the EU? Are you just wanting to discredit the fella's political opinions because he's a "bog-brained papist" and a "woofter" or what?

Edited October 28, 2011 by King Pitcos

[tom]

I'm actually more scared that Duane has a son; although I'm obviously just slow-off the mark in terms of learning that fact

[Dynamite Duane]

I've obviously wasted my time here, completely misunderstood...

[Ronnie]

36 years after the arrival of the Sex Discrimination Act we're finally seeing it reflected regarding lines of succession. Following discussion between the heads of the 16 countries which comprise the Commonwealth there has been agreement that a female will no longer be bumped down the line of succession by a younger brother. The heads also agreed that the ban on royalty marrying Catholics needs to go.

 

Whether one's a monarchist or, like me, republican in nature, I think it's pretty clear that this is righting a couple of very obvious wrongs.

[Kenny McBride]

The Catholic thing is a complicated issue. A Catholic entering a mixed marriage by necessity has to try to raise the children as Catholics. If the heir to the throne marries someone who then raises his or her kids as Catholics, the implications for the established Church Of England are pretty serious. I don't care if the CoE collapses because William's kid falls in love with a left-footer, but the CoE might well feel differently. I'll be extremely upset, though, if some sneaky settlement is negotiated whereby the Catholic partner would have to agree not to raise the kids as Catholics, as that's forcing them to abandon a fairly major part of their religion's teaching.

 

It's pretty much a no-win situation. The sad part is that the Catholic bishops have campaigned for it without really thinking about what the real implications are, or rather, what the realpolitik is.

[Chest Rockwell]

36 years after the arrival of the Sex Discrimination Act we're finally seeing it reflected regarding lines of succession. Following discussion between the heads of the 16 countries which comprise the Commonwealth there has been agreement that a female will no longer be bumped down the line of succession by a younger brother. The heads also agreed that the ban on royalty marrying Catholics needs to go.

 

Whether one's a monarchist or, like me, republican in nature, I think it's pretty clear that this is righting a couple of very obvious wrongs.

 

Really?

 

I'm struggling to find a reason to give a shit on any level.. Any I don't mean that to sound dismissive, but the royals don't live in the real world; nothing that happens to them has any bearing on or relation to us.

[JNLister]

There's also a third change which says that the monarch's descendants no longer have to ask permission to get married, which was a rule introduced in 1772.

 

Rather bizarrely, the first time that law had any effect was when the Duke of Clarence (later King William IV) shacked up with an Irish actress but didn't marry her because he knew he wouldn't get permission as she was the wrong sort.

 

Had he been able to marry her, the monarchy would have passed down via the child they had together, and the current king would be their great-great-great grandson.

 

A Mr David Cameron.

[Ronnie]

Really?

 

I'm struggling to find a reason to give a shit on any level.. Any I don't mean that to sound dismissive, but the royals don't live in the real world; nothing that happens to them has any bearing on or relation to us.

It's rooting out instutionalised sexism and religious discrimination at the highest level of our society. It doesn't sway my conviction that, since God didn't put them there, the Royal Family shouldn't have their role but, given that they do, I prefer that it's at least not buffetted by discrimination.

 

To bring it down a level, I have no chance of being prime minister, but I'd be appalled if we had a rule saying that non-whites couldn't have that role. If such a rule were repealed I'd be happy, as I am with this one.