Scrapping Unfair Dismissal Law Is 'Price Worth Paying' Report Urges

Employment Law

The Huffington Post UK   First Posted: 26/10/2011 11:25 Updated: 25/12/2011 09:12

Proposals contained in a report commissioned by David Cameron to scrap unfair dismissal laws have been savaged by the Liberal Democrats and trade unions.

The draft report seen by the Daily Telegraph suggests the rules that prevent companies sacking employees without good reason should be done away with in order to promote economic growth.

"Many regulations conceived in an era of full employment are designed to make employment more attractive to potential employees," it says.

"That was addressing yesterday's problem. In today's era of a lack of jobs those regulations simply exacerbate the national problem of high unemployment."

The report, written for Downing Street by venture capitalist and Tory donor Adrian Beecroft, attacks the "terrible" impact of the current unfair dismissal rules on the efficiency and competitiveness businesses.

"The rules make it difficult to prove someone deserves to be dismissed and demand a process for doing so which is so lengthy and complex that it is hard to implement," he says.

Beecroft says that some employees, comfortable in the knowledge they are safe from dismissal, "coast along" in their jobs.

"While it may seem counter-intuitive, even making it easier to remove under-performing employees will in the short run not increase unemployment as they will be replaced by more competent employees," he says. "In the long run it will increase employment by making our business more competitive."

"The downside of the proposal is that some people would be dismissed simply because their employer did not like them," he admits.

But adds: "While this is sad I believe it is a price worth paying for all the benefits that would result from change."

The proposal was attacked by Lib Dem MP Norman Lamb, a close ally of deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, as "madness".

"To throw away employment protection would be madness," he told BBC News. "That could be immensely damaging."

The idea was also savaged by trade unions. Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey, said he suspected the report had been leaked in order to appease the right-wing of the Conservative Party.

"It can’t be any coincidence that this sop to the right wing of the Tory party comes just 24 hours after the prime minister faced a massive revolt by his backbenchers demanding a referendum on Europe," he said.

"It is despicable that this government seeks to appease its voracious right wing by promising to crush any powers to defend themselves that workers in this country may have left."

Paul Kenny GMB general secretary said he was not surprised that a "well-heeled Tory venture capitalist" such as Beecroft would want to scrap employment regulations.

"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. Their excesses led to the 2.57m people now without work across the UK."

"Instead Tories attack the rights of ordinary working people not to be deprived of their incomes without good reason. What a shameless shower the elite have turned out to be that they are prepared to scrap the right that a fair process is followed when a worker faces the ultimate economic sanction of having their incomes taken away."

And TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said plan would help "nasty bosses" and horrify employees.

“Scrapping protection against unfair dismissal, even for people who have given years of loyal service, will do absolutely nothing to boost the economy. Indeed if people are constantly in fear of losing their jobs it will lead consumers to spend even less," he said.

“But while this proposal does nothing for growth, it does show the kind of economy those close to the prime minister want to create – one in which nasty bosses are given full license to undermine those trying to maintain decent standards.

“The clue is in the name. Employers already have plenty of powers to make fair dismissals. Giving them the right to act unfairly may go down well on the backbenches, but will horrify employees.”

But the suggestion was supported by Mark Littlewood, director general of the institute of economic affairs, who said current labour laws stop companies making necessary fast decisions.

“We need to create a business environment in which companies can take risks and make swift, smart decisions about employment," he said.

“Our present highly restrictive labour laws act as an impediment to this. They discourage businesses from taking on new workers. This is at a time when nearly 1 million young people are out of work.

“These leaked proposals show the government is starting to take the needs of British business seriously. They should have the courage to implement them.”

Earlier this month the government was announced it intended to change the current rules. Under the proposals workers would also only be allowed to claim unfair dismissal once they had been in a job for two years - an increase on the current 12 months.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

Proposals contained in a report commissioned by David Cameron to scrap unfair dismissal laws have been savaged by the Liberal Democrats and trade unions. The draft report seen by the Daily Telegrap...
Proposals contained in a report commissioned by David Cameron to scrap unfair dismissal laws have been savaged by the Liberal Democrats and trade unions. The draft report seen by the Daily Telegrap...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 14
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:58 PM on 11/05/2011
Saying the Liberal Democrats savaged something is a bit far fetched. They might have whimpered and nuzzled it a bit, but SAVAGE? I don't think so.
photo
European1919
I am the PigmⒶn
06:03 AM on 10/27/2011
No way is dismantling the rights and protections which workers and unions have striven and fought for for decades to be dismantled for the very doubtful gain of economic growth.
Returning to US or 19th century style capitalism where the worker (and his family) is at the mercy of the industrialist is counterproductive and will neither lead to any growth, nor to stability in society.
The northern countries which are all unionised and have very sensible and strict laws governing dismissal etc. are all doing pretty well and so is even Germany although she is in the middle of the EU finance crisis.

As usual the politicians are trying to suck up to big business because a) they are completely void of any mental activity, and b) it is always easiest to kick the vulnerable.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bandguy
08:08 PM on 10/26/2011
As a manager and a business owner, I have never fired anyone who didn't fire themselves. I live in the U.S. and anyone who isn't following the rules or standards of the company is fairly easy to let go. I am surprised by the fear of employers in Britain, I know a few, to fire a person who just takes up space or does a bad job because of the "Rights" of the person who most likely deserves to be fired. I appreciate the socialist system but the negative aspect of entitlement used by the ones who deserve it least continues to create a burden. Unfortunately personal responsibility can't be taught by the government.
07:26 PM on 10/26/2011
This report is a load of nonsense. As an employer, if you can't tell an employee is not up to the job within 12 months and give them the correct notice period when terminating their contract, you're not a very good employer! What difference does an extra 12 months make?

If you've got an employee who's performance suddenly drops after they've been employed for a few years, you follow the set procedure and eventually dismiss that person fairly if they don't improve. If the now ex-employee then brings a case at the Employment Tribunal against you, you can show you followed the procedures to the letter and not only win the case, but get costs awarded too. What's so difficult about that?
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Lawyer13
retired Lawyer, General and Psychiatric Nurse, wit
06:22 PM on 10/26/2011
You have to be employed for a year at the moment, soon to be two years before you can go to an Industrial Tribunal, surely this is long enough to find out if someone is suitable and fitted to do a job.
04:30 PM on 10/26/2011
Good lord, make people responsible for their own job....its anarchy in the uk.

Best practices on both sides make sure the best people stay employed ( in normal circumstances), fall downs, layabouts and overpaid under worked should not be protected just because of carriage rights.
Employer shows due diligence on hiring, documentation and progressive action on poor performance and the scammers can be weeded out.
Employee puts in a good days work for a good days pay - get acknowledgement for said work, most will be content.

There will always be the unscrupulous that will try to work around any law, rule or agreement and the removal of unfair dismissal would be abused without a doubt, however it is no less unscrupulous defending the indefensible as trade unions & employers have done for years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FanaticRealist
Romney's Dog: 21st Century Schrodinger's Cat
03:05 PM on 10/26/2011
“We need to create a business environment in which companies can take risks and make swift, smart decisions about employment," he said.

- What do companies taking a risk have to do with scrapping the unfair dismissal law. Could it be that companies ("job creators") have been trying to create false grounds for dismissal so they can avoid their legal responsibilities on redundancy payments.

“Our present highly restrictive labour laws act as an impediment to this. They discourage businesses from taking on new workers. This is at a time when nearly 1 million young people are out of work."

-- Rubbish. This is as specious an argument as the one used in the United States that says that "job creators" will employ more people if personal tax rates are reduced.

You employ people because there is a demand for your products and services. If you don't, you won't be able to deliver on that demand. And then you'll go out of business or find your business disadvantaged because you (as the responsible employer) don't have the courage of your convictions.

If you are good at interviewing people and you are honest about the working environment and employee prospects, people will either sign up and be loyal employees or they won't. Even in the worst case, they'll realise they've made a mistake and leave during their probationary period.
10:00 AM on 11/19/2011
Totally agree with this account, if you want the 1 million young people employed- how about looking at the retirement age-- why pay unemployment benefit when it could be retirement benefit-- after all if you want efficient strong labour-- unfortunately youth slightly has
the edge on experience
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:04 PM on 10/26/2011
Any time you hear one of these slimeballs talking about "a price worth paying," you know it is a barefaced attempt to hoodwink the public.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Blockem1
When will our politicians start putting policies
12:36 PM on 10/26/2011
Removing peoples rights is not the answer , tightening the rules are , after all far more days are lost through bad management, poor communication and bad decision making rather than a few lazy employees that might get a favorable ruling if the employer hasn't followed the agreed rules of employment. The quickest way to loose productivity is to turn your workforce against you for bad treatment of their fellow work colleagues.
photo
BeeJayCeee
I still loathe Thatcher
11:58 AM on 10/26/2011
I envisage a new government-backed incentive scheme to encourage investment in new hot-gas flue systems to provide work for the many millions of pre-pubescent layabouts that blight this country and prevent it from achieving its true potential.

Also, construction of large, centralised places of employment that provide shelter for those of low or no income and require the completion of menial, pointless tasks in return for food. A sort of "house" where the lower orders can be kept in gainful employment or "work".
This comment has been removed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Miserable Swine
11:37 AM on 10/26/2011
This is terrible. At my last place of a work a female member of the sales team (a very male, `macho` environment), had to endure sexual harassment of the worst possible kind, leading to her having a total nervous breakdown. She won at a tribunal after the company tried to cite `extensive time off` (etc). Without these laws she would have been in an even crappier situation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FanaticRealist
Romney's Dog: 21st Century Schrodinger's Cat
03:10 PM on 10/26/2011
I used to work somewhere where "Cruella De Ville" (as we nicknamed the MD - a bitter, twisted harridan who had no family happiness and resented anybody who did) used to fire women in the second trimester under the thinnest of pretexts.

It got to the stage that local solicitors would simply roll their eyes when some scared PA or secretary would turn up and mention the company's name, immediately before taking the company to the cleaners.