Give up your employment rights.

[Narj]

If the employee is good, why would that matter?

And if they're bad, why are we defending bad employees?

I never said the employee was bad, I was inferring that there's a lot of competition for some jobs in light of large amounts of redundancies being made in recent years, so some employers may want to take advantage of the fact in this scenario.

Sorry, but giving up your employment rights is plain barmy. I can see where the idea comes from but it's just open to abuse IMO. Would a constructive dismissal claim be valid under this waiver, for example? Things can change rapidly at work, especially when costs are involved.

 

[nero120]

Things are a lot easier in the US because for a long time there have been quite a lot of companies that make it their business to finance fledgling / startup businesses, something the UK is miles behind in.

Its the financials thats the main cause of the problems not employees / employment laws. If you have a solid business and get the financial backing you need, the employment laws arent your main hurdle.

Disagree entirely! A business is nothing but the people that make it! I think the ability to sack crap staff massively determines the success of a company. For any new business that requires skilled/professional workers, getting good staff is paramount and when you're a company of 5-20 people, every seat counts. If you're having to carry some crap employee due to draconian employment law that managed to blag his/her way through an interview then it would have a very negative impact on the effectiveness of the business. I'm in favour of making it easier for employers to hire/fire staff.

 

[Sharlaw]

I heard on the radio this morning that the government will make this so that employers can make this mandatory for new starters.

It seems that the government are too busy boosting business at the expense of the working people. Without ensuring that the benifits are being passed on.

 

[elmarko]

isnt this the same as contracting

It seems that way, but without the high pay to compensate.

What worries me is that families on the breadline/in trouble financially may be temped to go for this for a quick payout & be much worse off in the long-term.

People with money on decent jobs will not be going for this, which kind of opens the question - what's the aim of it?.

 

[TruffleShuffle]

Its the young who will be royally bent over with this 'voluntary' scheme.

Those of us who have a decent amount of experience/skills (and most importantly already have a job) will be able to negotiate our contracts with new employers. However there is no mention of whether the normal rights etc HAVE to be offered alongside this "voluntary" scheme to new employees, or whether it's voluntary as in "these are your employment terms and if you volunteer not to agree to them then you can look for a job elsewhere"

However for the young, trying to get their foot in the door, they will be effectively forced to work for less money, but get 'shares' in lieu of this which they will only be able to sell back to their employer. Who only has to offer them a "reasonable" sum for them. As yet there has been no concrete definition of the term "reasonable", and i doubt there ever will be.

 

[postbox]

So...a couple of years down the line and this happens, probably quite often:

A person, let's call them A, "totally voluntarily" accepts this offer because by then it's the only way to get or keep a job.

So A has some token shares that they might or might not be able to sell (especially if the only entity they can sell them to is the company - many companies don't have publically traded shares) and which might or might not be worth anything.

One day, A's boss decides to sack them so they can give the job to their friend/spouse/sibling/someone who gives them oral sex every day at lunchtime/whatever. A has no notice, no payoff, nothing. U R SACKED LOL. Since A has no employment rights, there's nothing they can do except sign on...but you can't sign on if you've been sacked, can you?

So what does A do? Live on the streets? Become a drug dealer? Suicide?

Is this how people think sucessful small businesses are actually run? Reputation to a small business is massive, you sack people for the lols, people are going to know about it.

 

[No1newts]

I support the Tories.... But this is bat **** mental!!

 

[Muffin`]

I never said the employee was bad, I was inferring that there's a lot of competition for some jobs in light of large amounts of redundancies being made in recent years, so some employers may want to take advantage of the fact in this scenario.

Is that any different to lowering wages? There's nothing intrinsically wrong with having a competitive job market as it keeps the UK competitive and stops wage inflation. Also this is no race to the bottom no matter how much people spin it, companies giving crap wages get crap employees, people know this.

Sorry, but giving up your employment rights is plain barmy. I can see where the idea comes from but it's just open to abuse IMO. Would a constructive dismissal claim be valid under this waiver, for example? Things can change rapidly at work, especially when costs are involved.

Many countries get by with far less, if any employee rights - the business is there to make money, if you're a good earner / worker then not having those rights will not effect you. Unfair dismissal is still there, it's not all gone as yes things can change with management movement. Specifically redundancy is replaced by the shares, which will be far more than redundancy payouts in the short term.

I don't foresee this becoming the norm, this is there for the exception of small business startups.

 

[Muffin`]

It seems that way, but without the high pay to compensate.

What worries me is that families on the breadline/in trouble financially may be temped to go for this for a quick payout & be much worse off in the long-term.

People with money on decent jobs will not be going for this, which kind of opens the question - what's the aim of it?.

You've got it the wrong way around, why would a SB put shares and a say of the company into the hands of someone on the breadline or can't even manage their own finances?

Why wouldn't someone be more tempted to jump on board with a shares/say and the option of a CGT free sell off?

 

[gothic_hobbit]

You can't even trust the jobcentre these days :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkQFzRPs8jc

 

[spankingtexan]

You can't even trust the jobcentre these days :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkQFzRPs8jc

LOL!!! pathetic, i'll never trust the Government or any of its departments ever. how can you take these clowns serious?

 

[Dave M]

You can't even trust the jobcentre these days :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkQFzRPs8jc

Get paid 10% of the value of the goods for listing on ebay and emailing an order?

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.