economic situation is dire

[peterms]

Even if things are played by the book, it can bite companies on the arse. You could make 2 people out of 4 redundant, and whether it is based on first in last out, or qualifications etc, if the two people being made redundant are old, or female or just about anything, it is quite possible for a claim to be made, which as we both agree on, leads to 90% of claims being settled, whether as a result of a successful unfair dismissal claim, or as is far more common, a compromise payment that is still more than the worker is legally entitled to, but is less expensive than defending an ongoing claim.

No, we don't agree on that. :winkold:

If you read the table in the link I gave, you will see that more claims are struck out before a hearing than are won; more are lost at hearing than are won; three times as many are withdrawn than are won; and 41% are settled between the parties. So the figure for both won, and settled, added together is slightly under half, not 90% or anything near.

If people make spurious redundancy claims, they tend to be the ones which are withdrawn, struck out, or found in the employer's favour. Those that are settled tend to be the ones where there is some merit in the arguments on both sides.

The idea that the law is tying the hands of employers and that employees just need to make a fanciful claim regardless of merit and they will be rewarded with a big payout is a myth.

The problems for employers tend to arise when they have unclear, shoddy, or no policy; when the criteria are unfair, or applied unfairly; or when the claimed redundancy situation is a sham. It is sometimes more attractive to blame the system than admit their own failings, though.

Interestingly, the category of claim that is most likely to succeed at tribunal is redundancy pay; and if employers can't even calculate this correctly but still persist is taking their defence all the way, you have to ask about their competence and judgement in other aspects of the process.

[drat01]

No, I'm not. I haven't said anything about draconian working practices, minimum wage or selling the poor for fuel.

But you have! - You have said that you want to eradicate workers rights on firing them, it's all over this thread!! Your suggestions are draconian working practices!

Drat, many left wing supporters like you would prefer to see 80-90% tax on top rate earners and nationalisation of everything in the country. I don't bring that into a debate with you about something unconnected because you have never expressed those as your personal views - so why do you insist on doing it?

Just so we don't go down the wrong route here, where have I said that 80-90% Tax, and where have these "many left wingers" said this?

No or I'd have said so, wouldn't I?

So your eradication of workers rights to stimulate the economy is based on just the ability to fire people? - I can't really add much more than what I have put above, it's an abhorrent idea IMO and one that really has no place in a modern society.

Funny AWOL you have beaten so many drums in the past about rights and so called eradication of them by the state.

The bottom line is still there and the key issues raised are still there and not being addressed in any way that will help with the prosperity of this country, its people and the rest of the world.

[Awol]

Eugh, this is going in circles so often I'm starting to feel sick.

You have said that you want to eradicate workers rights on firing them, it's all over this thread!! Your suggestions are draconian working practices!

I've said if it was easier to fire people more employers would take the 'risk' associated with new hires. You say that's draconian, I say it's common sense.

Funny AWOL you have beaten so many drums in the past about rights and so called eradication of them by the state.

Nuances of employment law and bieng tagged and bagged by the State like cattle are more than a little bit different. But don't let that stop you making wildly inaccurate comparisons.

You seem genuinely incapable of having a rational debate without trying to put it into some politcal box to be cheered or booed depending on the colour. I'm bored to tears by it so will leave the field to those with greater endurance/patience/masochistic tendencies.

[peterms]

Eugh, this is going in circles so often I'm starting to feel sick.

Thought you were checking out porn instead? Or is that what you mean?

[Awol]

Eugh, this is going in circles so often I'm starting to feel sick.

Thought you were checking out porn instead? Or is that what you mean?

Haha, touche.

[snowychap]

Why not look at further tax incentives for businesses to take on more people and make it easier to hire and fire - so if the business doesn't benefit proportionally to the increased staffing they can be let go again? That may persuade those who are currently risk averse when it comes to recruitment to take more chances by bringing people on.

Would these changes apply only to new workers or to all workers?

The coalition have already suggested plans to water down the rights of workers (qualifying period up to two years, for example); are you suggesting something more?

On tax incentives, Osborne's NI incentive scheme was hardly a rip-roaring success. Accountancy age reported in July:

THE NUMBER of businesses taking up the National Insurance holiday scheme has picked up but still falls way below the Treasury's original estimates.

The scheme, which allows new businesses to receive relief on National Insurance contributions for new employees in their first 12 months, was a key part of chancellor George Osborne's (pictured) first Budget in 2010.

It was originally expected to be taken up by 132,000 businesses a year but the latest figures show that only 5,137 successful applications were made since September 2010, as well as 163 unsuccessful applications.

Take-up improved in May, with 828 successful applications compared with 552 in April, 679 in March and 518 in February; that number, though, decreased in June to 551.

Exchequer secretary to the Treasury David Gauke said in a parliamentary answer on 18 July: "Earlier this year, HMRC commissioned some research into the initial operation of the scheme.

"This suggests that awareness among potentially eligible employers was lower than expected but the scheme has a positive influence on the prospects for taking on staff and the future growth of businesses for many of the businesses interviewed. Full results of the survey will be published shortly."

Other than that (and putting aside my obvious problem with watering down the rights of workers), there are a few problems I could foresee with your suggestion about making it easier to hire and fire, a couple of which are: a likely increased cost for benefit claims processing and, in a time of recession, a massive spike in unemployment figures (something which would more accurately, perhaps, reflect the underemployment figures).

Have not companies in the private sector, generally, looked at both reducing their employment costs and retaining as much of their workforce as possible, in the hopes of being ready for better times? It's certainly a reason I have seen given for a change in the unemployment rate not reflecting that which people thought ought to be the case in the recession we've had/are still in.

One unintended consequence of liberalizing labour laws in the way that you suggest may well be an overall negative for the economy even though it may benefit some individual companies.

To a degree, an impetus in consumer spending may well be a kind of kicking the can down the road, might it not?

It may be kickng the can down the road to a degree but as the economy needs some help in the short term - and policies can be adjusted in the longer term - I can't see very many better ideas doing the rounds, can you?

What's the difference between a short term fiscal stimulus of reducing personal taxation to increase consumer spending (when it may be seen as doubtful whether the retained profits from these operations will be re-invested in to the UK economy) and a short term fiscal stimulus of government spending on infrastructure projects and, say, social housing?

If growth is the aim then surely, pound for pound, the latter would be the more effective?

Edit: Apologies if some of this post appears a tad garbled.

[peterms]

What's the difference between a short term fiscal stimulus of reducing personal taxation to increase consumer spending (when it may be seen as doubtful whether the retained profits from these operations will be re-invested in to the UK economy) and a short term fiscal stimulus of government spending on infrastructure projects and, say, social housing?

If growth is the aim then surely, pound for pound, the latter would be the more effective?

There might be quite a big difference.

Reducing tax has an uncertain impact on spending. In general, people are trying to reduce their personal indebtedness right now, so it's likely that less of their increased income will be spent than in better times. A bit like the billions of QE going to sit on banks' balance sheets instead of being lent to stimulate economic activity.

If they do spend, will they spend on things which benefit the UK economy, or other economies? Locally produced food and meals out, or foreign holidays?

Spending on infrastructure on the other hand is more likely to benefit local firms (unless we manage to give all the work to others), with a further impact on their supply chain, and an effect on employment from both - quickly followed by some reduction in benefit claims, and also the spending you would have got had you just given money away. And you end up with whatever you have built, as well.

As long as it doesn't take place at a rate which outstrips industry capacity and therefore just pushes prices up, infrastructure spending looks like a very sensible thing to do. Outstripping industry capacity seems like a far distant problem right now.

Clegg's vacuous comments today on the one hand recognise that, but on the other refuse to do anything about it, hoping that the private sector will magically step in and start investing; he says not that there will be a Plan B or that the government will increase investment, but rather that they will try to make sure that already approved projects are completed on time and on budget. For which relief much thanks. He seems to view government spending as being like a child's piggy-bank, daft sod. Oooh, there's nothing left inside! Best sit around and see what turns up, then.

[snowychap]

Reducing tax has an uncertain impact on spending. In general, people are trying to reduce their personal indebtedness right now, so it's likely that less of their increased income will be spent than in better times. A bit like the billions of QE going to sit on banks' balance sheets instead of being lent to stimulate economic activity.

If they do spend, will they spend on things which benefit the UK economy, or other economies? Locally produced food and meals out, or foreign holidays?

Told ya some of the parts were garbled.

I was rather skipping the process on paper concerning marginal propensities and concentrating on the reinvestment of profits.

[DelboyVilla]

Just a quick question as I have been living in the economic bubble that is Western Asutralia for the past 12 months and the recession seems to be passing those of us in the resources sector by?

How bad does it really seem to the average Joe in the UK? Is it just a case of belt tightening or are people really getting into financial do-do?

My comment on the redundancy vs sacking thing is that I worked for a small UK company and even though they seemed to be fairly safe financially the bosses decided to enter voluntary recievership. The main reason was that in the down turn the cost of making employees redundant was so high as they had many long termers (20 & 30 years plus). Therefore the simplest way to sort it was to cease trading and pay everyone's wages and let them claim the rest off the Insolvency service. Very sad situation for everyone. this happened to me a couple of times and hence me bringing my family out to chase the Ozzie $.

Just to let everyone know Perth is a weird place, economically! Wages start at about $25.00 per hour (about 16 GBP) for shop workers or resturant staff and a graduate fresh out of uni can expect to earn in the region of $65k (over 40k GBP). Sounds great hey? However renting a decent property is 1300 GBP per month a banana costs 1.40 GBP each, a pint in town at a pub can cost 6.30 GBP! Sounds expensive now? But we do have a great river, the Indian Ocean, 23 degree winter days, very little crime, low unemployment. Against no NHS system really, 40 degree Christmas Days!!

[JulieB]

I don't do politics so I have no agenda or side to be taking..... however having spent the last 8months dealing for the first time with the public

sector, sitting in on meetings involving local council executives and other bodies....

Can I just say I have been shocked by people's ability to hold 3 hour meetings in expensive conference rooms with nice buffet lunches/refreshments the conclusion of which appears to only produce an impressive set of minutes, with a completely unsatisfactory outcome except an agreement to pay "a consultant" to do a piece of work for thousands of pounds! I've found it very difficult to hold my piece at these often surreal events. How can people manage to voice their opinion for 10 minutes, without actually saying anything of worth continually?!!! It appears to me some people appear to be masters of creating a role for themselves that sounds important and has all the trappings of office but achieves very little!

Maybe I'm naive & this is how it all works with councils, quangos et al but running my own business & being always involved in the private sector... it's been a real eye opener dipping my toe into the world of the salary paid public & pseudo quango sector.

As a side note regarding an earlier post about the UK simply not manufacturing enough but instead being too reliant on the service sector.... I wholeheatedly agree and have been saying this for many years.... however I might also add that we should also be more self reliant on growing our own food and fuel sustainably as a nation, preferably on a more local basis as much as possible as well. I'm not just talking on a national scale, but small scale eg community allotments, woodland etc.

[DelboyVilla]

As a side note regarding an earlier post about the UK simply not manufacturing enough but instead being too reliant on the service sector.... I wholeheatedly agree and have been saying this for many years.... however I might also add that we should also be more self reliant on growing our own food and fuel sustainably as a nation, preferably on a more local basis as much as possible as well. I'm not just talking on a national scale, but small scale eg community allotments, woodland etc.

In Oz they seem to import very little fresh food and are very protective of locally grown produce. In fact there seems to be quite a few scare stories that go round about the suitability of imported food. For example there was a story warning people not to buy cheap imported chinese apples as they were covered in faeces??? Does mean that you pay a bit extra for things funnily enough especially when things are not in season!

[snowychap]

I don't do politics so I have no agenda or side to be taking..... however having spent the last 8months dealing for the first time with the public

sector, sitting in on meetings involving local council executives and other bodies....

Can I just say I have been shocked by people's ability to hold 3 hour meetings in expensive conference rooms with nice buffet lunches/refreshments the conclusion of which appears to only produce an impressive set of minutes, with a completely unsatisfactory outcome except an agreement to pay "a consultant" to do a piece of work for thousands of pounds! I've found it very difficult to hold my piece at these often surreal events. How can people manage to voice their opinion for 10 minutes, without actually saying anything of worth continually?!!! It appears to me some people appear to be masters of creating a role for themselves that sounds important and has all the trappings of office but achieves very little!

Maybe I'm naive & this is how it all works with councils, quangos et al but running my own business & being always involved in the private sector... it's been a real eye opener dipping my toe into the world of the salary paid public & pseudo quango sector.

Sounds like the same practices that I've seen in my time at npower, BP Gas marketing and Hutchison 3G - to name a few.

[JulieB]

Sounds like the same practices that I've seen in my time at npower, BP Gas marketing and Hutchison 3G - to name a few.

How depressing to hear! No wonder the UK economy is in such a mess when bluechip companies as well as the public sector employ suich numpties.

Small businesses simply would go out of business if they adopted these practices!

[andyjsg]

Sounds like the same practices that I've seen in my time at npower, BP Gas marketing and Hutchison 3G - to name a few.

Surely the difference is the time wasted is on their own dollar rather than that from the tax payers?

[Risso]

Well yes. What large companies choose to spend [waste] their money on is up to them. They have to answer to their shareholders.

[DanishVillan]

ECB Announcement:

15 September 2011 - ECB announces additional US dollar liquidity-providing operations over year-end

The Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) has decided, in coordination with the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and the Swiss National Bank, to conduct three US dollar liquidity-providing operations with a maturity of approximately three months covering the end of the year. These operations will be conducted in addition to the ongoing weekly seven-day operations announced on 10 May 2010.

[drat01]

Sounds like the same practices that I've seen in my time at npower, BP Gas marketing and Hutchison 3G - to name a few.

Surely the difference is the time wasted is on their own dollar rather than that from the tax payers?

what a simplistic view that is.

As Snowy rightly points out, Julie's (flawed IMO) view of public sector is mirrored and multiplied by a number of x in the private sector. In my job I get to see many organisations all around the world and by far the biggest wasters of time are some of the larger companies in terms of duplication of job and the whole "10 minute of fame" contributions to meetings. To try and single this out as some sort of public sector trait is wrong and despite Julie claiming it not be political is often used by those who advocate massive attacks and cuts to that part of the economy.

So what people are advocating now is a time and motion study on the effectiveness of meetings? It's funny the loudest supporters of this are typically bean counters or those who have no sense of reality of how business runs.

The economy is failing, it's got worse of late and shows little to no signs of getting better only worse. But still there seems to be some who's sole plan is to attack public services and try and wave some magic wand fix based on fear and justification for efforts put in, despite the reality of them being counter productive and actually costing more monies

We see today a "banker" who has lost a company nearly 2BN $, no doubt the fall out from that will be that the organisation will see to recoup that money by charging more and then the fall out will trickle down to the man in the street. Very little or no comment or condemnation I see on that?

[drat01]

Well yes. What large companies choose to spend [waste] their money on is up to them. They have to answer to their shareholders.

And who "funds" large companies? - the man in the street also. The ridiculous idea that the public only fund public sector is head shaking. Company costs increases and who pays for those? The man in the street. Running costs increase in the energy sector, where do those costs land, in the bills paid for by the man in the street.

But again the easy argument is to (again) have a pop at the public sector, when the reality is that all areas suffer from inefficiencies, always have done and always will

[drat01]

It's good to see that the private sector has played no part in any of the financial problems.

I suppose the 15% increase in energy prices from EDF announced today link will just be dealt with by shrugging shoulders and all being thankful we have a job. Oh what's that more don't have a job now?

[drat01]

Over 110,00 public sector civil servant have lost their jobs in the last 3 months, where is the wealth that they bring back into the general economy going to come from?

link