Jump to content

Should employers be stopped from making redundancies when making profits

Recommended Posts

 

If a company is cutting its workforce it means there isn't the work for them. If there isn't the work there aren't the profits, particularly as they are having to cut margins to attract business.

 

Isn't that rather naive to assume that no employers cut jobs in order to increase their profits by forcing the remaining employees to cover for colleagues, or by replacing them with cheaper staff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a Labour Government for you.:mad:

 

I'm quite happy to make direct comparisons between this governments record on employment/unemployment and that of the previous one.

 

In fact I'd like a little wager that the current levels of employment are higher than at any time under those of the Tories and that unemployment levels are lower than they were for 80% of the time under the Tories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't that rather naive to assume that no employers cut jobs in order to increase their profits by forcing the remaining employees to cover for colleagues, or by replacing them with cheaper staff!

 

Is it not against the laws of this wonderful land to dispose of someones services then replace them with cheaper staff? Also has it not occured to you that they may be one step ahead in saving jobs like your very own?

At the end of the day they are running a business not a charity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it not against the laws of this wonderful land to dispose of someones services then replace them with cheaper staff? Also has it not occured to you that they may be one step ahead in saving jobs like your very own?

At the end of the day they are running a business not a charity.

 

At the end of the day is it not the Governments responsibility to ensure that families aren't torn apart by unemployment and poverty.

 

A genuine debating point!

 

If this responsibility doesn't fall on the government, then who does it fall on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the end of the day is it not the Governments responsibility to ensure that families aren't torn apart by unemployment and poverty.

 

A genuine debating point!

 

If this responsibility doesn't fall on the government, then who does it fall on?

 

You are right. What a pity that we have to fall back on this current shower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Despite making their largest ever profits last year my employer has decided to cut around 12 % of its workforce, directly impacting on three of my closest colleagues.

 

We all know unemployment is rising and bringing with it heartache for families.

 

Whilst acknowledging that employers need to make redundancies when circumstances merit it; however, should they be allowed to do it when it is clear that they are only doing it to increase the profits of shareholders.

 

So should the government legislate to stop companies making redundancies when they are making healthy profits, or should the taxpayer be forced to foot the bill via the welfare system for those unfortunate enough to be made redundant whilst shareholders see large increases in their profits.

The point of private business is to make profit for shareholders. If the position is legitimately redundant (ie won't be replaced by someone cheaper) then yes, no one is guaranteed a job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok so following your logic, if companies aren't to be forced into keeping people in employment when making money, then whose responsibility is it to create jobs for people.

 

Seems to me that we can either blame the government for doing nothing to stop employers doing this, or we blame employers for making redundancies when no need exists.

 

Someone has to take the blame for Unemployment, surely it is either the government for doing nothing, or employers for increasing their profits at the expense of individuals.

 

It's no ones responsibility. Companies want to do it because increasing orders means a requirement for more staff and higher profits. The staff are dependant on the orders, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If clear evidence of this exists then I don't have an issue with that policy.

 

It is when it is clearly done to improve profits (replacing with cheaper staff) of shareholders that I have a problem with.

Already illegal to do, what else do you expect beyond the current legislation?

 

Someone has to take the blame for unemployment, it is either the Government for allowing this to happen, or Society for believing it acceptable for businesses to lay people off when they don't need to.

 

Why must everything that happens have blame attached?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So should the Government (of whichever party) be compelled to ensure people have work, or should it be left to market forces to determine this?

 

 

The market will ultimately determine whether there is a demand for individual's continued employment. There is no problem so insoluble that government involvement won't make worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't that rather naive to assume that no employers cut jobs in order to increase their profits by forcing the remaining employees to cover for colleagues, or by replacing them with cheaper staff!

 

That's a short term tactic, no business with decent management is run on such short term goals and no business run like that would survive very long, ergo no need for government intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow this is one daft thread!

Titanic, out of interest what job do you have?

 

Generally the people at the top of these business have a few brain cells that they cobble together to ensure the company will make profits for as long as possible, that means making predictions on what will happen in the future and preparing the company for these expectations.

 

They also need to reinvest money back into the business, if they generated no profit, they will not actually go anywhere, they will only tread water.

 

The responsobility for people becoming unemployed is down to the market, the market is failing, companies are being affected so they tailor their strategy to suit.

 

Forcing the companies to do things they don't want to do will potentially ruin them losing more jobs.

 

It makes me chuckle when people thing of their jobs as a right, not a privilege.

 

Edit - Titanic, are you by any chance a communist, you don't seem to enjoy companies making profits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some employers see unemployment as a licence to exploit. They can get rid of expensive workers and the cheapers ones left behind will be forced to do their work without complaining because they can't get jobs elsewhere.

 

However I suppose it could be they are shedding staff because of legitimate fears about future cashflows i.e. they are cutting costs now because they are afraid of being made bankrupt later.

 

Cutting staff unnecessarily only keeps the recession going though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.