Jump to content RIP Sheffield Admin Mort

Should employers be stopped from making redundancies when making profits

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Agreed on both parts.

 

It therefore follows that the numbers of employed/unemployed people will be determined by businesses and not governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why must everything that happens have blame attached?

 

OK maybe reason is a better word than blame.

 

Most people will agree that unemployment is horrible for those affected, if we accept that the reason of a company is to make profits then clearly the impact on individuals is of minimal concern to the company.

 

So what can be done about it, to me three options exist:

 

1- We have complete government intervention to ensure everyone works

2- We accept things as they are and acknowledge the system is to blame

3- We tweak the rules to stop those employers making healthy profits from making people redundant

 

It is a thought prevoking thread, the consensus seems to be the second option but my preferred one would be the third.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

The problem is that the market appears to be putting some good hard-working intelligent people on the dole.

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.

 

A bit harsh on the daft thread comment, it is trying to be thought prevoking.

 

Your points obviously state the status quo, can you understand a certain amount of bitterness when the market fails and people are being put through this.

 

Is it beyond our combined capabilities to be able to find an alternative that makes employment a right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK maybe reason is a better word than blame.

 

Most people will agree that unemployment is horrible for those affected, if we accept that the reason of a company is to make profits then clearly the impact on individuals is of minimal concern to the company.

 

So what can be done about it, to me three options exist:

 

1- We have complete government intervention to ensure everyone works

2- We accept things as they are and acknowledge the system is to blame

3- We tweak the rules to stop those employers making healthy profits from making people redundant

 

It is a thought prevoking thread, the consensus seems to be the second option but my preferred one would be the third.

 

1 doesn't work, it's been tried and failed many times now.

I don't believe that what 3 addresses really happens, at least not often and not by any company that's going to exist for the long term, the behaviour is already illegal and illogical.

You can't tweak the rules to stop illegal behaviour anyway, it's already against the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe that what 3 addresses really happens, at least not often and not by any company that's going to exist for the long term, the behaviour is already illegal and illogical.

 

So you don't think any British companies have shut down their British operation and set up in India.(for example)

 

In my own business I am 70% certain the people who have left will be replaced in a few months with people on a lower salary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That isn't the behaviour you described, that's moving an operation to another country and couldn't be made illegal even if someone wanted to do so.

How do you believe that a multi national could be forced to keep open an office or factory that it wishes to close?

 

Making people redundant and then replacing them, the same job in the same place, is already illegal.

Telling people that their job is moving to India and they can go with it if they want or be redundant, that's legitimate and sometimes in the best interest of the company (although given the publics perception of Indian call centres, not always).

 

To go back to your OP

 

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.

 

No mention of illegal behaviour, more likely a reaction to down turning orders and pipeline, last years profit doesn't mean that it's still the same today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Really - why?

 

Article 23.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

 

"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."

 

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights elaborates the right to work in the context of individual freedoms and economic, social and cultural development. The Covenant also elaborates the role of the state in realising this human right. Article 6 states:

 

"(1) The State Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right. (2) The steps to be taken by a State party to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include technical and vocational guidance and training programmes, policies and techniques to achieve steady economic, social and cultural development and full and productive employment under conditions safeguarding fundamental political and economic freedoms to the individual."

 

There are huge social implications linked to high unemployment, which is why the state should play a role in regulating to prevent it occuring too easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed on both parts.

 

It therefore follows that the numbers of employed/unemployed people will be determined by businesses and not governments.

 

No. You are not reading your replies. The Government sets out the economic parameters. Business then decides which country offers the best prospects and bases its operations there. Hence industry is pulling out of the UK and taking the jobs elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A bit harsh on the daft thread comment, it is trying to be thought prevoking.

 

Your points obviously state the status quo, can you understand a certain amount of bitterness when the market fails and people are being put through this.

 

Is it beyond our combined capabilities to be able to find an alternative that makes employment a right.

 

If the government meddle in peoples businesses, then less people will setup businesses meaning less jobs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That isn't the behaviour you described, that's moving an operation to another country and couldn't be made illegal even if someone wanted to do so.

How do you believe that a multi national could be forced to keep open an office or factory that it wishes to close?

 

Making people redundant and then replacing them, the same job in the same place, is already illegal.

Telling people that their job is moving to India and they can go with it if they want or be redundant, that's legitimate and sometimes in the best interest of the company (although given the publics perception of Indian call centres, not always).

 

To go back to your OP

 

 

 

No mention of illegal behaviour, more likely a reaction to down turning orders and pipeline, last years profit doesn't mean that it's still the same today.

 

It boils down to whether or not you believe that Unemployment should be determined by the market, if you do then we have to accept that the markets are run to make profits for shareholders and if these same shareholders want to shut down their exercise in Britain and moving it to India then you cannot legitimately object to this if you believe in the market economy.

 

In reality that argument is no different to businesses over here making people redundant and replacing them with people on lower wages, it happens and most people know that it does.

 

With reference to the illegal behaviour at my place, then yes I believe that will exist but that won't happen until the end of the notice period, I fully expect these people to replaced in the future.

 

In terms of down-turn within the company, then yes that is a good debate; my section is struggling whilst other areas of the company are expanding, the redundancies are across the board throughout the company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. You are not reading your replies. The Government sets out the economic parameters. Business then decides which country offers the best prospects and bases its operations there. Hence industry is pulling out of the UK and taking the jobs elsewhere.

 

So what should a Government do, should they have little or no Regulations in place and allow companies to do what they want, or should they put protections in for employees.

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.