Do you think we have too many employment rights or not enough?

[cutie23 10]

Do you think there is too much employment law that protects employees or vice versa? Have we got a compensation culture that encourages people to raise concerns in employment? Or due to case law being a difficult area there are no rules set in place to make the assumption there are too many employment rights to employees. I find managers often are cynical on the view that employers have too many rights.

[Daid 10]

I think there needs to be a balance and 'rights' is a much overused word in my worthless opinion, far too much taking for granted on both sides of the employment fence. People want it both ways and bawl like babies when it goes wrong.

Have we got a compensation culture? of course we have in all areas now. The quick buck generation.

I'm pleased i'm on the downward slope of life and I hope it goes tits up for everyone, it's no more than we deserve. morning

[Uptowngirl 10]

Do you think there is too much employment law that protects employees or vice versa? Have we got a compensation culture that encourages people to raise concerns in employment? Or due to case law being a difficult area there are no rules set in place to make the assumption there are too many employment rights to employees. I find managers often are cynical on the view that employers have too many rights.

 

I suppose you have to ask yourself why Ford thought they would be better off transferring all their vehicle assembly out of the UK.

[chem1st 10]

We have too few rights for many, and too many for some.

 

We have a multiple tier workforce, where some have all the rights under the sun, and where others have none.

 

We have a lower lass of "agency bas****s", the lowest of the low, sometimes it's quite easy to forget that these agency workers are human beings.

[Happ Hazzard 10]

I generally side with employers. I don't think anyone should be forced to employ anyone they don't want to employ. On the other hand, nor should someone have to work for someone they don't want to work for.

[top4718 838]

In my working life starting in the early 80's the employers had the balance of power and could sack or lay people off at the drop of a hat partly due to the Tories destruction of the unions, things have now perhaps gone too far the other way where it is increasingly difficult to get rid of 'problem' employees due to all the paperwork involved.

[Happ Hazzard 10]

The current laws favour large employers who can afford to "carry" people. Smaller employers are wary about taking on new staff because getting rid of them if needed is a logistical nightmare.

[Hillpig 10]

There are too many, two I would mention,

 

1. TUPE. Where if a firm loses a contract for, say cleaning, security or catering they are forced to employ the previous contractors staff on exactly the same terms and conditions. As many contracts are changed for poor service then those providing that poor service are protected and the incoming company lumbered with them.

 

2. Retirement, whilst some people are highly employable at 65 there will come a time when the should retire and make way for younger workers. Under present employment legislation it is very difficult to manage older workers out. Consequently hundreds of thousands of youngsters remain unemployed.

[Mecky 10]

I generally side with employers. I don't think anyone should be forced to employ anyone they don't want to employ. On the other hand, nor should someone have to work for someone they don't want to work for.

 

I'm with you on that. How do you feel about this/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23954877

[Happ Hazzard 10]

Very much in favour of it.

[Mecky 10]

Very much in favour of it.

 

But doesn't that force people to work who don't want to and worse still, force employers to take people they don't want, i.e. people who are going to be detrimental to the business?

Edited September 4, 2013 by Mecky

[erebus 10]

Yes there are too many rights for wage slaves these days. Cameron has the right idea making those getting benefits working 30 hours a week. That will of course allow wages to fall further, and thus one can employ many more people. Tesco's were found to threaten people who did not comply with their shift work or work output requirements, with the fact this benefits would be stopped if they stopped work.

 

Why should the poor and needy have any rights, slaves are there to be abused, and we British know all about how to abuse, we are experts in that side of life. We love sadism, kicking the helpless when they are down, because we think they ask for it.

 

Why pay the old pensions, they are useless, cannot work, a drain on the system, and their position in society should be re-evaluated. We just do not need the retired anymore, and a solution should be sorted out for those unable to support themselves.

 

Get rid of all parasites, but they need vilified and victimising first to justify what follows, just like those on benefits these days