To understand the significance of the recent proposal, by the government, to relax the laws of unfair dismissal, it is necessary to look at what the present laws are. That way we can see exactly what will change, and speculate as to the repercussions of them. What follows is an attempt to do just that.
Currently, the dismissal process is a cumbersome one, for the employer. Any action has to start with, firstly, a meeting with the employee. That employee will also be written to, specifying what the complaint is, regarding the employees conduct. If disciplinary action is to be taken, then the employer must warn the worker in writing, and the action usually just takes the form of a written warning.
So what is so bad about this process? Supposedly, the difficulty for the employer is that it does not provide them with any confidence that the people they hire will work to the best of their ability; and if they don't, they can't be replaced very easily. This makes employers reluctant to take new people on, which has a knock on effect on the overall capacity for growth within the economy.
So what is so wrong with this format? The thought is that it makes hiring, and organising staff, too cumbersome, and also does not give the employer confidence that their employees will perform to the best of their ability. And this, in turn, is supposed to make employers reluctant to hire, which has far reaching detrimental effects of the overall growth of the economy.
The government proposal, if it is adopted, will mean in some cases employers may be able to bypass the aforementioned process for dismissal, meaning they can just lay people off if they underperform. This will increase the confidence of employers, and so make them more willing to take people on. If this is accurate, then it could be a neat solution to the lack of job uptake in the private sector; but it is vital that employee rights are not eroded to far!
Currently, the dismissal process is a cumbersome one, for the employer. Any action has to start with, firstly, a meeting with the employee. That employee will also be written to, specifying what the complaint is, regarding the employees conduct. If disciplinary action is to be taken, then the employer must warn the worker in writing, and the action usually just takes the form of a written warning.
So what is so bad about this process? Supposedly, the difficulty for the employer is that it does not provide them with any confidence that the people they hire will work to the best of their ability; and if they don't, they can't be replaced very easily. This makes employers reluctant to take new people on, which has a knock on effect on the overall capacity for growth within the economy.
So what is so wrong with this format? The thought is that it makes hiring, and organising staff, too cumbersome, and also does not give the employer confidence that their employees will perform to the best of their ability. And this, in turn, is supposed to make employers reluctant to hire, which has far reaching detrimental effects of the overall growth of the economy.
The government proposal, if it is adopted, will mean in some cases employers may be able to bypass the aforementioned process for dismissal, meaning they can just lay people off if they underperform. This will increase the confidence of employers, and so make them more willing to take people on. If this is accurate, then it could be a neat solution to the lack of job uptake in the private sector; but it is vital that employee rights are not eroded to far!
