Cyclone Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Our friend Cyclone seems to think the rules are 'set in stone'. I can assure him they are not. That's how the law works, the legislation is indeed set in stone, or at least something too firm to change because you say so. The interpretation can always be argued about, but the law isn't mutable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 You can bring a claim for discrimination from day one... but I can't see where there is any discrimination here.... the person would be sacked whether they had a disability or not with the level of absence they had..... therefore there is no difference in treatment, and no discrimination. It would however be the only area worth getting a second opinion on, because if the employer took them on knowing the disability and level of absence it would likely to cause or there was a request for reasonable adjustments there may be a slim chance of some sort of claim... but I would say it is a very slim chance from what we have been told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tradescanthia Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 That's how the law works, the legislation is indeed set in stone, or at least something too firm to change because you say so. The interpretation can always be argued about, but the law isn't mutable. Believe me, most of what I post is from personal experience. Obviously I cannot divulge too much info, I am a 'marked man' at work as it is. I have advised others who are facing the sack or disciplinaries with a lot of success. I advise everyone to challenge everything, make the employer produce evidence of such 'laws' in writing. In short, most of our current employment law is in favour of the worker. Thats why the Torys have announced this week that they have them 'under review'. They have openly stated they intend to make it easier for companies to get rid of people. Cameron has picked up where Maggie left off...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samshe Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Believe me, most of what I post is from personal experience. Obviously I cannot divulge too much info, I am a 'marked man' at work as it is. I have advised others who are facing the sack or disciplinaries with a lot of success. I advise everyone to challenge everything, make the employer produce evidence of such 'laws' in writing. In short, most of our current employment law is in favour of the worker. Thats why the Torys have announced this week that they have them 'under review'. They have openly stated they intend to make it easier for companies to get rid of people. Cameron has picked up where Maggie left off...... It should be easier for companies to get rid of employees. We have to get away from this idea that the world owes you, me or anyone else a job. If you aren't good at your job, your company should be able to sack you. It is currently very hard to sack someone for poor performance. This poor performance may have an impact on the company and therefore the jobs of others. However, back on topic. Purely going form what has been said by the OP, I don't think you would have a cat in hells chance of a successful appeal/legal action. If your time off can already be measured in weeks when you have only been employed for a few months then you are a liability to the company and they shouldn't have to support you. I'm not saying it is your fault that you are off, but nor is it theirs. They shouldn't have to pay you when you aren't productive. This sucks for you, but then life quite often does suck. You aren't owed a living by this company. You need to be with an employer TWO years in order for you to be automatically protected by the full scope of workers rights. The Tories are looking to reduce this to one year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 It should be easier for companies to get rid of employees. We have to get away from this idea that the world owes you, me or anyone else a job. If you aren't good at your job, your company should be able to sack you. It is currently very hard to sack someone for poor performance. This poor performance may have an impact on the company and therefore the jobs of others. However, back on topic. Purely going form what has been said by the OP, I don't think you would have a cat in hells chance of a successful appeal/legal action. If your time off can already be measured in weeks when you have only been employed for a few months then you are a liability to the company and they shouldn't have to support you. I'm not saying it is your fault that you are off, but nor is it theirs. They shouldn't have to pay you when you aren't productive. This sucks for you, but then life quite often does suck. You aren't owed a living by this company. You need to be with an employer TWO years in order for you to be automatically protected by the full scope of workers rights. The Tories are looking to reduce this to one year. samshe.... your last paragraph is the wrong way around it is currently 1 year before peole have full employment rights, the Tories are considering increasing it to two years. Considering one of those rights is reason for dismissal... I find it hard to see how in the first paragraph you can be saying that it should be easier for companies to get rid of employees.... Exactly how much easier can you make it? In relation to performance... it is not so onerus to sack someone for poor performance even with full employment rights all that is required is evidence of that poor performance and evidence the employer has tried to address the issues reasonably before resorting to dismissal.. That is not unreasonable to ask, nor onerus for anyone that wants to treat their employees with respect they should expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Believe me, most of what I post is from personal experience. Obviously I cannot divulge too much info, I am a 'marked man' at work as it is. I have advised others who are facing the sack or disciplinaries with a lot of success. I advise everyone to challenge everything, make the employer produce evidence of such 'laws' in writing. In short, most of our current employment law is in favour of the worker. Thats why the Torys have announced this week that they have them 'under review'. They have openly stated they intend to make it easier for companies to get rid of people. Cameron has picked up where Maggie left off...... You don't have to show someone a law that lets you sack them, the fact that it doesn't break the law would be sufficient defence in the event that they bring a tribunal claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tradescanthia Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 You don't have to show someone a law that lets you sack them, the fact that it doesn't break the law would be sufficient defence in the event that they bring a tribunal claim. Live some life, fight some battles, win some, lose some, but get some bloody personal experience. I have even had a private conversation with a tribunal judge, and that was MOST enlightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
md00071 Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Believe me, most of what I post is from personal experience. Obviously I cannot divulge too much info, I am a 'marked man' at work as it is. I have advised others who are facing the sack or disciplinaries with a lot of success. I advise everyone to challenge everything, make the employer produce evidence of such 'laws' in writing. In short, most of our current employment law is in favour of the worker. Thats why the Torys have announced this week that they have them 'under review'. They have openly stated they intend to make it easier for companies to get rid of people. Cameron has picked up where Maggie left off...... First of all, let me offer you my sincerest best wishes. I work for one of the largest companies in the UK. The trade unions in this country do a fantastic job. Their representatives in the whole are well intentioned and well informed. However, the facts are simple. We have a lot of people looking for employment who want to do the best possible for the organisations that they are applying for positions within. The reason why so few of these positions are available is that far too many of these jobs are currently occupied by people who are "playing the system". There is a growing type of employee out there who get their feet under the table with a well paid job, and then will do anything they can to avoid losing it, short of doing the job they actually agreed to do in the first place. These people are stopping thousands of future employees from getting the jobs they deserve, and these are the people who any changes to the law should be aimed at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Live some life, fight some battles, win some, lose some, but get some bloody personal experience. I have even had a private conversation with a tribunal judge, and that was MOST enlightening. Are you saying that only people who've been sacked can comment on the law governing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 First of all, let me offer you my sincerest best wishes. I work for one of the largest companies in the UK. The trade unions in this country do a fantastic job. Their representatives in the whole are well intentioned and well informed. However, the facts are simple. We have a lot of people looking for employment who want to do the best possible for the organisations that they are applying for positions within. The reason why so few of these positions are available is that far too many of these jobs are currently occupied by people who are "playing the system". There is a growing type of employee out there who get their feet under the table with a well paid job, and then will do anything they can to avoid losing it, short of doing the job they actually agreed to do in the first place. These people are stopping thousands of future employees from getting the jobs they deserve, and these are the people who any changes to the law should be aimed at. That just doesn't ring true. They'd have to do that job for 2 years in order to get there feet under the table, and then the easiest way to avoid loosing it would generally be to just keep doing it. And does anyone actually stay in a job for more than a handful of years these days, a decade is really quite unusual to see now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.