I think knowing about the subject as the above poster does shows there is more to this than a left vs right argument. I can see both sides. My other half is a public sector worker and her job is under threat. On the other side my friends ran a small business and in the past had a problem employee. The employee knew the system and played it. They had lots of days of sick, did very little work, upset customers and generally cost the business money it could not afford to lose. The person in question threaterened a tribuneral if they were sacked (something the company could not afford) in the end because of this person the company went bust and EVERYONE who worked their lost their jobs. The system works for genuine hard working folk but something needs to be done to protect hard working people and the owners of small businesses who are trying to create jobs. I would not be too quick to support labour they did a lot of the damage before the current bunch of clowns got in. I did not vote for 1 of the big 3 for the first time in the last election
Businesses are essential to our economy. They provide employment which drives the private sector and therefore drives growth. Osborne's primary motive is to improve the situation for businesses, as this will therefore allow more of them to employ staff and solve the issue of unemployment as well. This is why the Tories are often seen as a party which chooses to help the rich over the poor. In reality, the Tories are simply trying to make businesses more well off, as the benefits feed right down the ladder to the unemployed. The more companies can grow, the more they will need staff, and the more money they will have to hire staff. It's also about providing an incentive for individuals and companies overseas to come over here and trade. Giving money to the less well off and milking businesses for more money might seem nice at the time, but over the long-term it simply stunts the opportunity for growth and new employment. Now as someone who works in business, I can tell you that employment law can be an absolute nightmare, especially for small businesses which make up such a large part of employment in this country. The entire dismissal procedure has to be meticulous, and I mean seriously meticulous, otherwise an employment lawyer will likely find an opportunity to open a tribunal case. Even if a situation is as clear-cut as can possibly be, if there's no factual evidence to present at a tribunal, the employer often doesn't have a leg to stand on. Employment law can often help those in need, but it can also be a tool which is manipulated by extremely devious people who don't realise that small businesses are not an endless supplier of cash. Then there's the employment lawyer market, and the vicious cycle the market is in. Whilst some lawyers are very open and honest, there are many who will use marketing to draw in ex-employees of companies and then look high and low for any opportunity to recommend a tribunal. After all, the more they do that, the more money they make. The issue is the same with the personal injury industry. Let me tell you that many small businesses are terrified of dismissing employees because of employment law, and are therefore equally terrified of taking staff on. Whilst everyone should be entitled to long-term, stable employment, it's irrelevant if a small business will struggle to continue because they're too fearful of re-structuring their business or replacing employees which aren't doing enough for the cause. Eventually, the business itself collapses, so not only has the original employee lost his job, but so has everyone else, and so has many other people who could have had jobs there for years to come. And that doesn't even take into account an employee winning a tribunal case, as the costs can be crippling. I can count dozens of small business owners which have woke up one day with £30,000 bills because they wanted to replace a vastly underachieving employee, but couldn't afford hundreds of pounds per hour for proper employment law advice, and therefore carried out an improper dismissal procedure which left open an opportunity for an unfair dismissal tribunal. And by 'improper' I don't mean some corrupt scenario. I literally mean something as simple as not sending out the right number of warnings in the right order. There are two sides which require a balance for the fairness of all, but a part of me doesn't blame the Tories for wanting to act quickly. After all, business growth and healthy cash flow will be the key to more employment in the private sector. But you also have to ask, how many employees would really fall foul of this change to employment law? If an employee was to be sacked on the spot, surely there would be a sound reason? Either the employee is underperforming, or reducing morale, or bullying, or simply is no longer required for the work which has to be done. All of these reasons point back to the health of the business, and I'm sorry, but keeping employees on which employers want to get rid of just out of fear of a tribunal is not healthy for business and not healthy for the economy. Employ people out of need, not out of intimidation.
I actually agree with most of what Cestria says, although I don't worry about it as much as him evidently, maybe I should. I never vote Conservatives - simply because they put a huge clue in the first four letters of their name. That's what they are, it's what they stand for. Ripping people off at any cost to the majority. I voted Labour because they appeared to be the lesser of two evils, and I always think it's better the devil you know. Cameron used propaganda to win his votes, turning people against Brown by calling him a liar, but it turns out, Cameron's the biggest liar of them all. As for the OP - I think that's great. I think people should be instantly dismissed if they come in with bad breath on any given day never mind make a colossal mistake. Probably wasn't Cameron's idea though.
