Its interesting how such a strong blame culture can exist in a country that primes is self on their "American Dream" where hard work and responsibility for your self are valued so highly. Generally I see this as the backlash people who feel they were entitled a good wealthy life start pointing fingers at everyone else saying it was heir fault. "If only I hadn't broken my arm 4 years ago I would definitely have received that promotion and be doing really well by now". The American Dream is a good one, but it was mostly around somewhere to build something new, businesses and lives. Mostly coming from Europe, the issue they have now is its been built and so that ideal become harder to realise and the new things that need building and creating are generally technology based and have very steep learning curves. The issue is that becuase this "dream" is so attractive they effectively lie to people about their ability to achieve it which promotes actions like these. We actually do the same thing in the UK with university. The decision to send circa 50% of pupils to university to gain the advantages that were previously limited hasn't done this, it's has actually diluted the benefits for all yet we persist on telling 18 year old they would be better off with an average degree than 3 years work experience. Most grad level jobs these days weren't 10 years ago, as a result were just delaying people 3 years and Charing them thousands to gain little or no advantage. The backlash to this will be felt more keenly in the coming years and decades and I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar rise in litigation as people look for recompense for not getting the benefits that they were effectively lied to about.
It is the fact that this insane bitch was actually allowed to have her day in court that baffles me, surely the lawyers should have laughed her out of their office, but no, which means that there must be some sort of president that she might have a case. It is just a way again for the wealthy few (lawyers) to milk the system and everyone else. Bah!
It was said in the clip that these types of cases do not arise often - strongly suggesting they have indeed arisen before, probably several times. I agree, she should have been shown the door just seconds after entering the lawyers office. Sometimes I truly despair in mankind's ability to make a complete and total tool of themselves.
It is greed sadly. If you give people (OK often stupid people) the chance to get money for nothing and at no risk of loss themselves then you shouldn't be surprised they take a punt on it. I've had the misfortune of defending a couple of tribunal cases where my company had gone to considerable lengths to keep the individuals in question employed to the point of getting them to make spare parts which we didn't need for stock and advancing them paid holiday to try to keep them in work until something broke in their area. We had done everything by the book and complied with every regulation yet we still had to spend a considerable amount of time and money defending what we honestly felt were entirely spurious claims. Happily both were kicked into touch at the first hearing but nevertheless the two guys looking for a pay out had no costs to pay and were using no win no fee lawyers and so cost us time and money at zero financial risk to themselves. In my time the company has been successfully sued by an individual who swung a gate shut, walked in front of it and then for some reason known only to himself stopped walking with his back to the gate and was then hit by said gate he had swung shut. Comedy gold on the CCTV but our insurers chose to pay out rather than defend the case as the chap had not been given specific training on how to shut a gate - even though it had been part of his job for 20 years!
Tbh Norfolkbhoy, while I take your point the Tories have completely cut that off to the total detriment of worker's rights and it is now way too far the opposite direction. I mean no criticism towards you - you clearly successfully defended both cases and it must have been very frustrating at the time, so I certainly don't mean and I have no reason to believe you behaved anything other than perfectly legitimately, but there are thousands of employers who don't. Now, not only can you be dismissed for no reason whatsoever if you haven't been employed for two years or more, even if you have been it will cost you a bare minimum of about £1200 to take your employer to court. (If you do it yourself - I.e. no legal rep). That is an enormous sum of money for someone who has just been unfairly dismissed with no certainty of recovery. It's a shocking situation and allows employers to completely take advantage. £1200. That's for absolutely anything. Your employer could be in a bad mood or they could shout at you and you stick up for yourself - that's it, you're fired. Alan sugar style. Nothing you can do. With all the legal aid cuts, we have gone from everyone having a right to legal representation to everyone having a right to legal representation, but only if you can afford it. That's wrong IMO. I do understand your POV and the outlook of a small business owner who cannot be hamstrung by spurious claims, but frankly I would rather see a few dodgy litigants and everyone being able to have their day in court than justice being only for the wealthy. I appreciate that might all sound very theoretical and wishful thinking, but this is real. I do a voluntary legal advice clinic every fourth Thursday through the Citizens Advice Bureau in a poor London borough. People attend the clinic who can't afford a lawyer (i.e. most people) and we get all manner of problems to help with. But by far and away the most frustrating are the regular employment issues where they say their employer has behaved like X or Y (and often it really is terrible). We have to listen, tell them they have a decent case but there is absolutely nothing they can do because it's simply not worth the risk of £1200 plus. Not worth it. Yes, you're employer behaved badly, but bye bye, you can't afford to do anything and there's nothing to stop him doing it again to someone else. Either that or they simply haven't qualified with two years employment and therefore the employer can just fire no reason.
Caveat to that rant - there are some very specific unique situations where you can claim unfair dismissal within two years
See I always thought that the system made things rather more difficult than it should be to fire someone. Especially in public and unionized sectors. Maybe it's deceptive and they generally don't like to sack there own. But the instances of gross incompetence that my Teacher wife see's on a pretty regular basis in the running of the schools would see any private sector workers on at the very least warnings, but most likely out on their ear. You know, stuff like not being able to do the job! Staff over 2 years service still require conduct warnings etc, do they not? Even in the private sector it's not always easy to get rid of staff, I know a small business owner who had a particularly nasty and mainly useless member of staff who threatened him with a wrench. No witnesses meant nothing at all could be done! I think unfortunately there are both awful bosses who take the pee, but many abysmal staff who do to and the system doesn't work that well to sort out either. Bah!
Melchett - for private sector, where an employee has over two years service there are good protections. Rightly so. You have a system of complaints, employers do everything by the book and fairly and you can fire someone no problem. The issue is people are lazy and don't like to follow a very simple checklist. The alternative is you just pay them off and wave goodbye, no problem - and if you're in any doubt as to whether you are dismissing someone fairly then this should be done. That's fair. Yes, it's procedural, but that's to protect workers. Under 2 years there are none of the problems you are talking about. It's more than easy to fire someone with less than two year's service - you just do it. No excuses. Give them their notice, done. I find the threatening with a spanner story slightly difficult to take at face value as that is a police matter, not employment, at the first instance. If you cannot prove something, why should you be allowed to fire someone? Give him his notice, pay him off and be done if there's any doubt. Public sector is different - it's not so much difficulty with firing people (though that is a problem) as it is with whether there is any inclination to do so no matter how bad they are at their job. That's a very different issue.
Look - I get that no-one likes the lazy, the feckless or the incompetent. But they are a fact of life. And we need legal protections to stop the hard-working from being taken advantage of. If that means a few lazy, feckless incompetents are also sheltered then yes that's annoying, but it's better than no protection for anyone. Besides, laziness, fecklessness and incompetence eventually catches up on them in other ways and it balances out.
Bloomin eck, did someone post a comment and then remove it? That seems very reactionary but I'm not sure to what? I do generally agree with the sentiment though. Bah!
Sorry yes I see it sounds more aggressive than I meant it! It certainly was not directed at you or anyone on this thread, I just meant generally that there is an attitude towards employees, or indeed anyone, who isn't very good. I understand that attitude (it's seriously annoying when you have to work with them...) All I meant was that I think we have to suffer these idiots simply because otherwise all the non-idiots would not get the protection they need. The lesser of two evils, if you will. No criticism of anyone on here at all, just my general conclusion of my mammoth posts above!
