Great news! For employers I guess. Hey look they watered an announced bill down, again.
Salty-Bid1597 on
Nice graun headline for you there.
The cost is still going up, just not as much as it could have done.
Electricbell20 on
Idk going from a current 2 year probation to a 6 month period feels like quite a win for the employees. Day one made no sense, 6 months feels about right.
3 months I’ve been on the fence. For some jobs it’s fine, for others, people are still getting into the swing of things.
LycanIndarys on
>According to an updated Whitehall impact assessment published on Wednesday, concessions by ministers could reduce the cost of the employment rights bill for businesses to about £1bn.
>An earlier version of the document had suggested the package, which includes day-one employment rights and banning zero-hours contracts, could have cost firms up to £5bn.
So for clarity; businesses will still be worse off, just not as badly as they could have been. I’m not sure that headline is particularly fair; “cutting cost” implies that businesses will actually be better off, doesn’t it?
>In a direct breach of Labour’s manifesto, prompting anger among backbench MPs, ministers abandoned their plan to give workers day-one rights to claim for unfair dismissal, instead proposing a six-month threshold.
>The concession, which aimed to break the parliamentary deadlock to ensure the progress of other important legislative upgrades to employment rights, came after a deal between six of the UK’s biggest business groups and trade unions. However, some union leaders, including the Unite general secretary, Sharon Graham, said the bill was now a “shell of its former self”.
I’d actually argue that the compromise position is better than the original manifesto commitment. Giving new employees full rights on their first day is just going to make businesses wary of hiring someone new, as that is always a risk. The concept of a probationary period is a reasonable one, and the only debate should really be about how long it is.
And six months is probably about right, as far as I’m concerned – anything less than three doesn’t give the company time to really find out if their new employee is going to be useful, and anything more than about nine months is unfair on the worker, who can lose their job through no fault of their own.
They’ll still be criticised (though not by me) for watering-down what they promised in the manifesto, though.
4 Comments
Great news! For employers I guess. Hey look they watered an announced bill down, again.
Nice graun headline for you there.
The cost is still going up, just not as much as it could have done.
Idk going from a current 2 year probation to a 6 month period feels like quite a win for the employees. Day one made no sense, 6 months feels about right.
3 months I’ve been on the fence. For some jobs it’s fine, for others, people are still getting into the swing of things.
>According to an updated Whitehall impact assessment published on Wednesday, concessions by ministers could reduce the cost of the employment rights bill for businesses to about £1bn.
>An earlier version of the document had suggested the package, which includes day-one employment rights and banning zero-hours contracts, could have cost firms up to £5bn.
So for clarity; businesses will still be worse off, just not as badly as they could have been. I’m not sure that headline is particularly fair; “cutting cost” implies that businesses will actually be better off, doesn’t it?
>In a direct breach of Labour’s manifesto, prompting anger among backbench MPs, ministers abandoned their plan to give workers day-one rights to claim for unfair dismissal, instead proposing a six-month threshold.
>The concession, which aimed to break the parliamentary deadlock to ensure the progress of other important legislative upgrades to employment rights, came after a deal between six of the UK’s biggest business groups and trade unions. However, some union leaders, including the Unite general secretary, Sharon Graham, said the bill was now a “shell of its former self”.
I’d actually argue that the compromise position is better than the original manifesto commitment. Giving new employees full rights on their first day is just going to make businesses wary of hiring someone new, as that is always a risk. The concept of a probationary period is a reasonable one, and the only debate should really be about how long it is.
And six months is probably about right, as far as I’m concerned – anything less than three doesn’t give the company time to really find out if their new employee is going to be useful, and anything more than about nine months is unfair on the worker, who can lose their job through no fault of their own.
They’ll still be criticised (though not by me) for watering-down what they promised in the manifesto, though.