Employment Related Law
The regulations in this category are designed to protect employees from unfair practices and ensure that employees and employers are clear about their rights and responsibilities in the workplace.
For ease of commenting we have broken these regulations into the following four areas:
Mrs Jo Caprelian said on February 22, 2012 at 12:06 pm
The AWR are costing hard working people their jobs. Clients are terminating temps & contractors & will continue to do so. A large amount of agency staff have either been laid off, with a few taken on permanantly, saving on agency margins. This has left a massive downturn in the industrial sector. There have been a sharp increase in unemployment, clients simply will not & canot afford to increase margins. All the governement had to do was keep the minimum wage at a decent level & leave the recruitment industry well alone.
Philip Sadeghi said on January 13, 2012 at 10:52 am
As an employer in a medium sized business, I love the idea of protected conversations and I think most employees will as well. I often get employees coming to me and asking “I want to know what you honestly think” or “Tell me honestly, do you want me to resign” or “I want to know if you think I am doing well”. Point is that there are times I think it would benefit these employees to know what I think but I can not be honest with them. So I have to say rubbish like “its entirely up to you” or “I have explained to you a dozen times what the problems are now go away and think about them”. Then you have to find any excuse you can to run a disciplinary, give the individual warnings and eventually dismiss some of these people. There is much stress in both being the subject of the disciplinary and running the disciplinary. I always find some reason and those individuals always are dismissed. Not one successful tribunal claim against me yet in ten years. Now wouldn’t it have been easier if I could say to those individuals “I don’t think you are suited to this line of work and unless you make significant changes you are going to be dismissed. I think you ought to start looking for other employment”. Better for them; better for me and better for everyone. How stupid that the law prevents me from having these frank exchanges.
Mrs Jenkins said on December 14, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Flexible working – how can a flexible working request pretty much be a guarantee that an employee can get whatever they want. With the whole formal / informal routes it makes it difficult to have an informal discussion and say no then they have a right to a formal discussion and you are forced into agreeing.
Robert Swindells said on November 28, 2011 at 3:33 pm
My wife and myself own a small independent shop in Bristol. We employ two (retired) part-time ladies who each work one day per week earning less than the weekly tax and NI threshold. However since holiday pay leglislation was extended to cover part-timers we are obliged to pay them each five days holiday pay per annum. Frankly they are embarrased to receive this additional pay which neither of them needs or wants. Scrap this ridiculous law.
Mike Shanley said on November 8, 2011 at 12:34 pm
I manage a security company and oftern win security contracts because the client is unhappy with the previous security guards, yet under TUPE law I am required to hire these same guards and leave them on the same site. This is not only unfair and unworkable but is often dangerous, particularly at airports.
Ian Wakeham said on November 7, 2011 at 4:45 pm
abolish AWR regulations completely, and immediately. They add nothing except hassel!
They certainly do not work in the Education sector. Even QCs can’t agree on whether teachers are professionals and therefore can be exempt from the legislation.
Holidays are so difficult to calculate within AWR that the regs become unworkable – teachers are often working outside of term time: in prep for the next term, school trips, extra classes etc. However, because such times are not normally calculatable, such periods have to be calculated as “holidays” under AWR.
Mrs Clarke said on November 1, 2011 at 4:39 pm
I think the unfair dismissal timeframe should stay at 1 year not go through the planned two year qualification. Employees who work hard need protection and too many employers dictate you cannot qualify for pension, medical insurance or sick entitlement until you have worked for over a year. If any Employee is treated unfairly they should have the right to claim unfair dismissal irrelevant of length of service. Surely the whole point of an employeent tribunal is to attribute where the blame lies. In the current job market it is a dangerous decision by the coalition government and may lead to further disarray for this already delicate area. Employers already have enough scope to termintae the employment of underperforming staff if they follow procedure and have justified reason!!!!