Remove Red Tape

Letting people go

These regulations set out rules and procedures around letting people go, from notice of termination to redundancy payments.

You can find the regulations that relate to letting people go below to the left.

Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

• Should we scrap them altogether?
• Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
• Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
• Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
• Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
• Should they be left as they are?

714 comments on “Letting people go”

1. Nich Carter on March 23, 2012 at 10:05 pm said:

   Leave it alone! There should be strong protection for people who do their job reliably and well. The greatest threat to the stability of family life and social cohesion in this country is the fragility of income that comes despite our current level of legislation.Comment Tags: family, social cohesion

   Reply ↓
2. kieran Roberts on March 14, 2012 at 12:08 pm said:

   Workers need more legislation and protection, not less. we don’t have the finances of the employers and only have legislation to protect us. this is a step back in time towards people at the factory gates of a morning begging for work day at a time!!Comment Tags: protect the workforce

   Reply ↓
3. richard grime on March 10, 2012 at 12:00 pm said:

   Scrap them altogether. I find that it is almost impossible to fire staff who underperform/ can’t be bothered. If staff steal/gross misconduct it is easier but still difficult to prove sufficiently to a tribunal ( in Liverpool! ) This is the main reason why employers are not reinvesting in either the existing business or stating up new one’s. It is not tax that is a disincentive but a total inability to run your own business that is so de-motivating.Comment Tags: scap all unfair dismissal legistalation

   Reply ↓
4. Kevin Sharpe on February 5, 2012 at 10:36 am said:

   Legislation is needed to protect empoyees. And that’s because voluntary codes of practice don’t work. You can’t appeal to someone’s sense of ethics and morals if they don’t have any to start with. Every company I’ve worked for had/has a clearly defined procedure for dismissing staff if necessary. What I’ve found is that most managers, when faced with problem staff tend to ignore the problem and hope it’ll go away. That’s what needs to be tackled.Comment Tags: Employee protection.

   Reply ↓
5. Chris Jackson on January 17, 2012 at 2:42 pm said:

   It’s clear from some of the previous comments that many employers would like to be able to hire and fire at will without a thought for the welfare and well being of the people who’s lives they are affecting. Legislation is there to protect employees from the excesses of an unreasonable employer. I don’t see why there needs to be a period in which an employer can “unfairly dismiss” without any hope of redress for the employee. I was avictim of an employer who wanted a temporary replacement but knew that advertising the post as a temporary postion would affect the number and quality of the applicants. So I gave up a permanent position believing I was taking up a permanent position when in reality it was temporary. After six months I was dismissed when the employer had completed what they wanted. I had no right to redress and some of your contributors would say “quite right too”. My question is how is that fair? If an employer carries out a proper recruitment process and establishes the employees claimed skills and abilitiies and the employee is found to fall short dismissal would not be “unfair” so why does there need to be a period of time permitting “unfair dismissal” without redress. Legislation is necessary and this law should not be amended to the detriment of employees.Comment Tags: unfair dismissal legislastion

   Reply ↓
6. Richard on January 16, 2012 at 11:39 am said:

   I thought we had a system in place where an employer could dismiss an employee for not doing their job! Is there not a warning system in place such as verbal, written, and final, and then there is misconduct where employees can be dismissed immediately. Again I find it difficult to understand the irresponsibility of employers whom think this is red tape. It is fair if done correctly, if it is not it is called un-fair dismissal and it is here an individual can regain redress, it costs them as much in legal and character assignation ending up being damned on a life of benefits because of a bad employer, which is bad for all. If an individual or company employs someone, it does not automatically give the right to act how they feel; they have to act responsibly that is why a system is there. Failure is a two way thing which starts with the employee and then the employer too often the other way around. So many companies are asking for exceptional qualifications and qualities for even some simple jobs, yet anyone can purchase their products or service and relies on a society to survive, do I need to say more? Social responsibility is good for business and welfare of staff, money from business is a tool to provide order and a way of life, responsibility comes from all. If you cannot do it then you shouldn’t be. Disputes should be made easier to deal with for both parties are the way to go forward.Comment Tags: employers, fair, Leagal, Responsibility, warning

   Reply ↓
7. Antony Walker on January 5, 2012 at 2:16 pm said:

   Most individuals running SME’s do not have time to post comments on sites such as this as they are too busy running their business ( today being my first involvement with such a site in 10+ years of running a business).
   However, I feel compelled on this occasion to join in the discussion as I am infuriated by the current expectation of society to be carried by ‘the system’. I believe you should only succeed in your career, by what you put into it, not by looking to others to keep you cocooned in a layer of protection. There seems to be a disproportionate number of contributions to this discussion from presumably ‘employed’ individuals who are simply registering their discontent at the possibility of employment law being relaxed – why should anybody have the right to keep their job if they are not benefiting the employer/business ? I challenge anybody to find me an SME business owner who wants to employ people simply for the sake of employing them and not for generating a profit – that’s what business is about – without this model nobody would have a job and taxes would not be paid for the benefit of society as a whole. As for protecting employees against discrimination, surely the person would not have been offered the position in the first place ( note – my comments are based around small business owners and I have assumed that different management have not been brought in during the employees term of employment). I have maintained continual employment for 20+ years, by being committed and hard working, not by relying on some legislative controls from high above to protect me.
   I believe an employee’s contribution to the success of the business, and subsequently their co-workers, should be the basis of whether they continue to be employed. They are accountable for their own destiny !
   There should be improved protection for employees who fall out of employment through no direct fault of their own ( health reasons etc) – they should be well looked after by the state, providing they have a genuine claim and they have contributed to ‘the system’ when they have been able to do previously- the employer should not be burdened with carrying the costs of this person as that would be detrimental to the business and other employees working for the business.

   Reply ↓
8. Antony Walker on January 5, 2012 at 1:35 pm said:

   I have had to work my way up ‘the ladder’ over 20+ years by being committed, loyal and hard working for my previous employers – over many years, I gradually climbed ‘the ladder’ which is the way it should be – no hand outs, just good honest, hard work, which benefited my employers and me in return over the long term. As an employer myself now, I would never let somebody ‘go’ if they are contributing to the company’s bottom line – if it can be demonstrated that their presence/attitude to work, or to other co-workers, is detrimental to the overall long term benefit of the business, the employer ( particularly SME’s who are so heavily dependent upon having a return for each and every individual) should not be expected to carry that person, regardless of whether they have worked for the company for 1,2,5,10 years – they should of course be given chances to improve, post 2 years full employment, but failing this, the rules for employers ‘letting people go’ MUST be simplified so that businesses can get on with recruting committed staff who will provide a return for the business, which in turn protects the other individuals within the business – if there is one bad egg in the camp, then employees of small companies generally have to bear the burden too, which is completely unfair for those who are hard working. Employees have to prove themselves worthy of their position instead of being carried by the current employment laws which SME employers are so fearful of falling foul off.

   Reply ↓
9. Terence D'Cruz on December 5, 2011 at 4:53 pm said:

   Agrieved employees must be provided with an appeal procedure that does not require up front fees to be paidComment Tags: o up frony fees

   Reply ↓
10. Professor Stephen Bush on November 23, 2011 at 3:49 pm said:

    I think unfair dismisssal law should exclude (a) those with less than two years employment with their current employer (b) those who are past the state pension age as it may be adjusted in the future. If there are objections to doing this for all employers, the exclusion could apply to SMEs only who are the categories most adversely affected by the current law.Comment Tags: beyomd state pension age, SMEs, unfair dismissal

    Reply ↓
11. Hayden Evans on November 21, 2011 at 1:27 pm said:

    I think the new government is trying to take workers rights away which means the people at the bottom of the pile will be put under pressure because they want to “get rid of deadwood”, in reality, these people will then be able to be bullied by employers more easily and they can sack older workers who are on more money in favour of young ones who don’t know anything and have more energy and are more easily manipulated.

    Reply ↓
12. Reginald West on November 21, 2011 at 3:22 am said:

    Should be left as they areComment Tags: Another Excuse For Cheaper Labour/Less Rights For The Employee & More Profits For Companys.

    Reply ↓
13. Stephen Perrett on November 14, 2011 at 9:54 pm said:

    Restrict the payment of benefits, such as childcare vouchers, during maternity leave – childcare vouchers were supposed to be a win-win salary sacrifice but the law was changed so because the employee no longer had the arrangement – but now we have to pay the 250 or so a month for the entire maternity leave because the employee no longer has a salary to sacrifice!

    Reply ↓
14. Stephen Perrett on November 14, 2011 at 9:45 pm said:

    Extend the qualifying period to 2 years – compulsory mediation like you are introducing in others areas such as divorce

    Reply ↓
15. AngelC on November 13, 2011 at 1:29 pm said:

    A fee paid to lodge an ET1 with the Employment tribunal to discourage frivolous claims yet protects those who are unfairly dismissed. Increase the limit for dismissal if dismissal is unfair – this is fair for both the employer (now it is harder for employees to file frivolous claims) and fair to employees (harder for employers to target individuals by hiding behind dismissal laws eg especially by redundancy)

    Reply ↓
16. lesley bailey on November 10, 2011 at 6:41 pm said:

    it is a backward move (i agree with Keith) what are people suposed to do for 2years??they want there case heard quickly and NOT have to pay for a tribunal. this is tipickel of this goverment it needs to remember its 2011 not 1811. big firms would love this as they can get rid of anyone they like, its not execetable in this day and age, people must keep there rights (Edited Text) Comment Tags: campaign against unfair dismisal period to 2 years

    Reply ↓
17. raymond oldroyd on November 9, 2011 at 11:24 am said:

    employment nowadays is difficult to find, and sometimes with the attitude of some companys, so difficult to keep. why make it even harder to keep your job. there are out there managment systems that look for ways to get rid of employees just so that they can set on somebody else at a lower rate, and use the system to frighten workers into submissivness.

    Reply ↓
18. Keith Banda on November 8, 2011 at 5:27 pm said:

    It is a backward suggestion to increase unfair dismissal peroid to 2 years service in 21st Century Employment Laws. This will only increase unemplyement as employers can abuse the system an keep firing staff evry 2 years.
    And the economy will suffer. Where will a dismissed employee find the fee to pay the tribunal?Comment Tags: Campain against changing Unfair dismisal period to 2 years

    Reply ↓
19. sandra daniells on November 8, 2011 at 6:54 am said:

    scrap unfair dismissal, let businesses choose who they hire and fire. The laws are difficult negotiate, socstly adn time comsuming. If an emlyee is any good you want to keep them, if they are not why can you not sack them without fear of huge fines and tribunals. In the care sector which is my business, you want to get rid of people quickly but that is impossible at present.There are plenty of people seeking work so let employers choose who stays and who goes. That will ultimately aid business success and create more jos. Oh and PLEASE SCRAP THE MINIMUM WAGE TOO.Comment Tags: scrap the laws, Unfair dismisslal

    Reply ↓
20. simon jacklin on November 4, 2011 at 2:25 pm said:

    keep it as it is,companys have too much power to fire peope as it is

    Reply ↓