Comments on: Managing staff

By: John Stacey

John Stacey — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 18:30:24 +0000

The rules on SSP are so complex. I did not realise until helping a small business just how difficult it is to work out entitlement and the NI rebate. This client had a part time worker on £105 per week and has had to pay £85 per week as SSP is a standard weekly allowance not pro rata to hours worked. Net cost to employer was £15 after rebate but this has cost tax payers. The doctor readily gave 4 weeks off without stating any reason on the fit to work note. The employee then said there was no incentive to return to work any earlier even though she was well enough. Then there is the issue of accruing holiday pay when on long term sick. One of my clients now has staff claiming back over 4 years! The ECJ has ruled on this and given a green light to limiting it to accrual of 15 months...how much longer before the Govt acts?

Comment Tags: Pay during sickness

By: Becky Woodhouse

Becky Woodhouse — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:06:46 +0000

I am commenting as a Small Business owner employing approx 65 people. Maternity rights – specifically the right for the employee to be entitled to a full year of holiday pay for the year of maternity – this costs our business more than the person being off in the first place. In current law, you can easily have the situation that an employee starts with you on Day 1, they notify you that they are pregnant on Day 2, they are entitled straight off to a full 12 months of maternity leave PLUS 29 days of accrued holiday which in reality means that they are out of the business for 13.5 months not 12 months. Then, 4 weeks before they are due to return to work the employee can resign and still be entitled to payment of the full years accrued holiday, so the end result is that you have had maybe 6/7 months of working time but for that you have had to pay 51 days of holiday in total. Which equates to a holiday rate of 30% of the working time, instead of the usual rate of 11%. Recommendation: allow holidays to be taken as part of the maternity leave period or withdraw the entitlement to holiday when on mat leave. Sickness – this is a minefield as acknowledged by the employment tribunals as not being clear in law. For example a recent Spanish employment case which went to the EU employment tribunal (and therefore forced to be adopted by the UK) established that workers are entitled to holiday pay whilst on long term sick and that if their sickness takes them over a holiday year they are entitled still to be paid for holidays from a previous year (unlike any other employees who must take their holiday or lose it under current laws). So again, scenario of Day 1 employee starts, Day 2, they go off sick, you are required to pay SSP for 26 weeks for all employees no matter what length of service, cost of £500/month, which is £3000 then also give them a full entitlement for holiday during that time, which would equate to 14.5 days. You cannot generally dismiss whilst someone on sick leave so you would have complications and delays in moving them out of the business if they are not able to return, in all that time they would still be entitled to holiday pay. It would probably take around 2 months to effect fair dismissal so another 2 months of holiday pay. In all that time you cannot replace someone into their role, other than a temp, so if they are in a key position, you are tied in knots. Recommendation: clarify the law on holidays during sick leave. Allow employers the right to make the employee take the holidays during a period of sickness. Capability vs health and safety – in current law there are clear conflicts between employment law and health and safety law. As an employer you are obliged under law to look after the health and safety of your workers. However in employment law you are not permitted to dismiss/discriminate against someone with a disability. However I have had numerous cases where someone develops or (unbeknown to us) already has a condition that precludes them from doing their job. It becomes in law a capability issue. As an employer you are required to make reasonable adjustments which we do as a matter of course but that can only take you so far – if someone is fundamentally incapable of doing a job it doesn’t matter how many adjustments you make, its not going to work. However you cannot dismiss because they could claim it is disability discrimination but equally you cannot have them working because it compromises their health and safety at work, which as an employer you are obliged to protect. Recommendation: Clarify the law and resolve conflict between health and safety and employment law. Make it easier for employees to dismiss employees who have no realistic prospect of being able to continue in their job role due to capability issue provided the employer has followed all reasonable steps and adjustments to accommodate the capability issue.

Comment Tags: dismissal on grounds of capability, maternity leave, sickness holidays

By: Claire

Claire — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:36:48 +0000

Maternity/Paternity/Parental/Flexible Woirking Leave & Pay Merge and simplify all the current legislation in to Family Legislation. The current rights are too many and too restrictive from a company perspective and employees feel like they are 'hoops' to jump through rather than actually of any use to them. Legislation should also place a responsibility on parents to comply with communication requests to ensure the employer is able to plan effectively. the whole purpose of the rights are for fairness and equality which is positive but the balance of employer/employee fairness and equality is tipped in favour of the employee and is employee driven. Waiting until the 11th hour for an employee to notify if they are returning to work after maternity leave is an unacceptable pressure on the business.

Comment Tags: family, Maternity, Paternity

By: Brian Moore

Brian Moore — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:30:50 +0000

I am afraid Miss Green that you like the rest of us a the subject of greed by employers, NOT ALL EMPLOYERS but a good deal of them. They took their lead from the large corporations who always want more. Enough never seems to be enough for these greedy individuals. My only solice is that if Dantes Inferno is to be believed then these individuals will spend eternity in the lower eschealons of hell choking for an eternity on their greed.

Comment Tags: Corporate greed

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:24:05 +0000

Without children where would our future be? The cost of living in a free democratic society, capitalistic, socialistic, responsible, law and order society yes comes at a cost and also brings in wealth. I do not accept arguments based on other countries don’t provide and they are harder to compete with in a global market so why should we provide. We provide because it generates more even wealth and dispenses fairness, although it still has never gone far enough equally. Nappy manufacturers and baby food etc the list is endless, it is the same for everything! Fair Capitalism is the future for any DEVELOPED country and social responsibility by all, the trick is how you compete with other countries or companies going overseas to get the labour costs down and make excessive profits (profiteering) from the repressed. It is sadly to say we need better legislation and laws to encourage the companies to actually manufacture the goods in the destination they are required. Realistically if the goods cannot be made in that country because of merely you cannot get the materials required such as Chinese silk then the importing of such goods is the other countries business to supply. Again it is down to taxation! Taxation on imported goods to discourage profiteering and the balance can be addressed by lowering taxation on exported goods. Minimum wage shows the significance to what was happening before its arrival even in a developed country, and when you here Conservative MP’s in the House of Commons say “disabled people should work for less than the minimum wage to make them more desirable to an employer” sickens me to the core. I think it is fair to say there is a minimum wage and it has worked, could be better, it would also be fairer to say there should be a maximum across the board of all salaries, here is where the price of the goods would come down, a national salary reduction plan, this would make us more competitive to foreign goods and a global economy (the cost of goods and services is in the price of the goods and service). It would be cheaper for everyone. Legislation needs to be simplified for the benefit of all wherever possible, so does working practise in the country you make your money in.

Comment Tags: disabled, dismissal, minimum wage, sick pay

By: Wibble

Wibble — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:37:35 +0000

Jamie, How productive is a company that is a worker down due to maternity? How productive is a company that keeps a job open for a year only for that person to never return? What sort of person uses a company just to get maternity pay then leave once the baby arrives? There is no perfect solution but at least what I suggest will favour the honest people who want to work for their wages. If the employer is legally obliged to keep the job open the employee should be legally obliged to take that job back and give a return of service. What most people suggest is companies finance people to have children. You have no inherent right to have children!!! If you cant afford children do not have them!

Comment Tags: Maternity

By: Wibble

Wibble — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:53:28 +0000

Or people could choose not to have children.

If you can not afford children the simply do not have them. It really is that simple and it is not up to the state or your employer to pay for YOUR children.

By: Marie

Marie — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 01:14:14 +0000

Different employees will have different needs depending on their own particular circumstances. For example not all parents would want to work the same hours flexible or not ,so different hours would be wanted by each employee. As long as this falls within the normal operating hours and all services/tasks are covered, then flexible working will benefit your business. Why? You will have a workforce that is more motivated and less likely to 'pull a sickie' when they desperately need time to commit to family or other pursuits. Also, they will be more likely to help out and change hours to suit the business where necessary if they feel that is what the business does for them. I myself have tried this with my workforce and it works. I was asked by my employers why my unit (which was operating in the difficult South East) had better staff turnover and retention rates than most others in the country (better even than areas where jobs were difficult to come by). My approach to flexible working was the answer. It commands respect and loyalty from your workforce and you get back far far more than you give.

Comment Tags: flexible working

By: Shepp

Shepp — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:26:40 +0000

Now we are in a recession we should recognise that the UK operates in a world wide economy, in direct competition for our livelihoods with countries which have no rights burdens whatsoever. All these rights have a cost, even though some of this is apparently paid through the benefits system. That system is paid for by all of us who pay taxes either as individuals or as commercial enterprises. The great raft of Maternity provisions,and rights before, during and after the event. are a good, but not the only example of the need to cut back, simplify or even abolish present legislation. When someone makes a lifestyle choice to have children it should be just that and not have a knock on effect on the employer. Certainly enterprises below a certain size should be exempt.. As an aid for equal rights and opportunities for women it has also probablly had a negative effect as employers are wary of managing the minefield of legislation which has been generated in this area. The real winners here have been the lawyers who have nurtured an industry based on its growing complexities. Much of the current legislation should be abolished since it is beyond the comprehension of the layman.

Comment Tags: Equal Rights Legislation & Maternity Provisions

By: Serife

Serife — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:41:40 +0000

If anything, maternity n paternity leave should be better paid for those who will be returning to the job. parents are just as valuble as the the next taxpeyer so why should parents be treated like [text deleted] when we are returning to work, some having to put their babies in the hands of others to care for. from personal experiance, I worked harder whist pregnant than some co-workers I know and are not!!! people point the finger [text deleted]

Comment Tags: maternity rights