Remove Red Tape

Taking people on

These regulations clarify the responsibilities and rights of employers and employees around job advertisements, interview, probation periods in employment and so on.

You can find the regulations that relate to taking people on 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?

65 comments on “Taking people on”

1. Chris on July 3, 2012 at 12:36 pm said:

   My daugher has just done her GCSE’s and wanted to get some work experience (for free) at my workplace. However she couldn’t as the company has to pay minimum wage ie can’t just let her work a few days here and there for free. Surely it would make sense, if youngsters are willing, for them to be able to gain some valuable experience in different workplaces without this red tape burden. Clearly there have to be some constraints to protect but not so much as to completely stop them!!Comment Tags: work experience, young employment

   Reply ↓
   • Paul Messenger on May 9, 2013 at 11:33 am said:

     If every youngster came into work places for free to gain experience then yes it would be beneficial to those youngsters.
     But all the work that would be done usually mundane chores would be making money to the relative Employer, and if I am not mistaken filling up which in most cases is an expanded bank account for shareholders and a like to benefit. [Strange as that appears ] so youngsters 0 Share holders etc 1 Point made.
2. Gareth Paxton on May 9, 2012 at 12:09 pm said:

   Employment agencies may provide simplicity and flexibility to an employer, but to the employee the system is one of exploitation and poverty.

   When I worked for the civil service, for minimum wage – the taxpayer paid around £10/hr

   One office paid a spectacularly incompetent agency £36 an hour in commission for 12 staff members.

   Every week at least one employee from that dozen would not be paid and I am sure that they did not provide the checks necessary to work with highly sensitive information. Not that the management had a clue about information security or the DPA.

   Another agency handler in the private sector would find spurious excuses to withdraw applications for permanent roles in the company in order to protect his own commission on temp workers.

   For a temp worker, this is the norm. I challenge IDS to do a years temping on minimum wage and then talk of ‘Job Snobbery’ because if a job does not have the wage and stability to obtain and manage a mortgage it is not a job worth having.

   And if the majority of the population cannot afford current property values, market forces dictate that values have further to slide.

   There needs top be a balance struck between the needs of business and the population. Employment agencies are not fit and proper organisations to fulfil this vital civic role.Comment Tags: agent, Civil Service, Employment agency, exploitation, poverty

   Reply ↓
3. Stuart Wilson on April 11, 2012 at 1:00 pm said:

   Employers must be able to ask Health questions at interview or prior to making a job offer when recruiting new employees. The health of an individual is of extreme importance when considering somebody’s suitability in the environment or department they may be working in. Why on earth would we want to employ someone with a poor attendance or sickness record when the Employer will have to pay for it in SSP, lost working hours and time spent dealing with HR and Solicitors over many weeks/months, trying to sort it out? It wouldn’t matter so much if the Government were prepared to pay for all of that because the employer could spend its time running the business rather than dealing with ‘noise’.Comment Tags: Health questions prior to job offer

   Reply ↓
4. Stuart Wilson on April 11, 2012 at 12:50 pm said:

   If the Government wishes to enforce certain payments as ‘Statutory’ they should make everyone [through national taxation] contribute towards that, NOT the employer.

   Abolish the requirement for employers to pay the following directly to employee and make the employee claim it directly from the Government [if it HAS to be statutory]:

   Sick Pay
   Maternity Pay
   Paternity Pay
   Adoption Pay

   In the case of Sick pay, as a medium sized employer of 55 people, we are unable to reclaim sick pay back from the Government via the PAYE system unless it constitutes a certain percentage of our total PAYE liability. The thresholds are ridiculous and therefore we cannot ever claim it back because we might only have an average of say 10 days of sickness each month. Its the employer that is then forced to pay this statutory payment, enforced on us by Government.Comment Tags: Employers’ requirement to make statutory payments to employees

   Reply ↓
5. Andrew Meredith on March 27, 2012 at 11:34 am said:

   I folded my business a year or so now, in small part due to the recession; however, the reason I could no longer face toughing out the lean times (yet again) was down to the toxic levels of regulation for small businesses. HMG in common with many large organisations simply doesn’t comprehend that rules and regulations intended for large organisations just don’t fit for small companies. Even rules intended specifically for small businesses work like they were indended for mega-corporations.

   In the early days of my company (2000) I went to a seminar and spoke to an employment lawyer about takling on someone to do the books, answer the phone and do a bit of sales work. Once I had been presented with a stack of booklets and a couple of hard back books about employing people, I had another think. I gave all the paperwork back to them in the interests of preserving the planet, so I cannot tell you now what they were. I decided there and then that employing someone was simply too much of a risk to my business; not from the employee themselves, but in the possible implications of the regulations. I could easily find myself under obligation for sums of money that would kill my business. In the end I took on a freelancer instead, but then he folded his business because of IR35, so I was in the lurch again because of regulations. I folded mine not long afterwards.Comment Tags: EU madness, IR35, light touch

   Reply ↓
6. Haren Visavadia on January 30, 2012 at 6:52 pm said:

   Abolish the following Statutory Payments:

   Holiday Pay
   Sick Pay
   Maternity Pay
   Paternity Pay
   Adoption Pay

   Make Sunday a non-trading day to compensate for loss of statutory holiday payComment Tags: Statutory Payments, Sunday Trading

   Reply ↓
7. Mrs Raju Kanabar on January 11, 2012 at 11:32 am said:

   CRB and POVA rules for nursing homes should be changed so employers have power to check whethersomeone has a criminal record and on the register rather than pay £60 per employee . Checks on overseas students are wasted as they have never had permanent address in the country , checks should not have to be done again if an employee moves jobsComment Tags: CRB & Pova checks on new employees in nursing homes

   Reply ↓
8. Michael Frampton on December 5, 2011 at 5:20 pm said:

   1. I consider that an employer should be allowed to dimiss, without penalty, an employee who becomes entitled to maternity leave within 12 months of commencing employment.
   2. Since firms cannot fill a vacancy caused by maternity leave, except by offering a temporary appointment which is very difficult for SMEs in particular, I therefore suggest that no more laws on maternity or paternity leave are introduced. However, where full-time employees take maternity leave there is no part-time appointment required to be given, even if the employer does have other part-time employees.
   3. Written warnings should be allowed to be to run for 2 years, irrespective of the offence.
   4. Health questions should be allowed on interview for all appointments without falling foul of discrimination laws.
   5. Responses to requests for references should not risk the supplier of the reference nor its receipient by covedring any matters of fact.
   6. In order to obtain a balance of employees in age and gender the preference by the employer should not risk a challenge.
   7.No employment tribunal risk within first 2 years of commencement of employmentComment Tags: health questions, Maternity dismissal, maternity leave, part-time maternity leave apointment, references, tribunal, warnings

   Reply ↓
   • Stuart Wilson on April 11, 2012 at 1:04 pm said:

     I totally agree with Michael Frampton on all 7 points:

     1. I consider that an employer should be allowed to dimiss, without penalty, an employee who becomes entitled to maternity leave within 12 months of commencing employment.
     2. Since firms cannot fill a vacancy caused by maternity leave, except by offering a temporary appointment which is very difficult for SMEs in particular, I therefore suggest that no more laws on maternity or paternity leave are introduced. However, where full-time employees take maternity leave there is no part-time appointment required to be given, even if the employer does have other part-time employees.
     3. Written warnings should be allowed to be to run for 2 years, irrespective of the offence.
     4. Health questions should be allowed on interview for all appointments without falling foul of discrimination laws.
     5. Responses to requests for references should not risk the supplier of the reference nor its receipient by covedring any matters of fact.
     6. In order to obtain a balance of employees in age and gender the preference by the employer should not risk a challenge.
     7.No employment tribunal risk within first 2 years of commencement of employmentComment Tags: Health questions prior to job offer
9. Bob Marlow on December 2, 2011 at 12:39 pm said:

   For apprentices particularly, there should be a MAXIMUM form requirement of “ONE A4 PAGE A WEEK”Comment Tags: Forms apprentices A4

   Reply ↓
10. Josy Thompson on November 1, 2011 at 5:02 pm said:

    It is ridiculous that we cannot ask Health questions before making a job offer to a potential member of staff. We work in childcare, where the health of an individual is of extreme importance when considering somebody’s suitability. We need to know if a candidate is physically, and more importantly mentally fit to look after small children BEFORE offering employment.Comment Tags: recruitment

    Reply ↓
11. jan on October 26, 2011 at 11:00 am said:

    As far as taking people on is concerned I would like the following changed :- When someone is sucessful at interview they are told that they will be held on a merit list for a year and if not employed within that year they have to go through the recruitment process again . I feel that this is unfair to the potential employee who has been told they have passed an interview and very costly as running further recruitment schemes obviously creates further expences to the public purse. All people successful at interview should be recontacted after 1 year and asked if they are still interested in the job they applied for (or an alternative that they are suitable for) and if yes they should be recruited then when the list is exhausted a new recruitment scheme should commence.Comment Tags: recruitment

    Reply ↓
12. Mel Flogdell on October 24, 2011 at 2:59 pm said:

    TUPE and provision of employee information to a successor employer: Under the current TUPE Regulations, the obligation for an outgoing employer (the transferor) to provide “employee liability information” is limited to 14 days prior to the transfer date. This is woefully inadequate. In the case of a second stage outsourcing of a services contract or the bringing in house of a service, the 14 day limit is a bar to adequate cost assessment, proper tendering or responsible treatment of incoming staff (including even the most basic administrative steps such as setting them up on payroll). When there was last consultation on this issue (the updating of the 1981 TUPE regulations in 2006), this issue was widely acknowledged as a problem, but the amendment by the last administration was inadequate.Comment Tags: TUPE and provision of employee information to a successor employer:

    Reply ↓
13. Kieron on October 23, 2011 at 5:21 pm said:

    i think the national minimum wage should be one wage for every member of staff at any age not different wages for different ages. it should be about £7

    Reply ↓
    • John Catchpole on February 29, 2012 at 2:01 pm said:

      While I think that a minimum wage was introduced with the best intentions, I believe that its effect has a negative result for less able members of our society. I can remember the almost free and easy days of 40/50 years ago where employers took on a less able person to carry out simple tasks like sweeping/ tidying and general clearing up. To that person it was a precious thing and in spite of the low pay, it meant that thousands were able to make their contribution and keep their dignity. What happens now ? the same type of person is “employed” on some local authority scheme doing the same tasks for “pocket money”Comment Tags: minimum wages