Employment laws are getting worse

[Viking Warrior]

This hasnt hit the UK but give it time.

 

In the US a public sector employee in Detroit has succesfully won a case against her local Authority > She has been awarded 100K for a disability.

 

She suffered breathing difficulties due to her fellow employees wearing perfume, deoderants, after shave lotion , odour cologne etc.

 

The local authority has now sent out a memo to fellow workers advising them they are no longer allowed to wear perfume etc due to this woams respiratory illness. It will not belong before new claims are made against people with BO. I wonder how she got on getting to work on public transport with fellow passengers reeking of chanel no 5. Perhaps she has a claim against the transport sector over there.

 

Also on a similar vain . A new law came into being in the uK Last week.

It is now illegal to be used as a slave or be forced to do work against your will. Anybody found guilty can expect up to 14years in jail.

 

Now this act is entrenched in the principles of the Human Rights Act but you can just see the ambulance chasing lawyers getting alsorts of claims from employees claiming they were forced to work against their will.

Watch this space I can the headline public sector employee forced empty dustbins against his will even though it is what he is paid to do.

Edited 12 April, 2010 by Viking Warrior

[Ponty]

It's 'now' illegal to be used as a slave?

[saintkiptanui]

It's 'now' illegal to be used as a slave?

I had to send my two blacks back to Tennessee:(

[Viking Warrior]

Thanks Ponty. I wasnt allowed to remove my shackles to type the comment about slaves. **** , must go my master is back in the house and I have to do some more work:)

[buctootim]

Justice Minister Claire Ward reassured employers that the new legislation is aimed at people who exploit others, and is unlikely to impact on responsible employers who comply with current law. Employers will need to comply with the new law. But if they already comply with existing employment law they’re unlikely to have anything to worry about from the new offence.

 

"Forced labour requires a level of coercion or deception beyond that of a normal employment arrangement. For the new offence to apply, the employer must have known the arrangement was oppressive, or turned a blind eye to that fact."

http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease250310c.htm

[Whitey Grandad]

It's 'now' illegal to be used as a slave?

What, even in my own time and in the privacy of my own home. :confused:

[Saint_clark]

Hang on - someone being forced to do work against their will can get 14 years in jail?

Bit harsh punishing someone who, by the definition of the crime, is being FORCED.

Or was that a typo on your part?

[CB Saint]

Generally employment law is agood thing and nothing contained in it is too berserk. My problem comes from the application of that law. The tribunals and courts apply the law by the letter. So if you dismiss an employee, say for thumping their manager, and you get one tiny piece of the process wrong, the tribunal will state that you were right to dismiss the employee but then go onto say it was unfair and award damages.

 

This happens in criminal law too - in fact that speeding fine lawyer has made a living from it. Judges should have the ability to look at the case and if there is a loop hole being exploited, use their judgement and set it aside if it had made no or little difference to the final outcome. So in the above example, the judge should be saying whilst the company did not leave enough time between suspension and the dismissal meeting, the employee deserved to be fired and therefore that is how I find.

[Wiltshire Saint]

Thanks Ponty. I wasnt allowed to remove my shackles to type the comment about slaves. **** , must go my master is back in the house and I have to do some more work:)

 

 

I don't think we should be condoning the use of racist language on here.

[Viking Warrior]

Its still early days for the Anti slavery act to be fully understood but there will be those lawyers who use to get their clients a thick wad of cash. When the HRA came into existent various cases came to the for.

 

Take the right to life. There have been couples who have sued the NHS because they were told they were getting a girl instead of a boy when they had the anti natal scan. They actual won there case . NHS had to cough up (Grampian NHS) The NHS no longer advise parents on the sex of the baby for fear of gettiong sued.

take the recent case of a council worker in Edinburgh. He was caught downloading explicit porn on his computer and got dismissed due to gross misconduct.

 

he found one of these lawyers who argued succesfully that he he had been discriminated against on grounds of disability . as he was a type 1 diabetic he claimed he was having a hypoglycimic attack and had no recollection of veiwing porn . he was reinstated following the ET and EAT verdict and given £25k for discrimination. he never mentioned/

 

Lucky for him he found a lawyer who was able to exploit the law. and the same will happen with the anti slavery act. just giv eit time

[Wilko]

This has nothing to do with employment laws and everything to do with compensation culture. In reality, employees have very few rights in the UK and the balance of power is well and truly on the side of the employer.

[CB Saint]

This has nothing to do with employment laws and everything to do with compensation culture. In reality, employees have very few rights in the UK and the balance of power is well and truly on the side of the employer.

 

Either you are trolling or you have not employed people recently in the UK. Employees are very well protected by the law. Yes, not every company follows these laws - in which case the employee has redress through the tribunal system. Yes, there are bad employers who treat their staff poorly. In these cases the staff leave.

 

To use an example, consider the rights of the woman who is pregnant. They can take 12 months leave during which the employer has to keep the job open. They retain their benefit, they have the same access to promotion opportunities. When they return to work they can elect to work any number of days they wish to in a part time capacity and it is near impossible for the company to say no.

 

How you can say the power is with the employer is beyond me.

[bridge too far]

Either you are trolling or you have not employed people recently in the UK. Employees are very well protected by the law. Yes, not every company follows these laws - in which case the employee has redress through the tribunal system. Yes, there are bad employers who treat their staff poorly. In these cases the staff leave.

 

To use an example, consider the rights of the woman who is pregnant. They can take 12 months leave during which the employer has to keep the job open. They retain their benefit, they have the same access to promotion opportunities. When they return to work they can elect to work any number of days they wish to in a part time capacity and it is near impossible for the company to say no.

 

How you can say the power is with the employer is beyond me.

 

I believe mothers can share (or will be able to share) their parental leave with the child's father?

 

If you were the father of a new child, would you want to be in the situation where the mother of your child had to look for another job after you both had exhausted your parental leave? She might not be able to get one - where would that leave your family finances?

 

One of my daughters had her baby after working for her employer for 10 years. She's a highly valued member of staff. Her employer kept her 'in the loop' during the 8 months she had off (she couldn't afford to be off any longer) so she was up to speed when she returned.

 

My other daughter took 10 months off. Her company recruited a replacement and, now that my daughter has gone back to work, they've kept both employees on.

 

In the case of my second daughter, she got no maternity pay from her employer - just state maternity benefit.

 

I recognise it's difficult for employers, particular small businesses but the net value of having an experienced employee returning must outweigh having to recruit and train a new employee.

[benjii]

Its still early days for the Anti slavery act to be fully understood but there will be those lawyers who use to get their clients a thick wad of cash. When the HRA came into existent various cases came to the for.

 

Take the right to life. There have been couples who have sued the NHS because they were told they were getting a girl instead of a boy when they had the anti natal scan. They actual won there case . NHS had to cough up (Grampian NHS) The NHS no longer advise parents on the sex of the baby for fear of gettiong sued.

take the recent case of a council worker in Edinburgh. He was caught downloading explicit porn on his computer and got dismissed due to gross misconduct.

 

he found one of these lawyers who argued succesfully that he he had been discriminated against on grounds of disability . as he was a type 1 diabetic he claimed he was having a hypoglycimic attack and had no recollection of veiwing porn . he was reinstated following the ET and EAT verdict and given £25k for discrimination. he never mentioned/

 

Lucky for him he found a lawyer who was able to exploit the law. and the same will happen with the anti slavery act. just giv eit time

 

What twaddle. Of course laws get tested; that's how they evolve. If you can draft a set of laws that no one ever seeks to test then you ought to give David Cameron a ring as you will be well in demand. I would also suggest you take case reports in the popular media with a pinch of salt.

Edited 13 April, 2010 by benjii

[Whitey Grandad]

I recognise it's difficult for employers, particular small businesses but the net value of having an experienced employee returning must outweigh having to recruit and train a new employee.

That's absolutely not true. That job must still be done in the interim period and after 9 months or a year a replacement will be up to speed.

[bridge too far]

That's absolutely not true. That job must still be done in the interim period and after 9 months or a year a replacement will be up to speed.

 

Not necessarily. Quite often other staff members take on aspects of the job. This is certainly what has happened in the various NHS departments I've worked in.

[CB Saint]

I believe mothers can share (or will be able to share) their parental leave with the child's father?

 

If you were the father of a new child, would you want to be in the situation where the mother of your child had to look for another job after you both had exhausted your parental leave? She might not be able to get one - where would that leave your family finances?

 

One of my daughters had her baby after working for her employer for 10 years. She's a highly valued member of staff. Her employer kept her 'in the loop' during the 8 months she had off (she couldn't afford to be off any longer) so she was up to speed when she returned.

 

My other daughter took 10 months off. Her company recruited a replacement and, now that my daughter has gone back to work, they've kept both employees on.

 

In the case of my second daughter, she got no maternity pay from her employer - just state maternity benefit.

 

I recognise it's difficult for employers, particular small businesses but the net value of having an experienced employee returning must outweigh having to recruit and train a new employee.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't have an issue with the maternity rules. I was using it as a example that employees actually do have a a lot of rights.

 

If I were to change one aspect I would probably allow the womean to state at the outset that she does not intend to return but keep her SMP. That way her company can get on with recruiting a permanent replacement and woman retain their benefits. I have had instances in the past where a week before the person was due return they wrote in to say they were staying at home. By that time the interim worker had secured another position and we were up the creek. In a small firm that can be big issue.

[bridge too far]

Don't get me wrong, I don't have an issue with the maternity rules. I was using it as a example that employees actually do have a a lot of rights.

 

If I were to change one aspect I would probably allow the womean to state at the outset that she does not intend to return but keep her SMP. That way her company can get on with recruiting a permanent replacement and woman retain their benefits. I have had instances in the past where a week before the person was due return they wrote in to say they were staying at home. By that time the interim worker had secured another position and we were up the creek. In a small firm that can be big issue.

 

If this happens, then the mother / father concerned has to pay back benefits. Mothers-to-be effectively contract to return to work (for at least 3 months?) once their maternity leave is up.

 

Small consolation for you, I know. But that is the fact and maybe you should have pursued her about this?

 

In reality, most mothers cannot afford to stay at home after maternity leave these days.

[Viking Warrior]

Benjii

 

Not twaddle at all . Employment laws and other laws are twisted and spun by lawyers all the time , nothing to do with newspaper spin or political dimensions

what so ever I work in the real world and have to deal with peoples intepretations of emplyment law on a daily basis.

 

I remember years ago when the HRA first came on the statute books. Myself and fellow personnel and legal professionals had a number of concerns re its implications. We were scoffed at but it wasnt long before our concerns came to fruition.

 

I can see the potential for the Anti-slavery bill impacting on employers

Although most employees can take out a grievance under their company's grievance procedures.

 

I think the people that may be hit intitially will be farmers and those who employ foriegn fruit and vegatable pickers. Some of their working practices are not to helpful

 

You are right about laws being tested but some of the decisons made are plain crazy.

[Whitey Grandad]

If this happens, then the mother / father concerned has to pay back benefits. Mothers-to-be effectively contract to return to work (for at least 3 months?) once their maternity leave is up.

 

?? As I understand it the mother does not have to decide whether to return to work until just before the return-to work date. Some people milk the system. I know of one schoolteacher who after having the child went back to work one week before the start of the summer holidays so that she would be paid over the summer..

[Whitey Grandad]

Not necessarily. Quite often other staff members take on aspects of the job. This is certainly what has happened in the various NHS departments I've worked in.

You've said the magic words there. If the work can be carried out by others then the post must by definition be redundant.

[bridge too far]

You've said the magic words there. If the work can be carried out by others then the post must by definition be redundant.

 

Ha ha If you'd said that to me 5 years ago when my manager went on maternity leave, I would have clocked you!

 

I can remember working 12 / 14 hour days for 6 months or more so that we delivered our project on time.

 

None of this paid overtime, I might add

[benjii]

Benjii

 

Not twaddle at all . Employment laws and other laws are twisted and spun by lawyers all the time , nothing to do with newspaper spin or political dimensions

what so ever I work in the real world and have to deal with peoples intepretations of emplyment law on a daily basis.

 

I remember years ago when the HRA first came on the statute books. Myself and fellow personnel and legal professionals had a number of concerns re its implications. We were scoffed at but it wasnt long before our concerns came to fruition.

 

I can see the potential for the Anti-slavery bill impacting on employers

Although most employees can take out a grievance under their company's grievance procedures.

 

I think the people that may be hit intitially will be farmers and those who employ foriegn fruit and vegatable pickers. Some of their working practices are not to helpful

 

You are right about laws being tested but some of the decisons made are plain crazy.

 

Yeah, fair enough. In hindsight, I'm not sure why I said your last post was twaddle. I think I must've been thinking about something else whilst I read it! Sorry old bean.

[bridge too far]

?? As I understand it the mother does not have to decide whether to return to work until just before the return-to work date. Some people milk the system. I know of one schoolteacher who after having the child went back to work one week before the start of the summer holidays so that she would be paid over the summer..

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Moneyandworkentitlements/WorkAndFamilies/Pregnancyandmaternityrights/DG_065153

 

This says that if you don't intend to return to work, you have to give your employer notice in the normal way.

 

I was wrong though on the repayment element. If a woman decides not to return to work AND IS IN RECEIPT OF AN ADDITIONAL COMPANY MATERNITY PAYMENT she has to repay that. I thought she had to repay all SMP so sorry for that.

 

I imagine most small businesses don't pay additional maternity pay. In fact one daughter, who works for a very large estate agency, didn't get any ADDITIONAL maternity pay at all.

[Danny R]

Either you are trolling or you have not employed people recently in the UK. Employees are very well protected by the law. Yes, not every company follows these laws - in which case the employee has redress through the tribunal system. Yes, there are bad employers who treat their staff poorly. In these cases the staff leave.

 

To use an example, consider the rights of the woman who is pregnant. They can take 12 months leave during which the employer has to keep the job open. They retain their benefit, they have the same access to promotion opportunities. When they return to work they can elect to work any number of days they wish to in a part time capacity and it is near impossible for the company to say no.

 

How you can say the power is with the employer is beyond me.

 

It's not 'near impossible to say no' if it cannot be done then it cannot be done, you have 8 reasons where you can turn down a claim. Other than that, maternity leave is a good thing for the economy as a whole and for businesses as you retain these skills. Employees are well protected but only from being mistreated, if businesses act properly and don't short cut then there is nothing to worry about.

[Whitey Grandad]

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Moneyandworkentitlements/WorkAndFamilies/Pregnancyandmaternityrights/DG_065153

 

This says that if you don't intend to return to work, you have to give your employer notice in the normal way.

 

In practice I believe that there is nothing to stop the mother saying that she intends to return after one year and then changing her mind at the last moment.

[bridge too far]

In practice I believe that there is nothing to stop the mother saying that she intends to return after one year and then changing her mind at the last moment.

 

Yes there is - you can sue her for breach of contract if she doesn't give you notice. If her notice period (in normal circumstances and according to her Contract of Employment) is one month then that's the notice she has to give you of her intention to not return to work.

[Johnny Bognor]

Don't get me wrong, I don't have an issue with the maternity rules. I was using it as a example that employees actually do have a a lot of rights.

 

If I were to change one aspect I would probably allow the womean to state at the outset that she does not intend to return but keep her SMP. That way her company can get on with recruiting a permanent replacement and woman retain their benefits. .

 

Spot on

 

I have had instances in the past where a week before the person was due return they wrote in to say they were staying at home. By that time the interim worker had secured another position and we were up the creek. In a small firm that can be big issue.

 

Absolutely, it is a complete nightmare. Not to mention having to pay them their full holiday entitlement, so they can effectively take 12 months off, return to "work", immediately take 25 days holiday (paid) so effectively get an extra 5 weeks, so you need to keep on the interim worker so are effectively paying for 2 members of staff to do one job....... the way things are going it won't be long before the employer has to give birth to the friggin baby and change all its nappies......

[bridge too far]

The best solution would be to stop everyone having babies or to only allow fathers to have leave then

 

Interesting to see how we compare with Europe and the rest of the world

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave#Europe

 

(scroll towards the bottom of the page)

[John Boy Saint]

 

Also on a similar vain . A new law came into being in the uK Last week.

It is now illegal to be used as a slave or be forced to do work against your will. Anybody found guilty can expect up to 14years in jail.

 

Does this mean that anyone blagging benefits being made to get a job under various initiatives or lose some of their benefits could in theory sue the Government of the day under Slavery Law as they are being forced to work against their will!!??

[Johnny Bognor]

The best solution would be to stop everyone having babies or to only allow fathers to have leave then

 

Interesting to see how we compare with Europe and the rest of the world

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave#Europe

 

(scroll towards the bottom of the page)

 

Larger businesses can easily absorb and take account of this legislation. However, for smaller businesses, they can be really screwed. I don't know if you've noticed (probably not, working in the Public Sector), but we are not long out of the worst recession in post war history (and we're not out of the woods yet). The best help that small businesses, where the economic growth / recovery will come from, is the ability to get on and grow their businesses.

 

Having Children is a life choice for the parents and there's nothing wrong with it (as I have two of my own), but small businesses don't get a choice and the burden shouldered by them does not help matters.

[Deano6]

...

 

The local authority has now sent out a memo to fellow workers advising them they are no longer allowed to wear perfume etc due to this womans respiratory illness.

 

...

 

Also on a similar vain . A new law came into being in the uK Last week.

It is now illegal to be used as a slave or be forced to do work against your will. Anybody found guilty can expect up to 14years in jail.

 

 

It's political correctness gone mad. You can't even aggravate someone's respiratory illness these days without the authorities jumping down your neck!

[Viking Warrior]

It wont belong before employers will ban people from wearing wedding rings for fear of offending divorcees

[Whitey Grandad]

Yes there is - you can sue her for breach of contract if she doesn't give you notice. If her notice period (in normal circumstances and according to her Contract of Employment) is one month then that's the notice she has to give you of her intention to not return to work.

So the one month notice can be given 30 days from her intended return to work, i.e 11 months after leaving? In practice a company is extremely unlikely to sue any mother that did this.

[bridge too far]

So the one month notice can be given 30 days from her intended return to work, i.e 11 months after leaving? In practice a company is extremely unlikely to sue any mother that did this.

 

Yes it unlikely i grant you but the legal redress is there.

 

I'm not aware of too many women who can afford to take a whole year off or who can afford to not return to work.

[Johnny Bognor]

It wont belong before employers will ban people from wearing wedding rings for fear of offending divorcees

 

 

It won't be long before employers are banned full stop. Then nobody will be offended.