Interesting thread. I can say from my own experience that unions are next to useless (lovely people, but toothless) when it comes to it. Employers can do as they like basically, I have been assaulted by a colleague and it was swept under the carpet (they then begged me not to take it to the police) I was shifted around to a different job that I didn’t want because “my face didn’t fit” basically. I was even told by TMs and Managers that they “didn’t want me there” and resented having me.
I eventually quit after various grievance hearings where the company trotted out lie after lie after lie…, and the “wonderful super-dooper union” never told me I only had three months to claim constructive dismissal…even then, although I had a good case, the solicitor admitted the tribunals are totally biased in favour of the employer now.
This new rule is just another kick in the face for working people. It has nothing to do with the lazy scroungers (I have never even met one of those) and everything to do with making profits.
And if the EU truly were a socialist bloc, no way would this be allowed, hardly socialist is it?
Its not easy to fire an employee.They can take you for unfair dismissal and go to a tribunal and get compensated for unfair dismissal and be reinstated if the tribunal comes down on their side.
Their is quite a process to go through before you can just sack someone.
Pure tosh, in todays world.
tribunals ,even if coming down in the sacked workers favour can only order reinstatement, they cannot enforce it.
The make up of tribunals has also been altered to favour the employer.
The only time it is difficult to sack a worker now is when there is no genuine reason and even then it’s still fairly risk free for the employer.
None of which seems surprising since the difference in the attitudes of the union side towards disputes now to the way in which such an issue would have been ‘resolved’ in the mid 1970’s.
Too many people have bought all the Tory bs about ‘efficiency’ and competing with the Chinese and this is the result.
But the sacked employee always had the choice of not going for reinstatement just compensation as I remember it .
kr79:
Realistically even if you are reinstated I’d say your position is pretty much untenable anyway.
Not sure if things have changed but there was a choice of just having compensation for loss of the job because it’s obvious that any working relationship between the employee and employer would be untenable after such an action anyway in most cases.
That makes more sense realy but I was just going on what was said earlier in the thread.
Didn’t read much about it but I’m sure the headline the other day about the vauxhall factory agreeing to changes in work etc was what secured the new Astra been built here. I also remember that the Honda factory at Swindon worked with the staff to reduce redundancies and keep the factory going when the credit crunch appeared.
When this proposal does take effect & it will, I can write the names of who will stay & who will go at our place & we will be replaced with those that will work unpaid , go out overloaded & break the law where speed is concerned, if they employ a driver that won’t then he too will be sacked until they find one that will do it !
kr79:
That makes more sense realy but I was just going on what was said earlier in the thread.
Didn’t read much about it but I’m sure the headline the other day about the vauxhall factory agreeing to changes in work etc was what secured the new Astra been built here. I also remember that the Honda factory at Swindon worked with the staff to reduce redundancies and keep the factory going when the credit crunch appeared.
I think the reality of that situation is that the workforce know that they’re in a losing position in which the employers are playing one lot of workers in British plants against others in foreign plants.Which just means that instead of a workforce that is able to sort all the grievances of erosion of terms and conditions and money v cost of living issues in each market seperately,as in the days when all the cars in the different plants were built for each seperate market ( Cresta,Victor,etc etc) (Opel Kadette,Commodore etc etc) they are all just working under submission and fear of the jobs being moved around not one of a content workforce.
Working under those conditions is not really a viable way to base the long term financial stability needed to keep a mortgage going for example,from the employees’ point of view.
limeyphil:
employers need employees, just as much as the employees need employers.
they won’t sack someone that is any good will they?
just like some of us won’t work for a ■■■■■■.
That’s the contradiction which says everything and which explains every industrial dispute in history.
they won’t sack someone that is any good will they?
of course they will.
if you have a company employing 10 drivers and all are good workers,and if the company decide they can still do the same work with 8 drivers, 2 will get finished.
Nothing to do with being bad workers, just with being overstaffed.
equally, a company running 2 four wheelers may find that they can run 1 artic, result 1 driver down the road
More up to date, a company running the proposed longer trailers may well find themselves overstaffed with drivers, same result.
OK, they will probably keep the best workers but that doesn’t mean the others are bad workers.
management will always tell you it is about getting shut of bad workers, it isn’t, it’s about getting shut of workers …full stop.
cav551:
The “troublesome driver” that needs to be sacked of course defines someone who:
1)Defects vehicles
2)Takes 1/2 hr longer to do a job because he sticks to the speed limits
3)Asks for a seal to be broken to check load security
4)Takes longer to get out of the yard in the morning because he checks the vehicle and load
5)Checks his delivery documents and points out that it MAY not be possible to complete all drops in the day or:
He MAY require to be relieved 45 minutes drive from the depot because he has run out of hours
6)Does not record standing in an RDC waiting room as Break
7)Does not “pull the card” when he gets back into the depot at 14hrs 50 minutes in order to disguise the fact that it took another 35/40 minutes to queue to refuel, complete paperwork, drop trailer off at workshop for service etc. - all of course unpaid. Parks up an hour away from the depot because he will not do 7
9)Points out the glaringly obvious calculation that the number of cartons (to be) loaded will make the vehicle overweight
10)Reminds the office 3 times during the week that he needs to be home Friday night
no smiley on original
dammit! - That’s me knackered then, as I’m doing nearly every one of the above with the exception of (3) on a regular basis!
If I drive in the gate with the wagon @ 14:50, I’ll get the shunter to park it, not having derved it, or done anything but pop my card, flash into the office to book off, and get my arse out of the gate - I want to be in the car park on foot by 14:59 which I’ll book on my digi as “10 min lead-out” when I next put it in.
This month so far I’ve rejected 2 vehicles for no tail lift lead, 3 for blown bulbs, fuel cap missing, wheel nut missing, wrong dart tag (had a severn bridge one stuck down on inside of windscreen!) and missing securing chain on a fully-loaded trailer.
If I am to be sent out on a run that COULD go over, then I’ll make sure it’s a run I know back to front, so there’s less chance of any hoo-har being down to my own ignorance of that particular job. Don’t give the buggers a chance to say its all YOUR fault when you run out of hours you see!
Saaamon:
More jobs to choose between because employers won’t have to put up with pain in arse drivers.
Anyone who has been involved with dismissing troublesome staff will know exactly the problems you have. You can’t just get rid of people after three minor strikes, some companies will take a chance, others won’t.
Totally agree, employment law is far too slanted towards the needs of the employee. Even getting rid of deadwood, no work ethic, lazy ■■■■■ is difficult and more importantly costly for any employer, and there are a great number of people out there who make a ‘living’ from claiming unfair dismissal. Once you’ve spent time and money, as an employer, dealing with ACAS, employment courts, etc., it’s very often easier to pay and settle.
For the most part, good people will always be wanted and valued by any company.
Plambert:
For the most part, good people will always be wanted and valued by any company.
Just like they were during the 19’th and early 20 th century you mean before workers decided to organise themselves into powerful unions.
If that was the really case there would have been no need for unions at all.The fact is what this argument,and the ideas of the present government,proves is that the idea of management and workers working together is bs and the two oppposing interests are so far apart that it’s impossible to make any type of peaceful bargain that will be acceptable to both.It also proves how right the union movement’s attitudes were during the 1970’s compared to their weakened state now in which every settlement is one of appeasement and acceptance of continuing erosion in living standards and employment rights.
good staff would be sacked if it suited the employer, i think the main probs come from how folk are recruited, in respect that used to be work your way up the system, a good manager was one that knew the runs, te probs that can be encountered, knew the guys doing the job… it was in a small way about respect, a good manager would respect his staff and vice versa but not now guys are bought in from other companies and it normally starts off on a bad foot and gets worse…
Even getting rid of deadwood, no work ethic, lazy [zb] is difficult and more importantly costly for any employer, and there are a great number of people out there who make a ‘living’ from claiming unfair dismissal. Once you’ve spent time and money, as an employer, dealing with ACAS, employment courts, etc., it’s very often easier to pay and settle.
apart from a few places where unions still have a strong hold this is simply untrue, its a myth that has been pedalled out everytime there is a proposed change in the law to benefit the workers.
margaret thatcher got rid of most of the protection laws along with John Major.
The Labour govt, under Blair had promised to replace them but didn’t.
If less workers rights equalled a promise of greater prosperity for the nation then we should be all laughing on the way to the bank already as we have less protection than workers in most EU countries now, let alonwe any further reductions.
I am not certain if it has been implemented yet or if it is still a proposal that workers are going to have to pay a deposit before going to a tribunal and the tribunal panel makeup of three members is to be altered to give the benefit to employers.
Some of you seem as if you won’t be happy until the time comes when you all turn up on a Monday morning and a gangmaster picks out who will get work that week.
Perhaps British Leyland would still be producing vehicles if they hadn’t built such crap in the 70s. Mind you, they did a good job with one hand in the air.
NathanB:
Perhaps British Leyland would still be producing vehicles if they hadn’t built such crap in the 70s. Mind you, they did a good job with one hand in the air.
I assumed that little problem was sorted by The Thatch!!
NathanB:
Perhaps British Leyland would still be producing vehicles if they hadn’t built such crap in the 70s. Mind you, they did a good job with one hand in the air.
Maybe they’d have built less crap if the guvnors had have had the sense to close down Austin/Morris and then use all the money they saved in building more Jaguars,Rovers and Triumphs considering that for most of the 1970’s the dodgy (although not as bad as the Tory press often makes out) Rover SD1 wasn’t in existence and it was those three divisions of the company were the only profitable divisions.
The only problem was that the idea of keeping wages and living standards,at the level where those cars would be afforable for the masses to buy and run,wasn’t acceptable to the management of British industry at the time who thought that Triumph Acclaims and all the other cheap Oriental zb would be good enough for British workers.Which explains the reasons why so much time had to be spent striking to defend living standards than getting on with making the stuff that everyone,including the workers,wanted.
The idea of keeping wage rises at,or less than,inflation is why the economy is where it is now instead of where it was in 1970-75.
NathanB:
Perhaps British Leyland would still be producing vehicles if they hadn’t built such crap in the 70s. Mind you, they did a good job with one hand in the air.
I assumed that little problem was sorted by The Thatch!!
Even getting rid of deadwood, no work ethic, lazy [zb] is difficult and more importantly costly for any employer, and there are a great number of people out there who make a ‘living’ from claiming unfair dismissal. Once you’ve spent time and money, as an employer, dealing with ACAS, employment courts, etc., it’s very often easier to pay and settle.
apart from a few places where unions still have a strong hold this is simply untrue, its a myth that has been pedalled out everytime there is a proposed change in the law to benefit the workers.
margaret thatcher got rid of most of the protection laws along with John Major.
The Labour govt, under Blair had promised to replace them but didn’t.
If less workers rights equalled a promise of greater prosperity for the nation then we should be all laughing on the way to the bank already as we have less protection than workers in most EU countries now, let alonwe any further reductions.
I am not certain if it has been implemented yet or if it is still a proposal that workers are going to have to pay a deposit before going to a tribunal and the tribunal panel makeup of three members is to be altered to give the benefit to employers.
Some of you seem as if you won’t be happy until the time comes when you all turn up on a Monday morning and a gangmaster picks out who will get work that week.
I think we’ve seen enough to know that the so called British Capitalists are actually Communists of the type that you’d find running any Chinese sweatshop.
cav551:
The “troublesome driver” that needs to be sacked of course defines someone who:
1)Defects vehicles
2)Takes 1/2 hr longer to do a job because he sticks to the speed limits
3)Asks for a seal to be broken to check load security
4)Takes longer to get out of the yard in the morning because he checks the vehicle and load
5)Checks his delivery documents and points out that it MAY not be possible to complete all drops in the day or:
He MAY require to be relieved 45 minutes drive from the depot because he has run out of hours
6)Does not record standing in an RDC waiting room as Break
7)Does not “pull the card” when he gets back into the depot at 14hrs 50 minutes in order to disguise the fact that it took another 35/40 minutes to queue to refuel, complete paperwork, drop trailer off at workshop for service etc. - all of course unpaid. Parks up an hour away from the depot because he will not do 7
9)Points out the glaringly obvious calculation that the number of cartons (to be) loaded will make the vehicle overweight
10)Reminds the office 3 times during the week that he needs to be home Friday night
no smiley on original
dammit! - That’s me knackered then, as I’m doing nearly every one of the above with the exception of (3) on a regular basis!
If I drive in the gate with the wagon @ 14:50, I’ll get the shunter to park it, not having derved it, or done anything but pop my card, flash into the office to book off, and get my arse out of the gate - I want to be in the car park on foot by 14:59 which I’ll book on my digi as “10 min lead-out” when I next put it in.
This month so far I’ve rejected 2 vehicles for no tail lift lead, 3 for blown bulbs, fuel cap missing, wheel nut missing, wrong dart tag (had a severn bridge one stuck down on inside of windscreen!) and missing securing chain on a fully-loaded trailer.
If I am to be sent out on a run that COULD go over, then I’ll make sure it’s a run I know back to front, so there’s less chance of any hoo-har being down to my own ignorance of that particular job. Don’t give the buggers a chance to say its all YOUR fault when you run out of hours you see!
I’d be very careful. I was all of that and more and a union rep and I still got the bullet! Our area guy said that if employers really want to get rid of you they will and no one can or will stop them. I’m off to tribunal with union help (so long as I keep my dues up to date - and despite being unemployed and struggling on £67.50/week) but as you’ve already seen, the tribunal members don’t like this or that, you musn’t say anything that they think is a waste of their time etc, etc!
And yes it’s true, employers can be told to take you back but it is very unusual and not compulsary and the compensation is now derisory because they don’t want employers (even if they lose) to feel that they are being picked on by government and being told how to run their business!
At my age (elderley according to another recent thread!!) I think I probably will never work again now because of the hassle of claiming JSA and then not and then claiming again after doing casual work, and all by interfering busy bodies that run or think they run this horrible and miserable country!
cav551:
The “troublesome driver” that needs to be sacked of course defines someone who:
1)Defects vehicles
2)Takes 1/2 hr longer to do a job because he sticks to the speed limits
3)Asks for a seal to be broken to check load security
4)Takes longer to get out of the yard in the morning because he checks the vehicle and load
5)Checks his delivery documents and points out that it MAY not be possible to complete all drops in the day or:
He MAY require to be relieved 45 minutes drive from the depot because he has run out of hours
6)Does not record standing in an RDC waiting room as Break
7)Does not “pull the card” when he gets back into the depot at 14hrs 50 minutes in order to disguise the fact that it took another 35/40 minutes to queue to refuel, complete paperwork, drop trailer off at workshop for service etc. - all of course unpaid. Parks up an hour away from the depot because he will not do 7
9)Points out the glaringly obvious calculation that the number of cartons (to be) loaded will make the vehicle overweight
10)Reminds the office 3 times during the week that he needs to be home Friday night
no smiley on original
dammit! - That’s me knackered then, as I’m doing nearly every one of the above with the exception of (3) on a regular basis!
If I drive in the gate with the wagon @ 14:50, I’ll get the shunter to park it, not having derved it, or done anything but pop my card, flash into the office to book off, and get my arse out of the gate - I want to be in the car park on foot by 14:59 which I’ll book on my digi as “10 min lead-out” when I next put it in.
This month so far I’ve rejected 2 vehicles for no tail lift lead, 3 for blown bulbs, fuel cap missing, wheel nut missing, wrong dart tag (had a severn bridge one stuck down on inside of windscreen!) and missing securing chain on a fully-loaded trailer.
If I am to be sent out on a run that COULD go over, then I’ll make sure it’s a run I know back to front, so there’s less chance of any hoo-har being down to my own ignorance of that particular job. Don’t give the buggers a chance to say its all YOUR fault when you run out of hours you see!
I’d be very careful. I was all of that and more and a union rep and I still got the bullet! Our area guy said that if employers really want to get rid of you they will and no one can or will stop them. I’m off to tribunal with union help (so long as I keep my dues up to date - and despite being unemployed and struggling on £67.50/week) but as you’ve already seen, the tribunal members don’t like this or that, you musn’t say anything that they think is a waste of their time etc, etc!
And yes it’s true, employers can be told to take you back but it is very unusual and not compulsary and the compensation is now derisory because they don’t want employers (even if they lose) to feel that they are being picked on by government and being told how to run their business!
At my age (elderley according to another recent thread!!) I think I probably will never work again now because of the hassle of claiming JSA and then not and then claiming again after doing casual work, and all by interfering busy bodies that run or think they run this horrible and miserable country!
That says it all and that’s before Cam and Clegg have even got started.
. 
Parks up an hour away from the depot because he will not do 7
