Il lavoro abbandona la protezione dal primo giorno contro il licenziamento ingiusto nell’inversione di marcia
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2d7j350q1o
di Valcenia
Il lavoro abbandona la protezione dal primo giorno contro il licenziamento ingiusto nell’inversione di marcia
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2d7j350q1o
di Valcenia
26 commenti
Could they make it anymore clear they hate working people?
Labour’s manifesto ‘commitments’ were seemingly just a checklist of promises to break. There’s genuinely no promise Starmer will keep
This makes way more sense. The employee rights bill is still very robust. And full rights after 6 months is reasonable.
6 months makes sense. Much better than 2 years but also stops people turning up knowing they’re going to take the piss which could happen with day 1.
They’re keeping paternity and sick pay from day 1 which is probably more important.
>Ministers now plan to introduce the right after six months instead, following concerns from business groups.
>The government argued it was making the climbdown to stop its employment legislation being delayed in the House of Lords, where it has run into opposition.
>Other new day-one rights to sick pay and paternity leave will still go ahead, coming into effect in April 2026.
Tbh I was amazed that was even in the policy, this is way more sensible. If I was a sceptical man I’d say they only included it so they’d have something to surrender in negotiations.
They should never have put this in their manifesto. People with zero experience would have been unemployable.
I’m not labour and such I don’t care about their manifesto, however I do care that they tried to push something ridiculous like this through.
Whilst everyone hates u-turns, quite a sensible one. Probation period was going to be decided after the bill. 6 months is pretty fair position to be honest.
Day one protection from unfair dismissal would’ve had a massive impact on the employment tribunals.
This figure should protect anyone who has proven to be a suitable employee whilst also allowing businesses to get rid of those who don’t early on.
It was a stupid manifesto commitment in the first place, tying it in with the common probation period makes much more sense, but it is still a manifesto commitment that they’ve broken. Consecutive Governments need to stop promising so much if they have no intention of seeing them through.
The issue with this kind of legislation is that it’s a sticking plaster rather than an actual solution. A bit like all of the tax and spend stuff that only looks at first order effects (e.g. if we add x% to income tax, vs if we grow the economy x%).
In a vibrant employment market it would simply not be an issue to be sacked because you would turn around and get another job the next week. That is the goal to aim for, a less adversarial relationship.
I’m pro Labour and I’m honestly glad they made this change.
Day 1 protection was a stupid policy in the first place for both employers and employees.
As a young employee with no record you don’t want your employer scared that you’ll be a risky hire. 6 months is ample time to find out if someone is genuinely awful.
It would be great if you could find all these things out in interviews but they’re not perfect.
The ability to immediately bin someone who’s either unreliable, fkn useless or taking the piss should be an option for any business.
I am completely against this dilution. If someone is not qualified, doesn’t show up, behaves inappropriately and so on, then by all means – sack them for cause.
Why maintain a right for businesses to just let people go without having to demonstrate a clear wrongdoing? If someone “isn’t a great fit” work to fix that, people should be given a chance and treated with dignity. If people are demonstrably and provably bad, you can get the evidence of that in a day. If they aren’t doing anything bad, then why should they be let go?
Probably not a popular opinion but this is the correct call. Stops people getting job claiming disability then going on the sick at the employers expense.
1 day was idiotic to begin with. 6 months is a good amount of time for both employer and employee
There must be so very few scenarios where you can be hired and fired on your first day unfairly.
Given the sick pay and paternity leave, it’s probably a good balance to keep it to six months
I never thought I’d be this guy. But there’s a complete shit in my team of 4 at work and they can’t get rid of him because he knows all the tricks around avoiding dismissal. He’s making my life hard, I want him yeeted
Thank rebel peers in the House of Lords (and their children) that will never have these issues for watering down your future rights.
But, it is right to compromise and get the majority of the bill through rather than just driving the whole thing into the ground to prove a point.
Fine, at least it’s manageable. I feel for the people I’ve had before that needed more time to settle into things or grow a little into the role because we won’t be risking it and they’ll be out the door. People will need to adapt to warming up fast, decisions will be made around the 3-4 month mark.
Day one protection would tie up the Tribunals for years. Enough spurious and malicious claims about already
This seems like a reasonable middle ground but will continue to allow companies to do rushed hiring decisions, taking candidates off the market only to dismiss them a few days later.
I actually agree with this. Having had a ‘creep’ join my team. Made a great team/work environment really uncomfortable for 10 days before he quit for a ‘better job’. This was in a bank who does everything ‘by the book’, months long HR investigations, countless warnings etc. It would’ve been awful to have to put up with that before they could sack him.
Why are people ok with people being UNFAIRLY dismissed?
Where I work they sacked a girl who got a weekend job because she had the audacity to go to school instead of come to work on a weekday (she was 16). This is unfair dismissal as you can’t stop people going to compulsory education. Especially when during the advertising of the job you said it was for weekends
The heavily left wing biased BBC with a totally reasonable headline.
Sounds OK for obvious reasons. Let’s hope there is also protection from bullshit 6 months consecutive contracts.
6 months matches the probation period of most full-time roles, so this makes complete sense. Also short enough to discourage companies from paying to train up people they know they have no intention of keeping.