On the other hand, businesses are saying they are more likely to give someone a go, knowing that if the newbie doesn't work out, they can let him go without it costing the company a fortune.
Both arguments have merit, so it would seem a simple solution is in order. How about placing a cap, or a stepped penalty payment on the number of 90 day job terminations, relative to the size of the organisation and perhaps the industry?
So if a company is hiring then firing a high proportion of it's new hires, then perhaps they pay increasing amounts of redundancy. The redundancy fees might even be shared by all people fired to that point, over a moving 12 month period.
Any business churning through an excessive amount of new hires is either gaming the system or needs to improve their candidate screening process. Either way, the additional fees can send a signal for them to sort their act out, and ultimately, prohibit a serial hire/fire business from abusing the 90 day rule.
Or how about this - As long as an employer does not break any real laws, they can hire or fire whomever they like whenever they like.
ReplyDelete"...the additional fees can send a signal for them to sort their act out, and ultimately..."
ReplyDeleteThis is what is present in the legislation the 90 bill would replace. It forces people to sort their shit out. Employers aren't gods, they're human - just as flawed as everyone else. The debate has polarised now: Employers good, employees evil. Employees like to come to work to drive business owners out of business. That's their only purpose in life. They've been doing it for years. Surely they'll succeed soon?
The argument is that before the 90 day proposal it was Employees good, Employers evil. I mean really, has any politician grown past a 14 year old's mentality? Do they have any practical life experience in business at all? It makes me want to smack my head against a wall.
The only thing more irritating is the cliches in circulation, like "...it'll save employers a fortune..." What rubbish. Firing people costs money no matter how you do it: Whether you pay now in cash or later in less obvious but equally expensive ways, it makes no difference. Recruiting and retraining whoever you fired costs time and money and disrupts internal relationships. If you don't retrain, a spiral of clumsiness and uncohesive working environments begins. Union issues pale by comparison, because in business, people problems always effect profit.
Oh but it's only for the "bad" workers is that right? Just sift through the entire working population till someone is found who fits perfectly. Gee, that sounds cheap. Ought to save a fortune doing that. If you believe you can dispose of people for free, best you start blaming your employees for everything you do right now, so that you never find out the truth. It will be too much to bear.
Agree with both comments in substance.
ReplyDeleteThe cost of hiring is typically expensive and time consuming, and that alone will keep most interactions genuine, just as employees want to work hard, keep their job and be rewarded with pay rises reflecting their experience and capability.
The issue the unions are trying to raise is around a couple of industries where high turnover or staff mistreatment is much easier to effect, and they would promote those stories in order to stop what is quite a reasonable rule for most businesses.
I've addressed that one argument with my idea above. If the employers are reasonable, then this would be a provision that would not likely matter. If workers are reasonable, then this would assure them that being fired will not likely indicate a pattern of offending, and they just have to find an employer that they can work with.
And if unions are reasonable, they'll have to accept that the law change with this provision actually addresses their main fear.
ReplyDelete