Fixed term contracts - back to employment trap

Sheeptrend32

It is another classical example where in the name of recession and cost cutting measures , the employees had to pay the price but not the management who takes heavy bonuses as usual.

First no pay rise, then benefits like pension, health care gone out of the window and now fixed term contracts wow! we are really heading into the right direction....

Anxiety, stress, mental and psychological disorders,heart ailments, increasing medical bills,work overload,dirty politics at workplace,soul destroying reviews,workplace bullying, separation from family are the dire consequences arising out of the current contractual job structure and our inability to stand as a group.

If only we had come together and resisted rolling over of fixed term contracts more than six months except certain specialized jobs where you need a bit more time to perform the job at a competent level, the frustrations, anxiety,sleepless nights that so many people are going through would not have arisen in the first place.

Human beings being short sighted as we are jump at the first sign of hope which in most cases is an illusion and we forget to weigh up the dire consequences of our action in the long term.

Organisations determine the contracts and the wages largely from the local pool of human resources.

Some research into the current job market and one can easily see that in jobs like administration, sales, customer services, retail, hotel industry, it is easy to find a lot of people who are willing to work on any contract just to get out of the dole.

Many people do it with the intention of gaining experience and get back in the the employment status which is fair enough but they fail to realize that it has serious unintended consequences, as inevitably creates a new trend for the corporations to exploit.

They have a huge number of applicants to choose from and thus the trend reinforces itself shaping the reality across a wide variety of sectors.

We need to seriously consider our decisions based on short term benefits, otherwise it will have far reaching implications on our society.

"Remember what action we take today will shape our tomorrow".

Geniass

Employment trap?

Are you referring to the almost impossible situation employers can find themselves in when employees become almost unsackable after two years employment. I hear ya.

Icepick

So you want the freedom of choice for yourself but not for others?

Uncle Ben

Geniass wrote: »

Employment trap?

Are you referring to the almost impossible situation employers can find themselves in when employees become almost unsackable after two years employment. I hear ya.

There is no problem sacking people after two years. It just has to be warranted and justified.Perhaps thats the impossible situation some employers find themselves in.

Manach

One can rely on the company HR to come up with ways around the post probation period rules based on the dozens of pages in a typical employment contract.

Geniass

Uncle Ben wrote: »

There is no problem sacking people after two years. It just has to be warranted and justified.Perhaps thats the impossible situation some employers find themselves in.

No problem hugely underestimates the procedures required. I refer you to many EAT cases where some ridiculous awards to, for example, thieving employees just because I's weren't dotted and t's crossed.

It is even more precarious for the smaller employers.

No problem it certainly is not.

Geniass

Manach wrote: »

One can rely on the company HR to come up with ways around the post probation period rules based on the dozens of pages in a typical employment contract.

A probation period less than a year is meaningless anyway.

Uncle Ben

Geniass wrote: »

No problem hugely underestimates the procedures required. I refer you to many EAT cases where some ridiculous awards to, for example, thieving employees just because I's weren't dotted and t's crossed.

It is even more precarious for the smaller employers.

No problem it certainly is not.

It's up to people in positions of authority to ensure that all their i's and T's are correctly dotted and crossed. There still is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty and it's up to employers to adhere to it. If there are thieving bastards operating surely it's in one's own self interest to make sure ye get rid of them correctly.

Icepick

Uncle Ben wrote: »

It's up to people in positions of authority to ensure that all their i's and T's are correctly dotted and crossed. There still is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty and it's up to employers to adhere to it. If there are thieving bastards operating surely it's in one's own self interest to make sure ye get rid of them correctly.

"correctly" according to whatever current bureaucratic understanding of that word is

Geniass

Uncle Ben wrote: »

It's up to people in positions of authority to ensure that all their i's and T's are correctly dotted and crossed. There still is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty and it's up to employers to adhere to it. If there are thieving bastards operating surely it's in one's own self interest to make sure ye get rid of them correctly.

And you think the likes of a mom and pop organisation are going to be up to speed with with what is required under current law when even big companies make a mess of it.

It's such that EVEN a known thief cannot be sacked for that alone. They have to be given another chance, basically told that stealing is wrong and that their previous theft is on file.

That's really reassuring.

Uncle Ben

Geniass wrote: »

And you think the likes of a mom and pop organisation are going to be up to speed with with what is required under current law when even big companies make a mess of it.

It's such that EVEN a known thief cannot be sacked for that alone. They have to be given another chance, basically told that stealing is wrong and that their previous theft is on file.

That's really reassuring.

I'm not condoning the system. The point I made is that IF employers wish to sack employees they should ensure that they are doing so correctly.
And as for 'mam & pop' organisations, if they are in business they should be up to speed with what is required under current law. Would that excuse be acceptable for Revenue?

Geniass

Uncle Ben wrote: »

I'm not condoning the system. The point I made is that IF employers wish to sack employees they should ensure that they are doing so correctly.
And as for 'mam & pop' organisations, if they are in business they should be up to speed with what is required under current law. Would that excuse be acceptable for Revenue?

They should be up to speed with all laws and tax codes. I'm saying it's understandable if they are not. Whereas even a corrupt and incompetent employee will be protected by the same laws that large organisations spend many thousands trying to stay on the right side.

I'm pointing this out in a thread that highlights the wariness of employers.

Uncle Ben

Geniass wrote: »

They should be up to speed with all laws and tax codes. I'm saying it's understandable if they are not. Whereas even a corrupt and incompetent employee will be protected by the same laws that large organisations spend many thousands trying to stay on the right side.

I'm pointing this out in a thread that highlights the wariness of employers.

I agree .