That 90 day employment thing

[mashman]

Yes.

Recent studies have indicated that employee satisfaction is paramount to running a business effectively. Any employer whom does not understand this usually looses employees.
Companies that have high-turnover generally do not get good candidates applying.......and get bad names in the press.
They then shut down because losing employees = loosing customers.

All of this happens without someone threatening
"Oi, don't tread on the snake cobber!".

Unions are just another form of government. And like any form of government, I would believe them if they stated they were working for the benefit of others...........if they didn't rape said "others" of all their money.

Employee satisfaction is an entirely different thing. There are very few agencies that will help you to protect your position where you feel that you have been unfairly treated. Honest Unions, if they still exist, can help you navigate the minefield at a minimum of cost, without involving tribunals etc... kind of like job insurance. How can that be a bad thing other than it protects employees? If the employer is being a sick, then surely they should be able to be held to account in some form or another.

Companies that have high turn over generally treat their employees like numbers, not workers. They generally don't give a rats in regards to the employee and to that end don't honour the rights of the employees. To a certain extent that's unavoidable in a large organisation, unless of course your manager is a people focussed manager. Few seem to be these days, I certainly haven't met many in the 20+ years I've been working. Essentially if people can get away with X, they will... and even though that goes both ways, a bad employee generally affects the bad employee only, a bad employer affects all of their employees. One has very little "protection" in the workplace... I believe Unions are the insurance policy for employees, tis hardly surprising why the cunts of the business world would like to get rid of them.

[Brett]

My last two employment contracts have included a six month out clause.

It didn't bother me.

Exactly. If I'm good and creating value in the place I work, then why would the organisation not keep me? If I'm shit at my job...then I wouldn't want to work there anyway. Life's too short to be doing something you don't enjoy and aren't good at.

[FJRider]

Companies that have high turn over generally treat their employees like numbers, not workers. They generally don't give a rats in regards to the employee and to that end don't honour the rights of the employees. To a certain extent that's unavoidable in a large organisation, unless of course your manager is a people focussed manager. Few seem to be these days, I certainly haven't met many in the 20+ years I've been working. Essentially if people can get away with X, they will... and even though that goes both ways, a bad employee generally affects the bad employee only, a bad employer affects all of their employees. One has very little "protection" in the workplace... I believe Unions are the insurance policy for employees, tis hardly surprising why the cunts of the business world would like to get rid of them.

I always have a bit of a giggle when "rights" are mentioned in these situations ... especially when you speak of ... generally treat No mention of the percentage of those employee's that can't ... or wont do their job. Not showing up for work, not showing up for work in such a condition ... they can work. Or using their allowed number of sick days in the first month .... and putting the application for all their paid holidays in ... in their first three months.
Then there's the employee's that cant or wont follow the instructions of their employer .... and decide for themselves which part of the job they will do, and leave the bits they dont want to do ... for somebody else to do.

And some employee's take a job knowing they wont stay for long ... just untill they find the job they actually want to do (or one that pays better for doing less). Then bugger off giving no notice of their intention of leaving.

Funny ... how it's always the employer thats at fault ...

Generally speaking ... of course.

[mashman]

I always have a bit of a giggle when "rights" are mentioned in these situations ... especially when you speak of ... generally treat No mention of the percentage of those employee's that can't ... or wont do their job. Not showing up for work, not showing up for work in such a condition ... they can work. Or using their allowed number of sick days in the first month .... and putting the application for all their paid holidays in ... in their first three months.
Then there's the employee's that cant or wont follow the instructions of their employer .... and decide for themselves which part of the job they will do, and leave the bits they dont want to do ... for somebody else to do.

And some employee's take a job knowing they wont stay for long ... just untill they find the job they actually want to do (or one that pays better for doing less). Then bugger off giving no notice of their intention of leaving.

Funny ... how it's always the employer thats at fault ...

Generally speaking ... of course.

DOH... I completely forgot that the only way to accomplish what people want done without expending any efforts is to crack the nuts using a sledge hammer... who gives a shit about the rights of the individual.

And some employers take people on knowing that they can get rid of their staff after 90 days... and hassle free.

If the employer doesn't have the balls to deal with removing useless staff using the mechanisms available, then how does 90 days help? Ooooo you get 90 days of "work" out of the employee before they revert to type . The employer is responsible for hiring the right people. The onus is ENTIRELY on the employer, however that does not mean that they should be able to treat people how they would like to and abuse their rights. Don't like that fact, get the fuck out of business you do more damage than good.

You of all people Ahem, baaaaaaaa.

[FJRider]

The employer is responsible for hiring the right people. The onus is ENTIRELY on the employer, however that does not mean that they should be able to treat people how they would like to and abuse their rights. Don't like that fact, get the fuck out of business you do more damage than good.

You of all people Ahem, baaaaaaaa.

If said employers are acting within the laws and rules in place in the system ...

Are they bad ... or just unpopular.

There are more steps available, and in place already ... to protect the employee, than there are .... to protect the employer.

[mashman]

If said employers are acting within the laws and rules in place in the system ...

Are they bad ... or just unpopular.

There are more steps available, and in place already ... to protect the employee, than there are .... to protect the employer.

There are processes in place to protect both. If there is a valid reason for getting rid of the employee, can't afford them, crap at their job, gross misconduct (the really tricky one to prove) for example, then how is the employee "protected"? Surely their are entitled to their rights just as much as the employer? Swings and roundabouts seems to mean that the law is weighted in favour of the employee (according to your statement) and the poor employer is hard done by. Either way it all boils down to acceptable justification and always has. Changing the laws does nothing to change that, other than this 90 day debacle that weights things 100% towards the employer for 3 months .

[FJRider]

There are processes in place to protect both. If there is a valid reason for getting rid of the employee, can't afford them, crap at their job, gross misconduct (the really tricky one to prove) for example, then how is the employee "protected"? Surely their are entitled to their rights just as much as the employer? Swings and roundabouts seems to mean that the law is weighted in favour of the employee (according to your statement) and the poor employer is hard done by. Either way it all boils down to acceptable justification and always has. Changing the laws does nothing to change that, other than this 90 day debacle that weights things 100% towards the employer for 3 months .

With my observations of employment/dismissal procedures in place now ... they are ALREADY heavily weighted on the side of the employee.

It is a shit-fight to get rid of an employee ... if said employee wants to make an issue out of it.

[mashman]

With my observations of employment/dismissal procedures in place now ... they are ALREADY heavily weighted on the side of the employee.

It is a shit-fight to get rid of an employee ... if said employee wants to make an issdue out of it.

Fair enough/C'est la vie (guerre )... so what would make it better? other than allowing employers to shoot their employees, I mean fire them, without any reason at all?

[FJRider]

Fair enough/C'est la vie (guerre )... so what would make it better? other than allowing employers to shoot their employees, I mean fire them, without any reason at all?

How about a law preventing people applying for work they are not qualified for. AND ... be WILLING to accept a pay rate that reflects that ... if they do.

[mashman]

How about a law preventing people applying for work they are not qualified for. AND ... be WILLING to accept a pay rate that reflects that ... if they do.

er er er sounds a little familiar... you just described the current system didncha.

[gonzo_akl]

I do not see the 90 day law as having achieved anything and I would imagine that not being able to find a single person to comment on its usefulness backs that up to a degree.

Did you consider that they only surveyed the employers and not the employees?

The article says they canvassed 1300 employers and 36% participated

[mashman]

Did you consider that they only surveyed the employers and not the employees?

The article says they canvassed 1300 employers and 36% participated

Yup. A great one sided piece of research to highlight how successful the law change was. No doubt the 36% that were chosen to comment were hand picked to give positive results. Tin foil hat eh

[caspernz]

With my observations of employment/dismissal procedures in place now ... they are ALREADY heavily weighted on the side of the employee.

It is a shit-fight to get rid of an employee ... if said employee wants to make an issue out of it.

Yep, kinda hard to dump a permanent employee...

That said, an employer who has an unfair mindset can drop a new employee within the 90 day period much easier now.

In essence, if you're a good quality worker and you choose carefully where you go to work, the new rules don't matter much. If you're established in an industry and you know how most employers within it operate, no drama. New to an industry or an area and it becomes a case of both sides beware.

[FJRider]

... That said, an employer who has an unfair mindset can drop a new employee within the 90 day period much easier now.

Interestingly ... I've been around for a few years now. I have my share of employment seeking in various industrys. The 90 day (3 months) trial period has been around since Adam was a lad. You usually had to sign a form agreeing to it. Just because it was not in legislation ... gave a few that didn't get the thumbs up from the boss at the end of the trial period ... a reason to try and fight it. Seldom successfully I might add.
To stop the bull-shit charges of "Wrongful Dismissal" ... the trial period was introduced into legislation. Pretty much thanks to the idiot employee's that wasted so much Employment Tribunal time.

But as usual ... the mean nasty employers get the blame.

[caspernz]

But as usual ... the mean nasty employers get the blame.

Oh I reckon the new 90 day rule is a bit of a sledge hammer to crack a walnut kinda approach...

And while I don't have the outlook that 'mean nasty employers' is a common thing, the ones who want to take advantage of an employee are more empowered now. Have seen it first hand, and to be fair I've also seen plenty of useless employees remain in a job when the employer is unsure of whether to put them thru the process to ditch them...