Thursday, March 16, 2006

A hammer to smash a nut?

"Nat's bill is attack on the vulnerable;" [sic]

The reality of this, is that it is really a backlash against the employment tribunals which mean that the existing practice of putting probationary periods in contracts does not work. Too frequently: "Where a probationary period has been negotiated, it can be taken into account when looking at whether a dismissal is justified or not." [sic] this results in the dismissal being ruled unfair unless there has actually had to be disciplinary action taken during the probationary period. (As opposed to after this at which point even major discplinary breaches like theft can result in fines to the employer unless handled properly...)

Is this really about the vulnerable? I would say the point is it shouldn't be - certainly where I see these clauses actually used the most is in highly skilled positions where someone doesn't have a good grasp of whether a new employee will fit culturally or whether they actually have the skills for the job. The latter is rarely an issue in an unskilled position...

No comments: