Turn on thread page Beta

B174 - Employment Act 2009 (Second Reading) watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prudy)
    IIRC an employer can fire someone for refusing to take a paycut. It is held to be some other substantial reason (SOSR) as a justification for dismissal. The CAQ has held that sound business judgements can be SOSR. What will be the effect of this bill on the massed jurisprudence on this subject if it is passed?

    Well it wouldn't have much of an effect in that regard - an employee on the nmw can't be fired for refusing to take a pay cut, as a pay cut for them isn't legal. This bill won't change that, a pay cut will still be illegal unless the employee says it is (effectively).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    ...
    One thing, why does the employer have to tell his employees someone has taken a pay cut?

    Also, directly or indirectly makes this a very complicated bill with a serious loop hole, what exactly is 'indirectly' this could be translated into so many ways.

    Further from this, the employer cannot tell his employees indirectly that the company needs people to use this clause... So how does he go about informing them them? He cant even make suggestive comments when talking about the companies finances/progress. It is soley down to the employee (who is either young or not outstandingly clever) to look hard at the complicated finances sheets given to them, which if dumbed down or explained to them the employer may 'indirectly' say the company needs to reduce wages.

    But also, if the company is in a bad situation (as you say the acts aims at these) and they have no option but to ask their employees to take a pay cut asap or they'll go into administration they are then fined upto 10% of their turnover, not profit so it could be a huge number. Turn over could be £200m and profit = loss of £15m, so a £20m fine puts them in further debts and leaves as many as this claims to save unemployed.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    One thing, why does the employer have to tell his employees someone has taken a pay cut?
    So that workers aren't put off from taking one because no one else might, also so that trade unions are aware of it happening whether or not the involved employee is a member, to stop rumours spreading and general ill-feeling amongst workers, and so that those employers who might have found a way to get around the measures in the bill are accountable.

    Also, directly or indirectly makes this a very complicated bill with a serious loop hole, what exactly is 'indirectly' this could be translated into so many ways.
    True. in this context it's either through supervisors (who aren't considered managers), through notices not aimed at a specific person and through veiled threats of dismissals. Perhaps "originating from the employer" in a slightly different wording would work better? (edit - revised in my next paragraph.

    Further from this, the employer cannot tell his employees indirectly that the company needs people to use this clause... So how does he go about informing them them? He cant even make suggestive comments when talking about the companies finances/progress. It is soley down to the employee (who is either young or not outstandingly clever) to look hard at the complicated finances sheets given to them, which if dumbed down or explained to them the employer may 'indirectly' say the company needs to reduce wages.

    But also, if the company is in a bad situation (as you say the acts aims at these) and they have no option but to ask their employees to take a pay cut asap or they'll go into administration they are then fined upto 10% of their turnover, not profit so it could be a huge number. Turn over could be £200m and profit = loss of £15m, so a £20m fine puts them in further debts and leaves as many as this claims to save unemployed.
    Again this is true. The employer can make wage cuts known though, either by those on the nmw or otherwise. It's a good point though, one has gone too far protecting workers making the bill impractical. I think then that we'd have to allow general requests through staff memos to all employees for wage cuts, but make individual requests to those on nmw strictly off limits. Would that work?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sohanshah)
    Get rid of the Trade Unions clause. I'm totally against it.

    Whats wrong with it?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Section 3 of this bill is the main reason why i am supporting it so strongly, I think it is criminal how key workers, firemen, doctors, police officers are able to simply walk out, these walk-outs could technically cost peoples lives, this price is unacceptably high. I really dont think a 2.5% pay increase is worth a persons life. I dont like strikes in the public sector because it costs not only money but also lives.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    How does change Section 1 change the law from present?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    How does change Section 1 change the law from present?
    Basically;
    An employee on £8 an hour can offer to take a pay cut. An employer can ask an employee to take a pay cut, but the employee doesn't have to agree(unless their contract legally requires them to). The employee can ask for a rise, and the employer can offer a rise.
    An employee on the nmw can't offer to take a pay cut. An employer can't ask for the employee to take a pay cut. Both can negotiate or offer a rise.
    The above changes to;

    An employee on the nmw can offer to take a pay cut. An employer can't ask for the employee to take a pay cut, and if they do they are liable for a massive fine. Both can negotiate an offer or a rise.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Cheers. I may well vote for this.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    Cheers. I may well vote for this.
    Why would you vote for this, when you voted against the libertarian minimum wage repeal?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Why would you vote for this, when you voted against the libertarian minimum wage repeal?
    Perhaps because this doesn't repeal the minimum wage? Or have you not read it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    They're not the same bill, though they have similar coverage.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I'd like to suggest something. Could 1.1 be amended to cover those who are paid above the minimum wage but have been approached by their employers to take a pay cut that would take them below it?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by davireland)
    Section 3 of this bill is the main reason why i am supporting it so strongly, I think it is criminal how key workers, firemen, doctors, police officers are able to simply walk out, these walk-outs could technically cost peoples lives, this price is unacceptably high. I really dont think a 2.5% pay increase is worth a persons life. I dont like strikes in the public sector because it costs not only money but also lives.
    They can't 'simply walk out'. They can strike, which, if you knew anything about labour laws at all, is not the same as 'simply walking out'. So stop peddling ********.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    They can't 'simply walk out'. They can strike, which, if you knew anything about labour laws at all, is not the same as 'simply walking out'. So stop peddling ********.
    While they can't "simply walk out", they can walk out after balloting and this can cost lives. Dave's point is valid even though his language isn't, though obviously it's an opinion whether this is an acceptable cost.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Am I the only one thinking that there's no point striking if it doesn't affect anyone?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Am I the only one thinking that there's no point striking if it doesn't affect anyone?
    Indeed. As with all elements of game theory, for something to be a credible threat (and thus a useful bargaining tool) it has to be both something people think you will do and something which harms the other side.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    They can't 'simply walk out'. They can strike, which, if you knew anything about labour laws at all, is not the same as 'simply walking out'. So stop peddling ********.
    I love the maturity of that post and the massive splitting of hairs.

    So you agree with me that certain strikes in the public sector does inevitably risk peoples safety?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In many ways, strikes in the public sector are different to strikes in the private. In the private sector, in most disputes, one can just walk out and get a similar or better job elsewhere. You simply can't do that in the public sector (you'd certainly never find a better pension... ^_^ )
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Providing my issues are corrected in the voting period, even though I still have some slight reservations, I will put my support behind this bill.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I'm sending this to cessation.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 21, 2009
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.