Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Should workers have fewer rights? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Employment rights make workers lazy, this is an inconvenient truth of human nature.

    Guaranteeing workers jobs for life inevitably creates a culture of laziness and underperformance. Why work hard when it becomes more or less impossible for your boss to fire you? It won't happen, the incentive is to do as little as possible in return for your wage thus maximising personal utility. To get the best out of workers we need to keep them scared, and make sure they understand they can be replaced at any time.

    Is it time to go further and implement an Alan Sugar style hire and fire culture?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Employment rights make workers lazy, this is an inconvenient truth of human nature.

    Guaranteeing workers jobs for life inevitably creates a culture of laziness and underperformance. Why work hard when it becomes more or less impossible for your boss to fire you? It won't happen, the incentive is to do as little as possible in return for your wage thus maximising personal utility. To get the best out of workers we need to keep them scared then and make them understand they can be replaced at any time.

    Is it time to go further and implement an Alan Sugar style hire and fir culture?
    No.

    1. We do not have jobs for life anyway

    2. Contrary to right wing press reports, it is not especially difficult to get rid of someone as it stands.

    3. Job security is one if the biggest factors affecting consumer confidence. Remove it and there will be a wider (negative) economic effect.

    4. The only ones who benefit from such a culture are business owners.

    5. It took 150 years of campaigns and moral development to get to this stage. Let's not undo that without actually thinking it through first.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    No.

    1. We do not have jobs for life anyway

    2. Contrary to right wing press reports, it is not especially difficult to get rid of someone as it stands.

    3. Job security is one if the biggest factors affecting consumer confidence. Remove it and there will be a wider (negative) economic effect.

    4. The only ones who benefit from such a culture are business owners.

    5. It took 150 years of campaigns and moral development to get to this stage. Let's not undo that without actually thinking it through first.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    1) Not so much in the private sector anymore but public sector workers still these rights, and look at the state the public sector is in. There have been incidents of NHS patients literally dying of thirst because the nursing staff couldn't be bothered to go and get a jug of water. These sorts of practices would be obliterated overnight if nurses knew that needless deaths on their ward would have consequences.

    2) I know. We owe Margaret Thatcher a debt of gratitude for that one.

    3) This is a fair point, but I believe there are better ways of ensuring consumer confience without shackling employees to employers.

    4) And the consumer, and the shareholder, and the worker if it makes the difference between a company going into administration or not. Oh, and the state as they'll collect more taxes from productive enterprises than unproductive ones.

    5) As you say it's already happened, and this could be the perfect time to implement such reforms as the economy needs a real shot in the arm.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Adequate protection should be in place for workers so they cannot be sacked without a good reason I think, (e.g. stealing etc), in both the public and private sector. Honestly i don't know what more there should be to it other than that - treat workers fairly essentially, but allow employers to get rid of them when it is appropriate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    1. We do not have jobs for life anyway
    They do at the BBC. I wonder if the Alans (Hansen, Shearer, Lineker and Lawrenson) will be presenting Match of the Day from hospital beds in their 90s. And I agree with Chefdave when he says that this extends throughout the public sector.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Or, how about a total restructure?

    Yes, that is the nature of today's man. Why? Because we live under an economic system where an employer's single driving force is the profit motive.

    What if the workers' productivity directly affected their earnings? What if businesses and organisations weren't run by the rich, for the rich?

    If the workers had an equal say, and equal pay, would productivity increase? Yes.

    I'm talking of course of cooperatives. The business model that shuns the perfectly acceptable Western slave-labour system that lines the pockets of the rich.

    With the cooperative system in mind, no employee would have more or fewer rights than any other, including management. Job security would be a direct result of how hard you as an individual, and the cooperative as a whole performs.

    To anybody employed by a large company run under the 'traditional' Capitalist system, I ask you: Do you care about your job? In the sense of, could you walk away from it, should another suitable position elsewhere become available? (Ignoring of course the fact you'd be fighting 50+ people for the position)

    My point being that employees, to a degree, don't care. Of course some people love their job. And if you do, fantastic!

    But who wouldn't like an equal say in the running of the business? Take the bonuses your CEOs and Executives walk away with, and split them between the foot soldiers who bring in that money.

    This makes every man a business owner.

    Business owners care! Are you going to sack your job off if it means a fall in profits, if it directly affects you? Unlikely, but possible. Is your colleague going to let you get away with jeopardising his pay? No. And if everyone has equal rights and say, that slacker would be weeded out.

    Socialism, and the cooperative system, is a structure that can help to increase morale, pay, productivity, and job security. At what cost? Your fear-monger boss is now earning the same as you, with nothing to threaten you with.


    If I delved slightly off topic in places, I apologise, but I believe it to be the only cure for a crippling illness beyond the symptoms of a deficit of workers rights and job security.


    Lou.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tjf8)
    They do at the BBC. I wonder if the Alans (Hansen, Shearer, Lineker and Lawrenson) will be presenting Match of the Day from hospital beds in their 90s. And I agree with Chefdave when he says that this extends throughout the public sector.
    This is a poor comparison. In any case, the Alans are probably performing 'well' enough to continue in the role.

    I don't think public sector workers have 'jobs for life' anymore to be honest.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    1) Not so much in the private sector anymore but public sector workers still these rights, and look at the state the public sector is in. There have been incidents of NHS patients literally dying of thirst because the nursing staff couldn't be bothered to go and get a jug of water. These sorts of practices would be obliterated overnight if nurses knew that needless deaths on their ward would have consequences.

    2) I know. We owe Margaret Thatcher a debt of gratitude for that one.

    3) This is a fair point, but I believe there are better ways of ensuring consumer confience without shackling employees to employers.

    4) And the consumer, and the shareholder, and the worker if it makes the difference between a company going into administration or not. Oh, and the state as they'll collect more taxes from productive enterprises than unproductive ones.

    5) As you say it's already happened, and this could be the perfect time to implement such reforms as the economy needs a real shot in the arm.
    1) how many incidents? And what are the circumstances? Was anyone held accountable? I bet they were. In any case, I'm not sure how this relates to 'jobs for life'.

    My gf is a nurse, and she is regularly in charge of a ward where there are 22 hugely dependent patients and just TWO nurses and a couple of support workers to cover the lot. I would suggest any deficiencies in care that come as a result of that are not the result of poor nursing care but rather very poor cost saving policies.

    In her words: "They are waiting for us to mess up and something terrible to happen before they change anything. In the long run this will save them money".

    In the meantime her and her colleagues are stretched very thinly and are constantly stressed about making errors through tiredness.

    2. I agree.

    3. Again, I agree. However, I do not think that, as it stands, employers are shackled to employees.

    4. I don't necessarily disagree, but shifting the balance if power in a relationship to the employer will disproportionately benefit them. The employee is disadvantaged UNLESS there is the scenario that they will lose out through redundancy.

    I suggest that we should avoid making the assumption that redundancy is inevitable in order to justify making these changes.

    5. I'm not closed to reform; I just don't really see a case for it at this point in time.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    This is a poor comparison. In any case, the Alans are probably performing 'well' enough to continue in the role.

    I don't think public sector workers have 'jobs for life' anymore to be honest.
    It's not, because (without wishing to go off-topic) they do a terrible job. Many journalists at the BBC get constant criticism from the public for their work online but no one pays any attention to this.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think there are a few things that need changing, for instance the laws around striking. It's mad that you cannot terminate someone's employment for striking! There is a purpose to class action, labour force action etc and it defeats that object and throws all the power into the hands of the unions when you tie the hands of the employer.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, we should see more jobs this way, at the moment most businesses find it easier to just move jobs out of the country because of the employment laws here.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by College_Dropout)
    Yes, we should see more jobs this way, at the moment most businesses find it easier to just move jobs out of the country because of the employment laws here.
    Examples?

    I don't see HSBC, Barclays, Tesco, Primark etc. all shutting down and moving to a different country.

    Firing is only really a problem in the public sector, and so there is scope for changing that. However, that problem doesn't really exist in the private sector. Let's not forget that an employer such as Tesco would quite easily take a £10k lawsuit to fire an unproductive lard (Even though that lard won't easily win the case most of the time)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Employment rights make workers lazy, this is an inconvenient truth of human nature.

    Guaranteeing workers jobs for life inevitably creates a culture of laziness and underperformance. Why work hard when it becomes more or less impossible for your boss to fire you? It won't happen, the incentive is to do as little as possible in return for your wage thus maximising personal utility. To get the best out of workers we need to keep them scared, and make sure they understand they can be replaced at any time.

    Is it time to go further and implement an Alan Sugar style hire and fire culture?
    We don't have jobs for life guaranteed. You don't know what you're on about.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tjf8)
    They do at the BBC. I wonder if the Alans (Hansen, Shearer, Lineker and Lawrenson) will be presenting Match of the Day from hospital beds in their 90s. And I agree with Chefdave when he says that this extends throughout the public sector.
    What employment laws differ between public and private sector?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    I think there are a few things that need changing, for instance the laws around striking. It's mad that you cannot terminate someone's employment for striking! There is a purpose to class action, labour force action etc and it defeats that object and throws all the power into the hands of the unions when you tie the hands of the employer.
    You can terminate someone's employment for striking. Unless the strike complies with strict legal requirements. I suggest you read up on the trade union and labour relations act.

    Why shouldn't employees have the right to fight for better working conditions?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by College_Dropout)
    Yes, we should see more jobs this way, at the moment most businesses find it easier to just move jobs out of the country because of the employment laws here.
    Which employment laws? Be specific.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaliack)
    Examples?

    I don't see HSBC, Barclays, Tesco, Primark etc. all shutting down and moving to a different country.

    Firing is only really a problem in the public sector, and so there is scope for changing that. However, that problem doesn't really exist in the private sector. Let's not forget that an employer such as Tesco would quite easily take a £10k lawsuit to fire an unproductive lard (Even though that lard won't easily win the case most of the time)
    What different laws apply to the public sector? Be specific.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    You can terminate someone's employment for striking. Unless the strike complies with strict legal requirements. I suggest you read up on the trade union and labour relations act.

    Why shouldn't employees have the right to fight for better working conditions?
    Even when it complies with 'regulations', an employer should still maintain the right to terminate them. That's the whole point of a strike, employees gamble on whether they have the upper hand, remove this and you see the situations we have seen over the last few years, countless strikes that appal the mind, take the whole BA situation for instance.

    They have the right to fight, but they shouldn't have the right to sucker punch their employer as they do now.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Bosses already know how to fire without actually doing any firing.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tjf8)
    It's not, because (without wishing to go off-topic) they do a terrible job. Many journalists at the BBC get constant criticism from the public for their work online but no one pays any attention to this.
    Why should they pay attention to a few dozen armchair critics? With respect, you do not set the parameters for their performance.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?

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

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