Bye bye Starmer

[Swervin_Mervin]

Looking from the outside in its as if the majority of them have never worked outside of politics or integrated in society.

Sums it up nicely.

You can extend that to the civil service as well then, given that RR and other politicians are simply mouthpieces.

[mik]

2 years was terrible, but day 1 was unworkable. I think the proposal was day 1 protections but with a 9 month probation? Now it's 6 months for both, which to be fair makes a lot more sense from both parties. Some peoples CVs are a work of fiction and they make stuff up. This policy allows for that.

Yes there needs to be some period where on the job suitability is addressed without people threatening to bring legal redress if you let them go.

Obviously most labour backbenchers haven't dealt with recruiting and development of employees and have no idea about the practical realities. As you say, some people are economical with the truth on CVs or at interview, may be simply unsuited to the job even if qualified and/or vexatiously invoke employment law or allege discrimination as a first line defence, however unjustified.

All of that. It's extremely difficult to assess/uncover behavioral elements during an interview process.

And of course the unions are pleased at the shortening of probation periods and qualification for unfair dismissal. It is of course merely a fortunate by-product of improving employee rights that organisations whose entire existance is reliant on ongoing employer/employee conflict and distrust will see an increase in their own potential scope of involvement/activity.

[ZedLeg]

Maybe if we want Unions to be less aggressive, employers can try being less exploitative.

Meet in the middle a bit

[Beany]

Crazy talk!

[mik]

aka Works Councils

[V8Granite]

How do employers take the piss currently ?

I've had them be particularly strict with the rules and once had holiday planning messed with but mainly I've had good employers.

What can they do now within the rules which is so bad ?

Dave!