Is it too hard to fire people in the UK?

[Digga]

An idle thought crossed my mind in the last week or so. We've heard, in evidence given in the harrowing Lucy Letby case, that managers were repeatedly warned but did not act. There is now also another high profile story with a similar tilt, regarding sexual misconduct within the police. A few weeks ago the story was of similar misconduct being prevalent in a certain fast food chain.

Is some of this failure to act down to the difficulty and fear of repercussions of dismissing workers? Is the process too complicated?

I'm not advocating that companies and organisations should be able to conduct themselves like Sir Alan Sugar on an Apprentice firing spree, but I wonder if things are not too heavily skewed in favour of the bad employee. No decent organisation would get rid of productive and useful workers, so it seems odd base legislation on that assumption.

There are huge issues in France, where getting rid of workers is even more fraught. It does not help the labour market. It definitely does not seem to help youth employment.

[Louis Balfour]

You perhaps should have split out your options for public and private sector.

The public sector seems to be unable to sack incompetent or dishonest staff more than private sector.

[Ultuous]

I think it's pretty fair in most cases... That's assuming one has a pragmatic HR policy/ department/ individuals supporting the case and keeping an eye on the law rather than being paranoid about it!

Edited by Ultuous on Friday 1st September 16:34

[Digga]

Louis Balfour said:

You perhaps should have split out your options for public and private sector.

The public sector seems to be unable to sack incompetent or dishonest staff more than private sector.

I don't really think that is a fair assumption.

There are examples in both public and private sector. Plenty.

[Dingu]

It appears to more often be incompetence that means they aren’t dismissed or it isn’t handled rather than onerous employee protections. McDonald’s could have easily handled it within current rules.

[anonymous-user]

Is it really that hard? I have worked at loads of places and received an email along the lines of "So and so is no longer with the business, they have left to explore new opportunities and we wish them every success in the future"

I have seen people called into the office, asked to join the boss in an office and then left five minutes later holding a white envelope. No idea if these people have been paid off well enough so that they just go away with no drama?

[deckster]

Joey Deacon said:

Is it really that hard? I have worked at loads of places and received an email along the lines of "So and so is no longer with the business, they have left to explore new opportunities and we wish them every success in the future"

I have seen people called into the office, asked to join the boss in an office and then left five minutes later holding a white envelope. No idea if these people have been paid off well enough so that they just go away with no drama?

In my place of work I am aware of people who have had uncomfortable conversations with HR that basically went - you can resign now, take three months pay with you, and we can part on good terms. Or we can start formal proceedings. I'm not aware of anybody that didn't take the first option.

[loafer123]

You are able to get rid of people, but most managers are afraid of doing so.

[anonymous-user]

deckster said:

In my place of work I am aware of people who have had uncomfortable conversations with HR that basically went - you can resign now, take three months pay with you, and we can part on good terms. Or we can start formal proceedings. I'm not aware of anybody that didn't take the first option.

I suspect that is what has happened at every company I have ever worked at when it is announced via company email that someone has left with no warning.

[XCP]

Management just turn a blind eye in the private sector in my experience.

[Digga]

IME, having been on fringes of HR and seen what goes on, getting rid of staff is fraught with legal pitfalls and far from simple or swift.

A mate got taken to a tribunal for getting rid of what turned out to be a serial problematic employee. (Subsequently fired from other jobs.) My mate won, but she still had to go through a fkload of trouble and stress.

[Jasandjules]

There are a number of ways an employee can be dismissed.

I should note as a rule a correct process must be followed, but that does not mean a dismissal can not follow.

Often it is easier to pay someone to leave rather than go through those processes however or often in my experience the choice is given to the person to leave or said process will be embarked upon, which could lead to dismissal.

[Eric Mc]

No.

[Digga]

So the consensus is, if I read this right, that employers are faced with two, stark choices, even if an employee is a demonstrable problem, pay them off, or suffer a very complex , tortuous and potentially damaging ‘official’ process?

Are we not tying ourselves in knots to avoid saying it should be easier and sinpler?

[Digga]

Eric Mc said:

No.

Do you have any examples of good employees dismissed without cause?

By this, I do not mean redundancy or restructuring of any sort.

[bobbo89]

Louis Balfour said:

You perhaps should have split out your options for public and private sector.

The public sector seems to be unable to sack incompetent or dishonest staff more than private sector.

I work in the public sector and I often wonder what I'd need to do to get the sack after seeing what others get away with!

[Eric Mc]

If you are going to fire someone, you must have good reasons for doing so.
For the first two years of employment, the reasons don’t have to be too stringent.

[Digga]

Eric Mc said:

If you are going to fire someone, you must have good reasons for doing so.
For the first two years of employment, the reasons don’t have to be too stringent.

First line I am aware of and agree with, the second line is incorrect. Also, the law fails to anticipate - works under a demonstrably false assumption - that good employees can never go bad.

Anyway, you’re an accountant, I had you down as a possible “costs walk in on two feet”.

[Dingu]

Digga said:

So the consensus is, if I read this right, that employers are faced with two, stark choices, even if an employee is a demonstrable problem, pay them off, or suffer a very complex , tortuous and potentially damaging ‘official’ process?

Are we not tying ourselves in knots to avoid saying it should be easier and sinpler?

I don’t think you have read it right.

[Digga]

Dingu said:

I don’t think you have read it right.

Well you have a point in terms of the vote, but not the anecdotals.