# Under what terms would you accept at-will employment?



## Quartz (Feb 22, 2012)

The Tories would dearly love to introduce the at-will employment they have in America. And, to be fair, America's economy seems to be turning around rather faster than ours. The two are not necessarily related, of course, but at-will employment does give firms greater flexibility. Liam Fox appears to be flying another kite on this subject in the FT.

Assume that the Tories win an absolute majority at the next election and introduce at-will employment. Employees need to be protected from scummy bosses. What balance would you put on the introduction of at-will employment to the U.K.?

I'm thinking along the lines of an increase in *employers*' National Insurance to pay for increased unemployment benefit of 3 months at full pay after a year of employment (followed by standard unemployment benefits), 6 months after 2 years, and a year after 10 years. Plus statutory redundancy payments. And the minimum terms for things like constructive dismissal to be reduced to a year. How say you?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2012)

Quartz said:


> The Tories would dearly love to introduce the at-will employment they have in America. And, to be fair, America's economy seems to be turning around rather faster than ours. The two are not necessarily related, of course, but at-will employment does give firms greater flexibility. Liam Fox appears to be flying another kite on this subject in the FT.
> 
> Assume that the Tories win an absolute majority at the next election and introduce at-will employment. Employees need to be protected from scummy bosses. What balance would you put on the introduction of at-will employment to the U.K.?
> 
> I'm thinking along the lines of an increase in *employers*' National Insurance to pay for increased unemployment benefit of 3 months at full pay after a year of employment (followed by standard unemployment benefits), 6 months after 2 years, and a year after 10 years. Plus statutory redundancy payments. And the minimum terms for things like constructive dismissal to be reduced to a year. How say you?


I say get fucked.

(Not you)


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 22, 2012)

Isn't this sort of employment already provided for by agencies?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 22, 2012)

Quartz said:


> And the minimum terms for things like constructive dismissal to be reduced to a year. How say you?


 
It's a year at the moment (it got reduced from 2 years under the blair bunch) but the tories are (from April this year) putting it back up to 2 years, and require employees making a claim to pay a substantial up-front deposit to tribunal costs.  Because making it easier to sack people is good for the economy and will encourage employers to take people on, apparently.

(more here)



I'm inclined to go along with the "get fucked" school of thought to "at will" jobs, although as has also been said, that's more or less what you get with agency work, and the "zero hours" contracts that some employers offer.

One big problem people face with this sort of work is that the benefits system isn't flexible enough to cope with this, or the situation where someone might do a full week's work one week, 2 days the next, then a full week, then sod all the next week.  People understandably will be reluctant to take this sort of thing if they know that the minute they start work their benefits will stop, then face an unknown period getting anything following a lot of time and effort claiming when they are in the 'sod all' week


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2012)

Quartz said:


> The Tories would dearly love to introduce the at-will employment they have in America. And, to be fair, America's economy seems to be turning around rather faster than ours. The two are not necessarily related, of course, but at-will employment does give firms greater flexibility. Liam Fox appears to be flying another kite on this subject in the FT.


 
Just to emphasise that the two are unconnected - most employment in the US is not done on this basis (public or private) and the difference between UK and UK recovery (or lack of) is down to a series of trillion dollar stimulus packages in the former versus billions of pounds of cuts over here.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 22, 2012)

bi0boy said:


> Isn't this sort of employment already provided for by agencies?


So far as I can tell it's not that dissimilar no, and employees aren't protected from scummy bosses in the slightest.



Puddy_Tat said:


> One big problem people face with this sort of work is that the benefits system isn't flexible enough to cope with this, or the situation where someone might do a full week's work one week, 2 days the next, then a full week, then sod all the next week. People understandably will be reluctant to take this sort of thing if they know that the minute they start work their benefits will stop, then face an unknown period getting anything following a lot of time and effort claiming when they are in the 'sod all' week


 
This is already what most of us face. I've had about 5 1/2 weeks paid work since last February. If I get a job now it will be for ? time and at ? money. I can't apply for permanent as I'm going to uni next year, but when I was still applying for permanent work there basically wasn't any so I can't see that would make any difference. If I wasn't going to uni next year I would still be in the exact same position, as all the agencies agree that office work is totally dead atm.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 22, 2012)

This is basically what's happening where i work.......large company, doing very well thank you will now not take on contracted staff just 'bank' staff.............it's fucking shit for us (contracted staff) and them (bank staff)


----------



## jakethesnake (Feb 22, 2012)

bi0boy said:


> Isn't this sort of employment already provided for by agencies?


Pretty much. I haven't had to work for agencies for a number of years now (lucky me) but when I did I found that the wages used to get less with each passing year while, no doubt, their profits went up. It got to the point where even though I was working full-time, paying no rent (squatting) and minimal bills I still couldn't afford to eat properly let alone support dependents, save, pay into a pension etc. What frustrated me most was that the jobs I worked were often for the local council (parks dept, street-sweeping, bins) who were paying the agency scumbags twice what I was getting... In answer to the OP, I would accept 'at will employment' if it was socially useful, fairly paid and organised co-opperatively.


----------



## Spark (Feb 22, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Plus statutory redundancy payments. And the minimum terms for things like constructive dismissal to be reduced to a year. How say you?



Introducing "at-will" employment basically means getting rid of the notion of an unfair dismissal. The employer can just dismiss for any reason. Constructive dismissal is just a form of unfair dismissal claim so it just wouldn't exist if employers could dismiss at will.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 22, 2012)

Spark said:


> Introducing "at-will" employment basically means getting rid of the notion of an unfair dismissal. The employer can just dismiss for any reason. Constructive dismissal is just a form of unfair dismissal claim so it just wouldn't exist if employers could dismiss at will.


They already can, they do it by not having contracts over a year long even for directly employed people and so on.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2012)

Spark said:


> Introducing "at-will" employment basically means getting rid of the notion of an unfair dismissal. The employer can just dismiss for any reason. Constructive dismissal is just a form of unfair dismissal claim so it just wouldn't exist if employers could dismiss at will.


 
But only for for certain section of the workforce - those in the lowest paid, most unsafe etc jobs - it doesn't apply people covered by collective bargaining agreements (40%+ of the workforce) and formal contracts who tend to be better paid, assured work etc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2012)

Quartz said:


> The Tories would dearly love to introduce the at-will employment they have in America. And, to be fair, America's economy seems to be turning around rather faster than ours. The two are not necessarily related, of course, but at-will employment does give firms greater flexibility. Liam Fox appears to be flying another kite on this subject in the FT.
> 
> Assume that the Tories win an absolute majority at the next election and introduce at-will employment. Employees need to be protected from scummy bosses. What balance would you put on the introduction of at-will employment to the U.K.?
> 
> I'm thinking along the lines of an increase in *employers*' National Insurance to pay for increased unemployment benefit of 3 months at full pay after a year of employment (followed by standard unemployment benefits), 6 months after 2 years, and a year after 10 years. Plus statutory redundancy payments. And the minimum terms for things like constructive dismissal to be reduced to a year. How say you?


 
I say that even what you propose isn't anywhere near enough compensation for consigning vast chunks of the (currently) semi-secure workforce to precarity.
I'm also extremely wary of giving an inch on regulation, because we know that the Tories will let their sponsors take a mile.

Fuck 'em all.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 22, 2012)

Spark said:


> Introducing "at-will" employment basically means getting rid of the notion of an unfair dismissal. The employer can just dismiss for any reason. Constructive dismissal is just a form of unfair dismissal claim so it just wouldn't exist if employers could dismiss at will.


 
I disagree: there's a difference between your employer firing you - ordinary dismissal - and you leaving because your employer made conditions intolerable. Ordinarily, if you leave employment voluntarily, you're ineligible for unemployment benefit.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 22, 2012)

'When would you accept it' is a dodgy question IMO? It implies a reasonable balance of power of some sort, which doesn't exist. The answer is 'when it's the least shit option.' Same as people will accept poverty pay wages and the legislation against that is there for a good reason too.


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 22, 2012)

So how does this at will work with the idea of 'everyone should be buying their own place'? Who the heck is going to want to take on a mortgage, and who is going to give them out without some sort of secure employment??
Sorry, truly don't see this working as anything other than more in the pocket of the fat bastids at the top.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 22, 2012)

geminisnake said:


> So how does this at will work with the idea of 'everyone should be buying their own place'? Who the heck is going to want to take on a mortgage, and who is going to give them out without some sort of secure employment??


 
It clearly works in America.



> Sorry, truly don't see this working as anything other than more in the pocket of the fat bastids at the top.


 
That happens anyway. The question is how to safeguard the workers should it be introduced.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2012)

Quartz said:


> It clearly works in America.


 
No it doesn't because a) such at-will employment is not the dominant form of employment and b) did you not miss the recent financial crisis triggered in large part by people subject to these conditions being unable to pay their mortgages? or the consequent shocking rise in evictions homelessness and the rise of tent cities for the poor?


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 22, 2012)

Quartz said:


> It clearly works in America.


 
Aye, ok then, they just accepted a housing market crash. That hasn't and, I suspect, won't happen in the UK, which may imo be partly why they are recovering quicker than us.
They BIT the bullet and they JAILED bankers!!


----------



## Spark (Feb 22, 2012)

Quartz said:


> I disagree: there's a difference between your employer firing you - ordinary dismissal - and you leaving because your employer made conditions intolerable. Ordinarily, if you leave employment voluntarily, you're ineligible for unemployment benefit.



Arguing that you have been constructively dismissed is a precursor to an unfair dismissal claim. If a tribunal finds your employer's actions were so serious you had no option but to leave it will treat you as having been dismissed and then decide if that was unfair.  Without the ability to pursue unfair dismissal claims a constructive dismissal could occur but there would be no legal redress for the individual.

At present unfair dismissal legislation is the protection that prevents employers being able to dismiss at will. There are ways around it, eg short term contracts, agency, zero hours. Otherwise, across the board irrespective of collective bargaining, apparent job security an employer can dismiss anyone if they really wanted to. If you take away the right to claim unfair dismissal a permanent contract or union organised workplaces mean little.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2012)

geminisnake said:


> Aye, ok then, they just accepted a housing market crash. That hasn't and, I suspect, won't happen in the UK, which may imo be partly why they are recovering quicker than us.
> They BIT the bullet and they JAILED bankers!!


 
Did they?


----------



## moochedit (Feb 22, 2012)

bi0boy said:


> Isn't this sort of employment already provided for by agencies?


 
pretty much. when i worked for an agency in the 90's (for about 2 years at the same site so i was a "permanent temp") you got no holiday pay or sick pay if they didn't need you they sent you home for the day with no pay.
it did work both ways though as when i got a permanent job elsewhere, i didn't have to give notice, i just phoned and said i wasn't coming in anymore.

At the time i didn't know i was getting fucked over though as i'd never worked on a permanent job. I wouldn't want to go back to that now.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> But only for for certain section of the workforce - those in the lowest paid, most unsafe etc jobs - it doesn't apply people covered by collective bargaining agreements (40%+ of the workforce) and formal contracts who tend to be better paid, assured work etc.


We are already under those circumstances. Trust. 

Sacked for having flu and taking a day and a half off, sent home early several times in one week due to lack of work, lied to about length of contracts, pay, conditions, etc. And that's just since Christmas. Not like there are any jobs anyway, people count themselves lucky to get those jobs, even on shift patterns than mean one Sat/Sun weekend every two months, or working 6 days a week on nights for min wage as at least it's not workfare.

There is no argument to be had, a very large portion of the workforce could literally be no worse off than they are already.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2012)

I know this is the case already for lots of workers, my point though was this proposal would extend these conditions to other sectors of workers who currently have some measure of protection.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I know this is the case already for lots of workers, my point though was this proposal would extend these conditions to other sectors of workers who currently have some measure of protection.


You don't think they will manage that somehow anyway? 

Look at the number of rolling temporary contracts, for example.


----------



## Corax (Feb 22, 2012)

Is this the same thing as a "zero-hour contract"?

There's plenty of them in retail and catering already.


----------



## moochedit (Feb 22, 2012)

At the moment to employee "at will" you have to pay an agency as well, so, if they cut out the need to pay an agency, more employers could do this.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2012)

stuff_it said:
			
		

> You don't think they will manage that somehow anyway?
> 
> Look at the number of rolling temporary contracts, for example.



A rolling contract gives you a protection that you wouldn't have under at will employment. 

 What is your point here, that because some sections of the workforce already effectively suffer from the conditions that the proposal would impose then the proposal to extend those conditions to others should not be fought or opposed?


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> A rolling contract gives you a protection that you wouldn't have under at will employment.
> 
> What is your point here, that because some sections of the workforce already effectively suffer from the conditions that the proposal would impose then the proposal to extend those conditions to others should not be fought or opposed?


No, my point is that simply fighting the proposal is not enough. Either these conditions are acceptable or not (clearly not) - who or what sectors of the work force they apply to shouldn't matter, if it's unfair conditions then that's what it is and more should be done to prevent anyone being put in that position.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> No, my point is that simply fighting the proposal is not enough. Either these conditions are acceptable or not (clearly not) - who or what sectors of the work force they apply to shouldn't matter, if it's unfair conditions then that's what it is and more should be done to prevent anyone being put in that position.


How about this for a a mad idea then, proposals to deregulate labour markets along at-will employment line should be opposed and used as an opportunity to fight against the conditions that it would bring about where they already exist. What on earth do you think i'm arguing for here?

And of course it  matters what sectors of the workforce the new proposals will effect - at least if you're going to be able to convincing demonstrate that a) the proposals will lead to to an extension of intolerable conditions b) that they will almost wholly fall on those sections in the lowest paid 'precarious' work and c) that this is a reason for opposing them for those who already have to deal with them.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How about this for a a mad idea then, proposals to deregulate labour markets along at-will employment line should be opposed and used as an opportunity to fight against the conditions that it would bring about where they already exist. What on earth do you think i'm arguing for here?
> 
> And of course it matters what sectors of the workforce the new proposals will effect - at least if you're going to be able to convincing demonstrate that a) the proposals will lead to to an extension of intolerable conditions b) that they will almost wholly fall on those sections in the lowest paid 'precarious' work and c) that this is a reason for opposing them for those who already have to deal with them.


The people in the lowest paid most precarious jobs are _already in those conditions._

Apart from that this all sounds reasonable. Once employers can directly employ people on those conditions then it's going to be even more a race to the bottom. At least some of the agencies would be screwed... 

There isn't any attempt to, for example, limit the number of temporary employees a company can have - I've had plenty of jobs where out of a 300 strong 'workforce' there are only 10 permanent employees and three of them drive an Audi or Jag; and we all know that 'flexible' has already been reinterpreted to mean 'happy to work 6 days a week on nights for min wage and no weekends' from 'might come in half a day on Saturday sometimes'.

We don't need some campaign against at-will employment, we need a massive backlash as well as some attempt to organise those who are already suffering - difficult as they will just get replaced with some other poor desperate sap the second they try any sort of industrial action. Even a general strike would have far less effect than back in the day with the way things are set up. What are you going to do if your kids need shoes and you're not in the union as you don't know where you'll be working next week if at all.

Fuck knows what will happen but verbosity and union campaigns (even if there were more of it) is not going to be enough to more than scratch the surface.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2012)

Of course a great many of them are in that position and part of the reason why they're in that position is because of the ease with which they can be dispensed with ( indispensable when they want a day off, expendable at all other times) - i.e those conditions help _produce_ that relative poverty. So the _extension_ of those poverty-producing conditions to other sectors of the workforce is something that _needs_ to be emphasised - not ignored because some people already suffer from them - that should be the central point at which to attack any such proposals, and the key to connecting the different sections of the workforce together along a common axis of interest, not retreat into competitive poverty chauvinism.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Of course a great many of them are in that position and part of the reason why they're in that position is because of the ease with which they can be dispensed with ( indispensable when they want a day off, expendable at all other times) - i.e those conditions help _produce_ that relative poverty. So the _extension_ of those poverty-producing conditions to other sectors of the workforce is something that _needs_ to be emphasised - not ignored because some people already suffer from them - that should be the central point at which to attack any such proposals, and the key to connecting the different sections of the workforce together along a common axis of interest, not retreat into competitive poverty chauvinism.


Where did I say it should be ignored. I said it should be damned well included and more should be done about it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2012)

The general gist i got from your posts was that this is all irrelevant, it's going to happen no matter what, and that emphasing that this represents anattempted extension of poverty into new sectors of the workforce who are currently protected is pointless, seeking common ground to fight back is pointless and doomed and that concentrating on those already in the proposed new conditions is all that can be done.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 23, 2012)

Quartz said:


> It clearly works in America.


 
For whom?  I seem to recall hundreds of thousands of foreclosures in 2008, some of which happened because "at-will" employment policies means no-one will sell the mortgagee payment protection insurance.
Myself, I really don't want to see employment in the UK edge any nearer peonage and day-labour than it already is. The only people who benefit from this are the bosses.




> That happens anyway. The question is how to safeguard the workers should it be introduced.


 
Well, that's just it - if it gets introduced, there are no safeguards left.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 23, 2012)

geminisnake said:


> Aye, ok then, they just accepted a housing market crash. That hasn't and, I suspect, won't happen in the UK...


 
structurally (w/r/t the economy) it *can't be allowed* to happen, hence the scarcity, for example, of new social housing for the last 15 or so years, and the lack of attempt to increase supply. Housing scarcity buoys up the housing market and keeps prices from destabilising too radically.


> ...which may imo be partly why they are recovering quicker than us.


 
Possibly.



> They BIT the bullet and they JAILED bankers!!


 
Well, they jailed a few of the most egregious offenders, and imposed a lot of fines, but not enough to teach anyone a lesson.


----------



## jusali (Feb 23, 2012)

Trouble is people keep accepting it. As long as people are willing to work for companies/agencies that offer no incentives, like holiday etc, then they will keep taking the piss.
They're (the companies) like petulant toddlers wanting it all their own way until they get a slap and then they back down and accept it. Unfortunately there's no-one willing to give them a slap because they're all so damn skint they'd suck satans cock for any amount of cash.


----------



## Pingu (Feb 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I say get fucked.
> 
> (Not you)


 

tbh i am with butchers on this.

and thats speaking as an employer.


----------

