Last week, we reported on the controversial suggestion - set out in a leaked Government report - that the right to claim unfair dismissal should be replaced by new "Compensated No Fault Dismissals" in order to boost economic growth.
Today, the CIPD has rejected Beecroft's proposals, arguing that they distract from the real issue: the UK's "crisis of management and leadership skills."
The CIPD's Katerina Rüdiger says:
Today, the CIPD has rejected Beecroft's proposals, arguing that they distract from the real issue: the UK's "crisis of management and leadership skills."
The CIPD's Katerina Rüdiger says:
Headline grabbing proposals which call for making it easier to 'sack the slackers' are at risk of masking the real question we should be asking: why are so many UK workers still underperforming? The reason is not stringent employment legislation - indeed the UK has one of the most de-regulated labour markets across OECD countries - but a crisis of management and leadership skills. Firing underperforming workers does not address the root cause of this problem; the Government should instead focus on supporting employers to improve management capability. One third of the UK's workforce has managerial responsibilities so it's not difficult to see the potential for improved management and leadership capabilities to unlock productivity and address the problem of workplace performance in a way that works for everyone: employers, individuals and the UK economy.
So what is to be done to tackle the UK's "crisis of management and leadership skills?"
The CIPD has today published a new report - Good Management - A New (Old) Driver for Growth - setting out its recommendations on measures to - "help employers define what 'good management' looks like and encourage them to report on their investment in developing management capability."
Last week, the CIPD's John Philpott gave the following initial response to Beecroft's proposal that the right to claim unfair dismissal should be replaced by new "Compensated No Fault Dismissals" (See the Reactions to the proposals section of this post):
If you look at the evidence on unfair dismissal, I mean there isn't actually anything to suggest that watering down those rights would create any more jobs and indeed the job insecurity it would create would actually be bad for the economy and businesses. I think if you look at our productivity problem, it's down to poor investment, poor training and poor management.Luke Johnson on Compensated No Fault Dismissal proposals: "I cheered loudly"
Saturday's Financial Times included an article entitled How to sack slackers and end free lunches for layabouts by Luke Johnson of Risk Capital Partners. Johnson comes out strongly in favour of Beecroft's proposals. Johnson says:
I cheered loudly when I read that the British government plans to change the law so bosses can sack idlers. I have spoken to hundreds of entrepreneurs in recent years about obstacles to progress. Their biggest single complaint has been about the minefield of employment legislation. [...] I hope the Beecroft initiative represents an initial step in a long overdue revolution in attitudes. A new job in the private sector comes about because an entrepreneur believes another staff member will add value. Parliaments everywhere should boost every incentive to enable this to happen. Remove employment barriers and I am confident animal spirits will flow, inventiveness will surge and opportunities for gainful work will surely increase.Also in this article, Johnson alludes to survey data which he says prove that employment law considerations are preventing employers from creating new jobs. But unfortunately there are no details as to who undertook these surveys or what they found:
The balance of rights between employers and employees is one sided and should be adjusted. According to surveys, it acts as the greatest single disincentive to adding extra staff.This is as far as Johnson's reference to data to back up his viewpoint goes. For the most part, Johnson's adopts what Barrister Anya Palmer has named the "employers told us" approach, providing anecdotal references rather than hard evidence.
Compensated No Fault Dismissals >> Read more on Beecroft's proposals:
- Replace right to claim unfair dismissal with Compensated No Fault Dismissals, says leaked report commissioned by David Cameron The right to claim unfair dismissal should be replaced by new "Compensated No Fault Dismissals" in order to boost economic growth, a leaked report commissioned by David Cameron recommends. This is according to an article in the Daily Telegraph.
- Anna Birtwistle: Why Compensated No Fault Dismissals could cost employers dearly Solicitor Anna Birtwistle presents her own perspective on Beecroft's recommendations that unfair dismissals be replaced with Compensated No Fault Dismissals. She argues that these proposals - if enacted - could cost UK employers dearly.
- Beecroft update: Cameron kills Compensated Unfair Dismissal proposals David Cameron has rejected controversial proposals - set out in a leaked Government report - to replace the right to claim unfair dismissal with new "Compensated No Fault Dismissals" in order to boost economic growth, the Financial Times reports. However, it is reportedly still likely that "one or two" ideas from Beecroft's report could yet come to fruition. Indeed, Conservative MP Chris Grayling suggests that "we need to accelerate the work on employment law."
- Beecroft update: Nick Clegg vetoes Compensated No Fault Dismissal proposals Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has reportedly vetoed controversial proposals - set out in a leaked Government report - to replace the right to claim unfair dismissal with new "Compensated No Fault Dismissals" in order to boost economic growth. The Guardian reports that Clegg has intervened to block the recommendation for Compensated No Fault Dismissals to be introduced on the grounds that they would have - in the words of a "senior Whitehall source" - a "chilling effect" on the UK labour market. The source also dismisses the Beecroft report as "flimsy."
- Will the removal of employment rights see a rise in union membership? Writing on the Flip Chart Fairy Tales blog, Rick explores a potential unintended consequence of any decision to enact Beecroft's proposals: Could they drive UK workers back to trade unions? Rick argues that"it would be surprising if some workers, having been deprived of their employment rights, did not seek the protection of a trade union. Much of this will depend on the behaviour of employers. If, the day after the measure becomes law, there is a mass dismissal of all the 'dead wood' and 'slackers', it might be enough to throw a formerly compliant workforce into the arms of a trade union."
- Are unfair dismissal rules really holding employers back from creating new jobs in 2011? How likely is it that Beecroft's proposals, if enacted, would stimulate growth? And where is the statistical evidence to back up the report's claims that the current unfair dismissal rules are holding employers back from creating new jobs in 2011?
- Nick Clegg's "protected conversations" proposal: 15 reasons why this won't work By XpertHR's Stephen Simpson, writing on the Tribunal Watch blog.
| Tweet |
|
| Permalink | Email this |
