Martin Warren, head of client strategy, Eversheds
Employers don't sack employees unless there is a real reason. No employer wants the work or cost involved of replacing and retraining the sacked employee unless there is no other option. Where the employee has had contact with the employer's suppliers, customers and clients, relationships need to be rebuilt, and there is always the risk of customers and clients moving on if their favourite contact is no longer on the staff.
It is an urban myth, pedalled mainly by those who have never run businesses, that in the absence of restrictive employment laws rogue employers would hire and fire at will. It makes no economic, or moral, sense to do so. The government wants to raise the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from one year to two years. This is a sensible idea, but it's hardly revolutionary. The qualifying period used to be two years until Labour cut it to one year in 1999.
It should be noted that the government is not proposing to change the zero qualifying period for all forms of discrimination claims, meaning that these cases can be brought without qualifying service.
Increased flexibility is good for employees and UK plc. It will encourage employers to take on and develop staff. In a knowledge economy it is not correct to assert that an employer should be able to make up its mind after a probationary period of three or six months. Employees develop and learn at different speeds. Why force an employer into thinking it's safer to dismiss and rehire after 11 months when the employee, if given 18 months, would meet the right standards?
Those who doubt the proposition should look at employment growth in the flexible US market in the past decade and compare it with the smaller growth of more restrictive European economies.
Brendan Barber, general secretary, TUC
Ministers should avoid repeating the mistakes of the 1980s. When that government scaled back basic employment rights, unemployment rose to close to 3.5 million and left a generation of young people permanently scarred by joblessness. After modest improvements to employment protection legislation were made, employment rates soared and small businesses grew greatly. The last thing we need is the idea that making it easier for employers to sack staff and treat them unfairly will somehow create more jobs.
It's easy to see how cutting job protection—from unfair dismissal help and statutory sick pay to access to employment tribunals—will save money for businesses seeking to shed staff. But there is no evidence to show this will encourage them to create long-term job opportunities.Workers will pay a heavy price for these policies. Reducing protection against unfair dismissal will hit young people particularly hard as they are more likely to be newly employed and have little knowledge of the kind of treatment that they are entitled to expect from their employer.
Low-paid workers will also suffer, as they would be least able to afford tribunal fees. If employers want to avoid costly tribunals, the best way is to work with unions to resolve disputes within the workplace.
The TUC knows the government wants to create jobs. But with growth anaemic, business confidence down and the government silent on an employment strategy, the outlook is bleak. Cutting back employment rights will create a race to the bottom, with bad employers finding it easier to exploit workers and gaining an advantage over companies doing the right thing for their staff.
