Forum Topic

What price fairness?

As of today it will cost you £1200 to take your employer to an Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal or discrimination. The government has trotted out its normal B/S about the cost not being fair to the taxpayer. Well neither is footing the bill for the private school fees of the offspring of the army's top brass fair, but I haven't heard anyone saying that that should stop too.

Vanessa Smith ● 4571d23 Comments

Lummy you don't see the word "Gosh" too often either!

Tony Wood ● 4570d

Gosh it is a rare forum that contains the word fora!

Chris Broadbent ● 4570d

Thanks Chris  I hadn't seen the Indepedent article,it's a very small narrowing of the gap and (cliche alert)one swallow doesn't make a summer,lets see next time round."And if they aren't manipulated they are interpreted or simply dismissed if we don't like the conclusions."Almost a perfect sentence but the "and quoted on Fora if we do agree with them" is missing.

Tony Wood ● 4570d

And if they aren't manipulated they are interpreted or simply dismissed if we don't like the conclusions.

Chris Broadbent ● 4570d

BTW that hospital needless to say had "good patient feedback".  It is also one of the 14 hospitals listed recently but has escaped from being one of the 11 under special measures - we don't know how of course.There's more info come out on hospitals today.  How statistics are come by is very important.  What information is collected and from where and how.  Figures are always being manipulated.

Philippa Bond ● 4570d

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thats-a-surprise-gap-between-britains-richest-and-poorest-now-smallest-for-a-generation-8701049.htmlhttp://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income/historical-data--1977-2011-12/summary--historical-data--1977-2011-12.html

Chris Broadbent ● 4570d

Chris  I can't find the website you mentioned,do you have a url please?  I did find plenty of others that seem to agree that the gap is much wider than it was in the past,one mentioned that it was very nearly back to that of Victorian times. Another mentioned that a couple earning low end wages would in 1983 have to save for 3 years to save for the deposit on a property and in 2013 would have to save for a whopping 23 years,presumably due to having no or very little disposable income.

Tony Wood ● 4570d

No nothing remotely like surveying patients to ask how they feel. The website will take you through the various metrics and detail the data sources.

Chris Broadbent ● 4571d

How is that measured?Is it like the surveys taken on hospital patients in their beds being asked how good they feel the treatment they are getting is?

Philippa Bond ● 4571d

I thought that the ONS had reported that the gap between the rich and poor was the lowest since 1986?

Chris Broadbent ● 4571d

I ain't sure where the minimum wage malarkey has actually helped to widen the gap between rich and poor.It also grew wider under Blair and Brown,despite their well intentioned but misguided efforts...they allowed many people to come here as cheap labour and imposed tuition fees on students to go to college rto learn god only knows what when a place in the workforce learning a trade or skill would have been better for many of them.

Keith Iddon ● 4571d

I did wonder why there's been so many programmes on the T.V. recently about workhouses - are they softening us up ready?

Vanessa Smith ● 4571d

Come on, let's face it - this government has no intention whatsoever of levelling any playing field.  They are making sure that they don't have to pay for anyone who is less well off.  The rich will be fine.  They are increasing the gap between rich and poor.  They are taking us back to Victorian times.

Philippa Bond ● 4571d

Rarely used though and in any event only any good if the individual had the funds to pay he costs.

Chris Broadbent ● 4571d

There was already provision for employers to recover costs from vexatious claimants whose claims never really had any chance of succeeding.  If this was their worry they could simply have increased the sanction that applies in such cases, but of course it wasn't.

Phil Andrews ● 4571d

The tribunal service notifies the claimant if they are going to accept the case. Many people will have to represent themselves or rely on a friend, whereas employers can wheel in the lawyers, not a level playing field. Acas is a good source of information but do not provide representation. I'd have had a lot more time for the government and their 'respect' for the law had they evened things up a bit. Let's face it in future be it a civil or criminal case only the well to do will have access to legal representation

Vanessa Smith ● 4571d

I'd say ...avoiding the costs AND embarrassment of a hearing.  Not everyone wants the publicity.

Philippa Bond ● 4571d

Who decides whether or not a claim is accepted - if as you say this weeds out the vexatious claims then it is even more concerning that out of every 10 cases heard the claimant is only successful in 1.

Chris Broadbent ● 4571d

Some claims are not accepted so anything that vexatious I don't think would see the light of day. Two big unions have indicated that they will provide the legal costs for their members, but you'd have to be a union member at the time of the problem, no good joining after the event, but great for TUs. You always get someone who is an idiot and you can't legislate for f*ckwits but I don't see that as an argument for doing away with something that has given ordinary workers some protection from unscrupulous employers, never more was it needed than now.

Vanessa Smith ● 4571d

Presumably individuals who are members of a union would still be able to bring a claim with any legal costs being settled by the union? Could this be an argument for joining a union?One of the problems that the employment tribunals faced was the ever increasing numbers of vexatious claims brought in the hope that employers would settle before the case was heard in order to avoid the costs of having to go to a hearing.

Chris Broadbent ● 4571d

On the other hand, if lots of chancers hadn't tried to sue their employers on the grounds that they had nothing to lose, there'd be no need for this charge.

Susan Kelly ● 4571d

What with this and the complete disaster of privatising the forensics service which has allowed rape and murder suspects off the hook. Not to mention the dreadful backlogs and cases that fail in court, all to 'save' a few bob. What price justice in this country? Some things are above value and that should be one of them.

Vanessa Smith ● 4571d

And of course, once you have lost your job the first thing you are going to have to think about is how you are going to survive financially until you are able to find more work.  Many people with a genuine grievance will now not be able to pursue the matter solely due to this new requirement.This change in the rules has been introduced purely to deter people who have been unfairly dismissed from seeking redress, and to make it easier for unscrupulous employers to dismiss employees arbitrarily without fear of repercussions.

Phil Andrews ● 4571d