Abolishing unfair dismissal will achieve nothing

A leaked report for the government by venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft claims that unfair dismissal law is holding back economic growth. The report says that employers should be given the right to dismiss underperforming employees without explanation.

This report forms part of the general noise about regulation holding back the economy. We don’t know yet whether Adrian Beecroft will present any evidence to demonstrate the impact of unfair dismissal laws on economic growth but he will have a tough job to do so. We already know that Britain has some of the least onerous employment laws in the developed world and that many of the countries with tougher regulations still manage to grow much faster than the UK.

Furthermore, we also know that the current law allows employers to dismiss lazy workers; it just obliges them to demonstrate that an employee is underperforming and give that person a chance to do something about it. The reason that “a proportion of employees work well below their capacity” is not because the law stops managers from tackling them; it’s because most managers don’t like confronting poor performance. Read the details of almost any employment tribunal case and you will see a story of problems allowed to fester, issues unchallenged and decisions fudged. Most cases that reach the courts are the result of something that wasn’t tackled when it should have been.

Cowardly managers (and I know, because I am one) would love to be able to leave a note on someone’s desk (or better still, send it to their home address) saying, “You’re sacked and I don’t have to tell you why. Here’s a cheque. Don’t come back.” But even Beecroft isn’t suggesting that. His proposed Compensated No Fault Dismissal still involves a hearing and a formal settlement. Cowardly managers would still have to look their workers in the eye and tell them they weren’t performing. Given that this is what most of them shy away from (sometimes for years) I wonder if Adrian Beecroft’s plan would make much difference.

It also doesn’t allow for the possibility that the manager might be at fault. Current disciplinary processes tend to smoke out bad managers who can’t set proper goals and monitor performance. Compensated No Fault Dismissal would allow a manager to simply blame the employee and recruit someone else. Perhaps, if a manager were to get to his fifth Compensated No Fault Dismissal, his bosses might twig that the problem lay elsewhere.

But the most glaring flaw in Beecroft’s proposal is this. He is not proposing to get rid of discrimination legislation. (He’s bold but he’s not that bold.) As any HR manager will tell you, plain old unfair dismissal claims are a doddle. The ones that send even the most sophisticated employers into a tailspin are the discrimination claims. Not only is the compensation potentially much higher but the law is more complex too. Discrimination claims also generate more media hype so there is a heightened fear of bad publicity.

Employees (and their lawyers) know this and, increasingly, those who are in a position to do so are lobbing in discrimination allegations alongside their unfair dismissal claims. Beecroft’s proposal will ensure that everyone does so. If you feel you have been unfairly treated and have no recourse to an employment tribunal that will be the logical thing to do.

One perverse effect of this might be that employers sack their underperforming white male staff while leaving female and minority underperformers in place. But do that too often and the white blokes will start putting in discrimination claims too. It’s a widely held myth that only women and ethnic/religious minority employees can claim under discrimination law. Abolish unfair dismissal and watch the discrimination claims rise.

Adrian Beecroft’s report is based on two flawed assumptions; that employment law is holding back economic growth (it isn’t) and that the law stops employers from sacking underperforming workers (it doesn’t). But even if the proposals we’ve seen so far were enacted, it would not reduce the headache associated with disciplinaries, grievances and tribunal cases. It might even make it worse.

I await the final report with interest but the early signs are not good. We need to encourage economic growth and, though it’s a separate issue, the employment law regime could probably do with a review too. If this is the best the government can do, it’s a pretty poor start.

Update: The leaked pages of the report are here and here. Beecroft advocates paying people under redundancy terms, though he doesn’t say whether this should be the statutory or employer scheme. (Some of these are contractual anyway.) In other words, it would be like paying someone off for redundancy when they were not really redundant. This would, of course, mean that it would still be no cheaper to get rid of all those lazy long-serving public sector employees that we keep hearing about.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Abolishing unfair dismissal will achieve nothing

  1. Pingback: Abolishing unfair dismissal will achieve nothing - Rick - Member Blogs - HR Blogs - HR Space from Personnel Today and Xpert HR

  2. Jim says:

    Its holding back employment though. I’d employ someone in my business if I knew I could get rid of them PDQ if it didn’t work out for whatever reason, or the work dried up to justify employing them.

    • Rick says:

      Jim, you’ve got a year to get rid of them, soon to be two years, before they can go to a tribunal. If the work dries up before two years you can sack them without any redundancy pay. You’ve therefore got a year to decide whether you like them and two years to decide whether there is enough ongoing work.

  3. I used to assume that governments commissioned reports like this in order to muster evidence for or against a course of action. I’m aware that sounds naive but why pay someone like this (or that guy who did the report that went on about the sexualisation of children) to collate uninformed opinion when you could just read the newspapers and get plenty of that?

  4. Paul says:

    I completely agree with you.

    Rather than change employment laws government should look at the red tape coming from HMRC, HSE, UKBA, CRB and others.

    Government agencies have effectively outsourced their roles to businesses in order to trim their own costs. It is this that takes management time away from growing the business and adds to administration and compliance costs.

    My point is not that these things shouldn’t be done but whether they should fall to organisations to do.

  5. Pingback: This is the localgov week that was « We Love Local Government

  6. Darlingtons says:

    The real problem with employment law at the moment is the Tribunal system – employees need to know that it is not a venue for taking a risk free punt.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s