This thread contains comments to article "Government warned on employment law changes": http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2011/10/17/58044/government-warned-on-employment-law-changes.html.
What a load of pc BS from the HR and academic community. Where are the comments from employers. The only person who is being realistic in that article is Charles Logan.
I've yet to see any unequivocable evidence that productivity etc is a DIRECT result of flexible working arrangements aimed at women.
Can someone tell me how, in an environment of 2.5Million unemployed and growing, that attracting and retaining employees is an issue?
There isn't an advert I post that doesn't get an avalanche of responses.
Businesses succeed because they have good managers and good internal support and they manage their employees, finances and resources effectively. Not because of bits of employment legislation aimed at sectors of the employee base (especially legislation that is intrinsically divisive by favouring working arrangments for one or two particular groups).
I agree. The last paragraph in particular. Working as an HR Manager I'm trying to adopt a new approach of devoting more of my time to those employees who deserve it, and who usually fall below the radar as they are reliable, medium to high performing employees who always deliver and are low maintenance.
I believe it's these people who will move the economy forward. But they are generally left to their own devices whilst HR and managers spend increasing amounts of time dealing with poor performers (with a strong feeling of entitlement) and processes surrounding employment legislation. I'm not saying that the legislation isn't valid, but it should be aimed at areas where it is most needed.
Quite how this is done is the question, but take the AWR legislation. It's clearly necessary for businesses that employ extremely low paid workers via agencies and don't want to take any responsibility for those workers. But for a majority of businesses this isn't the case? We have teams of very well paid contractors who have absolutely no case for unfair treatment yet we've had to spend hours dealing with people trying to bump up the rate, reviewing and signing new agency agreements, completing endless comparator questionnaires that are absolutely meaningless in this situation yet take up so much time - leaving less time to work with the good managers leading good employees, encouraging good internal support and management - all the good stuff Sycorax is referring to.
We are a rare organisation in that we are recruiting quite actively at the moment, but we've had to put some of that recruitment on hold because we don't have the time to effectively deal with the applications. Also because of the extra and unnecessary paperwork associated with AWR we're reducing our contractor base - how can that be good for the economy?
I'm increasingly having to deal with employees adopting a stance of entitlement which is fuelled by the 'noise' around employment legislation. Increasingly via this forum there are postings from employees asking 'what are my rights', 'what is the law', 'what is the legal position' and mostly around basic principles of good company management that have never been questioned before? I know I've veered away from the point but to bring it back round - yes we do want to retain good people, of course we do, but those good people are the very employees I'm referring to above and those we stand most risk of losing.
I thought the idea of the AWR was to help agency workers gain equal rights. I worked as an agency worker for the same company for 18 months. I had little holidays, no sickness and worked my bloody socks off! I asked about entitlement to Public Holidays over Xmas and New Year and guess what my contract was terminated on 23rd December - Happy Christmas!!! Now they are lift to deal with the useless underperformer (that is when she is not off sick)!
© 2010 Reed Business Information Ltd.