I read the Daily Mail every day. It’s worth it because in amongst the inaccurate, scaremongering bile, there’s quite often a wee gem which shows off the Liberal Democrat influence in the Coalition.
Today, it carries an interview with David Cameron in which he tells how these pesky Liberal Democrats have stopped him doing things like getting rid of human rights legislation, eroding people’s employment rights and stopping him introducing a tax break for married couples.
While some Liberal Democrats may worry about some elements of the Coalition’s plans to increase the qualifying period for employment tribunals 2 years, it could all have been so much worse if Vince Cable had not stood so firm, as the Guardian reported last year.
The increasing disquiet of the Tory right is another sign to me at least that we are doing something right. If the Conservatives were governing alone, these people would be calling the shots as the Tory Eurosceptic right did during John Major’s Government from 1992-97.
While we might not get things all our own way, we can be grateful that neither do the Conservatives. David Cameron knows that and we have to get that message across to our voters.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"The old savage England": D.H. Lawrence visits the Stiperstones
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Henry
Daniel Walker
David Raw
25 Comments
“While some Liberal Democrats may worry about some elements of the Coalition’s plans to increase the qualifying period for employment tribunals 2 years, it could all have been so much worse if Vince Cable had not stood so firm, as the Guardian reported last year. ”
It is statements just like that, that shows up the party for the complete failure that it has been in government for the country.
Furthermore, it shows just how much integrity the party has lost when it blatantly abandons it’s own values.
Liberal Democrats should not hail it a “success” that they tapered the change in Employment Laws to 2 years, as it could have been worse in a Tory Majority Government. They should have “opposed” the policy in it’s entirety and stopped it dead in it’s tracks.
I think when a party start s claiming triumphs over policies that are reducing employees rights in the work place and making it easier for employers to sack employee’s and neglect their responsibilities, then the party is more out of touch and lost than I feared
@Matt
It’s a COALITION GOVERNMENT. The tories didn’t win outright. Neither did the LibDems. That means compromises. Neither party gets everything it wants.
Unless of course you’d prefer Cameron to have gone to the country again already – almost certainly resulting in a rabid right-wing tory government – what do you think they’d be doing to employment laws without the LibDems to restrain them?
(for those of a certain age) – we are the Barbara Woodhouse choke chain – that keeps the rabid dog in check.
Pill boxes would have already been rebuilt on the White Cliffs at Dover, if some Tories had their way.
Stand firm everbody !! Don’t panic.. !! Don’t panic..!!
@Nonconformistradical
That is not the point.
The point is, Liberal Democrats are “attempting” to holler a triumph over a policy that is so far right wing, which is
A) a total contradictory to the parties beliefs ( I would assume)
and
B) Is so damaging to workers rights and sense of security (especially in times of austerity)
How does this government expect people to spend and get the economy moving and not save when they are in fear of their jobs is beyond me, even more so when they are making it easier for employers to fire them.
Liberal democrats whilst in this government have to take credit for “ALL” of the policies that are enacted, and that includes all the “FAR RIGHT” policies that most of this country disapproves of.
The government has insisted it is time for the country to grow up and take responsibility, well i would say It is also time for this party to grow up and start taking responsibility for its actions also.
No Matter what the drumming will be as consequence in future elections
Our judgement is that the Lib Dem team has played a blinder. You have to judge the overall package.
Nonconformistradical
The ‘we’ve have ended with a right wing tory government at a follow election’ theory is a fallacy used by many in the party to comfort themselves. Sure it might have happened but theres reason to think it wouldn’t have done. The tories couldn’t win a majority against a deeply unpopular government during economic crisis. They failed to gain a mandate under such open goal circumstances so why be confident they would have done so again? A more plausible theory is that labour would have got rid of brown and cast such an election as a straight labour-tory run off whereby the fptp system would have ensured many progressive voters deserted the lib dems to back labour. Either way the party couldn’t afford another election. The party went in to coalition to save themselves not to save the country.
The LibDems have achieved, in this Parliament, far more good things than in the previous 22 years of their existence. Well done!
Strange that we mustn’t believe the “inaccurate, scaremongering bile” except when itsupports our position.
There are lines that even David Cameron daren’t cross. However, when those even further to the right demand more, up pops a “Daily Mail” article saying “I’d give you everything you want, if it wasn’t for those LibDems”. Cameron treats the LibDems like a coat; he puts us ‘on and off’ as it suits him.
Simon – you have a pretty dim view of Lib Dem voters if you think they’d vote for Labour in droves … have you forgotten just how appalling the last government was?
On another note – I often use Major’s government as a good example of how FPTP does not produce ‘strong’ government. It also illustrates how every government is in reality a coalition – in this case with ‘the bastards’ wagging the mainstream dog, and reducing Major’s options to whether to bring in a cones hotline or not.
Matt – I think you are confusing Lib Dem policy with that of the various malingering trots who run what’s left of the UK trade union movement…
@sid
It may be a pretty dim view but i would point out two things
1. Its true labour were awful but they would have had new leadership and given a straight fight between labour and conservative i’d hazard a guess that many more (the so called progressive majority) would see labour rather than the tories as the lesser of two evils.
2. It seems that a significant number of voters did desert lib dem for labour at the last two rounds of election making the hypothesis seem quite plausible.
I’ve never argued fptp brings string government. I’m merely suggesting that an election 6 months after the hing parliament would have been seen as a run off to achieve majority.
matt
Liberal Democrats should not hail it a “success” that they tapered the change in Employment Laws to 2 years, as it could have been worse in a Tory Majority Government. They should have “opposed” the policy in it’s entirety and stopped it dead in it’s tracks.
Absolutely. This is a disastrous policy. Only someone who lives a blinkered and privileged existence remote from the lives of ordinary people could suppose it will be of benefit. Anyone who thinks the only reason people get sacked is because they are lazy really hasn’t a clue.
Here are some reason people might get sacked:
1) They discover inefficiencies and poor practice in the company they’ve just joined, but the bosses don’t like being shown up on these things.
2) They discover dangerous and/or illegal practices going on, and the bosses certainly don’t like anyone who blows the whistle on things like that.
3) The boss says “to get on in this company, you’ve got to go to bed with me”. The new employee refuses.
I have seen cases like this, and the result is that if one of these is the real reason someone is sacked but some trumped up reason was concocted to hide it, that person has NO RIGHTS if it is done in a year. Now it is proposed to give them no rights for two years. This is sickening.
The result for ordinary people is that they will be afraid to change job. Who wants to run the risk of giving up a safe job for what may be a better and higher paid job but with no employment rights for two years? I have experience ALREADY that in some skilled areas it is becoming difficult to recruit not because there is no-one with the required skills but because in the current economic climate those with the skills are reluctant to switch jobs because of the risks involved. It will increase this reluctance and thus make recruitment even more difficult if the period when you have no employment rights is extended to two years.
@ Matthew Huntbach
When I read your three examples I thought there was something fishy about them, they just didnt seem right. It didnt take me much of reading through the DWP’s website to find that 2 and 3 are absolutely untrue and I’m not quite sure about 1 I have a feeling if what you are describing happened in a genuine way then it would also be automatically unfair.
Number 1 for instance would classify as automatically unfair if after being ignored first time the employee put their advice/complaints through their trade union representative (if someone knows employment law better than me, I.e. they know it, i’d be interested to see the case on number 1, in my opinion Matthews scenario sounds like an annoying employee…..)
Number 2 would classify as an automatically unfair dismisall and so there would be no length of service minimum before you could go to an employment tribunal.
Number 3 would classify as an automatic dismissal and so there would be no length of service minimum before you could go to an employment tribunal.
Have you ever been in a position where you have had to sack people because the general sound coming from recruitors is the opposite of what you are saying, they are not saying ‘no government please don’t reduce the regulations around firing because it makes it harder to hire’ they are saying that the difficulty in firing people in the UK means that bosses are much less keen to take people on unless they are absolutely certain of them.
Lets be clear with really tough employment legislation its not middle class workers who lose out and its not those in the working class who are really determined and on a path of social mobility. No its those low paid workers who are a little bit of a risk to take on in a higher level job and so the boss is worried if it doesnt work out he’ll find it very hard to fire them and his company of 15 workers cant afford a long drawn out legal battle.
Its also those people without jobs, who have been out of work for perhaps months, the local mechanics shop is thinking about taking one of them one; hes got a bit of work in and his 5 staff arent coping but hiring people who’ve been out of work is always risky and again hes worried he cant take on someone if they are going to be very expensive to fire if it doesnt work out.
There are important debates to be had about employment law and its a really difficult area to draw the line in the right place but getting your facts wrong and claiming employers think it will make it harder to recruit isn’t engaging in a genuine debate.
I think 12 months is too long for people to get worker rights and some form of protection never mind 2 years. My son lost his job last week he was replaced by the mother of the manager of the local Tesco Express it was only a bit part job anyway cleaning or 3 hours a day but he was pretty depressed that after getting up 5am every morning 7 days a week for 3 months solid and working his hardest he was replaced in the manner he was. Basically he turns up in the morning to find some woman already there cleaning he rang his boss who told him to work with her today and he would ring him later. During that days work the woman (who could not speak a single word of English as she had just arrived from Poland) turned out to be the mother of the Tesco branch manager, she did not clean to as high a standard she had no ability to communicate with anyone in the store apart from her daughter and it was in Polish, yet the call later in the day to my son was to tell him he had been fired and replaced with this woman. He is dissapointed and thinks is it even worth trying when he gets replaced in such a poor manner with someone who cant even speak English. I think moves to make employment law 2 years are a joke people need protecting in their jobs earlier not later.
Everywhere I’ve ever worked has had a 3-month or 6-month probation period, during which both sides have the option of getting out quickly if things aren’t working out. It is simply not credible to suggest that an employer seriously needs two years to figure out if someone is cutting it.
One of my problems, in serving, for over a decade on Employment Tribunals, is that like my lay colleagues from both the “employer” side and ” employee” side, I see the unintentional outcomes of instant solutions. The 2 year rule has
already started the gentle trend in the low paid areas of employment, of getting people out now and replacing them with new staff. Such staff will be hostage for 2 years whilst they accumulate rights of employment protection.
Another is the decline of represented claimants, and the growth of litigants in person, where cases will take longer
as we struggle to help them through a process for which they have no experience or support.
What was actually needed, was to listen to the people in the system, not the HMCTS staffers who attended some
sample cases, as observers, and found the fact that employment tribunals need more than an hour to deal with a
case as a surprise. They thought it was like a magistrates court.
Thank Vince for trying to keep reason and compassion in the system for dispensing justice.
Yesterday’s Man
Joseph Donnelly
When I read your three examples I thought there was something fishy about them, they just didnt seem right. It didnt take me much of reading through the DWP’s website to find that 2 and 3 are absolutely untrue and I’m not quite sure about 1 I have a feeling if what you are describing happened in a genuine way then it would also be automatically unfair
Er, obviously the STATED reasons for sacking the person were not 1), 2) or 3). But if you want to get rid of someone for REAL reasons 1), 2) or 3), it’s pretty easy to make up something else when that person, thanks to having been employed for less than a year, has no legal right of protection against UNFAIR dismissal. See that word “unfair”. That is what we are talking about, no legal rights against being treated unfairly. So, what’s the point in having all these equal opportunities in appointment if once someone’s in you can treat them how you like, and sack them, no reason given, so long as they are with you less than a year – now to be two years? Joseph, do you think it looks good for a Liberal Democrat to be defending unfairness, and wanting to extend unfair treatment? Particularly when it may be someone giving up a safe and secure and well-paid job for what looks like an interesting opportunity, boss takes against that person for some reason, doesn’t like the colour of their face or whatever, person is thrown out because it’s less than a year, who will ever employ that person again when s/he’s been thrown out of the last job and can’t get a good reference?
@Matthew Huntbach
But the point is that if an employee gets sacked for one of those 3 reasons then they can still go to an employment tribunal even if they’ve only been employed for a couple of months.
If your argument is that the boss will of course not write in his notes on the sacking that it was because he slept with the woman….then yes I agree….but presumably the women knows he slept with her and has an idea its for that and so if she has evidence she can take it to an employment tribunal and they can decide.
Extending the limit from 1 year to 2 years has absolutely no effect on this process, if the employer does an automatically unfair dismissal they will nearly always attempt to make it look like a fair dismissal; if the limit is one year or two years this means EXACTLY the same consequences for the employee and how they go about solving it, the limit has absolutely no effect on the problem.
Do I think it looks good for the liberal democrats to be defending unfair treatment and unfairness – that really is a bit of ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ question. Obviously as a Liberal Democrat my aim in politics is not to make things unfair.
HOWEVER, I am deeply troubled by the levels of youth unemployment we are seeing in this country and the levels of employment in general. So while you think you are standing up for the worker who is in their job I think I am standing up for the millions of people who are trying to get jobs. Difficulties in sacking people in the relatively short term period after hiring them has two effects:
1) it benefits those already in a job who are below parr for the job when their are those unemployed who are striving really hard to get the job and in a FAIR one on one comparison would get it.
2) it makes employers less keen to hire new staff, and as I said this really doesn’t effect middle class people or young people destined to do well already. It effects those who have been unemployed for a while, it effects those with less qualifications and it effects those who have been in an out of work. Whether you like it or not these people are seen as more of a risk as a manager to hire, so if managers are worried that a risky 50:50 decision on hiring someone won’t work out they are much less likely to hire them if it is then tricky to get rid of them.
Theres a problem here that we are seeing the word manager and employer as some big evil corporate executive at ENRON or a bank. Realistically most people who we want to be taking on workers right now work for small and medium sized businesses, often family run, that might have the capacity and need to take on an extra worker but it would be devastating financially and time consuming for them to get involved in a legal battle if it didn’t work out after a year.
Your last point that a person gets thrown out because they don’t like the colour of their face….YET AGAIN this is automatically unfair dismissal and so it doesn’t matter whether the temporary period is 1 year or 2 years, the period could be 50 years or 1 month…the way the discriminated employee goes about trying to solve their problem is exactly the same.
@Richard Boyd’s comments are interesting and it would be interesting to see a proper piece from him as someone with experience of running the tribunals…because it is a really complex area that needs careful thought.
His point that the 2 year thing creates this issue of a turnover of staff who have been with the company for 1 year and 11 months is an issue; I believe it was an issue with the 1 year limit of staff who had been with companies for 11 months.
The point is Matthew, this issue is far more complex than all dismissals are unfair and the people trying to reduce employment tribunals are zealots who want everyone to be unemployed. Far from it, I would like to see a reduction in unemployment, especially among the striving poor and the young; I just worry that these are the people who get most hit by over use of employment tribunals.
@ Richard Boyd
My understanding is that employment tribunals were introduced with the aim of keeping them simple and keeping them a bit like quick magistrates courts.
Obviously that isn’t the case and cases are becoming more complex etc and employment tribunals have turned into fully fledged legal battles.
Do you think there is any way to solve this issue? Because if we could make employment tribunals smooth and quick and efficient it would be less of a cost and hassle for small + medium businesses to go through them, it would mean workers would always have the option and everyone would be happy
Joseph Donnelly10th May ’12 – 12:03pm…………….You see nothing wrong with 2 years. For the reasons you’ve given, what is wrong with 5 years, 10 years, 20 years?
As a senior manager in an international company, if it took me (or one of my subordinates) 2 years to decide on the ability/suitability of a new employee I’d question my/their competence.
I’m not even sure I agree with raising 1 year to 2 years, I just think the other side of the argument needs to be made. I also think its important we don’t get sidetracked debating straw men, things this law change won’t effect regardless of what happens.
The arguments are more aimed towards small and medium enterprises hiring workers who are perhaps less qualified, been unemployed for a while or unemployed youth but it would be interesting to hear your views. you must have experience with employment tribunals being a senior manager:
Do you think the current system works? Would you change things?
@Richard Heathcote
Did your son take the issue to the superior of the branch manager (phone them up or email them or something), or threaten to do so to the branch manager? I would do so if placed in such a situation, and it is quite possible that the superior of the branch manager wouldn’t be too happy with their subordinate engaging in nepotism and hiring a worker incapable of speaking English.
Surly the point is that for their to be confidence for people to spend instead of save, and help get the economy moving, then people need to feel a sense of hope and security in their jobs.
What this government is doing is destroying confidence in the work place by changing these employment laws.
A) People will be reluctant to change careers and move to new companies, with the added uncertainty of job security for the next 2 years
B) workers will be more inclined to save, rather than spend if they fear insecurities.
C) If employers start finding it difficult to recruit new workers because of these changes, it will surly lead to more workers being brought through from immigration to fill these roles.
Surly at the end of the day there is nothing Liberal in removing workers employment rights in the work place,
What Matthew Huntbach said in his previous comments where spot on, even the one’s that I managed to read before they got removed 🙂
This policy is a disaster swaying in the wind, and it is not something that anyone should be proud of I assure you.
If something is wrong and you know it is wrong, then, that is what you must come out and say, not some half baked comment that “it would have been worse without us” that’s just guff
Joseph Donnelly
Theres a problem here that we are seeing the word manager and employer as some big evil corporate executive at ENRON or a bank.
No I’m not. The cases I’m thinking of involve local middle managers. Managers higher up tend to defend them in cases like that, even if privately they realise they’re in the wrong.
You continue to ignore my point. The REAL reason why someone is sacked may be one of the things I’ve mentioned, but that’s very hard to prove. Instead, something else will be cooked up as a reason to sack them. What I am calling for is the employee to have some rights against that something else – if there is no legal protection against unfair dismissal in the first two years that something else can be pretty feeble yet it’s enough to get the person thrown out. In reality, no-one sane wants to go through the stress and expense of trying to prove legally the deeper reasons if they are what I’ve suggested.
I can assure you that the main thing that is holding back the economy now is fear. Fear that you won’t have a job next year, fear that if you try something new and it doesn’t work you’ll be out of a job for the rest of your life. What is being proposed here increases that feeling of fear and thus damages the economy. The fact that those at the top can’t see this just shows how disastrous it is to have a government stuffed full of public schoolboys from backgrounds of extreme wealth. They’ve never known that fear, they are in situation where if they fall they can always pick themselves up thnaks to their wealth an contacts. So they just can’t see how life is for ordinary people and therefore they go on making serious mistakes, policies like this an example.
with regards my sons situation I wrote a letter of complaint to Tesco and as of yet have heard nothing back so far.