Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Eames]

Yes thats exactly what I meant..... somewhere between can't read English or can't read the stucking fupid sign. 

[Risso]

To be fair  to everyone here, whatever colour you take your politics, driving around in a van asking illegal immigrants, most of whom can't read, to text the authorities about going home is perhaps the shittest idea I have ever heard. 

 

I think it's a great idea, and they should extend it to all crimes.  "Thinking of robbing a bank?  Don't bother!"  "Selling illegal drugs on the streets, turn yourself in!"  Just think, you can do away with a police force altogether.  It's quite brilliant, really.

[drat01]

Is there near total agreement on a VT politics forum re the sign?   Blimey !

[Eames]

Is there near total agreement on a VT politics forum re the sign?   Blimey !

Tbh Drat, I'd be more concerned by anyone who thought it was a good idea. 

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

I assume they get the costs back if the claim is successful?

According to this document, it will not be automatic but at the discretion of the judge.

On level 1 claims, which it says are those of typically lower value often dealing with things like unpaid wages, pay in lieu of notice, &c. after termination of employment, the issue fee is £160 and the hearing fee is £230 (a total of £390).

It would appear to me that this could well lead to people (especially those who may not qualify for the fee remissions) not pursuing unpaid wages if they are not much more than this sum and also, perhaps, to (some) employers not paying those sums on the basis that (ex)employees are unlikely to take the punt if they could end up losing out (for instance if the costs are not guaranteed to be reimbursed).

Exactly.

Many moons ago as a student, I worked for the Tribunal Service. I recall countless occasions when an employer would frivolously withhold money owed to an employee, and would quite often not even bother to turn up to defend their case (because they KNEW they were wrong).

These cases were, more often than not, involving people on low wages. You'd have them trying to rightfully claim just a few hundred pounds; whilst it's not a large amount of money, it was important to the claimant and made a difference to their immediate financial situation.

Now those people will no longer have that free access to a tribunal to recoup that money (unless they're earning under a certain amount, but the limit for few remission has been set way too low).

How would they get their money back now? I really dont know. Small claims? But won't these claims now clog up that system instead.

This is a disgraceful and barmy idea, IMO.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

 

 I'd be more concerned by anyone who thought it was a good idea. 

 

 

Just the government to worry about then.

Edited July 29, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[Risso]

 

 

I assume they get the costs back if the claim is successful?

According to this document, it will not be automatic but at the discretion of the judge.

On level 1 claims, which it says are those of typically lower value often dealing with things like unpaid wages, pay in lieu of notice, &c. after termination of employment, the issue fee is £160 and the hearing fee is £230 (a total of £390).

It would appear to me that this could well lead to people (especially those who may not qualify for the fee remissions) not pursuing unpaid wages if they are not much more than this sum and also, perhaps, to (some) employers not paying those sums on the basis that (ex)employees are unlikely to take the punt if they could end up losing out (for instance if the costs are not guaranteed to be reimbursed).

Exactly.

Many moons ago as a student, I worked for the Tribunal Service. I recall countless occasions when an employer would frivolously withhold money owed to an employee, and would quite often not even bother to turn up to defend their case (because they KNEW they were wrong).

These cases were, more often than not, involving people on low wages. You'd have them trying to rightfully claim just a few hundred pounds; whilst it's not a large amount of money, it was important to the claimant and made a difference to their immediate financial situation.

Now those people will no longer have that free access to a tribunal to recoup that money (unless they're earning under a certain amount, but the limit for few remission has been set way too low).

How would they get their money back now? I really dont know. Small claims? But won't these claims now clog up that system instead.

This is a disgraceful and barmy idea, IMO.

 

 

And as an accountant and auditor, I saw just as many frivolous claims from employees who were blatantly trying it on as they knew they had nothing to lose.  And most of these weren't big, wealthy firms, they were quite often small family firms where the shareholders worked morning, noon and night trying to keep a struggling firm going, and where the last thing they needed was to waste time and money they didn't have on defending spurious claims.  Where they'd often settle instead of having to spend money on legal costs defending the action, and where that money could have been invested in the company instead.  In these sorts of stories, people always imagine it's big, horrible multinationals shafting some poor little wage slave on minimum wage, but they forget that the majority of people in the country are employed by SMEs, who on the whole are finding things very tough and are just trying to keep the business going for the sake of themselves AND the rest of the employees.

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

But Risso, in the type of cases that I highlighted, the cost of defending the claim, when they bothered to turn up, wasn't that much. There wasn't any lengthy case preparation or hefty legal fees: quite often the small company would send a manger or HR person to argue the case that they didn't owe their ex-cleaner a couple of week's wages.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Morley_crosses_to_Withe

[drat01]

 

Is there near total agreement on a VT politics forum re the sign?   Blimey !

Tbh Drat, I'd be more concerned by anyone who thought it was a good idea. 

 

See Snowy's post before

[snowychap]

And as an accountant and auditor, I saw just as many frivolous claims from employees...

So, that's you accepting that both employees and employers are in the wrong in some cases (and an equal number by your account)?

Or was your post actually intended as a retort to the other poster just to try and reinforce the one-sided view you have of who gets the bum deal in the employment tribunal system?

[Eames]

Is there near total agreement on a VT politics forum re the sign? Blimey !

Tbh Drat, I'd be more concerned by anyone who thought it was a good idea.

See Snowy's post before

Meh they can't be right all the time.

[bickster]

1) The ad-vans are entirely about keeping the Daily Heil readers sweet

 

if that were true then why are the ahhh we are not allowed to name them party also spouting out about immigration and how they would get tough on it  ..... it's populists politics and nothing to do with what paper people read 

 

lazy posting   .....

It is all to do with what papers people read. Politics in this country is about that and very little else. Staying on the gravy train is far more important than actually doing what is best for the country. Very very few politicians with conviction any more. This is the politics of the X-Factor generation. No one stands up and says what they really think, they say what the media advisors tell them will sound good or will upset the least people as dictated by the media who exert an undue influence oer this dumbed down compliant population

[peterms]

 

To be fair  to everyone here, whatever colour you take your politics, driving around in a van asking illegal immigrants, most of whom can't read, to text the authorities about going home is perhaps the shittest idea I have ever heard.

 

I think it's a great idea, and they should extend it to all crimes.  "Thinking of robbing a bank?  Don't bother!"

 

Someone's done something a little on those lines, if not quite the same...

 

[peterms]

On the point about frivolous claims, yes, some people do make them.  Sometimes it's a try-on.  Sometimes it's because they are convinced of the merit of their own case, even when it has none, because they're looking at it entirely from their own point of view, lacking perspective and wider experience, and perhaps just aren't very good at trying to be objective.  I've found union reps are often good in those situations, being able to offer some advice if it's really not worth pressing the claim - advice which is more likely to be heard because it comes from someone whose job is fighting cases where the employer is in the wrong.  Of course you need a good relationship between the employer and the union as a basis for that, one where both parties believe the other tries to act reasonably and fairly and head off problems before they go too far.

 

It's also worth remembering that legal firms who offer HR advice and representation on a contract basis rather than case by case, often advise an employer to pay up in a pre-tribunal settlement rather than fight a winnable case.  That's to save the lawyers time and money, if the contract arrangement says they don't get extra for time spent on cases.  Since the arrangement is that the lawyers indemnify employers against costs awarded by tribunals, but only if they take the lawyer's advice, employers do sometimes settle cases they should have fought.

 

The answer to frivolous, vexatious or malicious claims is to identify them and tackle them and them alone.  To deprive everyone of fair access to justice because a number of abuses happen (and are then exaggerated in anecdote and retelling) is unacceptable.

 

But of course it's not really about tackling abuses at all.  It's about holding down wages by making employment more tenuous, making employees weaker and more scared, and giving poor employers (of which there are many, especially among smaller firms) more licence to act badly.

[peterms]

To be fair  to everyone here, whatever colour you take your politics, driving around in a van asking illegal immigrants, most of whom can't read, to text the authorities about going home is perhaps the shittest idea I have ever heard. 

 

Yes.  But then it's not aimed at the illegal immigrants.  It's aimed at the tory voters who might drift to Ukip.  That's why it's in English.

[bickster]

To be fair  to everyone here, whatever colour you take your politics, driving around in a van asking illegal immigrants, most of whom can't read, to text the authorities about going home is perhaps the shittest idea I have ever heard.

 

Yes.  But then it's not aimed at the illegal immigrants.  It's aimed at the tory voters who might drift to Ukip.  That's why it's in English.

Which was precisely what I was getting at too

[markavfc40]

 

To be fair  to everyone here, whatever colour you take your politics, driving around in a van asking illegal immigrants, most of whom can't read, to text the authorities about going home is perhaps the shittest idea I have ever heard. 

 

Yes.  But then it's not aimed at the illegal immigrants.  It's aimed at the tory voters who might drift to Ukip.  That's why it's in English.

 

 

I know Tory supporters aren't generally the sharpest knives in the draw but if they think this is a good idea that takes it to a whole new level of denseness

Edited July 29, 2013 by markavfc40

[bickster]

To be fair  to everyone here, whatever colour you take your politics, driving around in a van asking illegal immigrants, most of whom can't read, to text the authorities about going home is perhaps the shittest idea I have ever heard.

 

Yes.  But then it's not aimed at the illegal immigrants.  It's aimed at the tory voters who might drift to Ukip.  That's why it's in English.

 

I know Tory supporters aren't generally the sharpest knifes in the draw but if they think this is a good idea that takes it to a whole new level of denseness

Most people who vote for any of the parties aren't that sharp

[tonyh29]

I know Tory supporters aren't generally the sharpest knifes in the draw but if they think this is a good idea that takes it to a whole new level of denseness

Most people who vote for any of the parties aren't that sharp

Now now Bicks don't spoil his fun it probably took him weeks to think of that line ...

Edited July 29, 2013 by tonyh29

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

 

 

I know Tory supporters aren't generally the sharpest knifes in the draw but if they think this is a good idea that takes it to a whole new level of denseness

Most people who vote for any of the parties aren't that sharp

Now now Bicks don't spoil his fun it probably took him weeks to think of that line ...

 

I enjoyed the fruits of his labour. It's just a shame he couldn't keep his knife analogy going until the end of the sentence, knives don't really have denseness. Maybe 'obtuseness' would have made it better better for me.