Shops could face legal action over 'lads' mags'

[Coito ergo sum]

Another example would be forcing a Muslim at supermarket counter to taste test beer which would be a totally unreasonable request, asking them however to sell it is a different matter

It's perfectly reasonable to ask a Muslim to taste beer if part of the job involves beer tasting.

A Muslim beermeister or Master Brewer would not have, in my view, any reason to expect to be exempted from tasting the beer. And, if a supermarket wanted somebody on site to taste things so that he or she could be there to advise customers about the flavors and such, well, I'm not sure why a Muslim would have some claim to hold that position and not fulfill the responsibilities.

[Seth]

There are no legal protections against being insulted in public there are however some for the workplace as you are trapped them.

Well, not exactly. For example in Canada it's illegal to insult Native Americans, and I believe it's also illegal to insult people by way of race, gender, gender preference, ethnicity etc. in the UK.

[MrJonno]

Another example would be forcing a Muslim at supermarket counter to taste test beer which would be a totally unreasonable request, asking them however to sell it is a different matter

It's perfectly reasonable to ask a Muslim to taste beer if part of the job involves beer tasting.

A Muslim beermeister or Master Brewer would not have, in my view, any reason to expect to be exempted from tasting the beer. And, if a supermarket wanted somebody on site to taste things so that he or she could be there to advise customers about the flavors and such, well, I'm not sure why a Muslim would have some claim to hold that position and not fulfill the responsibilities.

It's why I said supermarket counter, if you worked behind a bar it would obviously be different. Supermarkets occasional do have taste testing sessions and if you were an alcoholic, muslim or just didnt like drinking beer it wouldnt be unreasonable to find someone else to do it

[MrJonno]

There are no legal protections against being insulted in public there are however some for the workplace as you are trapped them.

Well, not exactly. For example in Canada it's illegal to insult Native Americans, and I believe it's also illegal to insult people by way of race, gender, gender preference, ethnicity etc. in the UK.

Call someone a wanker enough time for any reason in a job and you will get sued for constructive dismissal. If someone is acting liking a wanker you go through the appropriate warnings or sack them for gross misconduct.

[Seth]

There are no legal protections against being insulted in public there are however some for the workplace as you are trapped them.

Well, not exactly. For example in Canada it's illegal to insult Native Americans, and I believe it's also illegal to insult people by way of race, gender, gender preference, ethnicity etc. in the UK.

Call someone a wanker enough time for any reason in a job and you will get sued for constructive dismissal. If someone is acting liking a wanker you go through the appropriate warnings or sack them for gross misconduct.

That's what you get when you give wankers the right to stay in a job. Around here I can fire you for any reason or no reason at all. Wankers generally don't last very long.

[Coito ergo sum]

There are no legal protections against being insulted in public there are however some for the workplace as you are trapped them.

Well, not exactly. For example in Canada it's illegal to insult Native Americans, and I believe it's also illegal to insult people by way of race, gender, gender preference, ethnicity etc. in the UK.

Call someone a wanker enough time for any reason in a job and you will get sued for constructive dismissal. If someone is acting liking a wanker you go through the appropriate warnings or sack them for gross misconduct.

That's what you get when you give wankers the right to stay in a job. Around here I can fire you for any reason or no reason at all. Wankers generally don't last very long.

Any reason, except an illegal reason, like firing them because of race, color, religion, national origin, disability/handicap, age, filing a workers compensation claim, to avoid their ERISA benefits from vesting, for serving on jury duty, for reporting illegal activity to the authorities, for cooperating with a subpoena, for answering questions in a Department of Labor Investigation, and for a variety of other reasons depending on the jurisdiction like height, weight, sexual preference, etc.

[MrJonno]

That's what you get when you give wankers the right to stay in a job. Around here I can fire you for any reason or no reason at all. Wankers generally don't last very long.

And if they don't leave straight away you shoot them for trespass glad i don't live near you

Glad to say you can't sack anyone for anything other than gross misconduct or multiple cases of lesser crimes. You can never get rid of someone because you feel like.

Some other European countries are even more liberal on this, you can't make a redundancy unless you can show the courts your company will go under if you don't

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You can never get rid of someone because you feel like.

Actually, you can. Anytime within the first month. And anytime within the first year with a week's notice. It is only after that that an employer must give a business reason for redundancy.

The minimum rights of workers in the UK regarding dismissal are as follows: -

After one month, the employer must give one week's notice of dismissal. This rises to 2 weeks after 2 years and increases to 12 weeks after 12 years.
After one year, the dismissal must be for a good business reason.
After 2 years, the employer must pay redundancy money.

Obviously, notice and redundancy payments usually only apply if the dismissal is not for a contractual breach following correct disciplinary procedures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_labour_law#Job_security

[Coito ergo sum]

That's what you get when you give wankers the right to stay in a job. Around here I can fire you for any reason or no reason at all. Wankers generally don't last very long.

And if they don't leave straight away you shoot them for trespass glad i don't live near you

That is not lawful. In that circumstance, the law requires that the employer call the police who will then escort the person off the property or arrest them for trespass if they do not comply.

Glad to say you can't sack anyone for anything other than gross misconduct or multiple cases of lesser crimes. You can never get rid of someone because you feel like.

It's a far better system to allow an employee to quit, and an employer to fire someone absent an unlawful reason/motive.

And, I bet in your jurisdiction it is not required for employees to commit gross misconduct or multiple cases of lesser infractions. I would be willing to bet that an employer could terminate someone because they don't need the employee anymore, like if they are disbanding a department and they won't need those people anymore. Or if they have had a business downturn and they don't need as many employees as they did before. If your jurisdiction does not allow those kinds of terminations, then it becomes extremely difficult to stay in business, and very difficult for the little guy to move up by starting small and working into a larger organizations. As a matter of public policy it greatly reduces available employment because employers will grudgingly hire knowing that they can't get rid of someone even if they need to.

Some other European countries are even more liberal on this, you can't make a redundancy unless you can show the courts your company will go under if you don't

That sounds like an idiotic legal regime.

[MrJonno]

You can make a position redundant, you can't sack someone without a very good reason. If you make the position redundant you can't rehire someone in a given period

As mentioned by Xamanos these rights do take a while to kick in but I could sleep with my boss wife (out of office hours) and he couldnt sack me for it

[Sean Hayden]

As mentioned by Xamanos these rights do take a while to kick in but I could sleep with my boss wife (out of office hours) and he couldnt sack me for it

[Coito ergo sum]

You can make a position redundant, you can't sack someone without a very good reason. If you make the position redundant you can't rehire someone in a given period

As mentioned by Xamanos these rights do take a while to kick in but I could sleep with my boss wife (out of office hours) and he couldnt sack me for it

That too sounds like an idiotic law. Employees fucking their bosses' wives and that's not a terminable offense? It would be in a civilized country.

Redundancy is not the only reason to let an employee go. Lack of demand for product, reduced business, other economic realities, etc., all make perfect sense to let someone go. As does the fact that they just aren't performing well in their job. The whole idea that you can't sack someone unless they are committing some "gross misconduct" is ludicrous, and is probably a big reason why it may be so difficult in many jurisdictions to find employment. I mean, if I hire someone, I ought to be able to assess their performance and determine that they aren't needed. If, for example, I needed a person to perform a specific function and it turns out that they suck at it, they work too slow, or they just make too many mistakes, I ought to be able to get rid of them and replace them with another person who can actually do the job.

The sort of thing you describe sounds like a really big step backward. And, as a matter of public policy it would seem to me that it would seriously restrict new hiring of employees, because employers would have to keep a tight reign on new hiring in order to avoid locking themselves in to employees who don't cut it.

It is also perfectly reasonable for an employer to let someone go simply because they don't like the person. As a small business operator myself, I don't like the idea of having to spend my days with someone I don't like. If I hire someone to be my assistant, for example, and they rub me the wrong way, or if they just are unpleasant, I ought to be able to let them go.

[MrJonno]

You can sack someone for poor performance but you can't do it on the spot, its a set of warnings to improve and if they fail you get rid of them. Can take a few weeks to months and you need to have a proper written record of doing so. Rogering the bosses misses in the office during working hours does count as gross misconduct and would be able to get rid of them for it.

You can make a position redundant (in the UK at least) if business turns down but its the position you are making redundant not the person. Again the employer needs to put at least some justification into that.

UK employment laws are far closer to the US than any other in the EU but even they aren't on the lines I don't like someone so I can sack you crap. What sort of life would it be for an employee if employment was that unstable

[klr]

You can make a position redundant, you can't sack someone without a very good reason. If you make the position redundant you can't rehire someone in a given period

As mentioned by Xamanos these rights do take a while to kick in but I could sleep with my boss wife (out of office hours) and he couldnt sack me for it

That too sounds like an idiotic law. Employees fucking their bosses' wives and that's not a terminable offense? It would be in a civilized country.

...

But if it has nothing to do with work per se, then the boss has no legal reason to sack them. Outside of work, all is fair in love and war.

[PsychoSerenity]

That too sounds like an idiotic law. Employees fucking their bosses' wives and that's not a terminable offense? It would be in a civilized country.

Redundancy is not the only reason to let an employee go. Lack of demand for product, reduced business, other economic realities, etc., all make perfect sense to let someone go. As does the fact that they just aren't performing well in their job. The whole idea that you can't sack someone unless they are committing some "gross misconduct" is ludicrous, and is probably a big reason why it may be so difficult in many jurisdictions to find employment. I mean, if I hire someone, I ought to be able to assess their performance and determine that they aren't needed. If, for example, I needed a person to perform a specific function and it turns out that they suck at it, they work too slow, or they just make too many mistakes, I ought to be able to get rid of them and replace them with another person who can actually do the job.

The sort of thing you describe sounds like a really big step backward. And, as a matter of public policy it would seem to me that it would seriously restrict new hiring of employees, because employers would have to keep a tight reign on new hiring in order to avoid locking themselves in to employees who don't cut it.

It is also perfectly reasonable for an employer to let someone go simply because they don't like the person. As a small business operator myself, I don't like the idea of having to spend my days with someone I don't like. If I hire someone to be my assistant, for example, and they rub me the wrong way, or if they just are unpleasant, I ought to be able to let them go.

Right so as a business operator you ought to be able to play with the lives of your underlings at a whim because it suits you.

Letting someone go because of reduced business etc is redundancy. And you can still fire someone for under-performing or whatever, but if you don't want to lose out to them for unfair dismissal, you're going to have be able to provide evidence, performance reviews etc, that their poor quality of work was significantly below that of someone else in the same position, significant in that it's harming the business, consistent over a period of time, and that you offered the necessary training to attempt to remedy the situation. If they really are under-performing that shouldn't be a problem.

And the suggestion that workers rights reduces the hiring of employees is nonsense. You may be right that employers have to take a more considered approach, rather than hiring and firing left, right and centre, but that just makes for more stable employment. The overall level of employment is still going to be determined by the demand for the business.

And if the bosses wife decides to sleep with someone else who happens to be one of his employees, the boss can devoice his wife, but why should he be able to fire the employee? It has nothing to do with the employees work life, and the employee might not have even know she was married.