Legal Change

[ricki]

HI

 

I am sorry I did not know where to put this post so I have guessed.

 

I think the world is going mad. Have a look at the new legal changes according to the news of the world. Employers face equality law nightmare as Coalition pushes ahead with Harriet Harman's Act | Mail Online

 

Richard:confused:

[nicholab]

Only one I agree with is the pay one I think all staff pay should be published in the staff room.

[sted]

Only one I agree with is the pay one I think all staff pay should be published in the staff room.

 

i dont its nobody elses business what i earn

[localzuk]

I agree with parts, and disagree with others. For example, people such as Vegans should not be picked on due to their desire to avoid animal products, or discriminated against. However, extending that provision to mean basically that people have a right not to be offended is a bit far - everyone gets offended by different things.

 

Seems to be a poorly thought out piece of legislation again.

[CyberNerd]

i dont its nobody elses business what i earn

 

I happen to disagree. If your employed by the government then it is everybodys right to know.

A simple FOI request would reveal the grading structure of all posts within the school, so why not publish them?

We have a chart of all the different teaching grades on the staffroom wall, and tech/admin posts are available on the LEA website.

Of course it doesn't match names to grades, nor should it. I believe the public has a right to know what any branch of government/LEA/school/hospital/police etc pays for different jobs.

[pete]

I agree with parts, and disagree with others. For example, people such as Vegans should not be picked on due to their desire to avoid animal products, or discriminated against. However, extending that provision to mean basically that people have a right not to be offended is a bit far - everyone gets offended by different things.

 

Seems to be a poorly thought out piece of legislation again.

 

Yeah - otherwise it's just an enabler for the Mary Whitehouse brigade. I'm offended by people who can't rtfm, but it's a bit much to write a law allowing them to be prosecuted for it.

[localzuk]

There's a difference between publishing scales and knowing what an individual person earns. The prior should be available, the latter is up to the individual to publish.

[LeMarchand]

Yeah - otherwise it's just an enabler for the Mary Whitehouse brigade. I'm offended by people who can't rtfm, but it's a bit much to write a law allowing them to be prosecuted for it.

 

I am offended that you're offended. You will be hearing from my lawyers .

[ZeroHour]

I am offended that you're offended. You will be hearing from my lawyers .

 

Multiplier! bonus round

[AngryTechnician]

As usual the tabloids have extrapolated the provisions of the law to farcical proportions. My advice is to stop reading rags like the Daily Fail as most of what they print is utter tripe. On the example of the "SUE FOR ANYTHING!" rubbish, here are the conditions that have to be met for someone to potentially sue:

 

• the employee or job applicant is harassed on more than two occasions (not necessarily by the same person); and
  
• the employer knows that it has happened; and
  
• the employer fails to take steps that are reasonable in the circumstances to prevent such harassment happening to that person again.
  

 

So it's not like someone can crack an off-colour joke and instantly be liable. It has to have been actual harassment, it has to raised internally, and it only becomes a liability of the employer has essentially ignored the problem. If the employer takes reasonable steps to prevent it, the victim wouldn't be able to sue, even if it happened again. Unfortunately the tabloids don't like explaining stuff like this because headlines like "YOU CAN SUE IF YOUR BOSS DOESN'T TAKE REASONABLE ACTION" don't sell newspapers.

[localzuk]

The issue as I see it though is that the 'problem' could well be a non-problem and entirely down to the 'victim'. We had a member of staff here who felt they were being victimised by everyone in our office. The problem was, there was nothing going on from our side. What was happening was that the office has always had several functions such as accepting deliveries, playing host to people using spare desks randomly etc... This person expected all that to change because she was now using the office 2 times a week, and because we all carried on as normal, she felt victimised.

 

Now, using these laws, that sort of person could well find offence with our behaviours, make the bosses aware of it and quite rightly they'd do nothing about it. Would this then mean she would be entitled to drag the school through court due to this wrong perception?

[LeMarchand]

As usual the tabloids have extrapolated the provisions of the law to farcical proportions.

 

Possibly, but if this law goes through I'm pretty sure that we'll soon be seeing Leech & Co, Solicitors, branching out from accident claims to, "Have you been offended at work? You may be entitled to claim compensation! Contact Leech & Co with details of your claim; we operate a 'no win, no fee' policy. Don't forget: if you've been offended, go on the offence with Leech & Co."

[creese]

I'm offended by my line manager's use of bad language.... 'Touch base' etc. Could I sue?

[Dos_Box]

There are also issues with the fact you can no longer ask about am applicants health. So there is nothing that an employer can do when a new employee suddenly goes on long term sick with a previously known medical condition and you have to foot the bill.

[dsm]

As usual the tabloids have extrapolated the provisions of the law to farcical proportions. My advice is to stop reading rags like the Daily Fail as most of what they print is utter tripe. On the example of the "SUE FOR ANYTHING!" rubbish, here are the conditions that have to be met for someone to potentially sue:

 

• the employee or job applicant is harassed on more than two occasions (not necessarily by the same person); and
  
• the employer knows that it has happened; and
  
• the employer fails to take steps that are reasonable in the circumstances to prevent such harassment happening to that person again.
  

 

So it's not like someone can crack an off-colour joke and instantly be liable. It has to have been actual harassment, it has to raised internally, and it only becomes a liability of the employer has essentially ignored the problem. If the employer takes reasonable steps to prevent it, the victim wouldn't be able to sue, even if it happened again. Unfortunately the tabloids don't like explaining stuff like this because headlines like "YOU CAN SUE IF YOUR BOSS DOESN'T TAKE REASONABLE ACTION" don't sell newspapers.

 

I agree... I saw the post linked to a Daily Mail article so immediately dismissed it as tosh!

[36Degrees]

There are also issues with the fact you can no longer ask about am applicants health.

 

From ACAS: Once a person has passed the interview and you have offered them a job (whether this is an unconditional or conditional job offer) you are permitted to ask appropriate health-related questions.

 

This seems very much like a double-edged sword: you can ask but it must be "appropriate" and you can't ask until you've offered them the job.

[pete]

There are also issues with the fact you can no longer ask about am applicants health. So there is nothing that an employer can do when a new employee suddenly goes on long term sick with a previously known medical condition and you have to foot the bill.

 

Wouldn't "negotiating in bad faith" cover it? If I start a job with a known medical condition that could / will impair my ability to hold up my end of the deal and I don't declare it, surely it's breach of contract?

[ricki]

HI

 

This is going to cost all employers thousands not just to try to administer but also in tribunal and legal costs. This would appear to be a very strange time to start this as the costs are being slashed in the public sector. I think this is one of those tricks a magician has watch this hand while the other does what it wants because its not being watched. I agreed with parts of it and understand the need to deal with situation but this could appear to be cracking a nut with a very large bomb when a precise surgical procedure is needed.

 

Richard

[john]

There are also issues with the fact you can no longer ask about am applicants health. So there is nothing that an employer can do when a new employee suddenly goes on long term sick with a previously known medical condition and you have to foot the bill.

 

Thats interesting, our place AFAIK still gives a form with 3 statements on it relating to health and areas around health and asks you to fill it in before your interview and its on the standard forms that are sent out asking about time off due to illness etc and these forms are LA forms, wonder if we have an old stock still

[Kipling]

IANAL but it just looks like newspaper spin to me.

 

In order to sue someone there has to be a measurable (generally financial) loss. You can’t sue for damages just because you are offended as there is no measurable loss there.

 

If being offended caused you to be off work and lose pay – or caused you to become ill and miss out on promotion then that’s a different story but as I see it all the act does is give you the right to bring a case so court if you feel offended – it does not give you the right to damages, that will still have to be proven in court.