Unconvincing article by Helen Giles in The Times today arguing that access to Employment Tribunals should be heavily restricted (so that they are restricted out of existence if I follow her argument, although her points are not entirely logical).
Although I can understand that HR professionals would prefer to be sole judge and jury in all employment matters, I think we must allow employees to take their cases to independent arbiters when necessary.
Above: part of a biography about Helen Giles in The Guardian 2008.
Looking at Helen Giles's background, it seems she has spent her entire adult life in the public or not-for-profit sectors. No doubt she has done some good work during this time, and should be applauded for wanting to help the homeless. However this background does not give her the authority to go shooting her mouth off about the whole of British industry.
Otherwise she risks making herself look ridiculous.
PS I hope Helen Giles is not another Common Purpose clone.
4 comments:
Andrew Amesbury is the one who doesn't have a grip on reality here. In my role as Managing Director of Real People I associate with many small business people, several of whom have written to me to endorse my views of the impact of Employment Tribunals on their ability to operate. But I can have no higher endorsement than the letter of agreement in The Times 5 January 2011 from an Employment Tribunal judge of 22 years standing.
Sorry Andrew, I know nothing about you (Marketing man? Historian? In danger of appearing ridiculous?) but you're wrong on this one.
Thank you for your comment Helen.
You must have known that the inflammatory language you used in your article would result in criticism.
You are keen for "serial complainants" to go to prison but make no mention of employers who routinely wait until the very last minute (often the night before a Tribunal) before offering an employee a compromise settlement. One would have to have a very strong nerve to continue to such a late stage and you must know how many people with genuine grievances simply give up and walk away, often with no job, no compensation and no reference. This is probably the very advice you give to the small business people you associate with - make the process as long-winded and intimidating as possible and the complainant will give up.
Perhaps the prison option for serial complainants that you are so keen on should be balanced by a prison option for employers who settle at the last minute more than two or three times?
But this talk of prison options is in fact silly and entirely misunderstands the purpose of Employment Tribunals which are intended to be a reasonably informal alternative to the court system (even so, for most employees a Tribunal is a genuinely intimidating experience).
You are right of course to say that the process has become corrupted by lawyers, but you omit to mention that this trend developed within the HR profession (about fifteen years ago) with freelance HR professionals and enterprises offering quasi-legal "HR consultancy" on fighting Employment Tribunal cases.
Once the employers had armed themselves with legal representation it was inevitable that no-win no-fee lawyers would emerge on the other side.
You say you know nothing about me. There is no need for you to know anything about me Helen, I am someone completely unimportant.
But I have seen enough of bad behaviour by employers to know whose side I am on. You may be right that in the public and not-for-profit sectors Tribunals have become yet another way of employees milking the system, but in the private sector the situation is very different with all the power and advantage stacked in favour of the employers (who often behave appallingly). Therefore I feel justified in repeating my assertion that where British industry as a whole is concerned you don't know what you are talking about.
But thank you once again for commenting.
Andrew A.
Thank you both for those comments.
I knew nothing about either of the two people here - Helen & Andrew. I only did so as I heard Helen on BBC Radio 4 Today and needed to find out who Helen is and on what basis such pro-employer sentiments were being put forward. I googled the words Helen & Times and got this blog site.
Helen - you are the one who needs to pay close attention. Here is why.
Thank you Andrew for bringing your fair comments to light. Hear, hear. Funny that Helen overlooked to mention just how mean and canny private sector can be.
The Times clearly needs to increase its own PR and that is the only reason I can find articles penned by people like Helen who yes, yes work in HR and loved her outlandish article as they could see more column inches - I mean it got her into BBC Today!
Yes some bad workers milk the system and I hope they get what they deserve. However if the employer has nothing to hide, let them come to court and bluff these chancers out because as I understand it judges have to green light cases to check for vexatious applications. So who does that - er the judges! Don't blame the people - blame the system. There is no rhyme or reason with ET system - it is utter madness and paper shifting.
As for the judge writing to support Helen - very suspicious - all too one sided for me. How about hearing from an employee whose life has really been marred.
But private sectors with their money and access to expertise can damage and ruin decent people careers so let us not forget the reasons ET's were created - a chance to redress wrongs done to someone's liveliood. For goodness sake we are not talking about fighting over the boundaries of a fence as do some in a legal dispute. This is life and death of some people's careers and how their families eat.
A company can sack or wrong someone who is decent and hope they can and will get away with it because until ET's came into force - they could.
Law exists to protect all us people and that is why ET exists - to protect employers and employees alike to expose those who intend to use it disingenuously.
Shame on you Helen for not at least highlighting employees whose lives are devastated by the loss of a job or severely mistreated - when they have been decent, worked hard and perhaps have proof a company booted them out because they did not want to pay up, don't look right and can be discarded.
Thank you for your wisdom and common sense Andrew. Whatever and whoever you are - we need bloggers like you. Keep up the good work. Before there was never an redress to controversial articles as the one debated on this page except to write in and wait to be picked for the Letter to Editor section - hand picked by the editorial team.
The wisest option for Helen would have been to provide a dignified response - not a churlish nah, nah, nah one as clearly any criticism is not welcomed by her. Helen remember if you offer opinions in a democratic country - it is an open invite for a debate - which is why to balance it Radio 4 had to provide another alternative. I also note how Helen fails to respond to Andrew's comments. Plus to undertake an ET you must have nerves of steel and prepare all paperwork and seek legal advice or does Helen think people walk in after waiting months for an ET to say - "eh judge am here now - over to you to sort as I just brought myself".
I mean where are the stats to show how many claims were vexatious by employees vs employers?
That is why I say thanks be to all bloggers everywhere
I salute you all.
From
An Anonymous lady who really is very private and amused by the antics on this blog site
Thank you both for those comments.
I knew nothing about either of the two people here - Helen & Andrew. I only did so as I heard Helen on BBC Radio 4 Today and needed to find out who Helen is and on what basis such pro-employer sentiments were being put forward. I googled the words Helen & Times and got this blog site.
Thank you Andrew for bringing your fair comments to light. Hear, hear. Funny that Helen overlooked to mention just how mean and canny private sector can be.
The Times clearly needs to increase its own PR and that is the only reason I can find articles penned by people like Helen who yes work in HR.
Yes some bad workers milk the system and I hope they get what they deserve. However if the employer has nothing to hide, let them come to court and bluff these chancers out because as I understand it judges have to green light cases to check for vexatious applications. So who does that - er the judges! Don't blame the people - blame the system. There is no rhyme or reason with ET system - it is utter madness and paper shifting.
As for the judge writing to support Helen - very suspicious - all too one sided for me. How about hearing from an employee whose life has really been marred.
But private sectors with their money and access to expertise can damage and ruin decent people careers so let us not forget the reasons ET's were created - a chance to redress wrongs done to someone's liveliood. For goodness sake we are not talking about a fighting over the boundaries of a fence as do some in a legal dispute.
A company can sack or wrong someone decent and hope they will get away with it because until ET's - they could.
Law exists to protect people and that is why ET should be there to protect employers and employees alike and expose those who intend to use it disingenuously.
Shame on you Helen for not at least highlighting employees whose lives are devastated by the loss of a job - when they have been decent.
Thank you for your wisdom and common sense Andrew - whatever and whoever you are - we need bloggers like as before there was never an redress to controversial articles except to wait to be picked by Letter to Editor.
Thank be to all bloggers everywhere
I salute you all.
Anonymous
Post a Comment