Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The WORKERS Party now in compete disarray
- Thread starter Ernest
- Start date
Uter
Well-known member
Was it Chris Grayling that introduced these fees? Even those that could afford the fees and had a tribunal decision in their favour would only really have a pyrrhic victory. There is little point in having workers rights if there are in effect no means of enforcing them.
What have we done to deserve him as SoS for Transport? All he seems interested in is not spending money. He is possibly my least favourite politician. I wish he would go away.
What have we done to deserve him as SoS for Transport? All he seems interested in is not spending money. He is possibly my least favourite politician. I wish he would go away.
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
Our future glorious supreme leader has Tweeted:
[tweet]890149718189387777[/tweet]
[tweet]890149718189387777[/tweet]
Biscuit Barrel
Well-known member
As I understand it, everything will be free if Labour wins power.
The Clamp
Well-known member
How anyone can see this as a bad thing is unbelievable. An indicator of the Me First world we are now living in thanks to Tories and the Trumps of this world.
Uter
Well-known member
I've only read the BBC article, not the judgement itself, but the impression I was left with was the court has effectively outlawed tribunal fees so there is nothing left scrap?
Cadiz Seagull
Grey bearded old man
And who voted in the Tories and the Trumps?
Democracy in action innit, no matter how much you or I might like or dislike the end result.
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
Ruled unlawful and are being refunded.
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
Sir Vince Cable re-tweeted this:
[tweet]890171541530570752[/tweet]
Looks like Sir Vince is getting a bit forgetful in his old age, because he hailed this at the time - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/enterprise-and-regulatory-reform-bill-published
[tweet]890171541530570752[/tweet]
Looks like Sir Vince is getting a bit forgetful in his old age, because he hailed this at the time - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/enterprise-and-regulatory-reform-bill-published
Last edited:
Hastings gull
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,669
What simplistic nonsense - as if all Tories are guilty of this and all Corbyn's hypocrites are not! Try Mrs Abbott's choice of schooling for her little precious, but everybody else's child should be at the local comp.
As to the thread, would I be right in suggesting that the fees were brought in to deter frivolous court cases being brought to bear. I do see the point that if someone cannot afford a tribunal, they are potentially denied the justice that they may (or may not) deserve. There must surely be a happy medium here - if anyone can bring an employer in front of a tribunal and not incur a penny in charges, then, given human nature, this will encourage people to bring frivolous cases to be heard, knowing that any financial penalty will never be theirs. Perhaps some sort of deposit system? If you win, as your case is water-tight, and recognised as such by the tribunal, then the deposit is returned along with whatever compensation or whatever is your just reward. and if you lose, then you lose the deposit. Asking everyone to pay huge fess is one extreme -making it all too easy is the other, surely.
The Clamp
Well-known member
Well, far greater minds have deemed the fee unlawful.
Labour in their manifesto said they would scrap tuition fees, now from the safety of failing to win a majority Corbyn has said in reality they couldn't afford to nor did they realise how much money it would cost, so as far as I'm concerned that **** can tweet all he likes but he's as bigger bullshiter as those in charge.
Uter
Well-known member
That was the reason given, but I suspect that reducing the cost to the taxpayer was as much, if not more of a motivation. Did they actually provide any evidence of a widespread problem of frivolous cases? How do you determine what is frivolous in any case? Even if a tribunal sides with the employer it doesn't necessarily follow that the case itself was without merit.
I think the other point the court made is that even if you could afford the costs, there was often little point in going to tribunal even if you knew you had a very strong case.
What if you can't afford a deposit or can't afford to lose it?
And don't forget that blonde clown embarrassing us down under Comrade.
Hastings gull
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,669
Of course if the case were frivolous, then it would be waste of taxpayer's money, so the two are interlinked. I don't know if such evidence was provided, but as you say, proving it either way, i.e .whether it is serious or frivolous, is very hard, as doubtless we would all have differing views and interpretations. As to the issue of a deposit, yes, this is hard if you don't have the cash, or say that you don't, but perhaps loan and you pat it back over time, if you are not serious, or proven to be just plain lying.
I suppose the issue is now academic, as any sort of payment demanded is unlawful, but on top of the unscrupulous employer being found out, I fear that the taxpayer will end up with huge bills and very little check on the degree of seriousness involved.
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
- Thread starter
- #17
Looks like May's holiday is close to being ruined
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/police-probe-whether-electoral-laws-broken-behalf-tories-general-election/26/07/
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/police-probe-whether-electoral-laws-broken-behalf-tories-general-election/26/07/
BensGrandad
New member
Democratically voted for the party and PM that they considered would run the country best and most efficiently.
Yes. Unless of course you studied hard, worked hard and earn a decent living. In which case you'll be funding the "free"
Murray 17
Well-known member
- Jul 6, 2003
- 2,163
There is a downside to this.
A member of my family is in HR, and said that when people bring cases against a company, the company will often settle out of 'court' because it is cheaper to do so. Their legal fees will often be higher than any settlement, and if the company wins they can't claim back their costs. Therefore people might now bring cases, knowing the likelihood is that they will get a pay-off, with no risk to themselves.
Not all companies can afford to pay people thousands of pounds, charities and small businesses, for example.
A member of my family is in HR, and said that when people bring cases against a company, the company will often settle out of 'court' because it is cheaper to do so. Their legal fees will often be higher than any settlement, and if the company wins they can't claim back their costs. Therefore people might now bring cases, knowing the likelihood is that they will get a pay-off, with no risk to themselves.
Not all companies can afford to pay people thousands of pounds, charities and small businesses, for example.