No Ryan. More people being laid off means, more people fighting for the same jobs. That is why it makes sense for larger companies to give a larger window.

@Sean
That makes no sense… Why don’t we just make it illegal to fire someone? That way we’ll all have jobs!

But seriously, these laws in combination with the minimum wage are stopping the ordinary man from actually getting a job. Companies want to hire people, they just can’t afford it and this law does nothing to help those looking for a job

@ Seán: It depends on a lot of variables though, such as the industry and the location.

And if the company is likely to go under, paying one or two months extra wages to staff no longer needed – on top of the redundancy costs – may push the company over the edge and lead to the remaining staff losing their jobs. In a lot of industries, employment costs make up 70% of all costs.

@Robert Kelly. It is actually illegal to fire someone. You either have a redundancy situation, where the position no longer exists, or due to proven incompetence or continued misconduct. In such circumstances you can ‘fire’ someone. After that, any attempt to ‘fire’ someone is illegal and a breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act.
As for the minimum wage, some 4% of employees earn the minimum wage. The notion that those on the smallest incomes are a block to further employment, is simply laughable.

“That makes no sense… Why don’t we just make it illegal to fire someone? That way we’ll all have jobs!”

What a complete strawman. We’re talking about a fairer notice period. 30 days is simply not enough and I witnessed it first-hand here in Waterford.

@Stephen

I meant ever.

You should be able to fire whoever you want. It’s your money, if you don’t want them to work for you then you should have the right to fire them. Now I understand it’s illegal, but to confuse what you “should” be able to do and what you legally can do is unhelpful for this debate. Sure we all know murder is illegal, but what I like to talk about is why it should be illegal/legal. In the end it’s not illegal because it’s unhelpful for a society to have legal murder but it’s illegal because ultimately it’s wrong. (although it is helpful too)

Now to relate this to this debate, I think that ultimately it’s not wrong to fire someone. There are good and bad reasons to do it (just like everything in life). But the way I see it is that it’s there money and they get to decide what to do with it.

@Sean

Ok, I’ll take that. My bad :)

But you brought up something interesting. The notion of fairness. Is it fair to force an employer, who just like everyone is in it to make a living and have a good life. He/she is a person too. Imagine being forced to do something that puts your entire company and living at risk all because someone thinks it’s more fair “my way”.

Now perhaps it is more fair, but what is fair? Is it fair that someone is born blind and other not? Of course not, but such is life. I think that there are problems with society like drug use, broken marriages and other social/economic problems. But force is far from the answer.

@Robert. Sorry, but you really do not understand the economics of this. For sure the employer has “their money”‘! But that money is worthless without the contribution of other workers. Eg, you have a €1m in cash in your possession. It is worthless without the contributions and reliance of ordinary workers. Try deposit it in a bank for instance. In order to this you will need the assistance of a cashier. Correct or not? You will presumably have to travel to the bank, unless you manufactured your own car or bus, you are once again reliant on ordinary workers. Perhaps you walked to the bank? Who made your shoes? Who laid the concrete path for you to walk on? Who built the bank? Etc…etc…Your €1m in cash is worthless without the reliance on thousands of ordinary workers. But for sure, it’s “your money”.
The notion that employers should be allowed to hire and fire at will is a notion from the dark ages.

@Stephen

Ok, that’s an interesting comment. In fact you’re actually making the case for capitalism and the division of labour :P
Yeah, somebody made my shoes. this computer and my keyboard. But it’s not their’s, it’s mine. I traded them money (which is a means of exchange, that thankfully allows us to avoid barter and all sorts of ickies) for their product(s). They no longer have a say over it once I’ve traded them for it. They may have made the stuff we use today, but we owe them nothing once the trade is complete.

In life you go out into the market with your labour and sell it to the employer. Who then has the option to hire you or not. Just like going to the shops and choosing to buy something from a range of products. An entrepreneur should be able to buy and use labour at whatever prices he can manage. Putting a floor on top of this would only stifle this. Just like how price controls destroy an economy, it does the same for labour.

Now to address your comment as a whole. You could your entire argument, tweak it a little and put land in there instead, or capital or entrepreneurship and it’d be just as effective. You’re over emphasizing one factor of production. If any of the other factors didn’t exist then we’d be in the same hypothetical situation you described. TBH I’ve heard that argument before, it’s debunked economics or not even economics but just poor reasoning. And I’m the one who doesn’t understand?

@ Robert. Fair enough, I’ll refrain from any personal jibes.

TBH I don’t disagree with a lot of what you say. However, what is missing from your views is any sense of solidarity with those in society who are worst off.
In an ideal world, if the free market capitalism was allowed to operate, we would all work for what we are worth. But the reality is at one end of the scale, low paid workers are vulnerable to being exploited to the point where basic necessities are not affordable – hence the concept of minimum wage. At the other end of the scale, those that CONTROL the distribution of wealth, namely directors, business owners etc, are, quite often, at an unfair advantage of being able to carve up the lions share of wealth once that wealth has been created. When I say created I mean created by the employee and employer (as per the €1m cash story). As stated previously, in an ideal free capitalist world we should only earn what we are worth. But this is never the case, as is witnessed by the vast sums of money paid to directors of high profile companies. It is patently clear that there is an uneven distribution of the wealth that has been created.
As a consequence, society has, through it’s legislature, sought a transfer of wealth to those who might otherwise be most vulnerable. It might not make sense in trying to maximise profits, but it makes economic sense in my view.
Ultimately, those that propagate a free capitalist market without interference have to realise their own worth first which unfortunately tends to be over-inflated most of the time. This is a natural human reaction when you control wealth. It is often mistaken for creating wealth.

@Stephen

Thank you, I’m sorry if I said anything below the belt as well. I get carried away sometimes :P

Anyways yes, I can see how I come across like that. I do like to help the poor, but I don’t see how we can if the way we solve it is through violence and coercion. I also get the line of “you don’t care about the poor” a lot, but the fact is that I do. Dismantling a lot of laws and regulations can achieve that. I do so much that I want to dismantle that which has made them a prisoner of themselves. Namely it’s the state by which they are a prisoner of. A state controlled by greedy politicians and general affluent psychopaths.

I like to take the prime example of America when it comes to state capitalism vs free market capitalism. The rich basically own that place, yet it’s not a free market. It’s not a free market as they know they couldn’t control as much as they do now if it was.

I have no sympathy for the people who get rich off government. To me, taking their wealth off them (which they acquired illegitimately, through force) doesn’t make me lose sleep at night. I suppose we have to look at the basic idea about which free market capitalism (fmc) is based upon. It’s based on the idea of voluntary association and trade in the aim of bettering ourselves, as opposed to what we have now or socialism. Which is ultimately based upon force and the threatening of people. If we support the redistribution of wealth, we must also support the acts and threats of violence that are carried out when people won’t play ball.

Another thing to note is that in a fmc the only way to get rich is to be a good entrepreneur and serve the consumer by making good he/she desire. If they don’t do that, they can’t make money as people will rise up in competition to undercut them or come out with a better product.

I think we both want the same thing in life (nearly, ok maybe not), but we have different ways of achieving it :P

That would be a valid point if they came up with a proposal that didn’t do more harm than good.

Let’s make the minimum wage €500 per hour and solve the economic crisis!

@Cliff
This does nothing for the ordinary man. In fact it may actually hurt his chances of getting hired in the first place. Companies as a result of having to give extra notice will be more weary about hiring people they may need to lay off (unskilled people) and as a result they don’t get hired at all.

@Cliff
Sorry, wrong thread!! That was embarrassing.

@robert- ‘unskilled’ people? ‘skilled’ people get laid off too! I hate that term, unskilled. Most people acquire skill in their field after a time.

*to know

Because larger companies have a larger work-force, which means that a larger number of people are looking for the same jobs when they are let go.

Take for example here in Waterford. I worked in TalkTalk for 8 years, and all staff were given 30 days notice (Despite the company knowing about closing for months if not, years…) This saw hundreds of people who were made redundant trying to find work in a town that was already short on jobs. 30 days notice just didn’t cut the mustard, and many of my friends were forced to leave Waterford.

A smaller company, with 10 staff made redundant will have a much easier time finding work, in a much quicker time-frame than 500+ people all fighting for the same handful of jobs in a small city or town.

That is why this proposal makes sense, and why Fine Gael demonstrates yet again that they are clueless when it comes to running this state.

Fair point but the cost to business would be very high having to keep on redundant staff for that long a period of time.

Also I would wonder what point there is in keeping on a workforce for so long who know they’ll be out the door in a number of months

Just prolonging the pain from what I can see!

@david re: ‘prolonging the pain’ – I imagine people would prefer to have a few more pay packets before swan diving into ‘pain’ !!

Yeah Sinn Fein attention seeking nothing about defending the ordinary man.

@Norman
This does nothing for the ordinary man. In fact it may actually hurt his chances of getting hired in the first place. Companies as a result of having to give extra notice will be more weary about hiring people they may need to lay off (unskilled people) and as a result they don’t get hired at all.

Nonsense Robert. You could make the same claim to reduce the notice period. Sure, if their notice period was only 24 hours that might suit you better.

The reality is – 30 days is simply not long enough for a large multinational company. There are too many people looking for the same jobs. This happened in Waterford with the closure of TalkTalk, a move that the company was well aware of for months – if not years. Give someone a longer window and they have a much better opportunity to find work, or find an educational course.

@Seán
Well I made a general claim about it. I do think there shouldn’t be any notices (at least in law), if people want to organize it privately with the company that’s fine.

The reality is that you say you’re entitled to the money of that company and you do so under the threat of violence of government. I truly think that’s immoral.

If companies want to give notices (which I think they probably would as to give themselves a good image) then I won’t stop them. Making it law only hurts the people it intends to protect.

I suppose the question I have for you is why should this be law at all? Why should you be entitled to notice? Its not your money to have a say over, so why do you? Just curious :)

@ Robert Kelly. Notice is given to help minimise the hardship of losing employment and to give the worker sometime to prepare to look for work elsewhere. It also prevents unscrupulous employers threatening workers with immediate dismissal. It is also there as a social contract, ie most people understand (obviously not you) the need to be given notice. Also, if it is law, then it applies to all workers, so not disadvantage to anyone.
There is a myth peddled by right wing business circles that it is employers who create jobs alone – not so, a job is created by mutual agreement between employer and employee.

@Stephen
Let employers give notice on their own terms. If it turns out that company x fires workers when it can and for the laugh then nobody will work for them.

As for the social contract that is ridiculous. I do understand it and I also understand it doesn’t exist. They’re completely subjective and usually immoral with the use of force sanctioned by them.

I like how you say it’s a myth, what’s your economic reasoning for calling it a myth? While it’s certainly not entirely entrepreneurs it’s certainly not the “social contract” either. I’d advise watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU on the social contract.

@Robert Kelly. I have no problem with employers and employees negotiating the terms of their own contracts, but only insofar as it is in line with the statutory minimum requirements ie no immediate dismissal. There is a reason why minimum notice exists as I’ve outlined. Nobody wants to be in the predicament where the terms of their contract dictate that they can be dismissed at a moments notice. People have mortgages to pay, rent to pay, kids to clothe and feed. Allowing employers to dismiss workers at a moments notice puts the fear into the employee. Afraid to ask for time off, afraid to ask for a well earned pay rise etc…this would only help line the pockets of the few against the many. I would like to think that the days of Dickens ‘Hard Times’ or the 1913 Lock-out were a thing of the past.

@Stephen

OK, you are unfortunately mistaken when it comes to the economics of labour. I’d recommend you read this: http://mises.org/daily/5934/The-Irrelevance-of-Worker-Need-and-Employer-Greed-in-Determining-Wages (sorry for the long link) but it’s a real eye-opener when it comes to the labour market and how it works especially in determining wages, holidays and benefits. Competition drives up wages and benefits and brings down unemployment.

The problem in this country is that there is no real competition in labour with the amount of “worker’s rights” and the minimum wage laws. Car manufactures offer really good warranties now, thanks to competition not government law. The same can be said about wages and extra benefits like holidays and healthcare. Eventually money is not longer an incentive to work harder and making your worker happy is the best thing an employer can do (look at Google).

So back to my other question, what economic reasoning do you use to say that jobs are created through the social contract?

@Robert. I had to quit reading that article as it is complete BS and way off the mark. It uses the analogy of a owning a car ffs!
Try something else like, eh, food! Regardless of how expensive food gets, the person (regardless of whether it’s an employee or employer ) will need to obtain it. Therefore, each person is open to exploitation from those that have or control the means to purchase food over and above those that don’t have the means to purchase food.
It stands to reason therefore that wages can be driven down to such a low as point as is affordable for food.
With that in mind, and in a sense of solidarity with those on low incomes, the government, elected by the people have set a minimum wage. The idea being that everyone is entitled to a minimum standard of living for their efforts, regardless. It is a transfer of wealth from those that have to those who do not have.

If you don’t eat, you die. If you don’t own a car, get the bus!

@Stephen

Economics is bullshit? What is your economic reasoning to say it’s wrong?

I was actually hoping you would use the argument you did just there. I’ll use an argument made by an economist called Robert P. Murphy. Basically it goes like so. If you say that people will eventually be exploited down to the level of which wages are in line with the BASIC cost(s) of living then we can assume that’s true. But why then isn’t everyone earning the minimum wage? Surely if the bargaining power is in the hands of the employer then why aren’t wages at rock bottom. Now you can point out (and I think you or someone else did) that only 4% of the workforce earns the minimum wage, which begs the question of why aren’t more people earning it? But anyways, economics is a weird science. You can point to places like Australia and say “look! Australia has a big minimum wage but high employment, thus proving the minimum wage doesn’t create unemployment or is good etc” but we know, that if we hold everything else constant and raise wages artificially then people will become unemployed as a result as it costs more to keep them on than to let them go. They’re no longer earning profit, therefore will be let go since all the entrepreneur wants only profit.

There’s a few videos you should watch on it. I only link to videos as they explain it better than I ever could, unless I was sitting in front of you which isn’t the case. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Scx_DVk9C3w

PS. Sorry for the long comment

FDI = likes countries where you can lay people off easy is it? My head hurts. Are you mates with the other FGers on here?

Answer me this Martin: Why would linking notice periods to the numbers employed make any sense? Why should someone who works for say, Google, have a longer notice period than someone working a smaller firm?

The proposal does nothing except take a cheap shot at bigger firms (i.e. multinationals) and discourages FDI.

Populist rubbish by Sinn Fein as per usual and designed only to win votes without taking into account wider economic implications.

It makes sense because a larger number of employees being laid off will be in direct competition with each other when job-hunting. Let’s examine shall we – who has an easier time finding work?

Company A lays off 10 staff.

Company B lays off 500 staff.

Who will find work quicker? It certainly wont be the 500 people frantically fighting for the same handful of positions. That is why this proposal makes absolute sense, and is anything but populist.

Bizarre comment!

High on the agenda of incoming foreign investors is “how soon can we get out of here?”

Hahaha, that’s brilliant Sean! You actually think that’s a valid reason for the proposal?

Ireland currently has around 400,000 unemployed, you think that adding a few hundred will radically tip the balance. As for clamoring for the same jobs- frankly that’s unquantifiable nonsense.

What happens, using your example, when company A and B lay off workers at the same time? Company A gets pretty screwed!! Or what about 10 person company C who fire 5 people 2 months after company A??

Company D, E, F….