[SeanK]

If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.

This is correct. You can get rid of anyone for any reason if they have worked for you less then 2 years.

Don't let something like this get in the way of what you want to do. To make big bucks you have to take risks, there is no way around it.

Wrong.
www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4240

Sorry the link didn't work but an employee has rights from the start of employment, including paternity, sick pay , gender and sexual discrimination and so, this includes unfair dismissal for any on the list.

The link works now.

[Soupy]

If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.

This is correct. You can get rid of anyone for any reason if they have worked for you less then 2 years.

Don't let something like this get in the way of what you want to do. To make big bucks you have to take risks, there is no way around it.

Wrong.
www.acas.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4240

Dead link.

[8weekly]

Johnny its a whole lot of worry over nothing, for a start how many guys are going develop a long term health problem
and even if they do its a maximum bill of around £2500 or £2000 with the Tax saving removed. ( Sick Payments)
Plus you have to be off for more than three days before getting a penny which will stop most guys just looking to steal a lazy week.
There's not enough money in the statutory sick to temp anybody but the most useless layabouts which to be honest should be
weeded out in the interview process.

This is very true. And, if you do decide to dismaiss, as long as you've done it reasonably well in terms of process the fact that the employee has to pay the court fee is a huge disincentive.

So much for EU employee rights then. (wink) lol.

It was budget cutting by the government. It's the same as tightening up on free legal assistance.

[KS Cleaning]

If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.

This is correct. You can get rid of anyone for any reason if they have worked for you less then 2 years.

Don't let something like this get in the way of what you want to do. To make big bucks you have to take risks, there is no way around it.

Speaking from experience you can't get rid of anyone for any reason who is on SSP  irrespective of how long you have employed them. I phoned ACAS on this very subject and they said it would be very risky to pay employee off who was on SSP as it could involve court action should that employee so wish.

[8weekly]

If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.

This is correct. You can get rid of anyone for any reason if they have worked for you less then 2 years.

Don't let something like this get in the way of what you want to do. To make big bucks you have to take risks, there is no way around it.

Speaking from experience you can't get rid of anyone for any reason who is on SSP  irrespective of how long you have employed them. I phoned ACAS on this very subject and they said it would be very risky to pay employee off who was on SSP as it could involve court action should that employee so wish.

You can get rid of them if you don't think that they will be fit for work in an acceptable timescale. As Sean said above it's unlikely anyone would want to stay on SSP for any period of time anyway.

To add, if you've ever been in a position where you need to take an employer to court, in most cases the reward is so small it's not worth the trouble and risk of hefty court fees.

[KS Cleaning]

If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.

This is correct. You can get rid of anyone for any reason if they have worked for you less then 2 years.

Don't let something like this get in the way of what you want to do. To make big bucks you have to take risks, there is no way around it.

Speaking from experience you can't get rid of anyone for any reason who is on SSP  irrespective of how long you have employed them. I phoned ACAS on this very subject and they said it would be very risky to pay employee off who was on SSP as it could involve court action should that employee so wish.

You can get rid of them if you don't think that they will be fit for work in an acceptable timescale. As Sean said above it's unlikely anyone would want to stay on SSP for any period of time anyway.

To add, if you've ever been in a position where you need to take an employer to court, in most cases the reward is so small it's not worth the trouble and risk of hefty court fees.

I was replying to James Purewash who stated that you can get rid of employees for any reason as they have worked for less than 2 years, this isn't the case if they are on SSP.  As I said, I spoke to ACAS who advised me not to pay off employee at that time, then re assess the situation after 6 - 8 weeks. If it was early in his SSP period and I had lost a big contract and there was no work for him, then yes I would be able to pay him off and would  win the case should the employee take it to court, on the other hand if I paid him off soon after he claimed SSP and I then employed someone else to do his work I could find myself in trouble should it go to court.

[Frankybadboy]

their ill or crippled.

do you think Dazmond that the word "crippled" is ok to use.words like that are abusive and offensive 

[8weekly]

If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.

This is correct. You can get rid of anyone for any reason if they have worked for you less then 2 years.

Don't let something like this get in the way of what you want to do. To make big bucks you have to take risks, there is no way around it.

Speaking from experience you can't get rid of anyone for any reason who is on SSP  irrespective of how long you have employed them. I phoned ACAS on this very subject and they said it would be very risky to pay employee off who was on SSP as it could involve court action should that employee so wish.

You can get rid of them if you don't think that they will be fit for work in an acceptable timescale. As Sean said above it's unlikely anyone would want to stay on SSP for any period of time anyway.

To add, if you've ever been in a position where you need to take an employer to court, in most cases the reward is so small it's not worth the trouble and risk of hefty court fees.

I was replying to James Purewash who stated that you can get rid of employees for any reason as they have worked for less than 2 years, this isn't the case if they are on SSP.  As I said, I spoke to ACAS who advised me not to pay off employee at that time, then re assess the situation after 6 - 8 weeks. If it was early in his SSP period and I had lost a big contract and there was no work for him, then yes I would be able to pay him off and would  win the case should the employee take it to court, on the other hand if I paid him off soon after he claimed SSP and I then employed someone else to do his work I could find myself in trouble should it go to court.

But that's a different situation. You lost a contract and wanted to make him redundant. If you told ACAS that, ofcourse they are going to say you are on sticky ground.

[dazmond]

their ill or crippled.

do you think Dazmond that the word "crippled" is ok to use.words like that are abusive and offensive 

are they?i didnt know you couldnt use that word nowadays?

not fit for work then!

[KS Cleaning]

If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.

This is correct. You can get rid of anyone for any reason if they have worked for you less then 2 years.

Don't let something like this get in the way of what you want to do. To make big bucks you have to take risks, there is no way around it.

Speaking from experience you can't get rid of anyone for any reason who is on SSP  irrespective of how long you have employed them. I phoned ACAS on this very subject and they said it would be very risky to pay employee off who was on SSP as it could involve court action should that employee so wish.

You can get rid of them if you don't think that they will be fit for work in an acceptable timescale. As Sean said above it's unlikely anyone would want to stay on SSP for any period of time anyway.

To add, if you've ever been in a position where you need to take an employer to court, in most cases the reward is so small it's not worth the trouble and risk of hefty court fees.

I was replying to James Purewash who stated that you can get rid of employees for any reason as they have worked for less than 2 years, this isn't the case if they are on SSP.  As I said, I spoke to ACAS who advised me not to pay off employee at that time, then re assess the situation after 6 - 8 weeks. If it was early in his SSP period and I had lost a big contract and there was no work for him, then yes I would be able to pay him off and would  win the case should the employee take it to court, on the other hand if I paid him off soon after he claimed SSP and I then employed someone else to do his work I could find myself in trouble should it go to court.

But that's a different situation. You lost a contract and wanted to make him redundant. If you told ACAS that, ofcourse they are going to say you are on sticky ground.

Either I am wording it badly or you can't read . I was putting forward two scenarios, 1 where you would be justified in paying off an employee on SSP and 1 where you could find yourself on sticky ground if you paid him off. The scenario that you have referred to would actually be seen as a justifiable reason to pay someone off even if they were on SSP

[AuRavelling79]

their ill or crippled.

do you think Dazmond that the word "crippled" is ok to use.words like that are abusive and offensive 

Franky there is nothing wrong with the word crippled in the context Dazmond has used it. Look it up.

If he had called someone "a cripple" as in "you're a right cripple" in a jocular or offensive manner that would probably be offensive - but it is a legitimate word.

[8weekly]

If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.

This is correct. You can get rid of anyone for any reason if they have worked for you less then 2 years.

Don't let something like this get in the way of what you want to do. To make big bucks you have to take risks, there is no way around it.

Speaking from experience you can't get rid of anyone for any reason who is on SSP  irrespective of how long you have employed them. I phoned ACAS on this very subject and they said it would be very risky to pay employee off who was on SSP as it could involve court action should that employee so wish.

You can get rid of them if you don't think that they will be fit for work in an acceptable timescale. As Sean said above it's unlikely anyone would want to stay on SSP for any period of time anyway.

To add, if you've ever been in a position where you need to take an employer to court, in most cases the reward is so small it's not worth the trouble and risk of hefty court fees.

I was replying to James Purewash who stated that you can get rid of employees for any reason as they have worked for less than 2 years, this isn't the case if they are on SSP.  As I said, I spoke to ACAS who advised me not to pay off employee at that time, then re assess the situation after 6 - 8 weeks. If it was early in his SSP period and I had lost a big contract and there was no work for him, then yes I would be able to pay him off and would  win the case should the employee take it to court, on the other hand if I paid him off soon after he claimed SSP and I then employed someone else to do his work I could find myself in trouble should it go to court.

But that's a different situation. You lost a contract and wanted to make him redundant. If you told ACAS that, ofcourse they are going to say you are on sticky ground.

Either I am wording it badly or you can't read . I was putting forward two scenarios, 1 where you would be justified in paying off an employee on SSP and 1 where you could find yourself on sticky ground if you paid him off. The scenario that you have referred to would actually be seen as a justifiable reason to pay someone off even if they were on SSP

I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting  using his illness as a way of avoiding redundancy pay. But you're right - I can't resist.

[Frankybadboy]

their ill or crippled.

do you think Dazmond that the word "crippled" is ok to use.words like that are abusive and offensive 

Franky there is nothing wrong with the word crippled in the context Dazmond has used it. Look it up.

If he had called someone "a cripple" as in "you're a right cripple" in a jocular or offensive manner that would probably be offensive - but it is a legitimate word.

The word cripple has long been in use to refer to ‘a person unable to walk through illness or disability’ and is recorded (in the Lindisfarne Gospels) as early as AD 950. In the 20th century the term acquired offensive connotations and has now been largely replaced by broader terms such as ‘disabled person’
Origin

[8weekly]

their ill or crippled.

do you think Dazmond that the word "crippled" is ok to use.words like that are abusive and offensive 

Franky there is nothing wrong with the word crippled in the context Dazmond has used it. Look it up.

If he had called someone "a cripple" as in "you're a right cripple" in a jocular or offensive manner that would probably be offensive - but it is a legitimate word.

The word cripple has long been in use to refer to ‘a person unable to walk through illness or disability’ and is recorded (in the Lindisfarne Gospels) as early as AD 950. In the 20th century the term acquired offensive connotations and has now been largely replaced by broader terms such as ‘disabled person’
Origin

To call someone a "cripple" is offensive, but to describe someone who has lost the use of limbs is crippled is not offensive. In my opinion.

[Og]

Crippled with laughter.

[simon w]

Cripple Cock. Don't drink the stuff myself but I hear some like it.

[8weekly]

Cripple Cock. Don't drink the stuff myself but I hear some like it.

There used to be a cider from Dixies cider mill in Bristol that brewed a rough cider called crippled cock.

[Ian101]

I may be wrong but I think you can tell him to claim direct from DHS or what ever its called these days ?

[SeanK]

I may be wrong but I think you can tell him to claim direct from DHS or what ever its called these days ?

They way it used to work was the employer would claim it back, before that you could sign on the sick and receive the same
benefits as the unemployed long term sick including help with rent and so on.
This was all craftily changed so that the employer would have to foot the bill for 28 weeks but the employee would still be
employed so entitled to nothing else.
You have to pay it but to be honest I feel more for a genuine employee who ends up in this situation.

[ascjim]

https://www.gov.uk/taking-sick-leave

You can sack someone on ssp. They can't take your money forever!