Spring Budget 2017

[Lloyd90]

I'm surprised the manager hasn't been disciplined as HR is obviously not been following.Where I work at HMRC there is no sympathy regarding how poorly an employee is.Its the same disaplinary route whether you have a simple flue or terminal cancer.

HMRC even make the employee come in for disciplinary meet at 12 weeks,failing your attendance they come to your home and interview you about your illness.

Hence not many I'm my office have abused the 6mth full pay thing.

His management was bad, the two 'service managers' above him were even worse. The policies are only as good as the people implementing them correctly.

 

Someone with cancer being discipled is terrible and shows what measures some employers have to go to to stop people taking the ****.

[7daysinaweek]

The woman I directly know who is doing it has had approx 6 years off sick in 11 years service.

 

I was surprised to hear the same as you regarding the 1,2,3,4 and your out rule in other departments of the council, but obviously the manager in this one department was terrible, did very little himself and generally didn't care I think.

 

She has also done several other things that are sackable offences, such as spout off a rant about how she doesn't agree with homosexual relationships and how wrong it is in the equalities training and also accused one of our kids of theft of her iPad only to later find it in her own bag and tear the pages out of the log book (an official document)

 

She still works there. I'm glad I'm moving on to better things.

 

I have also known of similar individuals over the years in a huge public provider organisation who have had years of absence collectively amounting to years. As you say policy is only as robust as those which implement it appropriately. I have witnessed this many times over the years, laissez faire style of managers who cannot manage individuals effectively who have a questionable and unsupported record of recurrent absence over months or years. Managers of this ilk serve only to waste resources, increase the pressure upon other individuals within the team/organisation as they usually take on the additional duties of the absent individual. Colleagues become demoralised and burnt out which can result in further absence. It is a constant challenge to manage sickness and absence as each persons circumstances are unique and coupled with other policies used by public providers such as flexible working policy can be frustrating at times. It can be a very, very complex process to get to stage 4 dismissal under s&a policy, HR policy within the nhs insists that every possible effort has to be made on behalf of the employer to mediate with individual and provide a documented avenue for communication and support to enable them back to the working enviroment, even if the individual is of a recidivistic nature. Can have you pulling your hair out sometimes

 

In relation to her homophobic comments under equality and diversity act she would be dismissed as you say it is zero tolerance. Regarding her tampering with a official document she would be subject to disciplinary procedure by employer as all documentation held by any organisation should be contemporaneous. If this was documented within a clients/service user notes and removed outside of your organisation documentation policy again it could be disciplinary action.

 

I have said it before the "Fish Rot's From The Head Down" in some organisations and departments and weak management styles do not challenge toxic individuals and it results in meltdown.

 

atb

7diaw

[Lloyd90]

 

I have also known of similar individuals over the years in a huge public provider organisation who have had years of absence collectively amounting to years. As you say policy is only as robust as those which implement it appropriately. I have witnessed this many times over the years, laissez faire style of managers who cannot manage individuals effectively who have a questionable and unsupported record of recurrent absence over months or years. Managers of this ilk serve only to waste resources, increase the pressure upon other individuals within the team/organisation as they usually take on the additional duties of the absent individual. Colleagues become demoralised and burnt out which can result in further absence. It is a constant challenge to manage sickness and absence as each persons circumstances are unique and coupled with other policies used by public providers such as flexible working policy can be frustrating at times. It can be a very, very complex process to get to stage 4 dismissal under s&a policy, HR policy within the nhs insists that every possible effort has to be made on behalf of the employer to mediate with individual and provide a documented avenue for communication and support to enable them back to the working enviroment, even if the individual is of a recidivistic nature. Can have you pulling your hair out sometimes

 

In relation to her homophobic comments under equality and diversity act she would be dismissed as you say it is zero tolerance. Regarding her tampering with a official document she would be subject to disciplinary procedure by employer as all documentation held by any organisation should be contemporaneous. If this was documented within a clients/service user notes and removed outside of your organisation documentation policy again it could be disciplinary action.

 

I have said it before the "Fish Rot's From The Head Down" in some organisations and departments and weak management styles do not challenge toxic individuals and it results in meltdown.

 

atb

7diaw

Nail on the head mate.

 

It's easy to say "those things don't happen anymore" but when you see them with your own eyes you know something is going wrong.

 

I don't imagine they're on a huge scale but it's annoying being told your making things up when your dealing with these degenerates. I've had fallings out with this woman, she's genuinely got a screw loose.

 

The terrible thing is people like her ruin it for everyone else. Another woman had a diagnosis of cancer, has 3 little kids at home and her husband is a genuine hard working bloke, she was on a temp contract at the time and didn't get any sick pay or support. Disgraceful!

[Bigbob]

there are people who work 6 months have 6 months six it goes on at my work at first you have a laugh but then you figure out there ripping the **** and your carrying them the novelty soon wears off , there's a guy at work 13 years he was there got signed off for 6 months every winter couldn't be ***** waiting in the cold and dark to get two buses to work , another new start clicked on to the system also had shares in two shops so if somebody couldn't do a shift he phoned in sick and worked in his shop . we got a new boss as the old one was a nice guy but no man management skills and first thing he did was send them all letters the lot where back at there work the next day which spoke volumes , first guy got tested and found he had the chromes for a hereditary disease and jumped straight on the sick 44 years old had the genes since he was born but after the test he suddenly got the disease ? the new boss reckons he wants paid off and is happy to oblige him . The second guy got pulled in for a meeting and took a union rep after they came out the rep said your getting to keep your job by a baw hair next year if you break both your legs you better crawl into here , funny hes no been off since . They said we had the worst attendance record in the place but it only one guy in each shift of the four shifts of seven , but what there no letting on is The HR department has the worst sick record in the whole place

[7daysinaweek]

Nail on the head mate.

 

It's easy to say "those things don't happen anymore" but when you see them with your own eyes you know something is going wrong.

 

I don't imagine they're on a huge scale but it's annoying being told your making things up when your dealing with these degenerates. I've had fallings out with this woman, she's genuinely got a screw loose.

 

The terrible thing is people like her ruin it for everyone else. Another woman had a diagnosis of cancer, has 3 little kids at home and her husband is a genuine hard working bloke, she was on a temp contract at the time and didn't get any sick pay or support. Disgraceful!

 

 

there are people who work 6 months have 6 months six it goes on at my work at first you have a laugh but then you figure out there ripping the **** and your carrying them the novelty soon wears off , there's a guy at work 13 years he was there got signed off for 6 months every winter couldn't be ***** waiting in the cold and dark to get two buses to work , another new start clicked on to the system also had shares in two shops so if somebody couldn't do a shift he phoned in sick and worked in his shop . we got a new boss as the old one was a nice guy but no man management skills and first thing he did was send them all letters the lot where back at there work the next day which spoke volumes , first guy got tested and found he had the chromes for a hereditary disease and jumped straight on the sick 44 years old had the genes since he was born but after the test he suddenly got the disease ? the new boss reckons he wants paid off and is happy to oblige him . The second guy got pulled in for a meeting and took a union rep after they came out the rep said your getting to keep your job by a baw hair next year if you break both your legs you better crawl into here , funny hes no been off since . They said we had the worst attendance record in the place but it only one guy in each shift of the four shifts of seven , but what there no letting on is The HR department has the worst sick record in the whole place

 

Hi bigbob & loyd

In relation to the budget, the injection of £2 billion into social care is still a drop in the ocean and it is a constant challenge for organisations to get that money to work. As with individuals such as the ones we have given examples of they are not best positioned to make efficient use of public money but still we come across them. As I in my previous post, even with robust policy and effective implementation resulting in dismissal there is still a financial loss be it public money or private money. In bigbobs example and in the case of public spending, once it is gone, it is gone.

 

I move within healthcare circles and i shudder at the thought knowing that a proportion of the 2017 budget monies aimed at social care and the smaller amount for the health service will not amount to any benefit to the client/patient. I have experienced many areas of healthcare that have an excellent track record of efficient and effective use of resources and other areas which have massively failed. A recurring factor in these failing areas is the poor management, commonly individuals of the nature we have given examples of. Good leadership from the top down after a bottom up shared learning approach can be significant in boosting efficiency, work moral to an extent. People of the above nature can only be given the opportunity to change poor practice or be removed by good leadership and policy by others who have the diligence (balls or other dangly bit's) to voice concerns. Loyd she sounds like a bit of a whirlwind, undesirable qualities of an individual to be working in your area. Bob as in your example of the your boss happy to pay the guy off and let him go that appears to be common practice in my wife's old place (private industry) get rid and move on. Never ceases to amaze me at how some people skip from one job to another leaving a wake of emotional and financial devastation in their wake. Thankfully in my experience i still come across some good people.

 

Someone once said (no it wasn't me, well it was but only just now!)

 

A leader is someone who knows the way, shows the way and goes the way!

 

Ahh the joys of being a very small cog in a big wheel!

 

atb

7diaw

Edited March 10, 2017 by 7daysinaweek

[dbob]

There seems to be some resentment against the self-employed here. In the last year I have gone from employed to self employed to now limited company. I’m trying to be tax efficient and follow all the rules, but I don’t deal in cash and am not fiddling the system. Yes I may pay less tax than my paye comrades, but I’ve taken the risk to go self-employed. No sick pay, no holiday pay, no paternity pay, the stress and worry of not enough work coming in, running your own accounts etc. All these things are the downside of self employment, so for me there needs to be some reward for going down the working for yourself route. Given there are people that fiddle the system by dealing in cash and not declaring all their earnings, but they are a separate issue.

 

I’m not earning huge money and i’m probably working a lot harder for it than I did when I was employed. A lot of my friends work for themselves and are all grafters often working evenings and weekends to keep the work coming in. The reason for them going self-employed wasn’t based purely on paying less tax, it was because they are all very good at what they do and have the balls and initiative to do it on their own. I think it’s very easy for those that have never worked for themselves to shake the stick at the fact we pay a bit less tax than them. True is has rewards, but it takes over your life. I’m not saying that the employed don’t work as hard, but it’s a totally different mindset.

 

In my opinion the government are hitting the wrong people. They should be doing all they can to encourage people to start up on their own and not try and paint us as the tax dodging elite who have it so much better than the employed. These new businesses if successful will grow and possibly create new jobs. The bottom line is I believe that there should be some tax benefits to counter all the benefits we don’t receive.

Edited March 11, 2017 by dbob

[AVB]

There seems to be some resentment against the self-employed here. In the last year I have gone from employed to self employed to now limited company. Im trying to be tax efficient and follow all the rules, but I dont deal in cash and am not fiddling the system. Yes I may pay less tax than my paye comrades, but Ive taken the risk to go self-employed. No sick pay, no holiday pay, no paternity pay, the stress and worry of not enough work coming in, running your own accounts etc. All these things are the downside of self employment, so for me there needs to be some reward for going down the working for yourself route. Given there are people that fiddle the system by dealing in cash and not declaring all their earnings, but they are a separate issue.

 

Im not earning huge money and im probably working a lot harder for it than I did when I was employed. A lot of my friends work for themselves and are all grafters often working evenings and weekends to keep the work coming in. The reason for them going self-employed wasnt based purely on paying less tax, it was because they are all very good at what they do and have the balls and initiative to do it on their own. I think its very easy for those that have never worked for themselves to shake the stick at the fact we pay a bit less tax than them. True is has rewards, but it takes over your life. Im not saying that the employed dont work as hard, but its a totally different mindset.

 

In my opinion the government are hitting the wrong people. They should be doing all they can to encourage people to start up on their own and not try and paint us as the tax dodging elite who have it so much better than the employed. These new businesses if successful will grow and possibly create new jobs. The bottom line is I believe that there should be some tax benefits to counter all the benefits we dont receive.

I don't disagree that there should be some compensation for the benefits you don't receive but that should be factored into your day rate and not being subsidised by PAYE employees (by paying more tax).

[achosenman]

There seems to be some resentment against the self-employed here. In the last year I have gone from employed to self employed to now limited company. I’m trying to be tax efficient and follow all the rules, but I don’t deal in cash and am not fiddling the system. Yes I may pay less tax than my paye comrades, but I’ve taken the risk to go self-employed. No sick pay, no holiday pay, no paternity pay, the stress and worry of not enough work coming in, running your own accounts etc. All these things are the downside of self employment, so for me there needs to be some reward for going down the working for yourself route. Given there are people that fiddle the system by dealing in cash and not declaring all their earnings, but they are a separate issue.

 

I’m not earning huge money and i’m probably working a lot harder for it than I did when I was employed. A lot of my friends work for themselves and are all grafters often working evenings and weekends to keep the work coming in. The reason for them going self-employed wasn’t based purely on paying less tax, it was because they are all very good at what they do and have the balls and initiative to do it on their own. I think it’s very easy for those that have never worked for themselves to shake the stick at the fact we pay a bit less tax than them. True is has rewards, but it takes over your life. I’m not saying that the employed don’t work as hard, but it’s a totally different mindset.

 

In my opinion the government are hitting the wrong people. They should be doing all they can to encourage people to start up on their own and not try and paint us as the tax dodging elite who have it so much better than the employed. These new businesses if successful will grow and possibly create new jobs. The bottom line is I believe that there should be some tax benefits to counter all the benefits we don’t receive.

 

I'm willing to be corrected but AFAIK the level of NIC was set when the self employed did not get a state pension. As of April 2016 you now qualify. Who should pay for that?

I haven't looked but an extra £240 PA for an £8K pension seems like a good deal to me.

[sportsbob]

So there we go , a u turn over NI

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39287222

[Lloyd90]

So there we go , a u turn over NI

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39287222

Come on Bob, that was yesterday 😂😂

 

Wonder if anything else will be changed now. S24 of the new housing act is a right mess, charging landlords tax on income not profits, tried it in Ireland and rents went up 40%.

[sportsbob]

I have just read up on the tax changes to landlords and to be honest if I have understood it correctly then I agree with the new system. lets look at this the landlord has a mortgage to buy a property and currently can offset the interest against his income that`s wrong because he is having a free loan to buy a property as everybody else is paying his interest. As far as I am aware if you start any other type of business your investment is not tax deductable, if the landlord wants to offset the interest then he needs to form a limited company and do things properly, I think the whole idea is to clamp down on a lot of the backstreet types which in all fairness cant be a bad thing can it?

[Vince Green]

The woman I directly know who is doing it has had approx 6 years off sick in 11 years service.

 

I was surprised to hear the same as you regarding the 1,2,3,4 and your out rule in other departments of the council, but obviously the manager in this one department was terrible, did very little himself and generally didn't care I think.

 

She has also done several other things that are sackable offences, such as spout off a rant about how she doesn't agree with homosexual relationships and how wrong it is in the equalities training and also accused one of our kids of theft of her iPad only to later find it in her own bag and tear the pages out of the log book (an official document)

 

She still works there. I'm glad I'm moving on to better things.

Its certainly true in the NHS, my OH can tell you some incredible stories of people who are habitual sicknote abusers but a lot of that is down to weak management letting them get away with it.

[Lloyd90]

I have just read up on the tax changes to landlords and to be honest if I have understood it correctly then I agree with the new system. lets look at this the landlord has a mortgage to buy a property and currently can offset the interest against his income that`s wrong because he is having a free loan to buy a property as everybody else is paying his interest. As far as I am aware if you start any other type of business your investment is not tax deductable, if the landlord wants to offset the interest then he needs to form a limited company and do things properly, I think the whole idea is to clamp down on a lot of the backstreet types which in all fairness cant be a bad thing can it?

You say that but no other business taxes you on your income before expenses, and being a landlord is certainly a business.

 

Any other business can claim back the interest payments on loans as far as I'm aware.

 

We also live in a country with a lack of rental houses, I know at present I couldn't afford to buy a house in the city, and because I have a job, am not on benefits or disabled etc then I wouldn't even qualify for social housing (if they even had any). So private renting fills that void.

 

With the new tax changes in some cases the landlords will actually lose money after paying tax. Would you go through all the hassle of providing someone else a home, hoping they take care of it, being responsible for making sure it's all up to scratch and at the end of the day you might lose money.

 

On top of that, the land lords sticking it out will just put up rents to cover the extra tax. I've seen many landlords stating they are rising rent by the maximum amount allowed every year to cover the tax, prior to this they claim not to have raised rents in years.

Look up what happened when they did this in Ireland, 40% increase in rents, they then scrapped the scheme, but the rents don't go back down! The tax will just hit tenants and those already struggling to get onto the ladder IMO.

[achosenman]

Thats the problem, people belive tax is an isolated affair. It isn't, the cost will always be passed on where possible.

[Newbie to this]

You say that but no other business taxes you on your income before expenses, and being a landlord is certainly a business.

Any other business can claim back the interest payments on loans as far as I'm aware.

We also live in a country with a lack of rental houses, I know at present I couldn't afford to buy a house in the city, and because I have a job, am not on benefits or disabled etc then I wouldn't even qualify for social housing (if they even had any). So private renting fills that void.

With the new tax changes in some cases the landlords will actually lose money after paying tax. Would you go through all the hassle of providing someone else a home, hoping they take care of it, being responsible for making sure it's all up to scratch and at the end of the day you might lose money.

On top of that, the land lords sticking it out will just put up rents to cover the extra tax. I've seen many landlords stating they are rising rent by the maximum amount allowed every year to cover the tax, prior to this they claim not to have raised rents in years.

Look up what happened when they did this in Ireland, 40% increase in rents, they then scrapped the scheme, but the rents don't go back down! The tax will just hit tenants and those already struggling to get onto the ladder IMO.

+1

[sportsbob]

Yes your right "some landlords" but not all and like I said if they form a limited company they could even be better off. As far as I can see the tax reform will only really catch the people who are using the buy to let system and don't you think they are the ones causing the housing shortage and driving up prices in the first place. If all these self minded small landlords using the system to there own means have to pay a little more tax to secure their pension then so be it and perhaps some of the money gained by central government hopefully can be used to fund more council housing.

[Lloyd90]

Yes your right "some landlords" but not all and like I said if they form a limited company they could even be better off. As far as I can see the tax reform will only really catch the people who are using the buy to let system and don't you think they are the ones causing the housing shortage and driving up prices in the first place. If all these self minded small landlords using the system to there own means have to pay a little more tax to secure their pension then so be it and perhaps some of the money gained by central government hopefully can be used to fund more council housing.

Council housing is being sold off to housing associations etc ,who funnily enough aren't included in the new legislation that means they pay tax on income, not profit.

 

No I genuinely don't think Buy to let is taking up all the houses and ruining the market, I think it's filling the void of not enough rental accommodation.

 

The housing shortage is a massive shortfall of housing stock, every year we are something like 100,000 short of just keeping up with demand, let alone any new demand from new people looking to buy or entering the country.

 

It's from next month the changes start coming in and are staggered over 3 years. I honestly hope I'm wrong, because if I'm right not only will landlords be effected but hundreds of thousands of 'just about managing' families and people who rent, as their rent will undoubtedly be going up inline with the extra tax.

 

You seem to think it's the landlords that will be paying extra, but have given no thought to the tenant.

 

For landlords who no longer make a profit they will evict their tentants and sell up.

For landlords who get extra tax they will put up rent to cover the tax.

Where will those tenants go? Not everyone wants/can afford to buy a house but still has no real prospect of getting social housing.