Maternity Discrimination Hampering Women Returning To Work

A recent research showed that with the years the number of women who take maternity leave and later find out they cannot return to the position they had left, rises.

Every year about 340,000 use the maternity leave and about 14% of them have problems at their working places when they go back, which often lead to their dismissal.

There are many cases in which such women were forced to move to a position with less responsibility.

Besides some of them feel their employers force them to resign.

The Equality Act 2010 prohibits the maternity discrimination at work. Unfortunately the law was changed and now women have to pay £1,200 in order to take their employees to an employment tribunal accusing them of maternity discrimination.

The legal firm Slater and Gordon conducted a survey among 1,000 mothers and their answers showed that almost a quarter were not well grounded with their maternity rights. A half of them shared their role at work was not the same after returning back from maternity leave.

Labour said maternity rights would be among their priorities at the next year’s elections. The shadow secretary Yvette Cooper spoke against the coalition because according to her they were betraying working mothers.

For the Independent she admitted her party would do everything possible in order to struggle with employers who did not manage to perform their legal responsibilities.

She wrote: “It is illegal to treat staff unfairly while on maternity leave. But most women don’t know the law and don’t feel able to challenge. So experienced and skilled women are pushed out of jobs or lose pay when they feel least able to disagree. That’s bad for the economy too”.

 

A Million Workers Could be on Zero-hours Contracts

Last week information was published from the Office for National Statistics according to which the number of the workers in the UK who work on zero-hours contracts is 250,000. On the other hand, a research pointed out that these are over a million. Due to these zero-hours contracts workers have to be ready to work whenever they are called but at the same time they do not have any hours guaranteed.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CPID) carried out a survey and the results of it showed that 3-4% of the 1,000 employers who took part in the quiz were employed on zero-hours terms.

Figures also point out that these zero-hours contracts are most frequently found in the voluntary and public sectors. Most of the employees who work in the hotel, catering and leisure sectors have either worked or have friends who have worked at zero-hours contracts.

Fourteen percent of those 148 working on zero-hours contracts shared their employers did not give them enough work so that they could not live normally.

CIPD chief executive Peter Cheese said:

“Zero-hours contracts, used appropriately, can provide flexibility for employers and employees and can play a positive role in creating more flexible working opportunities.”

However, he added that people needed to be more certain in their working hours and earnings.

The general secretary Dave Prentis said that these people worked on the zero-hours contracts only because they had no other option, otherwise they would definitely prefer something they could rely on. Nowadays employers are more powerful end workers have almost no possibility to complain.

 

Government Taken To Task Over Compensation Culture Myth

A health and safety journal has recently announced that the claims of the government for”compensation culture” were nonsensical. Buy Health and Safety documents.

A health and safety publication Hazards claims that the number of people getting payouts for injury or disease resulting from work, has fallen with 60% over the past decade.

In the time between 2011-2012 only 87,655 people had received compensations and back in 2000-2001 their number was 219,183.

Due to different statistics most of the people suffering from terminal conditions contracted in the workplace have no chance of getting any compensation.

An appropriate example for the mentioned is the fact that for the last year 4,000 workers have died from occupational emphysema and chronic bronchitis, and only 59 workers managed to get compensation for the harsh working conditions.

Last year Prime Minister David Cameron commented: “It is simply much too easy for no-win-no-fee lawyers to encourage trivial claims against businesses, which end up settling out of court because it’s too expensive to fight the case. It’s a huge part of our compensation culture and it must change.”

He promised public to change the health and safety law in case so that businesses will not be considered faulty each time when something went wrong.

According to Rory O’Neill, editor of Hazards most of the workers were dying not only in pain but also in poverty.

However, a spokesman for the government announced it was trying to make new health and safety rules and give its best in order to protect their workers.

 

Benefits Cap Introduced In Some Areas Of London

The new cap of benefits which now the government has begun to roll out, are expected to cover the whole country. Many people are wondering if this will affect the redundancy policy in the UK in any way.

Today the London boroughs of Bromley, Croydon, Enfield and Haringey will limit the amount of money which parents can receive from various benefits- couples and single parents will get £500 a week and single people will receive £350 a week. What will happen to the parental leave then?

The cap will now include people receiving disability benefits but will include income from jobseeker’s allowance, income support, housing benefit and child benefit. May be we`ll need a job application form templates more than ever.

From July to September the scheme will be introduced in other areas in England, Scotland and Wales.

The aim of this move is that the Department for Work and Pensions saves £110m a year.

In the words of employment minister Mark Hoban they aimed to create an affordable benefits system.

“This is about fairness,” said Hoban. “There are people in this country making difficult choices about where they live and who don’t claim housing benefits. If they want to escape the benefits cap, the best way to do it is to move into work.”

However, critics claim this move would make couples break up so that they would escape many financial limitations.

Investigations show that the main part of the non-working families with four or more children will be forced below the poverty line.

Others say that housing benefits cap would pay directly to landlords so the better thing the government could try to do is to call for more affordable housing and lower rents.

 

 

 

Mis-Selling Culture Still Exists In Banks

Even after the PPI scandal A report by Which? showed again the fact that employees are under the pressure of banks to meet sales target leads to the mis-selling of products.

Among the interviewed were more than 500 sales staff from the UK’s leading five banks – HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds Banking Group, Barclays and Santander.

The results say that two thirds of the respondents claim the pressure is too much for them.

About half of them said that they knew a colleague who had mis-sold a financial product. Four in ten admitted they sometimes know products are not appropriate for certain customers  and feel under pressure trying to sell them.

The chief executive of Which?  Peter Vicary-Smith said: “This proves the need for big change across the industry and for bankers to put customers first, not sales. We’re calling on the banks to be much more transparent about their sales targets and incentives.”

The total cost for the banks due to the PPI mis-selling scandal is expected to rise above £15bn.

Yet in September banks were told to do away with the bonuses schemes used for encouraging sales of their products, and the result that 41% percent of those quizzed by Which? was a drop in available incentives. On the other hand, more than 81% said that they do not see difference in the pressure meeting sales targets.

A spokesman for the British Bankers’ Association said: “Selling people products they do not need is not putting the customer’s interests first and therefore is ultimately bad for the bank.

“The banks will be looking at the findings of this small survey – along with their own internal research – to understand why any staff might feel otherwise.”

At The Legal Stop, we always put our customers`interests first, because we do not sell just document templates, but high quality legal and business document templates, tailored to suit the clients needs.

Disproportionate Force Against Burglars To be Legalised

Homeowners might be able to use “Disproportunatte force” if they need to defend their homes from burglars. This is the clause that is expected to be added to the crime and courts bill, which is currently under review by the House of Lords. This information has been hiven by Justice secretary Chris Grayling, who announced recently his intentions to change the laws concerning self-defence from intruders.

And on Sunday, Grayling said: “The public should be in no doubt that the law is on their side. That is why I am toughening up the current law for those who defend themselves and their loved ones. Householders who act instinctively and honestly in self-defence are victims of crime and should be treated that way.”

Currently home owners, who are victims of intruders are required to force which they genuinely feel to be “reasonable in the circumstances”, which means the new changes may seem unreasonable. This, according to legal experts will lead to difficulties related to the implementation of the proposed changes in the real world.

“It’s a vote-catcher,” said the chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Michael Turner QC. “There’s no concept elsewhere in British law of allowing anyone to use disproportionate force for pretty obvious reasons.
“It’s no surprise that a non-lawyer would come up with such a crazy
idea. Are we really saying that the police should not even investigate
cases [in which an intruder is harmed]? I can’t believe this will make
it into statute.”

Apparently, there is little evidence the changes offered to give
better protection for the victims of this kind of criminal offence.
Recent researches show that there are very few house owners, who
fought against burglars and got charged – only 11 cases for more than
15 years, with only 7 of them inclusive of domestic burglaries.

Currently, we cannot offer you a How-To-Fight-Intruders Guide book,
however we have a large variety of free and paid legal documents,
which hopefully will help you sort out a certain aspect of your life.

 

 

Government Plan on Taking Portion Of Medical Negligence Compensation Under Question

The ministry has decided to back down on the plan to take a quarter of medical negligence competence which is awarded in cases of general damages. The government has backed down on the Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme as it is claimed that it will hit parents of brain injured kids the most. The Ministry of Justice has decided to take back the plan which was supposed to provide the government with 25% of damages which are usually awarded to those people who use legal aid. Parents, and their children in particular, who have become victims of medical negligence are awarded with certain amount which is particularly designed to help them.

In cases of medical negligence, parents are awarded with certain amount so that they can take care of their children in the years to come. The Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme that the government back down on would have hit those parents the hardest and the amount of compensation that they would have potentially lost amounts to tens and even hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme was the government latest attempt in reducing the legal aid budget. Legal aid represents a taxpayer-funded service which is supposed to help those people in need of legal guidance and representation, but who cannot afford to pay for it. In 2008/2009 around £2.1 billion was said to have been spent on legal aid. According to the Ministry of Justice, about £10 million pounds a year could have been taken back only if the proposed powers have been put into practice. The MoJ also added that £9 million out of the £10 million pounds would have come from negligence cases.

The plan for the government taking a portion of medical negligence compensation faced a lot of criticism. The charity Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA) is said to be the leader of the charge. A month ago, the charity launched a petition and claimed that the changes would result in making the clinical negligence claims look “unrealistic” through legal aid. The charity also accused the government of “scrapping legal aid for all clinical negligence cases through the back door”.

However, the Chief Exec of AvMA Peter Walsh recently announced that the recently appointed ministers at the MoJ have recognized “the gross unfairness and irrationality” of the plan that was being proposed. He also added that “it beggars belief that their predecessors were prepared to raid the damages of children brain-damaged by clinical negligence to subsidise their department”.

In spite of everything, a spokesman from the Ministry of Justice has announced that there are more cuts yet to come. He stated that with the amount reaching £2bn per year, the UK government has one of the most expensive legal aid systems worldwide. Given the current financial crises around the globe and in the UK, it is no longer possible for the government to continue to afford this. A cut of £320 million on legal aid is expected by 2014-2015.

Get your Accident Reporting Pack – all necessary documents to report an accident.

 

 

Should Police Officers Carry Guns at All Time?

Campaigners argue whether or not police officers should start carrying guns with them at all times. The debate was fuelled after the recent tragic event with two policemen from Manchester who were injured fatally while checking a house for burglary. Whether or not police officers should carry guns with them routinely is a question argued strongly by both sides.

Recent debates have arisen among campaigners after two policemen got killed while on duty in Manchester. The debate is now whether or not police officers should routinely carry guns with them while on duty. The two policemen, Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes, are said to be killed the other day after they responded to a call about a burglary. When the officers went to the house, Dale Cregan came out firing and throwing a grenade which fatally injured the policemen.

Since the tragic incident, many have started arguing that officers across the entire UK should carry guns with them while performing their duties. Darren Rathband, the brother of late police officer David Rathband, stated that it is ‘beggar’s belief’ that policemen across the UK remain unarmed. Darren Rathband took his life after being blinded on duty. It is the 21st century and policemen should not be expected to fight crime with just a piece of plastic and a spray. No more police officers should die before actions are taken to prevent this and allow them to carry guns with them even for their own protection when circumstances require.

Other officials who supported the campaigners for policemen to carry guns include Michael Winner, founder of the Police Memorial Trust, and Toy Rayner, former chairman of Essex Police Federation. The former chairman of Tory, Lord Tebbit, went even further. He wrote to the Daily Telegraph by saying that the government should bring back the death penalty for those who kill police officers. According to him, ‘it is time we thought again about the deterrent effect of the shadow of the gallows.”

However, the other side of the debate called for no reactionary changes in the wake of the recent tragic events. As stated by the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, Sir Peter Fahy, his force is “passionate that the British style of policing is routinely unarmed policing.” He alseo added that by judging the experience in America, even if police officers wear guns with them at all times performing their duties, sadly does not mean that they do not get shot. According to him, the fact that police officers will carry a gun with them at all times cannot guarantee the safety of their lives. A survey conducted in 2006 revealed that out of the 47,000 officers questioned, 87% of them actually opposed the idea of carrying a gun with them routinely. The former deputy assistant commissioner for the Metropolitan police, Brian Paddick, stated that to aim at all police officers in England, Scotland and Wales would turn out to be ‘cost-prohibitive in a time of austerity’.

Here, at The Legal Stop, we do not carry guns with us, but we are always armed with up to date legal documents to satisfy every business need:
Corporate documents, Business Documents, Employment Documents, HR Documents, Free Legal Documents.