The 'Beecroft Report' delivered to the government last week reccomends making it easier for employers to fire 'coasting' workers as part of a package of measures desighned to stimulate growth in the economy. I suppose I get what they mean by 'coasting workers'; people who do just enough to stay above the line where they could be disciplined for not doing their work, but don't put their backs into the job as perhaps their co-workers do. Safe from dissmissal these people free-load on the efforts of their work mates to carry them through the day. Well - OK, fair enough, but this is a thing every one of us has come up against in the work-place, and has had to deal with - the big problem is that once you try to deal with it by making it easier to fire such people, then all people become easier to fire thereby. It's not rocket science to work out that this grey area of 'how diligent is a worker' could be easily abused by unscrupulous employers as a means to unload almost any staff member who, for whatever reason, they no longer wanted on the books.

The other thing that has to be asked is "Why is the worker in question doing this?" Might it be in fact that he or she has justifiable grievences - perhaps they are one of the unfortunates who has been co-opted onto a job against their will at half the national minnimun wage rate under the pretence of recieving an apprentiship training. (Since when did shelf-stacking in a supermarket become a 'skill' that required an extended period of training at half wages?). Perhaps they are old and cannot physically do the work anymore but are locked into the job by dependance on the income it provides and unable to find alternative work due to lack of skills etc and ageism in the job market. There are many reasons other than just indolence that may account for such behaviour - and yet all would fall before the swingeing cut of such legislation.

And yet in fact I am not wholly against such freedom of the employer to hire and fire at will, because in the long run it tends to have effects that are not wholly against the workers interest. If you can be fired easily - you can be hired easily too. As long as it opperates in conjunction with a rigorously enforced minnimum wage policy set at a level that provides a livable wage from any 40 hour job, then this is fine. Employers will always be more prepared to hire if they know they can easily reign back if the need arises or if they get 'the wrong man', and this would stimulate the jobs market big time. I always remember two elderly men of my aquaintence who independantly reported to me that in their 'time' (the 60's and 70's) they could if they chose, quit the job they were in in the morning and be re-employed again by the end of the day just by going down to the job center and choosing a job of their liking. This in an era well before 'tribunals' and 'employment laws' set to safeguard the 'rights of workers', and life is a lot easier to bear if the freedom to change employer at speed if necessary is maximised. Under these circumstances it is in the employers self-interest to take good care of  workers who pull their weight or they run the risk of loosing them to other firms. Thus each employer finishes up with the employee's he deserves which sounds ok to me.