<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Employers and Consultation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://michaelscutt.co.uk/2009/07/04/employers-and-consultation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://michaelscutt.co.uk/2009/07/04/employers-and-consultation/</link>
	<description>Employment Law Explained</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:45:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Lawton</title>
		<link>http://michaelscutt.co.uk/2009/07/04/employers-and-consultation/comment-page-1/#comment-65</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Lawton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:07:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelscutt.co.uk/?p=549#comment-65</guid>
		<description>Dear Jobsworth,

I&#039;m so glad you raised the topic of information and consultation.

My experience is that the Regs appear to provide a framework on which the employer can hang various HR-led procedures but otherwise they appear relatively meaningless to your average employee.  Putting my cynicism aside for a moment I concede that a well-constructed, reasonable and meaningful agreement is the real key to the success here.  That is until poorly enlightened employees eventually spot that their constitution and agreement is one that was cleverly recommended by a legally well-briefed employer prior to the implementation of the Regs and by which the workforce is rendered pretty much impotent.

What can an unhappy consultative body do with an enduring (indefinite) pre-existing agreement they believe no longer serves the best interests of employees - write another one??

I am led to believe the Regs provide for a negotiated agreement if greater than 40% of employees require a change?  Such a challenge is easier said than done, methinks?  But it&#039;d be nice to give the Politburo something to do by the sounds of things??

I suspect this may not be Jobsworth&#039;s only post on this topic.....

P¬)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Jobsworth,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m so glad you raised the topic of information and consultation.</p>
<p>My experience is that the Regs appear to provide a framework on which the employer can hang various HR-led procedures but otherwise they appear relatively meaningless to your average employee.  Putting my cynicism aside for a moment I concede that a well-constructed, reasonable and meaningful agreement is the real key to the success here.  That is until poorly enlightened employees eventually spot that their constitution and agreement is one that was cleverly recommended by a legally well-briefed employer prior to the implementation of the Regs and by which the workforce is rendered pretty much impotent.</p>
<p>What can an unhappy consultative body do with an enduring (indefinite) pre-existing agreement they believe no longer serves the best interests of employees &#8211; write another one??</p>
<p>I am led to believe the Regs provide for a negotiated agreement if greater than 40% of employees require a change?  Such a challenge is easier said than done, methinks?  But it&#8217;d be nice to give the Politburo something to do by the sounds of things??</p>
<p>I suspect this may not be Jobsworth&#8217;s only post on this topic&#8230;..</p>
<p>P¬)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.513 seconds -->

