Would easier dismissal mean that employees are silenced?
Picture: Gettyimages
The government is planning to make it easier to fire workers in small companies. “I wouldn’t bring in legislation that would allow employers to arbitrarily dismiss an employee just by clicking their fingers and then replace them with someone else”, says Mia Suominen at PAM.
Many PAM members are wondering whether making dismissal easier might make it easier to fire workers who voice their opinion “in the wrong place.” At its round table session last week, the government said it would make dismissal easier on personal grounds in companies with less than 20 employees.
PAM’s retail sector contract specialist Mia Suominen thinks that such worries are justified. Workers in small companies will have to be on their toes more if dismissal is made easier and the government does not backtrack on its plans.
As yet no draft law has been presented and it is not known what its content will be. According to Suominen, freedom of opinion is not going to be questioned, but if employers get broader powers to dismiss employees, the fear of being fired will make workers more cautious. Many part-time service sector workers are already being careful about what they say, for example because they are afraid of losing additional working hours.
“Will employees dare to raise problems at work or will they be afraid that it will turn against them?” Suominen says.
“I wouldn’t bring in legislation that would allow employers to arbitrarily dismiss an employee just by clicking their fingers and then replace them with someone else”, Suominen says.
The current Employment Contracts Act says that opinions are not a reason for termination on personal grounds that would allow an employee to be dismissed.
”Unauthorised absence, continual negligence, wilfully acting against instructions and refusing to work”, Suominen lists examples of personal reasons for dismissal.
Illness or accident may lead to dismissal if the employee’s working capacity is permanently reduced. Dismissal requires a proper and weighty reason and taking the circumstances into account. Firing is preceded by a warning procedure.
"Is it right from the employee’s perspective that a company with 20 employees has different rules on firing workers than in a competitor company with 19 employees?
It is claimed that it is hiring the first and second employee that represents a risk for small business owners. Suominen therefor wonders how the government came up with the threshold of companies with 19 employees. The company size is excessively high. The threshold is also artificial if employees are to be treated equally in terms of protection against dismissal:
"Is it right from the employee’s perspective that a company with 20 employees has different rules on firing workers than in a competitor company with 19 employees?" she asks.
Rather than firing workers, she would make employers responsible for telling their workers what their expectations are.
"If an employer is not satisfied with an employee, does the employee know what is expected of them and what the company’s objectives are?"
Probation periods were extended at the start of last year to six months, which was already a concession to business owners, Suominen points out. However, in the retail sector that she represents the probation period was kept at four months in the union round for the collective agreement, as in several other of PAM’s sectors.
On Tuesday the opposition parties condemned the decisions on working life taken in the round table session as discriminatory. Around 36 per cent of PAM members work in companies with less than 20 employees.