Indeed, employers fear that disposing of people without justification will pave the way for an unprecedented number of lawsuits filed by employees claiming discrimination (racial, gender, etc.) as the motive for contract termination.
Just because the law doesn't require the employer to give a reason doesn't mean that the employer has to give a reason.
If I were an employer I'd make sure I never gave a reason. The burden of proof of discrimination would then be left to the employee. Since it's almost impossible to prove discrimination unless it's very overt, this is going to make it much harder for employees to make a claim, not easier.
But conversely it makes it much easier for employers to treat employees as disposable commodities. Which is of course the real point of the plan. Employees will be much less likely to rock the boat or stand up for themselves while they're on probation.
Agnes, I think you're understating the amount of damage this will cause. It's a monstrous broadside from the New Victorians and the only possible effect will be to drive down job security and wages, while also filling companies with time-serving politically adept careerists.
I've never heard of a restriction on how long you'd have to wait to be rehired.
That would be the big change vs the current practise : when fired, an employee under a fixed term or an unlimited term contract is entitled to compensation according to the motives that have led to the termination of the contract by the employer. The lack of compensation is valid only when the redundancy occurs as a consequence of gross or/and wilful misconduct. When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
