Earlier this week, the Coalition Government unveiled a package of proposals which it describes as "the most radical reform to the employment law system for decades."

The proposals are the subject of ongoing and widespread debate among the UK employment law and HR communities.

Here, solicitor Anna Birtwistle presents her own analysis of the proposals, including her thoughts on the proposals relating to unfair dismissal, protected conversations and how they might relate to micro-businesses.

She argues that some of the proposals may ultimately prove "beneficial for neither" employers nor employees, and that "in the long run it is possible that effective management policies and diversity may be the unintended victims of these proposals."

Anna Birtwistle is a solicitor at specialist employment and partnership law firm CM Murray LLP, based in Canary Wharf. Anna has a particular interest in discrimination and cross border employment law issues. You can follow Anna on Twitter.

Anna Birtwistle: Legislating for bad management?
After weeks of waiting, speculation and press leaks, Vince Cable's speech promised a red tape massacre but came with a distinct lack of detail and the spectre of never ending consultations.

Whilst some proposals - such as those relating to the potential reform of the tribunal system, rapid resolution of certain claims and portable Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks - may be welcomed by both employers and employees, other more controversial proposals may in the long run be beneficial for neither.

Legislating for the bad management practices of the minority
In particular, it is regrettable that the Government feels it necessary (or believes it to be beneficial for UK industry as a whole), to legislate for the bad management practices of the minority. Indeed, for the Government to suggest that employers are unable to ascertain within one year (the current qualification period for unfair dismissal protection) that an employee is not performing to the required standard, demonstrates a fundamental lack of confidence in the management capabilities of British businesses.

Has any thought been given to the impact on growth that a stagnant workforce, too afraid to switch jobs and lose their employment protections, will have on the economy? And if the message to employers is that they can lawfully sack employees within the first two years of employment providing that those employees do not have characteristics protected under discrimination law (e.g. they are not disabled, gay, Jewish, black, a woman, and so on), what impact is this going to have on workplace diversity?

Will 'protected conversations' protect bad management practices?
Indicative also of the theme of protecting bad management practices is the idea of "protected conversations". Granted, more flesh on the bones is required to undertake a thorough analysis of this proposal, but it instinctively feels problematic. Is the Government suggesting that our polite and reserved Britishness somehow precludes us from undertaking the difficult task of management in the open? Successful businesses seem to do this pretty well.

Management is difficult. Business is difficult. But side-stepping the job of managing people through the legislated loophole of off-the-record conversations is not the answer.

And the idea of using these protected conversations to address retirement - did I miss something or didn't we just get rid of the default retirement age and say that all employees (not just older ones) should be asked openly about their future plans? How exactly this fits with discriminatory conversations being excluded from the proposed "protected conversations" I do not yet understand.

Two-tier employment rights for a two-tier workforce?
And lastly - at least for this blog post - do we really want to create a two-tier system of employment rights and with it, a two-tier workforce?

The idea that micro-businesses would benefit from the idea of Compensated No Fault Dismissals is not the helping hand that the Government appears to think it is. In fact it is plain short-sighted.

In the long run the impact of watering down employment protections in smaller business will be detrimental to their growth and success. It is unclear how the Government foresees micro-businesses attracting the brightest and best candidates to come and work for them when by doing so they will be compromising on their legal rights.

In conclusion: The unintended victims of the Government's proposals
In conclusion, whilst the above proposals may initially be welcomed by businesses, in the long run it is possible that effective management policies and diversity may be the unintended victims of these proposals. In turn, this may end up costing employers far more, in terms of business success, growth and even rising discrimination claims than the savings that Cable envisions.