Generally speaking, the government’s proposals for changing employment law are sensible and measured. I have always believed it wrong to apply the law with equal rigour to small companies and large corporations, and I would include in the changes removing the rights to have one’s job retained over a period of maternity leave. This hurts the small employer disproportionately. I would argue that the law should be much lighter on firms employing no more than 15 people.
It also makes sense to return to the two year qualifying period required to take an employer to an Employment Tribunal. Reducing it to one year has been a major factor in clogging the system. However, I am much less sanguine about the suggestion advanced by some Human Resource executives that employees should have to deposit £250 in order to sue their employer. Such a measure could well lead to the unintended outcome of driving more workers into trade unions. A significant attraction for some workers, most notably in transport, is the union offer to meet legal costs.
Boadicea's Chariot 
I would also add that for small firms they reduce or negate the employers NI bill. that is what stops me employing anyone. I do not want nor can I afford to pay 12.8% of the employees salary to the tax man. The only way to do this would be to reduce the employees pay thus getting a lower grade employee.
A fair point, Rick. The cost of employing someone goes above the wage or salary.
I agree, covering maternity leave is almost impossible for small companies. I take your point about a qualifying period before taking an employer to an Employment Tribunal, but the idea of a “deposit” may well have the “unintended outcomes” you mention.
I do not believe that small companies should be subject to the same rules as large corporations; it inhibits enterprise and small start-ups should be encouraged.