fredthered:
I wrongly thought that it was an offer of employment by a business (or commercial enterprise or public body) that needed a person (worker/workforce etc) to make a success of it for the good of the enterprise (or community if a public body) to make a profit (or make life better for the community that it serves) for the social and economic benefit of the people of the country?
In some left wing paradise that might be the case but in the world we live in today the “good of the enterprise” and the “social and economic benefit of the people of the country” sadly count for nothing. For 99%+ of employees and businesses it is simply about the money.
fredthered:
Just think, if you apply for a loan or mortgage etc, the question comes, how long have you been there? Answer: A week Sir! Erm, he says, and is this a permanent job? I think so Sir! Erm, he says again. Then he says: At this time we are unable to consider your application due to the unknown length of time ABC Business Enterprises Ltd intend to employ you - good day!
What a great way to get the economy moving!Somehow I don’t think so.
If you’ve only been in a job 3 weeks then the situation wouldn’t change under the new rules that have been suggested. As you correctly point out further down your post if you’ve been in a job less than 12 months then you already have next to no protection.
Paul
I think the new idea is to get rid of the 12 month period so workers will be in a position of no credible job security permanently so how would that make for a credible mortgage risk on a mortgage application form .You still haven’t answered the issue of why would the employers need any change from what they’ve already got assuming it’s not all about saving employers paying redundancy money in the case of needing to shed labour.
Effectively it’s just a plan to employ everyone on a casual basis.
A Tory landslide was what was needed at the last election but alas we have the conlib do nothings.
So the torys now have there hands tied behind there backs and can’t do nothing to sort out the economy Thatcher style which is what is needed.
As for easy firing i can’t see a problem as long as theres plenty work which there will be if the torys get half a chance to sort the economy. Just compare attitudes of eager beaver agency bods with unionised, grumpy fultime bods at many work places to see how easy firing would bring about a better workforce.
pavaroti:
A Tory landslide was what was needed at the last election but alas we have the conlib do nothings.
So the torys now have there hands tied behind there backs and can’t do nothing to sort out the economy Thatcher style which is what is needed.
As for easy firing i can’t see a problem as long as theres plenty work which there will be if the torys get half a chance to sort the economy. Just compare attitudes of eager beaver agency bods with unionised, grumpy fultime bods at many work places to see how easy firing would bring about a better workforce.
Are they putting something in your water bud? I mean no offence but do you really, honestly believe this? The tories were never going to make any difference to anything, they are only out to help themselves and their pals, and if that means old people freeze to death in the winter, the disabled become prisoners in their own homes, and jobs are a thing of the past, they will be happy with that so long as they get what they want…the tories have only ever cut jobs - look at the mines and the steel industry, they sold it all off! I can’t think of a single example of where the tories have come up with anything that has genuinely created jobs. Easy firing will bring about a frightened, discontent workforce with zero loyalty to the employer. You cannot rule by fear. I have seen companies do it and their employees just leave in droves until they are left with the dross. In a recession some will have no choice but to stick it out, but once the recession goes they just up and leave. The stick method does not work, its time for the carrot.
Carryfast:
I think the new idea is to get rid of the 12 month period so workers will be in a position of no credible job security permanently so how would that make for a credible mortgage risk on a mortgage application form .You still haven’t answered the issue of why would the employers need any change from what they’ve already got assuming it’s not all about saving employers paying redundancy money in the case of needing to shed labour.
Effectively it’s just a plan to employ everyone on a casual basis.
IMO it is 100% about saving employers the cost of redundancies, thus “helping” their short-term profits. The problem with politics at the moment is that it is focussed on the short term, with no eye on the long term, mainly because the current incumbents in number 10 know they not be re-elected.
Carryfast:
You still haven’t answered the issue of why would the employers need any change from what they’ve already got assuming it’s not all about saving employers paying redundancy money in the case of needing to shed labour.
I think that is probably a large part of it, and looking at it from an employers perspective I can see why they are keen on it. After all, if I had a business employing people and due to the business struggling I needed to lay off a couple of members of staff the last thing I would want as a struggling business is to have to pay off the people I was making redundant. In some cases it wouldn’t surprise me if the need to make redundancy payments meant extra savings had to be made thereby leading to more redundancies that might otherwise have been avoided.
BanburyDan:
Easy firing will bring about a frightened, discontent workforce with zero loyalty to the employer.
We already have one of those. In spite of having far more stringent labour laws now than we did a generation or two ago employees are far far less loyal to their employer and the concept a job for life is long gone with people bouncing around between jobs constantly searching for the easy life or the bigger pay cheque.
The current labour laws mean that an employee can end the contract of employment without giving any reason at all and in many cases only needs to give one weeks notice potentially leaving their employer in big trouble if they can’t get the work covered at short notice.
On the other hand if the employer wants to end the same contract they usually have to give significantly more notice and cannot do so without having a reason that will stand up in an employment tribunal.
pavaroti:
A Tory landslide was what was needed at the last election but alas we have the conlib do nothings.
So the torys now have there hands tied behind there backs and can’t do nothing to sort out the economy Thatcher style which is what is needed.
As for easy firing i can’t see a problem as long as theres plenty work which there will be if the torys get half a chance to sort the economy. Just compare attitudes of eager beaver agency bods with unionised, grumpy fultime bods at many work places to see how easy firing would bring about a better workforce.
Sorry but I’m confused by your loyalty to the Tory’s and Thatcher in particular as no Tory government has helped your home town out since well before 1920 and Thatcher appears not to have even considered easing the hardship!!
pavaroti:
Just compare attitudes of eager beaver agency bods with unionised, grumpy fultime bods at many work places to see how easy firing would bring about a better workforce.
I couldn’t agree more. I’m sure pretty much everyone in this industry comes across people day in day out who essentially spend their working day doing as little as they can possibly get away with safe in the knowledge that as long as they turn up on time every day that it will be nigh on impossible for their employer to do anything about it.
Strange, as most of the “old hands” I know claim that we youngsters have less protection now then they did. I do feel there has been a weakening of employee rights. The problem here is whilst there are genuine idiots who do need to be got shot of, that should not allow decent staff to be sacked for “not fitting in” or some other bull droppings excuse. I have seen this done too many times to think its just an occasional thing. The employer should have less rights to get rid of folk, afterall they choose who to hire - it is in their interests to have the best recruitment methods they can get, so as to avoid hiring rubbish workers. They have a three month period anyway usually (often even longer) where they can just sack the person anyway if they don’t work out. If employers want loyalty from staff they have to offer it too, thats what redundancy payments etc are for. As it stands, employees have got less and less as time has gone on. Sick pay is a thing of the past for many, pensions are a pipe dream…the bubble has to burst sooner or later. As I said above, employees can and will do as they like, but when the recession lifts (and make no mistake, it will, sooner or later) the employers who treat people like garbage will struggle to recruit and hopefully go bust - which is only fair.
“In some left wing paradise that might be the case but in the world we live in today the “good of the enterprise” and the “social and economic benefit of the people of the country” sadly count for nothing. For 99%+ of employees and businesses it is simply about the money”.
In some right wing paradise material things and money are the only drivers and goals to aim for and the temples to which they all bow down and pay homage to. Sadly when the day comes that the money dries up (look at the state of the EU now and the Americans siding with the French idea of less austerity because its hurting their economy as much (who would have seen that coming). And what will happen when none of the peasant classes have the money and do not wish to or cannot afford to buy the goods and services of this right wing paradise? It, in effect implodes on itself because it has no purpose anymore.
“If you’ve only been in a job 3 weeks then the situation wouldn’t change under the new rules that have been suggested. As you correctly point out further down your post if you’ve been in a job less than 12 months then you already have next to no protection”.
That was the point - why do we need more regulation (or tools) for inefficient businesses to off-load those workers taken on to service demand that was at best temporary and at worst unsustainable because ‘a leaner meaner competitor was/is waiting in the wings’ to steal your ideas and technology and set millions of poorly paid workers in foreign countries loose to produce it for .25p/hour and then import it back to make vast immoral profits? The only good thing to note here is that some businesses are finding that costs in the ‘Tiger Economies’ are now rising because the local worker who is university educated usually (don’t know how they dare! - the utter impertinence!) are demanding that they are better paid (around £1 to £1.50 is now the norm)to perform the menial, low skilled jobs that were once prevelent in this country. How business in the developed (theres a paradox in itself) world will cope remains to be seen but you can be sure that it will involve machines firstly and where it is not possible, abuse of manual workers!
“That’s a good idea but sadly the current laws protect the management just the same as they do the people who they manage so it isn’t as easy as just “getting rid” of them… Certainly most if not all public services are full of far too many layers of management created by the government trying to buy votes and improve unemployment figures by borrowing money to pay for all the middle management non-jobs. As far as private companies go if they want lots of layers of middle management then that’s up to them, it’s their business they can do what they like with it as far as I’m concerned”.
Again that is exactly the point! The rules (that are written, re-written and debated by all that want them but not by those that are affected by them the most) do nothing more than muddy the waters of right and wrong and allow the legal profession (allegedly)to make lot of money debating them and reading up on legal precedence etc. The moral fabric of all that society embraces today is flawed and until and unless it is checked soon then surely the only outcome for the peasants will be to eat the rich - they won’t be able to afford food!
By the way - I’m non political, I don’t vote and I do not wish to debate - I just have a voice and an opinion which I like to share occasionally. I used to do debates in my local but it’s gone now, there’s no bar in a Tossco and I’m unemployed anyway so don’t really give a toss anymore! Have a great day!
pavaroti:
Just compare attitudes of eager beaver agency bods with unionised, grumpy fultime bods at many work places to see how easy firing would bring about a better workforce.
I couldn’t agree more. I’m sure pretty much everyone in this industry comes across people day in day out who essentially spend their working day doing as little as they can possibly get away with safe in the knowledge that as long as they turn up on time every day that it will be nigh on impossible for their employer to do anything about it.
Paul
Nope, but I know plenty of people whos managers operate double-standards, bully their staff with no comeback, victimise everyone they can and generally get off on being as unpleasant as possible. Most working people I know are more then happy to work hard (I know I do) but do rightly expect to be rewarded for that.
pavaroti:
Just compare attitudes of eager beaver agency bods with unionised, grumpy fultime bods at many work places to see how easy firing would bring about a better workforce.
I couldn’t agree more. I’m sure pretty much everyone in this industry comes across people day in day out who essentially spend their working day doing as little as they can possibly get away with safe in the knowledge that as long as they turn up on time every day that it will be nigh on impossible for their employer to do anything about it.
Paul
If you believe what you state…then you are all as guilty as each other of being lazy and out for the easy life in that case.
lynchy:
the only thing that’s preventing an economic upturn…is the lack of being able to sack people more easily■■?
So true, half the people on the payroll in Government should be sacked, so should all the people in Local Government with jobs in outreach groups and all that old ■■■■■■■■
Cuts should be made from the top down and brutality is needed, the Gravy Train is derailed
BanburyDan:
The employer should have less rights to get rid of folk, afterall they choose who to hire - it is in their interests to have the best recruitment methods they can get, so as to avoid hiring rubbish workers.
BanburyDan:
As I said above, employees can and will do as they like, but when the recession lifts (and make no mistake, it will, sooner or later) the employers who treat people like garbage will struggle to recruit and hopefully go bust - which is only fair.
I personally think they should have equal rights and, as you rightly say in the second quote, the employers who make a habit of just randomly sacking people without good reason will then find it hard to recruit. I think that’s a much more fair way of doing things than to make the law one sided as it is now.
repton:
I couldn’t agree more. I’m sure pretty much everyone in this industry comes across people day in day out who essentially spend their working day doing as little as they can possibly get away with safe in the knowledge that as long as they turn up on time every day that it will be nigh on impossible for their employer to do anything about it.
Paul
If you believe what you state…then you are all as guilty as each other of being lazy and out for the easy life in that case.
Not so, as I didn’t say everyone in the industry was like that, merely that I would be surprised if there was anyone on here who could honestly say that in an average working week they didn’t meet at least one person who fits that description.
As an owner driver I don’t think anyone could ever accuse me of being out for the easy life…
pavaroti:
Just compare attitudes of eager beaver agency bods with unionised, grumpy fultime bods at many work places to see how easy firing would bring about a better workforce.
I couldn’t agree more. I’m sure pretty much everyone in this industry comes across people day in day out who essentially spend their working day doing as little as they can possibly get away with safe in the knowledge that as long as they turn up on time every day that it will be nigh on impossible for their employer to do anything about it.
Paul
Well, I’m flabbergasted! I’m totally tuned up and in despair! Firstly, I’ve got to say that I believe that for every 1 mallingerer there are 10 grafters because I’ve seen it!
Here’s the THE real world (and believe me it’s real):
It’s 365 days/year (except a leap year of course - but they are working on legislation to stop those)
It’s 24/7
It’s 24hrs (again legislation could fix that)
It’s any 5 from 7
It’s up to 84 hrs/week
As per local agreements - your are obliged to opt out of the 48hr rule
All hours are at agreed standard rate - no enhanced payments
It’s a bank holiday free contract so 20 days annual leave (subject to management’s discretion and agreement)
Saturday & Sunday are the new Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday/Friday dependent of course on the requirements of the customer or needs of the business
You will work shift patterns most suited to the work available to allow flexibility within the business as required
In the event of sickness you must telephone your line manager 4 hours before you shift is due to start
Sick Pay will be at the legally required rates after three waiting days. If you are to be paid company sick pay this is at the discretion of your senior manager after completion of the required qualifying criteria
What you can expect (IMO)to be added before too long:
Their will be 8 statutory public holidays (bank holidays no longer exist in the service sector) but after a report by a leading expert and the setting up of a special commons select committee to look into the problem of workers requesting holidays these will most likely be incorporated into your annual entitlement to make British companies more competetive
Well I suppose it’s what we have come to expect! - Enjoy!!
fredthered:
In some right wing paradise material things and money are the only drivers what will happen when none of the peasant classes have the money and do not wish to or cannot afford to buy the goods and services of this right wing paradise? It, in effect implodes on itself because it has no purpose anymore.
^This.
That’s the difference between a Victorian type of capitalist economy and a Fordist one and it was actually the American policy of following a Fordist system until the end of the 1960’s that saved the western economies from doing exactly that if things had gone on the way they were going into early 20 th century caused by paying workers zb all in real terms for their efforts and providing them with no job security to base their long term financial plans on so not allowing them to buy the products which industry was turning out.
The problem isn’t material things or money it’s just a problem of greed in which the industrialists are too stupid to realise that it’s only by paying high wages and providing job security that they can continue to sell their products and opening the domestic market to cheap foreign competition just means a race to the bottom and massive trade deficits and therefore debt.
It was the Fordist system,which provided the levels of growth in the States during the 1960’s never seen before and never seen since that system was abandoned in favour of global free market economics in which the only winners have been the Chinese communist party.
fredthered:
Well I suppose it’s what we have come to expect! - Enjoy!!
I don’t see a problem with anything in that post personally. The world is ever changing and like it or not the workforce have to change with it. Today we live in a 24/7 society and so as the people who have the job of delivering the material things that modern society depends on our profession has now become a 24/7 profession. In the current times of recession the old “supply and demand” equation comes in to play. Right now there is a plentiful supply of labour and little demand, so the employers hold all the trump cards. When the economy eventually turns around that situation will no doubt be reversed and the employees will hold the good cards and the employers will have to try harder to get the good staff they want, that’s the way the world works.
fredthered:
Well I suppose it’s what we have come to expect! - Enjoy!!
I don’t see a problem with anything in that post personally. The world is ever changing and like it or not the workforce have to change with it. Today we live in a 24/7 society and so as the people who have the job of delivering the material things that modern society depends on our profession has now become a 24/7 profession. In the current times of recession the old “supply and demand” equation comes in to play. Right now there is a plentiful supply of labour and little demand, so the employers hold all the trump cards. When the economy eventually turns around that situation will no doubt be reversed and the employees will hold the good cards and the employers will have to try harder to get the good staff they want, that’s the way the world works.
Paul
I think you’ve forgotten to factor in the fact that the labour market is open to and rigged by the global free market of cheap immigrant labour or cheap imports.There’s no way that the ‘economy can turn around’ under that system.Which is why the western developed economies are already in a race to the bottom in which the Chinese will get a bit richer at the west’s expense.
fredthered:
Well I suppose it’s what we have come to expect! - Enjoy!!
I don’t see a problem with anything in that post personally. The world is ever changing and like it or not the workforce have to change with it. Today we live in a 24/7 society and so as the people who have the job of delivering the material things that modern society depends on our profession has now become a 24/7 profession. In the current times of recession the old “supply and demand” equation comes in to play. Right now there is a plentiful supply of labour and little demand, so the employers hold all the trump cards. When the economy eventually turns around that situation will no doubt be reversed and the employees will hold the good cards and the employers will have to try harder to get the good staff they want, that’s the way the world works.
Paul
Of course you don’t. You really have swallowed the diatribe and garbage that a right wing lead economy spouts.
But if I understand correctly you are part of that right wing utopia and are striving to reach the garden of eden. You work for yourself (I think) so you will, by default, try harder, work longer, expect more for less from all others and expect to keep a bigger share of the pie for yourself. You won’t really see or want to hear the expectations of others (but you DO know to what they aspire) because it does not really fit in with your thought process at this time. When (if) you take on employees you will then see the how difficult it is for them to worship your God of capitalism for not a lot of reward. You tell them they can drive a BMW if they work hard enough for you but you know you don’t really mean it and because you have to keep them interested!
The scenario you suggest assumes that everyone will be paid their worth, they will work whatever hours/days your business requires, see little of their families or partners and go to sleep at night knowing that you are running a profitable enterprise and they are contributing to making you a weathy (in cash & posessions) man for the good of your family or gain and be content in doing so.
Fair enough - you took the risks so good luck to you. But when the bad times come or you decide to move on what becomes of them? They have worn themselves out on your behalf, working all required shift patterns and hours possible just to be cast aside as a disposable commodity and no further use to anyone because they are no longer prime employable people or too old or unfit etc. They probably have a broken marriage or relationship because they were never around when they should be. A machine can be turned on and off but human beings can’t and that is what makes us all unique. We all don’t want the same - I’d rather have a life, my health and sanity than be the richest man in the cemetry!
Business breaks 'em so business should take some responsibility for their future by paying them enough to save for those bad times. If they are not your ideal employee, who made the decision to employ them in the first place? If they are bad, discipline procedures used correctly is the right and proper way to get them off the books but if they are just not suitable, surely that should be known within 3 months?
.You still haven’t answered the issue of why would the employers need any change from what they’ve already got assuming it’s not all about saving employers paying redundancy money in the case of needing to shed labour.
