OVLOV JAY:
That was exactly the reaction I expected of you Carryfast. Only drivers looking to screw their employers over need to fear a short term contract. I have every confidence that I would get a new contract, so if you don’t share my optimism, then that confirms the sort of employee you were
If the sort of employee who can hold down a job,long term,with three employers,two covering around 5 years each,in which the reason why Ieft the first was closure of the place so at least I got some redundancy money to go with the good reference and the second I left through my own choice as a step up from local class 2 work to long distance class 1 and the third ended through no fault of my own after around 15 years service with a good work record,fits that description.Absolutely.
But from an employer’s point of view short term contracts would be great because it would save on redundancy costs when the time comes to shed staff because of a downturn in business which wouldn’t be anything unuual in the present economy that’s been zb’d up by low wages and low job security in which everyone is scared to spend either what they haven’t got or maybe soon won’t have.So who’s screwing who over.
And you’ve totally missed the point as usual. Just because you were a long server, doesn’t mean you were a desirable employee. Just means they couldn’t get rid of you. I’ve come across scores of drivers who the firms wanted rid of, and were often vocal to the point, but were stuck with the useless ponces. I’ve never took the ■■■■ on a job so don’t hold the same fears as you, or the same contempt for the past governments, when it was idle work forces that ruined the industry in truth. If we had a profitable industry it would never have been stripped. If you want things to remain as was, you will have to suffer the consequence that this bill will probably pass, giving all the power to the employer. At least my idea keeps a degree of security for a designated period. Times change Carryfast. You have to move on and adapt or you’ll be taken by the tide
OVLOV JAY:
And you’ve totally missed the point as usual. Just because you were a long server, doesn’t mean you were a desirable employee. Just means they couldn’t get rid of you. I’ve come across scores of drivers who the firms wanted rid of, and were often vocal to the point, but were stuck with the useless ponces. I’ve never took the ■■■■ on a job so don’t hold the same fears as you, or the same contempt for the past governments, when it was idle work forces that ruined the industry in truth. If we had a profitable industry it would never have been stripped. If you want things to remain as was, you will have to suffer the consequence that this bill will probably pass, giving all the power to the employer. At least my idea keeps a degree of security for a designated period. Times change Carryfast. You have to move on and adapt or you’ll be taken by the tide
I couldn’t care less because I’m out of it all with enough to get by.But somehow I don’t think that most mortgage lenders will be too happy about handing out mortgages to what are effectively casual employees on 1 year temporary contracts and most employers won’t employ homeless people if they can avoid it.So if it was me who was the employer I’d rather give the job to a Pole who’s at least got an address even if he does share it with 10 of his compatriots to keep my insurers happy than a homeless Brit.
That’s not the attitude of a union man Geoffrey should be all for one not in alright jack.
I think you are both right. It’s unfair to penalise the majority of genuine people who go to work do the job they are asked to they should have safe gaurds.
At the same time there are long term employees at every firm who work the system and do just enough to Not get the sack and will resist any attempts to change things which spoils it for everyone.
Give you an example I used to work at a skip firm where one driver would only do four jobs a day no matter where they where but then moaned because he got all the jobs on the other side of London. What was the boss meant to do give him four local jobs do he could sit with his feet up all day.
And when does a mortgage lender ask to see your contract of employment■■? As usual you throw up an argument that does not exist. You would not be a temp worker, you’ll just be subject to a performance review once a year.
kr79:
That’s not the attitude of a union man Geoffrey should be all for one not in alright jack.
I think you are both right. It’s unfair to penalise the majority of genuine people who go to work do the job they are asked to they should have safe gaurds.
At the same time there are long term employees at every firm who work the system and do just enough to Not get the sack and will resist any attempts to change things which spoils it for everyone.
Not ‘every’ ‘firm’.It is actually possible to find places where no one has a bad word to say about any one who they all work with.That’s always been the case in the jobs I’ve had.In all cases those who I’ve worked with did a fair day’s work and rightly expected a fair day’s pay and fair treatment in return and sometimes didn’t get it.Which was the reason for all that so called ‘militancy’ during the 1970’s,by a union membership,made up in many cases,by those who’d not long before been good enough at their jobs to have fought a world war and won it either in the workplace or on the battlefield or sometimes even both.
As for I’m alright Jack.My comments were meant in the sense that I couldn’t care less about short term ‘contracts’ because they don’t affect me and luckily for me I started work a time when unions were much stronger and would have laughed at the idea and who would have told the guvnor if he wants to try imposing them bring it on and see what happens.I’ve also luckily not had to work in an environment where workers have allowed things to change to the point where short term contracts seem to have become acceptable.
However in my case ‘enough to get by’ isn’t the same thing as an economy in which strong union action would create sufficient spending power in the economy to pay those who are retired for whatever reason a decent amount of interest on their savings.Instead of which we’ve got the Tory utopia of a rigged labour market and low wage economy in which employers are getting their low pay structure subsidised by low interest rates in which savers are getting ripped off to provide subsidised mortgages to keep those underpaid workers housed.All supported by mug workers who don’t know which side of the fence they stand on and who seem to want to make an even worse hell for themselves than the one they’ve made so far by adding a culture of non existent job security and redundancy terms to the one of low wages.
But yes there might be some dodgy workers in some cases but that’s no reason why the idea of job security for the rest should be changed.In all those cases the unions have always supported the system of fair disciplinary action on the usual form of justice innocent until proven guilty.But as I’ve said the US unions have shown that it is possible to have strong union values while at the same time supporting the self preservation society.
kr79:
I know it’s off topic but how do agency guys manage with mortgage.
Those on short term ‘contracts’ are temp casual workers and therefore considered a bad risk by any lender with any sense.Simples.The question in most cases would go along the lines is the employee in full time employment and how long have they been employed with their current employer.If it’s temp work or short term contract or whatever reason that would make the employee not subject to employment protection regs then probably forget it.Which explains many of the issues concerning banks etc lending to the sub prime bad risk market and it also explains most of the reasons why the banks got into the state where they needed to be bailed out by the taxpayer.
