Not sure what you're trying to imply here.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Not sure what you're trying to imply here.
In my line of work I often deal with the EEF for advice. The advice from their legal experts is that there's no such thing as unfair dismissal within 12 months of starting a contract. That just shows how little Milibland actually knows about the real world and what the effects of his policy will be.
Milibland's suggestion that employers have to take on 0 hour contract employees after 12 months will just see a lot of people made jobless after 51 weeks - just as the rules on temp contract rights means that my company has to let good people go after 12 weeks.
Very simple. I am inferring that you either lied about being a lifelong Labour voter and a member of the Labour party up until recently, or you were a very strange member of the Labour party.
Of course...but there are no solid policies or vision behind the spin. I actually think Cameron's message of, we keep on doing what we're doing, slow progress, don't rock the boat, is quite a powerful one when you think about it. There isn't much spin, really, it's actually a bit of sh** sandwich, in that it's saying, no, things still aren't brilliant, but there is no quick-fix to this and you're just going to have to stick with us, but we are making progress.
There isn't actually a lot of spin behind the coalition, whether that is conservatives or the Liberals. Both are pretty much just saying, we think we're doing a decent job and we're going to continue doing the same stuff.
What if someone found the Labour party acceptable because the trot in sheep's clothing (Blair) made them that way?
If the Conservatives lurched to the right and started spouting a load of UKIP brick I'd feel the same way as I'm sure many recent Labour voters now feel about Ed and his band of thieves.
It's actually 2 years now, not 12 months. The Tories changed that.
Well i'm not going to infer that you are a massive bell-end. I'm just going to call you one.
That's a good thing for jobs and it makes Milibland's attempts at controlling something out of his control even more ridiculous.
I am deeply hurt. And I say that as a lifelong Tory voter and, up until recently, a member of the Conservative Party.
I think it's f**king awful. Someone can do good work for someone for 18 months, the manager decides that he doesn't like them for some reason and they are sacked, even though their performance is fine. All the manager has to do is terminate the contract and not give a reason. This has happened to former employees at my place of work and it is sh1t.
Bingo. Bearing in mind I wasn't of voting age in 1997, pretty much all of my 'politically aware' life, I've been a blairite. I'm not sure i would be still, if he was in power, but people change and evolve. I was already unsure of the direction the party was going in under Brown, but threw my vote their way in 2010 out of loyalty. My father has been a member of the party all his life. My grandfather was a steel metal worker from Durham. The kind of community that just voted labour regardless and politics was very much one of self-preservation. Some seemed hell-bent on shutting down British industry and labour and the trade unions were seen as a ticket to self-preservation. You didn't concern yourself with foreign policy, the environment, education, health. You were concerned with keeping food on your family's plates day-to-day.
I think things have changed and the Labour party started to evolve, unfortunately, not only do I think Ed is part of those seeking to turn back the clock, I think he's a puppet. He's not a strong individual with his own ideas and an overall vision. He's a symptom of old school labour voters reacting against Blair, who they saw as a sell-out. They didn't want the obvious choice to lead the party, Ed's brother, who i voted for. He was a Blairite. An electable, statesman-like centre-ground politician.
I've seen employees in firms that have been on permanent full-time positions, with five year service, 'managed-out' just because of personality clashes with managers.
Like I said, any contract is open to exploitation, any work situation is open to malpractice and abuse. Categorising one form of employment, one that provides a vital source of income for many, as unfair, or exploitative, is unhelpful, incorrect and dangerous. What a good socialist should be doing, is looking at the OVERALL employment picture in the UK and the safeguards and protection that are in place and the advice and support structure for both employers and employees, so that however people are employed, that there are protections in place.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Gordon Brown had some problems for sure, but one thing he wasn't was wishy-washy. He was a strong, dour, not-fancy but almost pathologically-driven man. The current crop are either not strong enough, not principled enough or simply too 'flexible' to offer any real platform that people can trust. All politicians flip and flop for votes, that's nothing new, but there seems to be a particular lack of vertebrates these days which seem to make voters less certain than ever over who actually believes in what! What I am trying to say, is that the lack of personality and solid political platform is alarming.
This isn't 'managed out' though -- I'm talking called into the office and sacked, and no proper reason given. That is not acceptable and yet, because they weren't there for 2 years, the management are allowed to be very cavalier with firing people with no comebacks.
Any contract is open to exploitation, but there is legal recourse for people who get 'managed out', constructive dismissal, unfair dismissal etc. A 2 year period where you have no right to unfair dismissal is b0llocks, it's too long.
I'm with you there. I think politicians are too populist these days. Prime example, Cameron offering a vote on the EU membership, even though he personally strongly believes in the EU. It's because he's scared of the rise of UKIP of course.
You know what I liked about Blair, Brown, Prescott and even Mandelson ('New Labour')? Whatever you think about their policies, they weren't afraid of potentially killing their popularity if they thought it was the right thing to do.
Iraq has got to be one of the most unpopular political decisions of all time, but Blair went balls-deep, because he believed it was the right thing to do. Whatever you think of it, rightly or wrongly, you've got to respect that, even if it is some kind of reptilian way?
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
I think Gilzeantoscore wrote what i thought was a thoughtful post that gave historical context to casual work, neo-liberal economics and possibly how those policies have led to wider debt amongst certain parts of the population.
I (and no doubt many others) would appreciate it if you could perhaps go through each of his points (and not just about zero hours contracts) and show him how you think he is wrong on each point. I would especially appreciate your views on his points about general wage reductions leading to lack of demand and the negative effects on the economy and then the historical 'cheap credit' that he says was introduced to counter this.
Ta.
PS - I also find it interesting that apart from you, no-one else has attempted to counter Gilzeantoscore's post (and even you imo didn't really do that...)
There's two sides to every coin though, a lot of employers found that they got too easily duped by someone who flounced up their CV, lied on their application and then proceeded to nose-dive in attitude and productivity as soon as the ink was dry on their probation. They were left with a dead weight until they could get rid, and it could be argued that 6-12 months was too short a time to properly assess someone's long-term suitability for a role, after which time it was a lengthy process of managing out, during which time productivity, working atmosphere and environment as well as customer satisfaction could potentially plummet.
When we're talking employers, for every massive multi-national, remember we could be talking about a small local firm that employs five people. If someone aces past their interview with a fluffed up CV, makes a token effort in the first year, then becomes disruptive and lazy, that could literally kill the business.
There is a balance to be found in protecting both employees from bad businesses and managers and employers from bad employees.
There isn't a legal recourse for someone that is managed out through all the proper processes. You give someone instructions on how to 'improve their behaviour'. It could literally be unreasonable sh** like, you need to address the manager as sir and wear a green tie, shave and use blue font on letters. A company is allowed to impose these kind of things on people. As long as they've had all the proper notices, a company can get rid on whatever bull**** reason they choose.
There hasn't been a general wage reduction though has there? According to the ONS:
- Employees aged 21 in 1995 earned 40% more after adjusting for inflation by the age of 39 than those aged 21 in 1975 did up to the age of 39
- Average hourly earnings peaked at older ages in 2013 compared to 1975
- The difference between male and female average pay for the under 30s has decreased dramatically since 1975.
- Since 2011 the top 10% of full-time earners have had the largest falls in wages after adjusting for inflation.
- Since 1975 average earnings for full-time employees have more than doubled after accounting for inflation.
- Since the introduction of the National Minimum Wage, wage growth at the bottom of the earnings distribution has been strong for both full and part-time employees.
- Almost a third (32.6%) of those in the top 10% of earners worked in London in 2013 while 12.3% of the bottom 10% of earners worked in the North West
- Hourly wage inequality has fallen across the regions and devolved countries of the UK since 1998
Few headlines from the above, it's interesting to me that given it's often painted that the Tories are a party of the rich, that since 2011, the top 10% of full-time earners have seen the largest fall in wages after adjusting for inflation. In the context of dza's point of view, i'd point to hourly wage inequality falling across the regions.
Also that wage growth at the bottom of the earnings distribution has remained strong.
I'm talking about a warehouse job, where you know if someone can do it or not after a week. One person I'm thinking of was there over a year and then binned over night. There was no dip in performance (and I know this, because I worked alongside him and managers would always tell people if they weren't quick enough). This is low-waged, unskilled work, and to be able to sack people just like that when they have been working well for 18 months is just crap. All because the manager decides he doesn't like the person. What is the point of 12 weeks probation period when they just do stuff like that? To be honest, I think this is an unusual company, it's the most sack-happy place I've ever worked. But surely governments have to protect us workers from employers who behave in this sh1t-house way?
I agree. But I also want you to realise that not all employment situations involve jobs that are easy to assess in terms of performance in a 12 month period. An accountant for example, could be employed and essentially a company might not even get to see one completed job for over a year (that year's book keeping).
Would it be safe to legislate different periods of employment protection for "low-paid, unskilled" work as you put it, and "highly skilled, expert work"? And how would you define it? Particularly given that reputation and ability to regain employment is less likely to be impacted by a "low paid unskilled" worker getting fired and the impacts on the economy of having a load of bad accountants going through the managing out process would be significant?
All I'm saying is a government can't please everyone and you're unlikely able to stamp out abusive employment practice via legislation. You've got to strike a balance as I've said between protecting employees and employers.
Ultimately it sounds like your mates ex employer was a bad company and employer and this will ultimately be reputationally damaging for them. Surely your mate was better off elsewhere anyway.
Let me ask you a question or two then:
*Was your friend on a zero hours contract?
*would it have made a difference if he was?
*Do you think the demonisation of zero hours contracts helps your mate?
*Doesn't your mates case merely highlight that there will always be good employers and bad employers as well as good and bad employees? That all contracts are open to abuse?
One more thing about your mates situation. This manager that fires good employees for no good reason and presumably causes the company great reputational damage in the employment market and a high turn over of staff with relevant disruption and overheads? If the behaviour of this manager only came to the employers attention 13 months into his employment after the 3rd employee he dismissed made a complaint, how easy do you think it should be for the company to get rid of this guy who is causing their work force such misery?