-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
JonathanEx
Member
There's a first for everything
I'm a real skeptic to this strategy working in favour for Labour. They already have a struggling identity as to what their 'message' is in regards to the cost of living crisis, a leader who is much less presentable relative to the opposition in regards to his public perception, poor and ambiguous party policy, as well as a legacy of the Iraq War/Econ crisis that still lingers in some public perception. There's also the problem that the American style of 'politics' with its limitless funding and celebrity style perception and advertising does not apply to the British model. Of course, this is why a strategist with this stature is hired, but I think the differences between the cultures and politics of the two states are large enough to not disrupt the current status quo in the polls. Ultimately, I think Ed Miliband is an impossible candidate for Labour's success. They still have the first past the post system to rely on for success. It will be very interesting to see their policy choices and messages this year in relation to the recovering economy.
WayneMorse
Banned
Fucking Jeremy Clarkson, ruined last night's Have I Got News For You.
Nicktendo86
Member
I thought it was a poor episode, but not because of clarkson. I didn't like Ian Hislop last night, he seemed to look down at Henning whatshisname and got quite heated when he made a joke about Crimea. I think he is a bit of a tit at the best of times though...
In other news Labour candidate Will Straw (son of Jack) has been photographed next to so e 'historic' dancers. Who wear blackface. Poor judgement at best!
Check out @wdjstraw's Tweet: https://twitter.com/wdjstraw/status/457498682230046720
WayneMorse
Banned
Jack Straw's son AND Neil Kinnock's son are candidates in 2015? God help us.
Though it would be kinda cool in Kinnock's case if we had a Prime Minister that was married to the Prime Minister of Denmark.
Though it would be kinda cool in Kinnock's case if we had a Prime Minister that was married to the Prime Minister of Denmark.
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/w...-country-draws-an-angry-response.html?hp&_r=0
Can't help but wonder if Cameron was trying to bring Miliband's atheism into play by saying this stuff.
Can't help but wonder if Cameron was trying to bring Miliband's atheism into play by saying this stuff.
anonymous_abc
Member
QuicheFontaine
Member
Yuck, the suggestion that we should be "more confident about our status as a Christian country" makes me a little nervous. And it also seems increasingly less accurate, with more recent polls showing that more than half of the population belong to "no religion".
Frankly, after Tony "God told me to invade Iraq" Blair, I'd rather have less religion in politics.
CyclopsRock
Member
So would I (though I don't think we have much - the fact that the Prime Minister of the UK saying that this is a Christian country has produced so much furore when we literally are, we have an established state church and our head of state is the leader of the Anglican faith tells you how much our politicians keep quiet about their faith normally).
QuicheFontaine
Member
All true (and I'm certainly not disputing that it's factually correct that we're a Christian country), but I think such a statement from the PM deserves a furore. It might be jumping the gun, "being more confident" being itself such a nebulous phrase, but the sentiment seems very much against the general 'direction of travel' of the country, and it's probably worth chiming in now with our distaste before Dave gets any big ideas about this.
Jezbollah
Member
IMO This whole "Christian country" thing is just to pander a little to the CoE to be honest - it's done by PMs before, and it will be in the future. I've already seen a number of spokes persons of various religious associations saying they dont mind it being said, because wind the clock back a few hundred years and Christianity (whatever flavour it was) played a much bigger role in our society. Now, it doesnt.
Throw in the other beliefs infused into our modern society and the feeling that a very large percentage just aren't fussed over religion as a whole (I wouldn't go as far as saying atheist) and this all comes down to a number of high profile people who are afraid of such a connotation of this country being labelled Christian making this hang around in the headlines a lot more than when the last time a PM said a similar thing. I do remember Tony Blair coming out with this a few years ago - perhaps the whole fashion of laying into the coalition because of the austerity policy made people shout louder from the rooftops this time around.
Throw in the other beliefs infused into our modern society and the feeling that a very large percentage just aren't fussed over religion as a whole (I wouldn't go as far as saying atheist) and this all comes down to a number of high profile people who are afraid of such a connotation of this country being labelled Christian making this hang around in the headlines a lot more than when the last time a PM said a similar thing. I do remember Tony Blair coming out with this a few years ago - perhaps the whole fashion of laying into the coalition because of the austerity policy made people shout louder from the rooftops this time around.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...oxford-and-reverend-keith-hebden-9274303.html
Remarkable timing.
Remarkable timing.
The Indy said:
While I think that Alistair Campbell is an occasionally amusing but mostly vile human being, I think he's got the motivation behind Cameron's newly expressed Christian faith spot on. Essentially he needed another story to fill in the Easter break and to move on from the Maria Miller issue/questions over Cameron's judgement. This Christian nonsense seems to have occupied the chattering classes nicely.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Wow, I'm embarrassed how easily that worked on me :-/
But I'd say it only compounds the questions over Cameron's judgement, rather than distracting from them.
Speaking of politicians cowering behind their religion, Stormont is to debate Equal Marriage on the 29th. Unfortunately, it will probably fail though only just. Off the top of my head the last votes were ~40-50 and ~45-50 against.
All DUP MLAs (38) will vote against and will launch legal campaigns if it passes. I think maybe one UUP MLA (out of 13) is in favour, so already that's 50/108 against. There's three more equally hardline conservatives voting no.
Last time round, both Alliance (the liberal party, 8 seats) and SDLP (14) had quite a few abstentions and noes, so I don't know how this'll go. Alliance have a few MLAs who are rectors(?) in their churches, and SDLP are largely a party of old, Catholic men. You would expect a majority of both parties to be in favour considering they are a liberal party and a social democratic party, but who knows. More noes could be disastrous for either party.
SF (29), NI21 (the new liberal unionism party, 2 MLAs) and Green (1) are all totally in favour.
All DUP MLAs (38) will vote against and will launch legal campaigns if it passes. I think maybe one UUP MLA (out of 13) is in favour, so already that's 50/108 against. There's three more equally hardline conservatives voting no.
Last time round, both Alliance (the liberal party, 8 seats) and SDLP (14) had quite a few abstentions and noes, so I don't know how this'll go. Alliance have a few MLAs who are rectors(?) in their churches, and SDLP are largely a party of old, Catholic men. You would expect a majority of both parties to be in favour considering they are a liberal party and a social democratic party, but who knows. More noes could be disastrous for either party.
SF (29), NI21 (the new liberal unionism party, 2 MLAs) and Green (1) are all totally in favour.
CyclopsRock
Member
These UKIP posters are pretty interesting, on the subject of the chattering classes - they have been pretty widely decried as racist, but I think that basically plays straight into UKIPs hands (whether it's true or not). There is a huge (look at the polls) chunk of the electorate for whom immigration is a problem, and it's one that the main 3 parties have ignored for the best part of two decades. It breeds resentment with the political classes and encourages more extreme parties to form. For the 'chattering classes' (ie politicians and the London based media) to then sneer and jeer at UKIPs posters as being racist fulfills every expectation that UKIP supporters have - that if you talk about immigration, you get branded racist and that once again, it's UKIP that's listening to them. This males the odd speech by Ed about lowering immigration and Dave's pie in the sky targets about lowering it even less believable, which again feeds onto the sentiment.
I think these posters are doing exactly what UKIP wanted them to do.
I think these posters are doing exactly what UKIP wanted them to do.
anonymous_abc
Member
historically speaking where does the great resentment towards immigrants in the UK come from?
The way I see sure there is resentment in Germany too, but it is considerably more limited to the far right than it is in the UK.
It must have been around for a long time as I would assume its a major contributing factor to why the UK is not part of Schengen.
Now I can somehow see how an island state might be more prone to feeling separated from the rest, but that falls short imho.
I see no real reason why Britons might feel more threatened by immigrants than Germans or French.
What is the situation like in Ireland? Also not part of Schengen, are they anti immigration to a similar extent as Britain?
The way I see sure there is resentment in Germany too, but it is considerably more limited to the far right than it is in the UK.
It must have been around for a long time as I would assume its a major contributing factor to why the UK is not part of Schengen.
Now I can somehow see how an island state might be more prone to feeling separated from the rest, but that falls short imho.
I see no real reason why Britons might feel more threatened by immigrants than Germans or French.
What is the situation like in Ireland? Also not part of Schengen, are they anti immigration to a similar extent as Britain?
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't think there really is a resentment towards immigrants in the UK - I think (no laughing at the back) that we're one of the most tolerant countries in the world in most respects. Our "right wing" parties are nothing compared to many of Europe's worst parties, and I don't think there is a violent hatred against immigrants outside of absolutely minute circles.
I think it's half and half economic vs cultural. I don't think people have a problem with "the Bangladeshi family next door" or "the Polish couple opposite" or anything, it's when it's slightly more abstracted - when they see how many of the jobs created in the 1997-2007 period went to migrants (it's about 90% - which is good for the economy but not good for long term unemployment in the UK - which is a priority is a matter of your personal politics I guess) and when it comes to cultural "ghettos" (which isn't a great term as it suggests that there's a problem with these areas, which there often isn't though it's not unusual for it them to occur in poorer areas for obvious reasons) where people feel like strangers in their own country (or even where they grew up). It's not something that bothers me (if I don't happen to see my brother when I wake up, I have to walk for about 5 or 10 minutes before I see another white person in my day, though of course a lot of the Asian people that live near me are British too). I think it really becomes a problem when people believe their life is being impacted in a negative way because of it, though (something I don't feel, for instance), for example their kids at school find themselves held back because of the smorgasbord of different languages of their peers means that lessons are either very slow or basically non existent. Of course kids can pick up English pretty quick at that age, but it also impacts their learning too.
Basically, I think there are quite a few legitimate reasons to rue the impact immigration has had on the UK without the origin of that ruefulness being resentment. Personally, I'm all in favour of open immigration - I think that broadly the benefits outweigh the negatives, but then I say that as someone who isn't really impacted by the negatives, and my life is enriched by the positives. I appreciate that some people aren't in that position though.
I think it's half and half economic vs cultural. I don't think people have a problem with "the Bangladeshi family next door" or "the Polish couple opposite" or anything, it's when it's slightly more abstracted - when they see how many of the jobs created in the 1997-2007 period went to migrants (it's about 90% - which is good for the economy but not good for long term unemployment in the UK - which is a priority is a matter of your personal politics I guess) and when it comes to cultural "ghettos" (which isn't a great term as it suggests that there's a problem with these areas, which there often isn't though it's not unusual for it them to occur in poorer areas for obvious reasons) where people feel like strangers in their own country (or even where they grew up). It's not something that bothers me (if I don't happen to see my brother when I wake up, I have to walk for about 5 or 10 minutes before I see another white person in my day, though of course a lot of the Asian people that live near me are British too). I think it really becomes a problem when people believe their life is being impacted in a negative way because of it, though (something I don't feel, for instance), for example their kids at school find themselves held back because of the smorgasbord of different languages of their peers means that lessons are either very slow or basically non existent. Of course kids can pick up English pretty quick at that age, but it also impacts their learning too.
Basically, I think there are quite a few legitimate reasons to rue the impact immigration has had on the UK without the origin of that ruefulness being resentment. Personally, I'm all in favour of open immigration - I think that broadly the benefits outweigh the negatives, but then I say that as someone who isn't really impacted by the negatives, and my life is enriched by the positives. I appreciate that some people aren't in that position though.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I think you're right about the general level of tolerance Cyclops. But there is a real problem with employment.
For example, on the street where my shop is, we have Iranians, Turks, Cypriots, Italians, Japanese and we all get along fine. However, several of the restaurants preferentially employ immigrants rather than brits (and not immigrants from their "own" countries - just whatever immigrants happen to be around at the time - currently mostly Poles). And if you multiply that by whatever huge number of restaurants/hotels we have to cater for the tourist trade that makes a significant dent in the jobs available for locals.
It isn't a racist thing. It is a practical matter of recruiting someone quickly who can and will do the job, and immigrants are to a large extent self-selecting, because anyone who has learnt the language and transplanted themselves a thousand miles has already shown more get-up-and-go than three-quarters of the local unemployed. Small businesses (the vast majority of the economy) don't have the time for big-ass recruitment procedures and would probably have to hire four locals (and sack three of them) to find someone capable and willing, whereas you hit first time with an immigrant.
The job centres could do much to improve this, by some sort of preassessment/certification, but what they do is just tell everyone to go out and look for jobs anywhere regardless of whether they can do it - or put them on hopeless training courses.
For example, on the street where my shop is, we have Iranians, Turks, Cypriots, Italians, Japanese and we all get along fine. However, several of the restaurants preferentially employ immigrants rather than brits (and not immigrants from their "own" countries - just whatever immigrants happen to be around at the time - currently mostly Poles). And if you multiply that by whatever huge number of restaurants/hotels we have to cater for the tourist trade that makes a significant dent in the jobs available for locals.
It isn't a racist thing. It is a practical matter of recruiting someone quickly who can and will do the job, and immigrants are to a large extent self-selecting, because anyone who has learnt the language and transplanted themselves a thousand miles has already shown more get-up-and-go than three-quarters of the local unemployed. Small businesses (the vast majority of the economy) don't have the time for big-ass recruitment procedures and would probably have to hire four locals (and sack three of them) to find someone capable and willing, whereas you hit first time with an immigrant.
The job centres could do much to improve this, by some sort of preassessment/certification, but what they do is just tell everyone to go out and look for jobs anywhere regardless of whether they can do it - or put them on hopeless training courses.
CyclopsRock
Member
You're right that they're self-selecting; There's also the fact that they can't claim benefits straight away (at least not most) which means they have far less to fall back on, especially when one considers that they're less likely to have accommodating family here. This leads to an employee that's inevitably going to be about as careful as can be that they don't do anything to lose their job. If I ran a business and was looking for relatively replaceable labour, I could do worse than filter applicants by who has a 'z' in their surname.
anonymous_abc
Member
That part just really rubs me the wrong way. The immigrants are locals too you know.
Nevertheless it's interesting to hear because I would say it's the exact opposite here in Germany. Especially small companies are more likely to hire or even invite someone to a job interview with a German name rather than a Turkish name.
blatant generalisation of course! But not uncommon either way.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Sorry for any misunderstanding. I was talking about my particular town (rather than generally about the country or whatever). And here, mostly because of a heavily seasonal trade, the immigrants - or at least those seeking employment - are not local. I didn't mean any more by it than that.
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...slamist-extremism-reaction-politics-live-blog
Haha just when you think Tony Blair couldn't get more awful.
Haha just when you think Tony Blair couldn't get more awful.
Improving figures for government borrowing.
Source http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052702304518704579519130797216414.html
Source http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052702304518704579519130797216414.html
WayneMorse
Banned
It's unfortunate because if it wasn't for Iraq Blair would be seen as one of the better Prime Ministers. He oversaw record low levels of unemployment and inflation, and substantially improved education, the NHS and equal rights for LBGT people.
I think Miliband should do more to embrace some of the good aspects of Blair's government.
Cough...zero hour contracts, government work schemes....cough.
EDIT: I thought I was replying to the unemployment figure under Cameron. That was wierd I could have sworn I was quoting a post about it.
CyclopsRock
Member
There's really nothing wrong with the existence of zero-hour contracts. They aren't for everyone, but they have their place.
I have to disagree. In a modern societal structure there should be no place for them. It's almost backwards victorian thinking and is designed to screw workers as much as possible.
WayneMorse
Banned
I changed it to reply to dan's post about Blair.
But yeah what I said was that Cameron should congratulate himself on being the first Tory Prime MInister since 1989 to bring unemployment below 7%.
WayneMorse
Banned
Never really understood how the Tories get the label that they're "better with the economy" because like I said last time they were in government from 1979-1997 they only brought down unemployment below 7% for a brief period from 1989-1990, and even then it was in the high 6.0s.
freakzilla149
Banned
I agree whole heartedly with the idea of challenging Islamic extremism , it's a real and dangerous thing. However, Blair is not the one to lead that challenge, the sooner he disappears the better.
Thanks to him and Bush millions of Muslims around the world already believe that the west is out to get them.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Well. I can see the reasoning behind them, but they are open to (and incur in practice) a whole host of abuses. Among them:
- effectively pushing employment decisions way down the food chain in an organisation, leaving it to bottom-rung managers to (a) hire too many people on contract and (b) give all the hours to their mates (c) completely freeze out people who thought they had a job but don't ever get work
- posting the employment rota only on the noticeboard at the place of work, so forcing people to make a 2-hour round trip to find out if they are working that day or not
- completely muddying the waters over people's legitimate benefit claims
- effectively sacking people (by not giving hours) without any warning/discipline/comeback
I've seen all of this happen, and that's just among my small circle of acquaintances. The whole thing smells.
I'm dead against them - even though it would be beneficial to my business to use them.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
There's more to the economy than employment. Inflation came down over the same period from 13.4% to 2.5%.
CyclopsRock
Member
These are all legitimate concerns and I don't doubt they happen, but I'd note that - like every job - it's partly the responsibility of the employee to ensure these things don't happen by leaving when they do. I know that's easier said than done - "get a job" isn't really a helpful comment to unemployed people, and "get a different job" isn't much more helpful to those on 0-hour contracts who are actually getting 0-hours - but the reality is that the people on them are only there, on them, because it's the best opportunity available to them. If they have a better alternative, I'd recommend they take them. If they don't, and we get rid of 0-hour contracts, they still won't have an alternative, only now they're 100% certain they won't get any shifts.
It seems that "Victorian" basically translates as "thing I don't like" when it comes to economics. It's more early-30's-American-Dustbowl or Pacific-Rim-Wall-Building than Victorian, really, but I guess that's not the point.
They aren't "designed to screw workers as much as possible", that's just a potential use. They're designed to offer both businesses and employees flexibility. As an example, my brother used to work in the warehouse at Ikea, and he had a 0-hour contract. They'd phone round at the start of each week getting people sorted for the shifts in the next 7 days (or longer, I guess). You could take as many or as few shifts as you wanted/were offered. When my brother had exams, he could say "no" for weeks on end. When he needed more money, he could take as many shifts as his poor little toesies could manage.
Like I said, they can be abused, and it's not for everyone, but I think by wishing them binned entirely, you're taking away some much-needed flexibility from the labour market. Not everything needs to be a job for life that's hard to get sacked from.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
That's tightened my thinking up a bit.
In particular I can see how 0-hour contracts make sense for people with other income or other commitments and in the hands of sane employers. I still feel very uncomfortable with them where the job is someone's main or only income and the total absence of any security of income.
This is more apparent where the local economy (like ours here) is completely dominated by hotels, care homes and hospitality which are in turn completely dominated by zero-hours contracts. It is very difficult for anyone to find an alternative and, as I say, abuse is rife.
With you on that. People forget that the Victorians did a huge amount of good in employment legislation and a whole bunch of other things. It's as bad as condemning capital punishment as "mediaeval" when we only got rid of it for murder in 1964 and for the last few crimes in the 1990s which is a lot more recent than that (and France only lost the guillotine in 1977).
I think you're overstating your case a bit here! They were designed - I think it is fair to say - solely for the benefit of the employers. Sure there's a side benefit to a small class of workers (those who either need the flexibility or can afford the downtime), but that is far from being to the benefit of the average, or even most, workers. Set against the significant disadvantages in that they potentially run roughshod over employees rights in terms of holiday pay, pension entitlements, dismissal I think the balance still comes out negative.
But, nearly everybody needs some security of income week by week. That's the crunchy bit.
anonymous_abc
Member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27137184
And people wonder why we need higher EU targets. For the UK government it's obviously not about the bigger picture of reducing reliance on fossil and other mined and imported fuels its just about doing the bare minimum to meet EU goals.
Meanwhile nuclear power which no sane person would build if they had to carry the costs themselves continues to be subsidised to a ludicrous degree by the tax payers money. And that doesn't even begin to count the cost of storing highly radioactive waste for thousands of years. Which by the way no one in their right mind can either say can be done safely. Just look at the waste site in Sellafield which is predicted to sink in the sea within a couple of hundred years, but hell who cares not our problem now, our grandchildren can worry about that.
Also people like to forget that uranium is also limited resource, just like fossil fuels, that is mined in other countries and that we continue to be dependant on their delivery.
And people wonder why we need higher EU targets. For the UK government it's obviously not about the bigger picture of reducing reliance on fossil and other mined and imported fuels its just about doing the bare minimum to meet EU goals.
Meanwhile nuclear power which no sane person would build if they had to carry the costs themselves continues to be subsidised to a ludicrous degree by the tax payers money. And that doesn't even begin to count the cost of storing highly radioactive waste for thousands of years. Which by the way no one in their right mind can either say can be done safely. Just look at the waste site in Sellafield which is predicted to sink in the sea within a couple of hundred years, but hell who cares not our problem now, our grandchildren can worry about that.
Also people like to forget that uranium is also limited resource, just like fossil fuels, that is mined in other countries and that we continue to be dependant on their delivery.
The Tories are generally pretty good at making their cronies money.
Jezbollah
Member
So are Labour and the Lib Dems.
Bony Manifesto
Member
But the problem is that there's absolutely no downside to employers making every hourly job have zero contracted hours, so we're at a point now where they're a standard feature in almost every employment contract.
I'm surprised you actually admitted that a legitimate use for zero-hours contracts was to hire people for short-term work (under the guise of it being long-term employment) and be able to lay them off without penalty when they're no longer required. Advocates of them don't usually acknowledge that this sort of thing happens at all, let alone pitch it as a reason why they're such a useful tool for employers!
CyclopsRock
Member
I think you're overstating the case a little bit there. I'm not on a 0-hour contract. Are you? Estimates vary, but the highest one I can find suggests that 8% of the workforce have 0 hour contracts. This might be 8% too many for some, but it's not exactly "a standard feature in almost every employment contract".
As for sacking people, I think we need to get over that. I don't really see why employers should need to be "penalised" for getting rid of workers, whether they're crap employees or just redundant. Getting rid of employees is something that a) needs to happen and b) needs to be able to happen in a healthy labour market.
I think you're right. It's similar to part time work insomuch as there's nothing wrong with it until you'd rather have more. If we assume that Full Time, Permanent employment is at 100 on the scale of both security and lack of flexibility, part time work is somewhere down both (insomuch as part time workers are a bit easier to get rid of, which offers the employer more flexibility, but also allows the employee to work additional hours or otherwise do whatever they want in the off hours, which gives them more flexibility too), then zero hour contracts are even further down those tallies.
Whenever we get new employment data, you find people asking "but how much of it is part time?" as if A) everyone would rather have full time employment and b) part time work is worthless. And if you're a single parent trying to feed four kids, it probably is pretty worthless. But if you're a kid at school or a second earner wanting to put something away for a holiday, it's perfect. I think zero-hour contracts are the same, only they're applicable to even less people because, as you suggest, it's problematic when it's the only form of income. As such, most people for whom they're a good fit are those who either have another income/partner with another income, or are otherwise financially independent (in my brother's case, he still lived at home, so if he DID want shifts but he never got them, he wouldn't starve or get kicked out his house - I appreciate not everyone is in this position, of course).
Like I said, though, I'm not sure what the solution is. You mention how the hospitality industry uses them a lot, but if they weren't there, what would they do? If they had guaranteed work for people for 3 months, wouldn't they already be using fixed-hour contracts?
anonymous_abc
Member
If there is one thing I have learnt in my time on the work force it's that employers will use every leaver, angle and sliver of legislation to their full advantage, and you can bet your ass that the numbers are only going to rise till it is deemed unacceptable, new legislation comes in and employers start looking for the next angle to exploit. And zero hour contracts is an angle no one had to look for everyone can see where it will lead.
There are plenty of ways of getting rid of employees that are not up to the job at hand or when the company is in dire straits.
But there needs to be legislation in place to protect the employees, they are the weakest link in the equation. Employers should not be able to just sack people for no reason just cause. More often than not its older employees that have become to expensive and will be replaced by a new cheap graduate. This through no fault of the employee, who might have worked diligently for years and will have significant difficulties finding a new job. Or hay, he/she supports the wrong team, fired. What you think something is wrong and want to join the union, fired.
CyclopsRock
Member
Do you have data to support this belief, though? At the last round over employment figures, over 80% of the new jobs created were full time, permanent jobs. At the very least, it doesn't sound like zero-hour contracts are running rampant.
I don't think a company should need to be "in dire straits" before they can get rid of people. As for employees that are not up to the job, I don't think there are "plenty" of ways - it's a very tricky process from a legal point of view, and one that's very difficult for small companies to do due to the sheer volume of compliance needed to cover themselves. It's not just that they need to do the right thing, it's that they need to be able to prove that they've done the right thing in a court of law. The company I work for has around 25 employees at the moment, and no one even close to being a lawyer. If my boss wanted to get rid of me, I can't imagine it'd be a very cheap process, unless I was caught stealing a computer or raping the printer or something.
Edit: Luckily, I haven't been caught yet!
As for the employee "doing something wrong" by being too expensive - that's just market forces, surely? It's up to the business at hand whether or not their experienced and diligent employee can be adequately replaced by a cheaper graduate, surely? Do you really think we should be writing legislation that binds their hands against such things (or otherwise makes it so expensive as to be entirely non-viable)? I'm firmly of the view that the people that a business employees should be entirely at the discretion of that business - who else knows better what the needs of the business are? I think when legislation is enacted to make this harder, it's basically the government saying "This will make your life, as a business, harder, but we think it's worth it to provide employees with security." I think it does long term harm to the employment market, however, not to mention the companies at hand.
Nicktendo86
Member
Yep, there are laws in place and it is not as easy to just sack someone.
I work for a fairly large law firm (about 1200 people) which is based in Liverpool but my office is a much smaller one in London. Our old office manager was useless, she had been here for 10 years but used to have her own office so people couldn't see the shit she got up to. Going to sleep at her desk, going out for fag breaks every half an hour, turning up and going home when she liked. It was only when we moved to an open plan office that we could see what she did.
It was very hard to get rid of her. They put her on performance reviews etc and she would do the bare minimum to pass. She was so thick as well, she would ask me how to attached something to an email or simple things like that. In the end they had to create a new role for her, get someone new as an office manager, then say well your new role isn't really working so offered her redundancy. In the end she got about £20k to fuck off.
Now you bet that everything was done above board and legal, this is a law firm after all with a department on employment law, but it was still very hard and expensive to get rid of a useless employee.
I work for a fairly large law firm (about 1200 people) which is based in Liverpool but my office is a much smaller one in London. Our old office manager was useless, she had been here for 10 years but used to have her own office so people couldn't see the shit she got up to. Going to sleep at her desk, going out for fag breaks every half an hour, turning up and going home when she liked. It was only when we moved to an open plan office that we could see what she did.
It was very hard to get rid of her. They put her on performance reviews etc and she would do the bare minimum to pass. She was so thick as well, she would ask me how to attached something to an email or simple things like that. In the end they had to create a new role for her, get someone new as an office manager, then say well your new role isn't really working so offered her redundancy. In the end she got about £20k to fuck off.
Now you bet that everything was done above board and legal, this is a law firm after all with a department on employment law, but it was still very hard and expensive to get rid of a useless employee.
anonymous_abc
Member
That's a fundamental reason I am not Neo-Liberal, I don't thing everything should be at the hands of the free market, because that knows best and everything will turn out ok.
Neo Liberalism is where a free fox is in a free barn with free hens free to tear them a new one.
As I said, we need protection for the weak, in this case the employee. Alternatively we would have even more old people on the dole or the street, because surely government benefit for the weak goes against the idea of a free market too.
So a few bad apples makes it ok to fuck it up for everyone else. In general the employee is the weakest link in this relationship. Not everyone can just find a new job, but employers, especially of the unskilled, can fill jobs as they please.
Neo Liberalism is where a free fox is in a free barn with free hens free to tear them a new one.
As I said, we need protection for the weak, in this case the employee. Alternatively we would have even more old people on the dole or the street, because surely government benefit for the weak goes against the idea of a free market too.
So a few bad apples makes it ok to fuck it up for everyone else. In general the employee is the weakest link in this relationship. Not everyone can just find a new job, but employers, especially of the unskilled, can fill jobs as they please.
Nicktendo86
Member
The point was there are laws in place which mean employers can't just sack people without good reason. If they do you can take them to tribunal, the system is not perfect far from it but there are safeguards in place.