Saturday, Aug 29, 2009
♫♪ the devil will find work for idle hands to do ♫♪
The Times: Idle young should be entitled to nothing
Society today is very different. Stigma has been abolished. To live on benefits has become a lifestyle choice. In many families there is no memory of anyone working. Ours is a culture of entitlement, a word coined to minimise shame and maximise claiming.
Posted by devo @ 10:38 PM (2010 views) Add Comment
48 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. devo said...
The young are about to be awakened.
The results will be interesting to say the least.
2. Mr Plumbase said...
Mmmm.. That sense of entitlement, often for doing little in return is not just confined to the chavvy classes, those near the top seem to share the same view.
3. little professor said...
Oooh, hark out you with your musical notes. Very fancy :)
4. little professor said...
hark AT you
5. happy mondays said...
devo, your not a Smith's fan by any chance ?
6. Munchkin said...
So there are at least 5 million unfilled jobs out there that would provide a decent living wage for a single individual? Yeah, right. The jobs are never coming back. The reason? It's called 'technological unemployment' and the service industries are next.
7. debtfree said...
I don't see a problem with signing on and claiming benefits. You get to spend time with the family and see the children grow up.
What is the point of working most ? - You got to see it from the other side.
You get taxed to the hilt, work longer hours than most of the world and if you get the train you don't even get a seat yet get charged nearly half the cost of an average mortgage for a months usage. When you drive to work there are nothing but roadworks and traffic jams which cost you an absolute bomb to have the pleasure of sitting in. It's not laziness that is being rewarded, it's working hard that is being bled to death. I'd happily give up all this hassle of paying tax to brown and his corrupt cronies. Council tax is an absolute con, hundred odd pounds a month to have my bin inspected and a parking ticket slapped on anywhere I dare to park for 5 minutes.
If people could afford a better life and not get charged and taxed so much I'm sure most would love to work and get rewarded, problem is, not many do these days.
8. paul said...
On a more serious note (!), Portillo's argument is duff in some ways:
State handouts devalued education, discouraged work and marriage, encouraged teenage pregnancy and undermined parental authority.
No, oversensitive parents concerns about their littlelings failing at difficult exams has created grade inflation. Marriage has been undermined because legislation is skewed in favour of the female gender regarding custody (fathers4justice etc.) and financial settlement (John Cleese etc.), work is discouraged because there are no worthwhile jobs - there are no apprenticeships. As Namoi Klein said, nowadays if you start off in the postroom, you will stay in the postroom - you will never become CEO like you parents and grandparents did.
In Britain — maybe throughout western Europe — belief in work, vocation, community, family and God have declined together.
Like I said, no jobs of any real long term value, can't afford a family unless you are very wealthy or very poor and God? The Church was a construct for social control - a useful one at the time but its largely irrelevant nowadays m'afraid.
Portillo sounds like an old fart. Phweeep! Coming though ...
9. clockslinger said...
I feel I have posted the same thing on here several times, but it stands repeating again. This is the propaganda offensive tip for the Tory knife that is going to cut away every bit of what is left of our welfare state and give it to the already haves. First, I would not object to the young unemployed being encouraged by a combination of stick and carrot to develop more fulfilling lives, learn social values and how to contribute more. However that would probably cost a lot. I may even have little objection to their benefits being reduced for failure to comply. However, what of the other side of the coin in the CONTRIBUTORY welfare state? Yes, I've paid in a lot of national insurance, as has my partner, certainly more as a share of my income than Michael Portillo or his banking mates in the city. So I want, indeed expect a reasonable return...and that means a state pension I can live a reasonably dignified existance on and decent health and dental care on the state. Don't tell me it can't be afforded after what we've just seen in illegal wars and gifts to the elite in the banking world...even to people buying new cars. It is a question of priorities and what a country is willing to go into debt for. If you like a real free market so much Michael, apply it to the real players first...like the banks maybe. One good thing about 1997 was just seeing Mr Portillo loose his seat to a Nu Lab unknown...you had to laugh! Have we forgotten how we loathed him already?
10. martin said...
debtfree said "You got to see it from the other side."
Unfortunately thats the only side these workshy, bone idle, lazy, kid producing, legs in the air, trousers round the ankle, cider drinking, car thieving, fag smoking, benefit claiming, waste of skin, jobless scum, see themselves. I honestly believe that none of them should be given a penny, let them live in the p1ss poor city centre new build flats with a proper warden to keep them in check. Why give them money for nothing? This is about them not me, but, I have worked for over 20 years and never claimed anything, my wife has just lost her job due to the recession, and I have a 14 month old son. With this being the situation my wife has already got interviews lined up for another job. The thing is, my wife does not really need to work, we have no debts, mortgage was paid off a few months ago, so she could spend time at home with our little boy, but she wont because she has never been out of work either.
The point is most of these people have never worked and have no desire too. If they are going to be given money, let them give something in return. Let them work in hospitals as porters, clean the streets, whatever. Let them contribute to society in some way.
Or simply sterilise the lot of them.
Rant over.
11. maihem said...
The problem is that current taxation encourages maximum time working per working head. That means that people feel they have to work till they drop if they work at all. That leaves no work for the remaining people to do. We need economic policies that encourage shorter hours in a recession for those that do not need long hours.
12. debtfree said...
@ martin
You don't think you're painting with too broad a brush ? Understand completely what you are saying about the ones who are pure lazy and scrounge, but that isn't the whole picture.
I have a relative who doesn't work simply because she has 2 children to look after and the cost of care with what she'll get paid is less than claiming benefits. The jobs she has been offered would require travel and long hours away from her children. What sort of life is that?
There are some who just simply can't afford to work, which is ridiculous.
13. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
14. krustyatemyhamster said...
Sorry martin if that was a bit brusque, but if you like to make judgements about whole sections of society based on nothing other than your prejudice, perhaps I should make judgements about you in the same manner.
15. martin said...
Debtfree,
It was a broad sweeping generalisation which did not take all situations into account, and I understand what your relative is having to consider balancing child care and work.
My fustrations are aimed at the down right lazy, I live near an area that has a lot of young single mothers who do not work but as I drive home at night I see a lot of these young pram pushers outside the local pubs drinking and smoking. These are the people that I aim my comments at. It annoys me that these feckwitshave all the luxuries that most of us enjoy, but these t0ssers dont work for them.
Your comment about those that simple can't afford to work is correct, it IS ridiculous. But if we stopped giving the lazy brigade free money, we could give the benefits to those that want to work and actually contribute something to society. Use that money to pay for the child care that others need so as to go to work.
16. letsgetreadytotumble said...
"seeing Mr Portillo loose his seat to a Nu Lab unknown", yeah, well done mate, that was the warning signs, that's when the rot set in.
The point seems to have been missed here. Labour use taxpayers money to buy the Labour vote, putting more people on welfare and into government jobs. This despicable, non integrity bunch of troughers are distorting democracy. They are also wrecking the house of Lords (4 Labour lords suspended). They are manipulating the mother of all democracies for their own benefit.
17. martin said...
Krusty,
I will not excuse what I said but agree with the generalisation.
I would appreciate it if your comments were directed at me and not my son. The fact my wife has chosen to work rather than look after my son throughout the day is due to the fact that my inlaws look after my son while we work. Lucky us eh! But it does mean that we have a choice and we have chosen to work to build a better life for our little boy. We chose not to take him to the pub in a push chair, not to smoke and risk his health, and not to feed him on chips every night. I do generalise when I make these comments but there can be no disagreement that there are those out there that do not deserve what they receive.
18. icarus said...
Portillo talks of 'community'. What about mining communities? The old working class communities were based on something called 'solidarity' of labour, which often included unions. Capitalism over the last few decades has deregulated, financialised, downsized, offshored, de-unionised and created millions of McJobs. Low-paid workers often compete with semi-legal immigrants organised by gangmasters. Read about conditions in US slaughterhouses, where pressure to speed up the line causes large numbers of maimings and mutilations (and even the odd beheading). In the 'old' days people in secure jobs saw increases in real wages, now those increases are confined largely to the upper echelons.
This by no means excuses the bone idle, 'fag-smoking' etc., but it does go some way to explaining what's happened, without resorting to nostalgic conservative explanations.
19. will said...
Those who rely upon the Social State for their incomes for lenghty periods must live a very lowly existance financially. They will go on to receive enhanced state pensions in their old age. We may moan about this situation as tax payers, funding others who haven't bothered through life, but it is certainly not a position to relish, is it? I fell very sorry for them, not angry. If welfare is reduced in an effort to force many into work to enhance their quality of life, then that is a good thing. I am proud of what I have achieved in my life. Can they too be proud?
20. mystie010 said...
I think that the solution is simple. Make work more profitable for those who work so that they feel like they are being rewarded for their efforts and can afford what they want. Make benefits less attractive so that claimants can't have what they want booze fags etc. and ensure that work is absolutely the better option. Also anyone on benfits should be made to do something for the community like graffitti clearance, litter picking etc. then the council could make some savings and reduce council tax. Which in turn makes working more attractive for those that do it.
I should have been running this country :-) We are all been taken for mugs you know!
21. martin said...
mystie010
Well said, I think I was just a bit too typecast. But totally agree with you.
22. Flatnose said...
Martin...your wife doesn't have to work but she does absolving her responsibility as a mother and all the psychodynamic damage that is at risk from the latter ...damned selfish of her or you if you are forcing this on her. She should stay at home and let someone else, who needs it, have the job.
23. Shawkie said...
Maybe if this society valued useful labour rather than asset speculation then the young would actually have some incentive to work. My feeling is that this situation will be reversed as the number of people too old to work and wanting to trade their 5 bed house for nursing care, etc. starts to rise. There's no way for today's young to preserve any wealth they accumulate now so why should they work themselves to death?
24. the number cruncher said...
mystie010 - you hit the nail on the head
I wish free market proponents would make free market solutions instead of just pandering to their political base and hitting out at the very bottom of society. The rich are the real leaches on society, removing wealth from the economy and not contributing enterprise, hard work or endeavour.
If we create a society of selfishness and not selflessness, then what can we expect from others. If you want a real culprit of today's idleness look at the Thatcher years when this country lost any form of social contract between its members. Portaloo should be having a go at Mrs T and not the "Welfare State" if he wants to see when this country slipped into the selfish mess we are in now.
If you want people to work, make it in their economic interest to do so. Give them a carrot and not just a stick.
My solution would be to abolish all base rate income tax and National Insurance for employees and employers and transfer the burden to a Land Value Tax.
All economic theory is based on people making choices - do this and many more people will choose to work and there will be jobs for them as employers choose top employ them.
And this can be achieved without removing the social safety net so that bleeding heart socialists like me don't get angry about child poverty and malnourishment.
What is needed is a Nordic style social contract where the poor can believe its worth their while to work and be part of a functioning economy. At the moment many poor people do not want to do rubbish jobs and end up in dead end jobs. being self stacking surfs for the middle and upper classes.
25. Shawkie said...
Put another way, we know we're not going to be able to retire and draw a pension when we're old so we're doing it now.
26. devo said...
4. happy mondays said... devo, your not a Smith's fan by any chance ?
House is my thing, but I have eclectic tastes.
27. shipbuilder said...
"Is a society not corrupted when a large part of it is happy to live off the efforts of others?"
Back to the days, then, when we took seriously the right-wing dinosaurs who couldn't even see the irony in this statement if it was spelled out to them?
"Should we not be concerned about the spiritual poverty of so many lives spent unproductively?"
We should indeed. Ever worked in a call centre, Mr Portillo?
28. shipbuilder said...
What Mr Portillo means is that all you working class plebs and anyone else thinking of aspiring to 'slowing down' a bit, need to understand your place in the structure. 'Idleness' , just like 'fraud' and so on, does not carry the same meaning for those at the top as for those further down, or indeed the same consequences. This is so embedded and understood in Michael's world as to be not even worth mentioning.
YOUR worth in our society is what you can contribute economically and nothing to do with talent or effort. So thus 'work' in itself is honorable and right, a cure for the mental illnesses inevitable when one stops and thinks, it does not need to be fulfilling and interesting, these things are not for the likes of YOU - your efficiency in menial tasks to maximise profit per worker is what's important.
'Unproductive' - another of those words. Let's put it this way - 'productive' could mean using the world's scarce resources (and therefore the resources to provide the basic needs of future generations) producing goods that no-one really needs - it's the profit and shareholder return that's important and we need more year on year forever or the consequences for YOU will be dire.
29. shipbuilder said...
Work, eh? So great and noble, no matter what its grinding, soulless form, that even now the rich are selling their yachts, cancelling holidays, closing bars and filling in swimming pools to skip off and join the queue for it. Right?
30. icarus said...
And how much was Porti paid for the half-hour he spent cobbling together this drivel? How dare he call that "work"? And how many days of stacking shelves would it take to earn the same amount?
31. uncle tom said...
I think Portillo is taking a rather narrow angle here. What we have is a more fundamental problem; an acute lack of employment opportunity for the lower 50% of the school leaving population, when graded by aptitude. The solution is to establish why that is, and deal with the issue.
Firstly, health and safety culture now threatens employers with jail, or at best extreme expense; if one of their staff suffers a serious mishap whilst at work. It matters little if the employer did his best to tick all the right boxes; the HSE (with the benefit of hindsight) will always determine that the risk assessment or training was inadequate.
As an employer, I find that an extreme disincentive to contemplate business ventures that would provide employment for the muppet class; people who cannot be trusted, however well trained and they are, not to put themselves or others in danger from time to time, unless supervised to such a degree as to make any venture unviable.
Secondly, whilst every generation despairs of the next; there is a lot of truth in the notion that many people now entering the workforce are lazy, ill-disciplined, unfit and irresponsible. People who have been fed the compensation culture from birth, and educated in schools where the virtues of discipline and teamwork have long since evaporated.
On the first point, the 'elf 'n' safety' problem has been long identified, but the current government has been completely blind to the issue. The next government must grasp the nettle; requiring individuals to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions, reducing compensation payouts to levels that reflect actual loss; and re-instating the concept of danger money in the workplace. Employers need to be encouraged, not discouraged, from creating employment.
On the second point, we need a resumption of National Service as the default option for young people who are neither in employment nor further education (or are seriously disabled). This should commence with a rugged basic training (under military discipline) which conscripts would need to complete (and re-take if they fail..) before moving on to a more exciting agenda, with the choice of military training or charitable work (but still in a military environment)
Those emerging would be fit, have greater self respect, and would understand the benefits of discipline and teamwork - infinitely more employable..
32. shipbuilder said...
Uncle Tom - imagine that someone might want to earn a wage without the risk of being injured - what a disgrace, the health and safety lot have so much to answer for. In fact health and safety legislation puts the onus of responsibility directly on to the employee to follow the guidelines set out by the employer.
The idea that an employer might be discouraged from employing people because of the time and money required to create a safe working environment says a lot about the employer's morals and priorities. Perhaps safe and happy employees could be better employees and in turn attract a higher caliber of workers? Bring in danger money or spend the money to make the job safer - what's the difference?
As for National Service - I am at a loss to understand why people who despise government interference and state enforced collectivism are champions of the ultimate form of said evils?
33. shipbuilder said...
Although I completely agree with the notion that if the amount of benefit claimants is to be reduced, the solution is to provide suitable employment and a reasonable standard of living. Employers who can't provide a safe working environment, interesting and stimulating employment and decent wages and benefits for their employees will and deserve to fail.
34. nomad said...
"Employers who can't provide a safe working environment, interesting and stimulating employment and decent wages and benefits for their employees will and deserve to fail."
Wow! So that's the raison d'etre for a wannabee entrepreneur to risk everything and start a business is it? That has to be the biggest load of b&&ll%cks I've read on this site. Shipbuilder you have illustrated exactly why this country is going swiftly down the pan.
I'm sorry for responding like that - you must be taking a deliberate contrarian stance.
35. shipbuilder said...
Nomad - it's actually pretty boring and standard business practice these days, or at least during more positive economic times when employers had to attract the best employees. There's plenty of books written by extremely successful businessmen on the subject. I guess the reason you may be on here is that you are more comfortable with recessionary times when the employer gets to act like the lord bestowing employment on grateful serfs.
36. shipbuilder said...
Or to put it another way, the entrepreneur takes risks and receives the commensurate reward, while their employees do not get the reward and so should not be exposed to risks. This, unless I am mistaken, is capitalism. Unfortunately this country is going down the pan because of capitalists who wish to take the rewards and transfer the risks to someone else.
37. the number cruncher said...
Uncle Tom - we always end up disagreeing ( I am sure, in person we would like each other, so here goes)
As an employer myself of over 50 people, many you would regard as 'muppets', I do not see H&S as a disincentive - only the total cost of employment of which insurance is a tiny fraction, about 1%. I outsource H&S and employment administration to a company and that makes up about 2% of employment costs, this also insures me against employment tribunals. I even give my staff a death in service benefit which costs me about 0.3% of their total employment cost . The real cost is NI and taxes, so your experience is not mine. Even my very generous pension plan is nothing compared to taxes.
As to military service, I like many employers find military men lack flexibility and initiative. I have a few ex-servicemen on my payroll and do not see any benefit in the skills or discipline learned in HM armed forces. I highly doubt or chavster friends would learn anything apart from resentment.
I myself have served HM myself in a military capacity and apart from navigation skills and marksmanship, it has proved of little use in my work(I do occasionally use a rifle in my job). My service left me neutral as I am an adventure at heart and i did not have tio witness anything horrible apart from accidents. But a very good friend of mine served in the Greek army and it seriously F***ed him up - good and proper, full PTSD, bouts of alcoholism, mirage problems and low self esteem.
As for those that think military service turns boys into men I find the words of Major General Smedley Butler, most enlightening. please read his essay at the below link:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/major_general_smedley_butler_usm.htm
extract:
"But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.
If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home..."
Perhaps the following sounds familiar of the current administration as well? Just replace “Germans” with “Iraqis.”
" So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side...it is His will that the Germans be killed.
And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies...to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.
Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."..."
38. mark wadsworth said...
The Tories are going to be even worse than the current lot.
The only sensible welfare system is via non-contributory, non-means tested, non-taxable benefits. Why shouldn't every adult get a flat rate £70 a week? It's no different to other universal benefits - like the right to vote, to use the NHS for free, to call a policeman, to send your kids to a State school. It's the means testing, complications and extra bungs for single mothers that do the most damage, and not the mere existence of a welfare state in itself.
39. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
40. nomad said...
Shipbuilder, put very simply - you gotta make it before you can spend it.
41. phdinbubbles said...
@Shipbuilder
"Unfortunately this country is going down the pan because of capitalists who wish to take the rewards and transfer the risks to someone else."
Exactly.
@number cruncher
great post
42. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
43. nomad said...
Cut out the military argument and I think we have not sufficiently defined our argument in the last few comments. Some sounding like Arthur Scargill and other like Fred the Shred.
My points are based on the experience of helping to start a small service business, I presume this is fairly typical for would be entrepreneurs wanting to utilise their own skills. All our houses were used as security to cover the start up costs, premises, equipment, etc. For the first year we worked literally round the clock - your boss/employer is the customer. For three months we took no salary whatsoever. After nine months we took the bold decision to employ a person to answer the phone, to bookkeep and to mop brows - she earned more that we were paying ourselves. Now, shipbuilder @ 28 what was it that we should have been concentrating on. "Employers who can't provide a safe working environment, interesting and stimulating employment and decent wages and benefits for their employees will and deserve to fail."
To turn the country around we have to encourage people into business - get the idea right and be prepared to work and it could be the best investment around with the growing realisation that stocks are manipulated by the few, and now the magic dust has been blown off the housing market.
But please give them a break. H&S, Maternity Pay, Paternity Pay, Sick Pay, acting as a collecting and payment agency for HMG, new employment laws seemingly being enacted on a weekly basis by our home and European "waste-of-spacers", prospective employees that can't read or write or would rather not be attending an interview, insurance against bloody everything.
Now here's a fact to chew over. 99.7% of business enterprises in the UK employ less that 10 people.
44. shipbuilder said...
38. nomad said...
"Now, shipbuilder @ 28 what was it that we should have been concentrating on. "Employers who can't provide a safe working environment, interesting and stimulating employment and decent wages and benefits for their employees will and deserve to fail."
You hear what you want to hear, I guess, but nowhere did I say that this is what new businesses should be 'concentrating' on while starting up, however in a competitive business environment you want to retain and attract the best employees, if you don't treat them well, someone else will - that's business and the free market and my experience from working in a Fortune 100 company. Like I said, some people want to take all the positives of the free market but none of the negatives.
45. shipbuilder said...
If I could expand on my main point a bit further... I have had several enlightening discussions with people on this blog and elsewhere that I would call 'real' capitalists. These are people who argue for a true free market, where reward is truly in proportion to risk and effort - where those expecting to reap the rewards will put in the effort and take the risk. They argue, for example, for low or zero taxes, but then understand that with low taxes comes demands and expectations from employees and the community regarding health, environmental protection and infrastructure and if they do not fulfill these demands, someone else will take their place, or the employee will leave - the nature of the market. they do not expect their position to be protected at the cost of others.
In my mind, the problem with our current form of capitalism is those who want to take the rewards but none of the risks - those who argue for low taxes, but still expect the government to be responsible for the nasty costs like environmental protection, or are happy to have competition-stifling regulation (if it is in their benefit). The obvious example being the banks, but I see this attitude everywhere, a housing related example being those who reserved off-plan apartments and now find that they will be worth less than they are contracted to pay and are complaining of unfairness - happy to take any upside when prices were rising, but none of the downsides. In terms of H&S regulation in particular, as with all regulation, it is simply to formalise expectations on both sides of the employer/employee contract and does in fact act to reduce massively the potential payouts vs a situation where an employee is injured at work and no regulation exists.
46. nomad said...
Shipbuilder, I agree with you about people taking responsibility for their actions. My point is that these small companies are the job creators - percentage of the working population employed by this 99.7% of enterprises is 47% - and they need to be encouraged and protected from a lot of red tape, maybe for the first two years when they may be judged as "should be established".
Better this than shoring up non-functioning banks.
47. letthemfall said...
I think we live in a kind of freeloader economy, where the freeloaders are not just the benefit scroungers, of whom I suspect there really are few (most are in poverty traps), but those who take the huge rewards - for what? One thing I've noticed about very wealthy people is they always talk about how hard they've worked for it, as though no one else does. But what about the low paid cleaner, shopworker, etc, who toil for long hours for very low wages (foreign workers often earn less than the minimum wage)? Proportionately they work much harder for their money.
The so-called wealth creators (most certainly not the banks who are more wealth transferrers) certainly deserve return for work, risk (risking their own money that is) and initiative, but not at the wider expense of society and the impoverishment of other workers. Before the Wars most of the wealth accrued to a small section of the population. Now globalisation is returning us to that position. I'm not sure how this will be reversed, but I'm pretty sure that cutting benefits, introducing national service, electing a Conservative govt, slashing govt spending, etc, etc, won't do the job.
48. shipbuilder said...
Nomad, I completely agree that small businesses should be encouraged (I believe in small, local businesses rather than large corporations - primarily because of my experiences in a large corporation) - I believe that a lot of red tape is a result of the corporations lobbying government and wishing to protect their advantage.
However to attract the best employees, a growing company will need to treat them well, or they will leave. So whether one believes that things like maternity leave and H&S should be legislated or not, they will have to be provided anyway, or some other employer will do it. If one wishes the government to take care of it, then the requisite amount of tax needs to be paid. My problem is with many who seem to think that getting rid of legislation will somehow absolve them of the need to provide such employee benefits. By the way I was not accusing you of this, just making the general point. I see it as simply another facet of the rights but no responsibilities attitude that leads to benefit abuse, tax evasion and so on.