Ethel

You would never suggest anything so ridiculous.

Yes he should try something more classy like this:

I can't bear ITV breakfast TV, drivel for the mentally challenged. The BBC may be biased but at least they seem to credit their audience with more than one braincell. So no, sorry I have no idea.

Something tells me it's a no.

Errr... as I recall you were talking about changing £6 per hour in-house jobs to £10 per hour self-employed contracted jobs, INSTEAD OF the current system of outsourcing to an agency, weren't you? So what an agency would or wouldn't provide is irrelevant under the new theoretical system. We are comparing EMPLOYMENT with SELF-EMPLOYMENT. (IDIOT.) Nice attitude by the way. Perhaps addressing this problem may help you towards obtaining your much desired pay rise!

I don't know why BoomBoom doesn't just set up his own company paying everybody twice what they would earn in another. Don't just talk the talk BoomBoom, walk the walk. Lead by example. Obviously, all the best staff would be beating down the door to come and work for him and his company would become the most productive with the highest quality & service, and the competitors would promptly go out of business. Easy right?

It really is very nice here, you should come and give it a whirl. Where you come from sounds awful, all those nasty parasitic employers ruining everything all the time.

No problem. The employer now no longer has to pay for: *employers' NI (£4 - £5k a year for the average employee) *sick pay *holiday pay *pension scheme *costs of training in health & safety etc (contractor would be responsible for own) *supply of all equipment and materials Employer is no worse off. Employee is no better off. The only loser I guess is the government who will lose out on all that lovely NI, but presumably now that the employee is earning much more, their income tax will be significantly higher, and take-home pay back to roughly where it was before. So, in the end no change then.

When you need your car fixed or your electrics rewired, I assume that the cost of the different quotes plays a part in your decision to hire a particular tradesman or not? (BoomBoom of course will hire the most expensive one, because anyone who does otherwise is a parasite who should be made extinct. )

Somebody who clearly knows what they are talking about. It was me. I would still call a company with 25 employees small. But of course turnover should be considered also, not just the no.employees, as there are different industries with vastly differing levels of labour intensity.

LOL. Shows what you know about the costs of employing staff.

Low wages are relative. Paying double wages gets you nowhere when everything you buy costs double too. The content in your posts makes it blatantly clear how much insight and experience you have into running a business. Marks out of ten: 0

And how's things in your neck of the woods, life treating you well is it?

Why would I. He is a rare anomaly. The vast majority of companies in the UK are actually small businesses. Spare a thought for them while you're ranting on about the Applegarths of the world who are few and far between.

Sometimes you post intelligent and thought-provoking opinions. Not today though. EDIT: punctuation

Really? From personal experience employers want to reward their employees as highly as they can whilst staying solvent. Every employer knows that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys, and every company needs quality staff who are loyal, productive and motivated. However there are books to balance and there isn't a bottomless pit with which to finance these pay rises. This isn't utopia.

I agree.

BoomBoom feels smug and vindicated that all the nasty "exploitative" fat cat business men in their ivory towers are bankrupted. Right before slowly starving to death because he can no longer afford to eat.

Nor would anybody with any common sense or life experience.

No they will raise the prices they charge YOU, or lay off staff. Some of those laid off staff will probably go self-employed and contract themselves back to the company for the same as they were on before, because they'd rather than do that than be unemployed. Except now they'll have none of the generous employment rights they enjoyed before. Well done, BoomBoom. Whilst campaigning for companies to pay more than they can afford for their staff, at the same time you're probably one of those people who complains how extortionate the labour charges are when the mechanic fixes your car.

Errr, actually I believe I would. Not that it's ever got to that stage, and I try to have a "never say never" attitude about things until I've actually experienced them. But I earn nowhere near as much as many on this thread and I have to work long hard hours to earn it, I don't have any delusions of grandeur. I have a work ethic I inherited from my parents who have been self-employed for as long as I can remember, they have never had luxuries like sick pay, holiday pay etc, and I guess I am just indoctrinated with a beleif that everything in life has to be earned and if you don't work you don't deserve anything. Not that cleaning toilets would be too far removed from parts of my job anyway. I actually occasionally have to do that in emergencies and I once had to shovel vomit out of a men's urinal which will go down as probably the most disgusting thing I have ever had to do, and I had a hangover that day too. I shouldn't judge everybody else by your own values and attitudes if I were you.

I would say that the reason they started the thread was to take the p out of all those who rant incessantly on about taxpayers money being wasted all the time on frivolous things. This case clearly ISN'T one of those, and the OP was subtly pointing that out. Then again, I'm the sort of person who trusts and thinks well of people, and assumes that their intentions are good until proven otherwise. You're clearly the opposite end of the spectrum. Who's right? I don't know. EDIT: After noticing your username I now see where your anger and frustration may stem from.

But don't the energy companies charge you less per unit if you pay by DD? I got a letter last week from mine increasing our monthly dual fuel bill from £56 a month to £79 a month (we are in credit by £90). I thought it sounded a lot so I checked all their calculations and usage estimates and they were bang on. The increase is because the price per unit has gone up by 29%, which we were notified about a few months back.

Did you even read the first post? I dont think OP was being ironic - I opened this thread in disgust and then saw the rest of the sentence and thought "phew!"

You seem to have contradictory opinions. On one hand disabled children should be euthanased before birth to save NHS resources, despite the fact that it's not their fault and they may grow up to be a valuable and influential member of society (Stephen Hawking?). But on the other hand, George Best can destroy all the livers he wants because he's rich? If George Best was given a liver that another dying person could have had and then destroys it, is that alright? What if it was George Best's disabled child being aborted, is that different because he's paid more tax? EDIT: Typo