Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
crash2006

2-0 For The Elite

Recommended Posts

The new "employers' charter" will allow companies to sack workers during the first two years of their employment without the threat of being taken to a tribunal for unfair dismissal

there we have it, workers slaves to the rich.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8249491/Firms-get-powers-to-sack-the-slackers.html

Edited by crash2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you know why there has been a decade long campain to vilify the unions, the "elite" wants to reduce workers conditions in the UK to the level of the ones in China to stay competitive with the Chinese. And some people still believe in individualism and the "knowledge-economy"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you know why there has been a decade long campain to vilify the unions, the "elite" wants to reduce workers conditions in the UK to the level of the ones in China to stay competitive with the Chinese. And some people still believe in individualism and the "knowledge-economy"...

its called the global farm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unemployment benefit in 1931 was reduced from 18shillings to 15 shillings and 3 pence per week.

People were starving.

In 2009 the equivalent amount of 15s3d would be £300.

People on the minimum wage get £200, they aren't starving, but by God they are being ripped off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unemployment benefit in 1931 was reduced from 18shillings to 15 shillings and 3 pence per week.

People were starving.

In 2009 the equivalent amount of 15s3d would be £300.

People on the minimum wage get £200, they aren't starving, but by God they are being ripped off!

Beore it was teh royals now its the elite businessmen thats are enslaving this country, whats worse teh people in power havent worked in the private sector or havent taken employment atmin wage.

Edited by crash2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

The Howard Government made similar legislation in Australia, under his "Work Choices" laws. They were very unpopular, and resulted in an immediate loss of support, his seat and the Liberal Government in 2007. The Labor Party threw out Work Choices as soon as they got in. One of the things they allowed was for small employers to fire anyone at will with impunity - I believe the size of the staff was critical in this, and anyone employing above a certain number couldn't fire at will, etc. The point is it was very unpopular, as this will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unemployment benefit in 1931 was reduced from 18shillings to 15 shillings and 3 pence per week.

People were starving.

In 2009 the equivalent amount of 15s3d would be £300.

People on the minimum wage get £200, they aren't starving, but by God they are being ripped off!

If they were getting the equivalent of £300 p/w in 1931, why were they starving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there we have it, workers slaves to the rich.

Actually, if you think about it, this actually empowers the employee. Employees could always be sacked - it never has been very hard to get rid of someone - the real effect of laws seeking to prevent people losing their jobs is to systemically reduce the perception of risk of loss of income... leading to employees settling for lower wages - trading a sense of safety for fair compensation... even though that safety was a mirage, the fact that the illusion exists disadvantages employees in negotiating pay. Remove the pool of cheap labour supplied by those duped into assuming accepting a job is to accept perpetual income... and the advantage of the employer relative to the employee is also gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to know we are all in this together.

In the government planning to reform bank bonuses, or industrial scale tax evasion by corporates?

Thought not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Whitehall source said: “The thrust of the initiative is that to persuade companies to hire people we need to make it easier to fire those workers who aren’t up to the job, so there is less risk in taking on new people,

Even the flimsy excuses for this legislation don't exactly hold water - was a whole year really not long enough to find out if your employee wasn't up to the job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two documentaries help understand the past, this present and the future.

The Money Masters by Bill Still and The Fourth World War.

They are on the net and downloadable but I'd recommend buying them to fund the producers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, if you think about it, this actually empowers the employee. Employees could always be sacked - it never has been very hard to get rid of someone - the real effect of laws seeking to prevent people losing their jobs is to systemically reduce the perception of risk of loss of income... leading to employees settling for lower wages - trading a sense of safety for fair compensation... even though that safety was a mirage, the fact that the illusion exists disadvantages employees in negotiating pay. Remove the pool of cheap labour supplied by those duped into assuming accepting a job is to accept perpetual income... and the advantage of the employer relative to the employee is also gone.

That's about as twisted as the nazi slogan: "Arbeit macht frei" ...

---

Edited by wise_eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the flimsy excuses for this legislation don't exactly hold water - was a whole year really not long enough to find out if your employee wasn't up to the job?

Exactly, something really stinks about this. What are the figures that show a need for this legislation?

My (small business) employer could have avoided an expensive employment tribunal very easily.

Only a very badly managed company runs any risks here.

As an employer, I wouldn't leave such a revolving door open to be abused by petty office politics and insecure managers.

When I was last at the tribunal, most of the cases were taken up with large corporates fighting with unions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beore it was teh royals now its the elite businessmen thats are enslaving this country, whats worse teh people in power havent worked in the private sector or havent taken employment atmin wage.

We, the people of the British Isles, have already fought a war over this, albeit centuries ago.

Seems the Parliamentarians have screwed us over more then the Crown ever did !

Bring back Absolute Rule !

Can''t be any worse then this faux democracy in which we live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, something really stinks about this. What are the figures that show a need for this legislation?

My (small business) employer could have avoided an expensive employment tribunal very easily.

Only a very badly managed company runs any risks here.

As an employer, I wouldn't leave such a revolving door open to be abused by petty office politics and insecure managers.

When I was last at the tribunal, most of the cases were taken up with large corporates fighting with unions.

Part of Conservative mythology is that of the Heroic Small Business Owner, a perfectly rational individual seeking to run a business at a modest profit and employing people practically as a civic duty, who is then relentlessly persecuted by idle employees, red tape, pointless health and safety, etc, etc.. without which he/she could bring the enlightened benefits of employment to far more of the undeserving proletariat.

So, naturally, giving these Heroic SBOs more power is always good. They'd never abuse it.. that would be irrational..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Howard Government made similar legislation in Australia, under his "Work Choices" laws. They were very unpopular, and resulted in an immediate loss of support, his seat and the Liberal Government in 2007. The Labor Party threw out Work Choices as soon as they got in. One of the things they allowed was for small employers to fire anyone at will with impunity - I believe the size of the staff was critical in this, and anyone employing above a certain number couldn't fire at will, etc. The point is it was very unpopular, as this will be.

And being given redundancy on Friday with the option of a new 'Self employment' contract to start work again on Monday morning, giving away many of your benefits of course for perhaps 3 shekles more. Much of this stuff still overhangs in Australia, for eg , most businesses will only employ people on a casual basis and not just to start with, then they will gvie you so much work with the promise of more if you work your ring piece off but if you make a mistake or take a holiday your shifts will be reduced or removed altogether with no comeback. They have a very unsecure workforce by any measure, which makes it more amazing that they are indulging the the worlds biggest property bubble to date. (On account of Kangaroos or whatever, Australia is different)

As for the UK, most people dont remember how the Tories behaved during the last 2 recessions, or should I say, how employers behaved with a nice big bunch of Tory police men and courts behind them. For many this will be a world in which they wont want to get used to, however it was what my age group grew up with during the nearly 20 years of rolling recession from the 70's till mid 90's. This idea of your employer being a big cuddly cute bear you could play with will suddenly grow teeth and bite your ar8se off. Bit like the bank adds a few years ago, about how they were nice warm friendly sweet furry toys and we were there 'partner' to give free money too.

Edited by steve99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the flimsy excuses for this legislation don't exactly hold water - was a whole year really not long enough to find out if your employee wasn't up to the job?

Speaking as someone who has been an employer and an employee and is currently self employed, I completely agree. 12 months is perfectly adequate, this won't help any except the kind of dodgy firm that wants to fire people when they become too expensive.

In my personal experience, the "slackers" tend to be people who worked at an organisation for more than 2 years, it take them that long to learn all the "tricks" and holes in procedure they can abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We, the people of the British Isles, have already fought a war over this, albeit centuries ago.

Seems the Parliamentarians have screwed us over more then the Crown ever did !

Bring back Absolute Rule !

Can''t be any worse then this faux democracy in which we live.

We have been in a war with the European money changers for a long time and likely will be forever. The americans lost to them and now they are going to pay the price. Actually we are all going to pay the price.

Warren Buffet is quoted in a New York Times article 2007 as saying the war is real, that the rich started it and they are winning and he's on the winning side. I've watched it for thirty years and employer or employed that have been around a while should all be able to see it by now.

The ability to rage this war on us and our bargaining mechanisms is largely hidden and that is why Julian Assange is so dangerous to those wealthy global elitists and their central banks. He was immediately seized and muzzled after saying he had information on a major american bank. Too close to hame for them and what leak could come next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of Conservative mythology is that of the Heroic Small Business Owner, ....

I have never understood this. The Conservative party does little if anything for small business. (I have run a small company most of my adult life) Osbourne announced his "emergency budget" to balance the books and his immediate plan was a huge tax cut for big business. Corporation tax for me has not gone down, all that has happened is the big companies are now more competitive and more likely to put me out of business. Small companies struggle to find funding and pay high interest rates but big businesses are awash with cash and can offer company bonds on the finance markets. Despite this nearly everyone I know thinks that the Tories are the "party of business". They are the party of the rich and of corporatism. Sadly Blair followed that lead and now the UK is like the US with two identical parties that argue about what colour to paint the door at No10 rather than any real policy difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never understood this. The Conservative party does little if anything for small business. (I have run a small company most of my adult life) Osbourne announced his "emergency budget" to balance the books and his immediate plan was a huge tax cut for big business. Corporation tax for me has not gone down, all that has happened is the big companies are now more competitive and more likely to put me out of business. Small companies struggle to find funding and pay high interest rates but big businesses are awash with cash and can offer company bonds on the finance markets. Despite this nearly everyone I know thinks that the Tories are the "party of business". They are the party of the rich and of corporatism. Sadly Blair followed that lead and now the UK is like the US with two identical parties that argue about what colour to paint the door at No10 rather than any real policy difference.

I should probably add: They *claim* to be acting on behalf of small businesses, whilst implementing laws that mostly benefit their big corporate doners. Which is very similar to the situation in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should probably add: They *claim* to be acting on behalf of small businesses, whilst implementing laws that mostly benefit their big corporate doners. Which is very similar to the situation in the US.

I totally agree. The mystery to me is why small business owners like the Tories so much. I can only conclude it is because they think that they will get lower personal taxation for the "middle" bracket combined with a generally bigoted right wing view of life. The Tory (and latterly Blair) view of the world with cheap imported tat and off-shoring of services (including my own industry) appears to me to have hit the SME sector harder than any other. Still, no one said humans were rational (OK that's not true - most economists think humans are rational :D)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unemployed Youth:

"The unemployment benefit in 1931 was reduced from 18shillings to 15 shillings and 3 pence per week. People were starving. In 2009 the equivalent amount of 15s3d would be £300. People on the minimum wage get £200, they aren't starving, but by God they are being ripped off!"

So the cut in 1931 was from 90p a week to 76/77p a week. It is hard to make inflation figures work over time but a reasonable multiplier from 1931 to date is 100, which makes the cut from £90/week to about £76/week. Certainly far below the minimum wage and I'd be surprised if there were any housing/medical benefits on top in those days. Figures now are:

Under 25 = £51.85 per week

25+ = £65.45 per week

Which does rather put it in perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind two years' work before you get any job security, the way things are going you'll have to work one of those two years for nothing before they'll consider you for a paid position!

At the moment all the talk of job voluntarisation is connected with the public sector, but if the private sector can find a way of getting something for nothing, they will. Think of any job that people say 'I'd quite like to do that, it must be fun', and it's vulnerable to being turned over to volunteers.

I'm not against the exisiting voluntary sector, I do volunteering myself. But the slippery slope starts when businesses or parts of the public sector look to replace paid staff with unpaid staff to do essential work. How does that square with the minimum wage? £0 per hour is way below the statutory minimum.

Edited by Hyperduck Quack Quack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind two years' work before you get any job security, the way things are going you'll have to work one of those two years for nothing before they'll consider you for a paid position!

At the moment all the talk of job voluntarisation is connected with the public sector, but if the private sector can find a way of getting something for nothing, they will. Think of any job that people say 'I'd quite like to do that, it must be fun', and it's vulnerable to being turned over to volunteers.

It's called 'unpaid internships'. Excellent way to exclude the 'wrong sort' from the interesting jobs; not only will johnny average graduate with a great load of debt, but he or she will now have to finance working for nothing in London for a year or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.