Labour's Employment Rights Bill

[niemeyjt]

the ford transit operation moved from Southampton to Turkey for said reason

I am sure there have been many others too.

As I said at the outset, you cannot repeal the law of unintended consequences - but you can rely on politicians to make matters worse.

His father was a toolmaker - what a tool he produced.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

There's a long list of companies that were subsidised by the EU to move from G.B. to other EU Countries.

 

[niemeyjt]

Well EU subsidies, like those given to JLR to move some production to Slovakia, is another issue.

Ford and the examples I gave all involved no EU interference - it was just cost saving - which is why it will happen again.

 

[Jacob]

Thanks Fergie, I thought somebody with a bit of sense would express this view more eloquently than I could have.
The lives we live today are all based on the trials, tribulations, experimentation and enterprise of our predecessors.
Brian

and in most places the continuation of these things.
You have to think beyond the pale and ask yourself why, in 2024, the 6th richest nation in the world still has poverty, food banks, a housing crisis, falling standards of living, low wages, collapsing public services, and an astronomically unbalanced distribution of wealth.
Are these things in anyway connected?

 

[ey_tony]

It's called "the poverty trap". The benefit system does not easily allow the transition from work to unemployment and back again and people can be caught out with zero income. It's not fit for purpose, as with so many public services following 45 years of tory rule.

Where is the incentive for people to better themselves if you pay them just enough to live on without working for it?
As a member of the EU, UK wages were suppressed for the working poorest and low skilled by an over-saturation of the labour market by cheap low skilled migrant labour competing directly for jobs and available infrastructure. It was the poorest workers who suffered most because of it and it was the better off who benefitted at their expense. They were the ones who were driven into the poverty trap.

Not everyone will make a benefits lifestyle choice but certainly many do and they are the ones who need to be reminded that being on benefits should not be a lifestyle choice but actually a safety net for those who through no fault of their own, find themselves struggling due to such as physical or mental health issues etc.. being unable to get out of bed through laziness is not an excuse and should be stamped on.

I came from a very impoverished background, my hardworking parents who had absolutely nothing died young and I found myself on my own with no siblings and no money. I could easily have chosen a life of benefits but my parents even though they were poor, taught me not to expect others to give me anything and to work for what I wanted and I did!

I don't get all this left wing entitlement business. If you're not happy in your job, don't stay there whinging...simply get on your bike and find a job that is more suited to your disposition. No one has an actual right to work...they have a right to sell their labour/skills to the highest bidder if they wish but it's down to those who foot the bill as to who they employ.

The same with Zero Hour contracts. If one doesn't like them then don't work anywhere that doesn't give a contract...it's that simple! There's no need for legislation simply find a job that offers a contract.
As I've said, I've worked for myself throughout my life so I never had the safety net of a contract...did it bother me or hold me back? Not in the slightest.
If you're stuck in a ZHC job then do something about it.

 

[Jacob]

Where is the incentive for people to better themselves if you pay them just enough to live on without working for it?
As a member of the EU, UK wages were suppressed for the working poorest and low skilled by an over-saturation of the labour market by cheap low skilled migrant labour competing directly for jobs and available infrastructure. It was the poorest workers who suffered most because of it and it was the better off who benefitted at their expense. They were the ones who were driven into the poverty trap.

Not everyone will make a benefits lifestyle choice but certainly many do and they are the ones who need to be reminded that being on benefits should not be a lifestyle choice but actually a safety net for those who through no fault of their own, find themselves struggling due to such as physical or mental health issues etc.. being unable to get out of bed through laziness is not an excuse and should be stamped on.

I came from a very impoverished background, my hardworking parents who had absolutely nothing died young and I found myself on my own with no siblings and no money. I could easily have chosen a life of benefits but my parents even though they were poor, taught me not to expect others to give me anything and to work for what I wanted and I did!

I don't get all this left wing entitlement business. If you're not happy in your job, don't stay there whinging...simply get on your bike and find a job that is more suited to your disposition. No one has an actual right to work...they have a right to sell their labour/skills to the highest bidder if they wish but it's down to those who foot the bill as to who they employ.

The same with Zero Hour contracts. If one doesn't like them then don't work anywhere that doesn't give a contract...it's that simple! There's no need for legislation simply find a job that offers a contract.
As I've said, I've worked for myself throughout my life so I never had the safety net of a contract...did it bother me or hold me back? Not in the slightest.
If you're stuck in a ZHC job then do something about it.

You have benefitted from the welfare state just like everybody else. You are not another Robinson Crusoe!

 

[Jacob]

...... No one has an actual right to work...they have a right to sell their labour/skills to the highest bidder if they wish but it's down to those who foot the bill as to who they employ.

Unless the workers have the sense to form or join a union. Then they can dictate terms on a fair and equal footing.

 

[ey_tony]

You have benefitted from the welfare state just like everybody else. You are not another Robinson Crusoe!

Maybe I have but I've never abused it!

 

[ey_tony]

Unless the workers have the sense to form or join a union. Then they can dictate terms on a fair and equal footing.

We've seen what happens when workers organise themselves into unions, it inevitably leads to the workers being used as political pawns which benefits no one.
I'm not against unions as I think they can be constructive to a business or industry but it's when politics are involved that the problems arise.

I'd like to see all of the utilities re-nationalised but I fear we'd have a repeat of what led them to being sold off in the first place, unions getting out of control led by Marxists and the likes.
If this government is serious about re-nationalising, then the first thing they need to do is curb any possible future unnecessary union power. Until they can do that then I'd say take nationalisation off the agenda.

 

[Jacob]

We've seen what happens when workers organise themselves into unions, it inevitably leads to the workers being used as political pawns which benefits no one.
I'm not against unions as I think they can be constructive to a business or industry but it's when politics are involved that the problems arise.

I'd like to see all of the utilities re-nationalised but I fear we'd have a repeat of what led them to being sold off in the first place, unions getting out of control led by Marxists and the likes.
If this government is serious about re-nationalising, then the first thing they need to do is curb any possible future unnecessary union power. Until they can do that then I'd say take nationalisation off the agenda.

What you say about unions applies exactly the same to employers and any agreements or cooperation they have between themselves.
This is an old argument going right back to the ban on "combinations" (of workers) whereas combinations of employers (entrepreneurs, capitalists, businesses, whatever) were protected.
https://www.britannica.com/money/Combination-Acts
A level playing field. Businesses are still trying to suppress union activity and hold all the cards themselves. Politics comes into it quite rightly - this is what politics is for.

 

[Jacob]

Where is the incentive for people to better themselves if you pay them just enough to live on without working for it?
...

A very pessimistic view.
The incentive is the need to be doing something constructive, hopefully interesting, and be involved with society and other people. Basic human inclinations. Millions of people do cr.ap low paid jobs but the working environment itself can be the big attraction and it wouldn't go away for most of us, even with UBI.
Having "just enough to live on without working for it" has never stopped people working or half the population would have downed tools years ago.
Quite the opposite - having a secure basis frees people to look at doing better things with their lives and is particularly beneficial if bringing up children, or "caring" etc. Also takes the burden off the state.

 

[MikeJhn]

I do need to ask @Jacob have you ever had any connection with a Union, either as a member or affected by their actions in the course of carrying out, or doing the work you were paid to do, or trying to?

 

[Jacob]

I do need to ask @Jacob have you ever had any connection with a Union, either as a member or affected by their actions in the course of carrying out, or doing the work you were paid to do, or trying to?

Why do you need to ask?
Not particularly interesting but I've been a member of Unite for many years but as self employed it's a bit of a token gesture. Was a member of Labour party.
And yes of course I've been affected by their actions just like everybody else. Who has not been affected?

 

[MikeJhn]

Needed to ask because of your one sided view of management whom without, the companies that employ the workforce would not exist.

 

[Jacob]

Needed to ask because of your one sided view of management whom without, the companies that employ the workforce would not exist.

No it's the right who have a one sided view of unions and the workers. I'm arguing for a level playing field.
You get horrified reaction to wage demands but management paying shareholders huge unearned dividends, paying themselves enormous bonuses on top of huge salaries, is seen as normal, not just the Post Office and Thames Water, but everywhere.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Well EU subsidies, like those given to JLR to move some production to Slovakia, is another issue.

Ford and the examples I gave all involved no EU interference - it was just cost saving - which is why it will happen again.

Certainly, I didn't suggest it did.

 

[MikeJhn]

No it's the right who have a one sided view of unions and the workers. I'm arguing for a level playing field.

That is just a contradiction with no substance.

You get horrified reaction to wage demands but management paying shareholders huge unearned dividends, paying themselves enormous bonuses on top of huge salaries, is seen as normal, not just the Post Office and Thames Water, but everywhere.

You hit the nail on the head there "Wage Demands" no negotiation just a demand.

In your view the shareholders do not deserve a return on their investment.

 

[Jacob]

.....

In your view the shareholders do not deserve a return on their investment.

In your view the workers do not deserve a decent wage and secure jobs.

 

[ey_tony]

What you say about unions applies exactly the same to employers and any agreements or cooperation they have between themselves.
This is an old argument going right back to the ban on "combinations" (of workers) whereas combinations of employers (entrepreneurs, capitalists, businesses, whatever) were protected.
https://www.britannica.com/money/Combination-Acts
A level playing field. Businesses are still trying to suppress union activity and hold all the cards themselves. Politics comes into it quite rightly - this is what politics is for.

I think socialists forget one important thing. Without people risking their money in the private sector by investing it in businesses etc, there would be NO work for most people and the majority if it was left to them, would simply starve!

In state run industries there should be no lifetime guarantees of jobs unless they are experts/specialists in their field who would be very difficult to replace, otherwise state jobs should have a finite length of employment and then the next batch of taxpayers who actually fund the industries could get their share of the work if they want it. What could be fairer than that?

The same applies to civil servants. Of course there are specialist jobs in there but there are many jobs that the average person with reasonable educational standards could easily do with basic training. I see no reason why a person should get a job for life with the state which could be done equally well by other taxpayers.

 

[Jacob]

I think socialists forget one important thing. Without people risking their money in the private sector by investing it in businesses etc, there would be NO work for most people and the majority if it was left to them, would simply starve!

Nonsense. People have always found the way to work for the necessities of life whatever their circumstances. The trouble with "the private sector" is that it regards profit as the driving force, not the welfare of employees, or even the clients for that matter.