Phil

Those nice tories

Recommended Posts

No doubt he voted for the reduction of benefit payments to the sick and disabled yesterday on the grounds the government needs to save money. What a ######, but no doubt one of the forum's resident Tory cheer leaders will be along in a minute to defend him. :dry:

Story here

 

Here is the wonderfully generous (so long as it's tax payers money he's spending) Mr Bone on HIGNFY:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who needs satire when we have the real thing?

 

MP attacks 'laughing stock' pub code adjudicator appointment

 

Conflict of interest, surely not? :dry:

 

A slight conflict of interest maybe but no different to say a barrister who can one week be defending aginst the crown and the following week prosecuting for the crown. If the guy is qualified for the job then why not just let him do it and then IF future events prove that there is a real conflict of interest then by all means do something about it. But to be accusing the guy of being biased before he's even started the job or even made a single ruling is quite frankly pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"there's no suggestion him and his wife have done anything wrong"

Go on, start typing "morally....."

So this is what you want, you're access to certain things should depend on how you voted? What a fine idea. Now let's see, we know Labour said they'd be tougher on those on welfare than the Tories, the delightful Rachel Reeves told us and we know that 9,347,304 voted Labour what rights do you want removed from these heartless swine. How many of these "people" kicked the poor and suffering then stuck their snouts in the trough and gorged themselves?

Probably the same number of people who voted to cut the ringfence on money for homeless people and hand it over to the fat cat bankers in 2009 and then bleat about how sorry they feel for homeless people.

Should I copy and paste this to the "spineless hypocrisy" thread?

More than happy to start typing "morally" or are morals no longer applicable in this bright new Tory "meritocracy"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"there's no suggestion him and his wife have done anything wrong"

Go on, start typing "morally....."

So this is what you want, you're access to certain things should depend on how you voted? What a fine idea. Now let's see, we know Labour said they'd be tougher on those on welfare than the Tories, the delightful Rachel Reeves told us and we know that 9,347,304 voted Labour what rights do you want removed from these heartless swine. How many of these "people" kicked the poor and suffering then stuck their snouts in the trough and gorged themselves?

Probably the same number of people who voted to cut the ringfence on money for homeless people and hand it over to the fat cat bankers in 2009 and then bleat about how sorry they feel for homeless people.

Should I copy and paste this to the "spineless hypocrisy" thread?

I've [tried to] read this several times but I still have no idea what you are on about. My advice is, don't start so early and put more water in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting this here because I don't want to start another thread and it's probably good enough:

 

Official figures show that 3.8% of the working population in the North West of England are on zero-hours contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting this here because I don't want to start another thread and it's probably good enough:

 

Official figures show that 3.8% of the working population in the North West of England are on zero-hours contracts.

 

I know the government continue to claim unemployment is falling. However in work benefits such as housing benefit are still rising which begs the question what sort of employment are people moving into?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What were the historical numbers for zero hour contracts in the NW ? How many of those people don't want a zero contract ? Need some context to the bare numbers .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What were the historical numbers for zero hour contracts in the NW ? How many of those people don't want a zero contract ? Need some context to the bare numbers .

Just before the last election the number was 2/3's were happy with their ZHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea why people are only just making a big deal out of zero hours contracts.  They have been in existence for decades, if not centuries (if you include people who would turn up to the docks to see if there was work and if there was they would be taken on but the next day they may be turned away).  I've been an agency worker in spells since I left school and on every occasion I have been on zero hours contracts because that is all that is available to agency workers and that is all that has ever been available to agency workers.  That was the case in the 1980s, 1990s and this year.  In fact, my most recent agency assignment came to an end at 5pm last Friday - and I was told by text at 5.30pm on Friday!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea why people are only just making a big deal out of zero hours contracts. They have been in existence for decades, if not centuries (if you include people who would turn up to the docks to see if there was work and if there was they would be taken on but the next day they may be turned away). I've been an agency worker in spells since I left school and on every occasion I have been on zero hours contracts because that is all that is available to agency workers and that is all that has ever been available to agency workers. That was the case in the 1980s, 1990s and this year. In fact, my most recent agency assignment came to an end at 5pm last Friday - and I was told by text at 5.30pm on Friday!

And that's good in which way exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's good in which way exactly?

Indeed. Just because something has been happening for a long time it doesn't make it desirable.

Dockers fought long and hard to end the practice of casual labour.

Personally I'm not totally against ZHCs, they can be ideal for a few people. What is unacceptable is ZHCs being the only option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's good in which way exactly?

Exactly.  Zero hours contracts are a legal loophole in which employers get employees at low wages and also none of the protections that have been built up over the years.  There is realistically zero policing on these.

 

For example, did you know that if you're on a zero hours contract then you should get pro-rata holiday pay if you're not being given actual allocated paid holiday days?  The legal minimum is 12.07% on top of stated hourly rate for holiday pay that's not being given as actual paid days off.  So, for example, if you're on minimum wage of £6.70 p/h then you MUST be paid at least £7.51 p/h or they're breaking minimum wage laws.

 

It's virtually unheard of for that to be policed though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's good in which way exactly?

It's neither good nor bad for me in this instance, not least because I loathed where I was working.  But in the past it hasn't been a problem either as I've just taken up another assignment.  In fact, because I can just walk out of these assignments whenever I please, they have worked very well for me especially when I was at university.  The zero hours contract can work both ways beneficially or it can be detrimental but to write off zero hours contracts as being awful per se is to ignore the fact - and it is actually a fact - that they work well for quite a lot of people.  But either way I'm still slightly confused as to why a fuss is being made about them now rather than say twenty years ago or fifty years ago, given that they have been in existence ever since paid work began.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.  Zero hours contracts are a legal loophole in which employers get employees at low wages and also none of the protections that have been built up over the years.  There is realistically zero policing on these.

I take issue with the automatic alignment of zero hours contracts and low wages.  The two are not necessarily linked.  Agency working for example applies to teachers, who get paid very well indeed on zero hours contracts, whereas those who work in warehouses don't, but then the latter wouldn't be particularly well paid whatever their contract style.

Edited by Saintslass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take issue with the automatic alignment of zero hours contracts and low wages.  The two are not necessarily linked.  Agency working for example applies to teachers, who get paid very well indeed on zero hours contracts, whereas those who work in warehouses don't, but then the latter wouldn't be particularly well paid whatever their contract style.

But overwhelmingly they are.  Agency workers doing professional work, including teachers, tend to get reasonable pay above minimum wage but many lower-end jobs have kept the low pay but removed all the employment protections.

 

One example, one of our favourite restaurants moved to zero hours contracts to help them smooth over busy times and quiet times peaks and troughs.  They now are often short-staffed or under-skilled at nights because they've found that the old adage of "pay peanuts, get monkeys" is still very applicable to those on zero hours contracts and that there's zero reciprocal loyalty in those contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take issue with the automatic alignment of zero hours contracts and low wages. The two are not necessarily linked. Agency working for example applies to teachers, who get paid very well indeed on zero hours contracts, whereas those who work in warehouses don't, but then the latter wouldn't be particularly well paid whatever their contract style.

Staff in our warehouse are on £16 per hour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Staff in our warehouse are on £16 per hour

Filthy communist exploiter.  You're taking food from the mouths of wealthy people who should own your company. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing to consider is that ZHCs and part time working aren't necessarily a good thing for the economy if you look at the wider picture. It results in a higher welfare bill with people needing to claim the likes of housing benefit. Also, because their earnings are erratic and unstable people are unable to plan for their future and make spending commitments that a successful economy relies on like buying a house or planning a family. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But overwhelmingly they are.  Agency workers doing professional work, including teachers, tend to get reasonable pay above minimum wage but many lower-end jobs have kept the low pay but removed all the employment protections.

 

One example, one of our favourite restaurants moved to zero hours contracts to help them smooth over busy times and quiet times peaks and troughs.  They now are often short-staffed or under-skilled at nights because they've found that the old adage of "pay peanuts, get monkeys" is still very applicable to those on zero hours contracts and that there's zero reciprocal loyalty in those contracts.

As I found out for myself when I did one day's work as an agency teacher, zero hours contracts in teaching work very well indeed!  I could have earned in a week as an agency teacher what I earned in a three at the job I've just finished.  However, I hated agency teaching and so didn't bother.

 

Without zero hours contracts though there would be no seasonal work, which by its nature is unpredictable, no cover for absent teachers or nursing staff or indeed any kind of staff, etc.  Zero hours contracts are needed, they have always been needed and there will never be a time when they are not needed.  They also suit some people down to the ground.  For example, I know many teachers who love agency teaching because it allows them to do their own thing.

Edited by Saintslass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Psychoactive Substances Act (One of Theresa May's flagships) has been delayed by a month because of Police fears over enforcement.  Many suggestions that 'month' means indefinitely as its unenforceable due to the inability to actually define what its trying to ban!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I found out for myself when I did one day's work as an agency teacher, zero hours contracts in teaching work very well indeed!  I could have earned in a week as an agency teacher what I earned in a three at the job I've just finished.  However, I hated agency teaching and so didn't bother.

 

Without zero hours contracts though there would be no seasonal work, which by its nature is unpredictable, no cover for absent teachers or nursing staff or indeed any kind of staff, etc.  Zero hours contracts are needed, they have always been needed and there will never be a time when they are not needed.  They also suit some people down to the ground.  For example, I know many teachers who love agency teaching because it allows them to do their own thing.

No, not really.  That's where contractors and interims come in.  Typically, contractors and interims get paid a higher rate because of the unpredictability of the role and very few employment protections.  Zero hours contracts has allowed many employers to keep paying the permanent rate but have none of the liabilities of permanent staff.

 

I currently have five interims working for me, all on higher rates than normal because I only need them for three months.  They accept the higher pay for being disposable, I don't have to worry about them after the three months is up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's neither good nor bad for me in this instance, not least because I loathed where I was working.  But in the past it hasn't been a problem either as I've just taken up another assignment.  In fact, because I can just walk out of these assignments whenever I please, they have worked very well for me especially when I was at university.  The zero hours contract can work both ways beneficially or it can be detrimental but to write off zero hours contracts as being awful per se is to ignore the fact - and it is actually a fact - that they work well for quite a lot of people.  But either way I'm still slightly confused as to why a fuss is being made about them now rather than say twenty years ago or fifty years ago, given that they have been in existence ever since paid work began.

 

 

I take it you dont have a mortgage , or car finance and doubt you would qualify for even a mobile phone contract working zero hours contracts ???? Unless you have a rich sugar daddy that 98% of folks dont have. To get any of the aforementioned it will be a MUST to have regular income from a 37hour week job i would have thought ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just before the last election the number was 2/3's were happy with their ZHC

 

Source please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express Yearbook 2018/19 - Order Now

Rugby League World - Christmas Offer

League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday



Rugby League World - Dec 2018