Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 2)
Discussion
SpeckledJim said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
So wouldn't they then simply be replaced by the One-Hour-Contract? Or will you stipulate a minimum amount of work a role can entail?
And won't that then reduce employment opportunities, as employers fight shy of meeting your new commitment requirements?
t argument though, it'd have to be however many hours that employee works on an ongoing basis, provable that doesn't fluctuate more than a certain amount on more than a certain number of occasions. So if they always work one hour a month then that's fine, but we don't want to see (many) 40 hour weeks from that person and multiplied across a workforce that kind of pattern would be highly visible! Breadvan72 said:
The Russian report thing is very sniffy. It may be a damp squib when released, but sitting on its looks dodgy, even if it isn't. See also the highly questionable decision to mothball the corruption enquiry pending the election.
.
No smoke without a fire....
Yes, but we have bigger fish to fry.
Is it correct to examine this behaviour, of course. But, we have backed team UK into a cul-de-sac, when global headwinds demand firm and concise action.
I'm not a scholar of history, as some here - but we are in an existential crisis forced by an ill timed and badly considered referendum. It is what it is though.
We must move forward and cannot be held to a constitutional process that is perhaps not best designed to deal with 2019. I believe - through my limited understanding of UK law that it must be viewed and inplemented / judged upon per the current situation (otherwise why lead the path to abolish slavery). This maybe a simplistic view, but we are parked in a shower of s
t, and it is incumbent on the govt / elected representatives (plus judges), to drive us out of it. Sheisters need to be held to account, but I question the timing. A commodity we don't have.Perhaps this is trampling over the build up of our laws (we export around the world), but pragmatism is needed.
Arguably Boris may be deemed a clown, is it not a reflection of how we have become dumbed down as a nation (politically)?
Remain, has gone as as an option (if we honor 2016), and in 2019 I'd question its validity given Francophile ambition (much to the chagrin of Germany etc). We would have been a counterweight to that, but its gone. A close relationship is needed (FTA, Norway, Canada+++), but no longer part of the wider club (or shackled with the liabilities / downside risks).
I have no problem with freedom of movement (btw), before the usual closet racist brush comes out.
turbobloke said:
Breadvan72 said:
The privileged few who find ZHCs to their liking are not likely to be the people working in fulfilment centres and other low wage, low status, low security jobs. For those people, ZHCs suck great big hairy monkey balls, but they are stuck with them. People like to bang on about unions, mainly because of perceptions of the 1970s (some of those perceptions are not always accurate), but the hapless staff doing the McJobs on ZHCs could do with getting unionised.
Except that data trumps the mere opinion to which you're entitled; it's not a "privileged few" it's a majority, 60% or more. You must have missed this earlier today, ZHC workers report better job satisfaction and better work-life balance than the average which includes permies.
CIPD Worker Survey: Job satisfaction, job quality and engagement:
There is very little difference in overall job satisfaction between zero-hours contract workers and the survey average (all employees). In all, 60% of zero-hours contract workers agree or strongly agree they are satisfied with their job with 19% disagreeing, compared with a survey average of 59% agreeing and 20% disagreeing. On average 65% of zero-hours workers say they are satisfied with their work–life balance compared with 58% of all employees.
Nexus Icon said:
I'm not talking about banning it. This started at a reason unemployment has 'fallen'. ZHCs have given *some* employers the opportunity to take advantage of workers whilst also removing them from unemployment figures, yet they can still claim full benefits when they work zero hours (up to 16hrs, I believe).
ZHCs are nothing new, they simply weren't called ZHCs before, and they represent a small percentage of the workforce about 2.5% IIRC. unemployment really has fallen.The Russia investigation was launched on the Tory watch. They nixed it. They tried to ram through the Brexit deal in three days but pulled this already completed report. I for one would like to see what it contains, might be nothing. I know I will not now until next year if at all. Not that it will make any difference to my vote this time around.
Leave also tried to stop the electoral commission publishing its findings.
https://twitter.com/ElectoralCommUK/status/1194258...
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centr...
Oh, Cummings tool, AIQ makes an appearance in the ruling.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/1...
Not read it all, a bit legal for me.
Leave also tried to stop the electoral commission publishing its findings.
https://twitter.com/ElectoralCommUK/status/1194258...
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centr...
Oh, Cummings tool, AIQ makes an appearance in the ruling.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/1...
Not read it all, a bit legal for me.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
What I'm getting at is that if we ban ZHC, then we'll have to decide what a minimum contract can be. So lets say we decide it's 15 hours.
Person A has a job offering 10 hours, and person B wants to work 10 hours, but the government at that point jumps into the middle and says "nope, sorry lads, don't care how satisfied you both are with the arrangement, we've made a rule about this". And we ALL end-up worse off.
Breadvan72 said:
turbobloke said:
Breadvan72 said:
The privileged few who find ZHCs to their liking are not likely to be the people working in fulfilment centres and other low wage, low status, low security jobs. For those people, ZHCs suck great big hairy monkey balls, but they are stuck with them. People like to bang on about unions, mainly because of perceptions of the 1970s (some of those perceptions are not always accurate), but the hapless staff doing the McJobs on ZHCs could do with getting unionised.
Except that data trumps the mere opinion to which you're entitled; it's not a "privileged few" it's a majority, 60% or more. You must have missed this earlier today, ZHC workers report better job satisfaction and better work-life balance than the average which includes permies.
CIPD Worker Survey: Job satisfaction, job quality and engagement:
There is very little difference in overall job satisfaction between zero-hours contract workers and the survey average (all employees). In all, 60% of zero-hours contract workers agree or strongly agree they are satisfied with their job with 19% disagreeing, compared with a survey average of 59% agreeing and 20% disagreeing. On average 65% of zero-hours workers say they are satisfied with their work–life balance compared with 58% of all employees.
19% of ZHC workers are not happy with their set up.
2.5% of workers are on ZHC.
That means 0.5% of UK workers are not happy because they have a ZHC.
How many of those same workers would still be unhappy no matter what they had work wise?
My guess, based on employing people for the last 20 years is it would be quite a high majority.
Some staff tend think companies should work around them, give us short notice on days off, don't want to cover other staff when they are on holiday, don't want to cover other staff when they are ill, don't want to do late nights, don't want to ever change their day off because they do the weekly shop on that day (even though we say "we will try and give you the same day off as often as we can, but during holidays or due to illness this can change, we will always try and give you 2 weeks notice" there is uproar if we ask them to do a Wednesday instead of a Tuesday, the list is never ending with certain staff.
I do wonder how many on ZHC are in those sort of jobs as they don't want to commit to too many hours, often at times they would prefer not to work?
I bet it is a fair few.
We have two on ZHC, there are 'as and when' really.
They do help us out when they can, but the reality is 2 times out of 3 they have something on, which is fine. The 1 time often gets us out of a pickle and they seem happy with the set up.
2.5% of workers are on ZHC.
That means 0.5% of UK workers are not happy because they have a ZHC.
How many of those same workers would still be unhappy no matter what they had work wise?
My guess, based on employing people for the last 20 years is it would be quite a high majority.
Some staff tend think companies should work around them, give us short notice on days off, don't want to cover other staff when they are on holiday, don't want to cover other staff when they are ill, don't want to do late nights, don't want to ever change their day off because they do the weekly shop on that day (even though we say "we will try and give you the same day off as often as we can, but during holidays or due to illness this can change, we will always try and give you 2 weeks notice" there is uproar if we ask them to do a Wednesday instead of a Tuesday, the list is never ending with certain staff.
I do wonder how many on ZHC are in those sort of jobs as they don't want to commit to too many hours, often at times they would prefer not to work?
I bet it is a fair few.
We have two on ZHC, there are 'as and when' really.
They do help us out when they can, but the reality is 2 times out of 3 they have something on, which is fine. The 1 time often gets us out of a pickle and they seem happy with the set up.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I would guess a one hour contract would be fine BUT it would have to be proven that the working hours on an ongoing basis for that employee turned out to not deviate x far from the one hour and not to deviate more than y times pro rata or whatever from the one hour . Its specifically trying to cut out contracts where someone can be asked to work xx hours one week and then be dropped like a stone the next with no repercussions. If someone knowingly signs up to a 5 hour contract and works typically 5, 6, 7 hours then that's cool but if they are working 48 hours for three months then 5 hours for 7 then none for two months it's not stable enough. As a PAYE employee, that is, specifically. Burwood said:
vonuber said:
stongle said:
You know the answeer to that, why ask it?
The question should be, is Russian intereference in UK politic Viz EU rapprochement to Russia and Iran a greater threat to our security?
No, the question is why haven't they released the report if there is nothing in it, and if there is something shouldn't we know before we have an election?The question should be, is Russian intereference in UK politic Viz EU rapprochement to Russia and Iran a greater threat to our security?
Yours is an entirely different question which doesn't address the point.
Regardless of the referendum, I'd like to know what involvement they are having on the election now, and what the government is doing about it.
Faith in our democratic process should be sacrosanct regardless of political persuasion. If the government is suppressing the report you have to wonder why.
Faith in our democratic process should be sacrosanct regardless of political persuasion. If the government is suppressing the report you have to wonder why.
vonuber said:
Regardless of the referendum, I'd like to know what involvement they are having on the election now, and what the government is doing about it.
Faith in our democratic process should be sacrosanct regardless of political persuasion. If the government is suppressing the report you have to wonder why.
Seems a news org is trying for a crowd funding to do this. Not sure they can though, I understood the committee needed to be in existence for it to be released. Anyone in the know here?Faith in our democratic process should be sacrosanct regardless of political persuasion. If the government is suppressing the report you have to wonder why.
Bureau for Investigative Journalism is the firm.
vonuber said:
Regardless of the referendum, I'd like to know what involvement they are having on the election now, and what the government is doing about it.
Faith in our democratic process should be sacrosanct regardless of political persuasion. If the government is suppressing the report you have to wonder why.
Bipartisanship is dead, vonuber. You won't get anywhere by saying that we should all as citizens care about how our democracy has been degraded and travestied. Faith in our democratic process should be sacrosanct regardless of political persuasion. If the government is suppressing the report you have to wonder why.
Breadvan72 said:
vonuber said:
Regardless of the referendum, I'd like to know what involvement they are having on the election now, and what the government is doing about it.
Faith in our democratic process should be sacrosanct regardless of political persuasion. If the government is suppressing the report you have to wonder why.
Bipartisanship is dead, vonuber. You won't get anywhere by saying that we should all as citizens care about how our democracy has been degraded and travestied. Faith in our democratic process should be sacrosanct regardless of political persuasion. If the government is suppressing the report you have to wonder why.
Vanden Saab said:
Spot on BV. Who would have imagined a few years ago that Parliament would try to overturn a referendum result or that a mainstream political party would say they would hold a referendum and ignore the result unless it was the one they wanted. Hopefully those responsible will be swept away by the General Election and we can get back to our normal democratic ways.
Oh yes, hopefully! It is very simple to me. We are where we are now. We allegedly have the brightest people running our country whether they are politicians, economists, et al. Therefore my question is "Why is everything so flucked up?".
The only answer I have is that we do not have the brightest people running our country whomever they may be. We are not a PLC and if we were we would be a version of Carillion, kicking the can down the road to definite failure.
If I ran my business with the demonstrable and evident levels of failure evident in our Government/Parliament I'd be signing on by now.
It really is comic book stuff we are witnessing whether leave or remain.
My p1ss is boiling about the idea that parties are now choosing where to contest! If you are going to contest then you contest in all constituencies or none at all.
I listened to Nigel Farrago on R4 today and he is beyond contempt in my opinion. Machiavelli could learn from him.
Harrumph over!
The only answer I have is that we do not have the brightest people running our country whomever they may be. We are not a PLC and if we were we would be a version of Carillion, kicking the can down the road to definite failure.
If I ran my business with the demonstrable and evident levels of failure evident in our Government/Parliament I'd be signing on by now.
It really is comic book stuff we are witnessing whether leave or remain.
My p1ss is boiling about the idea that parties are now choosing where to contest! If you are going to contest then you contest in all constituencies or none at all.
I listened to Nigel Farrago on R4 today and he is beyond contempt in my opinion. Machiavelli could learn from him.
Harrumph over!
Vanden Saab said:
Spot on BV. Who would have imagined a few years ago that Parliament would try to overturn a referendum result or that a mainstream political party would say they would hold a referendum and ignore the result unless it was the one they wanted. Hopefully those responsible will be swept away by the General Election and we can get back to our normal democratic ways.
I thought parliament, and the government, were against a hard brexit. That's somewhat different to "overturn[ing] a referendum result".Offering a subsequent referendum is not "overturn[ing] a referendum result" either. It's a perfectly legitimate step in a democracy. Unless, it seems, it fails to give the result some people want.
The games surrounding the Russia report and Arcuri investigation absolutely stink. Even IF they subsequently both turn out to be nothing, it looks sketchy AF. If they don't then, as a country, we've just fallen down a very dark hole and one that brings the pound shop Marxist clowns that bit closer to power next time.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff