What are your unpopular opinions?

[Wacky Racer]

captain_cynic said:

Wacky Racer said:

Mobile phones, instagram and facebook should be banned for all females between the ages of twelve and twenty eight.

What makes you think they'll get better after 28?

Being mid 30's I'd strenuously disagree with that, if anything it gets worse as they have kids (friends don't start having kids until their 30's, perhaps that's something for the Middle Class thread).

However I'd much prefer them to be on Instacrap or Arsebook et al. than loudly chatting and cackling their inane claptrap like they used to before social media was a thing. I now get small bouts of quiet time in public areas.

Fair enough then. Ban all females from the internet, and if they want to contact someone use a phone box.

It worked in 1950.

[Blown2CV]

j_4m said:

Blown2CV said:

If someone chooses to start a family they know exactly what they are getting into. It's clear in black and white. If they don't care about their fully transparent moral and legal responsibility to their children then they should give up and go get a dog because they are not cut out for it. or maybe they are crap at writing childcare plans. Or maybe they are naive and didn't speak to an adviser or midwife before they started... Or maybe they are just not very good at running their family lives, so money is tight and that's why they are moaning etc. Life is too short for moaning about the life you've chosen for yourself.

it's very funny and everything, but to be honest it's perfectly apparent to every parent when they start out what they are entitled to. It's good planning to ensure you leverage the bits you want to use. Eyes open, know what you need to do, and decide accordingly. No one is fking moaning or acting surprised here except your man who runs his own business and needs to dry his fking eyes.

[Blown2CV]

singlecoil said:

Countdown said:

Blown2CV said:

Some companies now offer several months full pay paternity for Dads, why should they have to pay in taxation to subsidise those companies who are doing the bare minimum required of them by law?

I assume they're paying several months full pay because it benefits THEM. They key difference here is that they're CHOOSING to do it.

I've thought about this since I read it earlier, I don't think there's a better answer to B2CV's strident championship of state-sponsored parenthood.

Whether he will be able to come up with a cogent argument in support of the moral aspect of the question remains to be seen, he may well stick with his 'it's the law' theme.

i am saying having opinions about rules and laws is pretty irrelevant, especially where it is pretty obvious that the moaner is only moaning because they are inconvenienced by them. Students moan about university fees too, however they can either get on with it and go to university and pay the money, or they can do something else. Anyone who runs their own business and is moaning about the basic and long standing requirements of being an employer just needs to close up shop. It is about morality and not just legality, because they should want to help their employees. They should trust their employees. They should make their employees feel valued. They should act like a human being. If you're just seeing the people that work for your as annoying drones that can just fk off with their lives and needs then you are in the wrong role by a long, long way.

[singlecoil]

Blown2CV said:

singlecoil said:

Countdown said:

Blown2CV said:

Some companies now offer several months full pay paternity for Dads, why should they have to pay in taxation to subsidise those companies who are doing the bare minimum required of them by law?

I assume they're paying several months full pay because it benefits THEM. They key difference here is that they're CHOOSING to do it.

I've thought about this since I read it earlier, I don't think there's a better answer to B2CV's strident championship of state-sponsored parenthood.

Whether he will be able to come up with a cogent argument in support of the moral aspect of the question remains to be seen, he may well stick with his 'it's the law' theme.

i am saying having opinions about rules and laws is pretty irrelevant, especially where it is pretty obvious that the moaner is only moaning because they are inconvenienced by them. Students moan about university fees too, however they can either get on with it and go to university and pay the money, or they can do something else. Anyone who runs their own business and is moaning about the basic and long standing requirements of being an employer just needs to close up shop. It is about morality and not just legality, because they should want to help their employees. They should trust their employees. They should make their employees feel valued. They should act like a human being. If you're just seeing the people that work for your as annoying drones that can just fk off with their lives and needs then you are in the wrong role by a long, long way.

Yep, it's as I thought. No attempt to address the morality of requiring employers to subsidise their employees' life choices. Now it could be that there is a strong argument for them doing just that, but if there is we haven't heard it from you yet. Try moving beyond just "they should" and see if you can come up with a reason why they should. I think you might find that a little more difficult (which I expect is why you haven't done so already).

For instance, you might like to tell us why you think it's alright for employers to provide time off for parenthood but not in order to attend hang gliding courses in California.

[Dr Jekyll]

Amanda Knox (former Italian convict) looks uncannily like a young Steve Jobs (the late Apple bloke).

[Blown2CV]

singlecoil said:

Blown2CV said:

singlecoil said:

Countdown said:

Blown2CV said:

Some companies now offer several months full pay paternity for Dads, why should they have to pay in taxation to subsidise those companies who are doing the bare minimum required of them by law?

I assume they're paying several months full pay because it benefits THEM. They key difference here is that they're CHOOSING to do it.

I've thought about this since I read it earlier, I don't think there's a better answer to B2CV's strident championship of state-sponsored parenthood.

Whether he will be able to come up with a cogent argument in support of the moral aspect of the question remains to be seen, he may well stick with his 'it's the law' theme.

i am saying having opinions about rules and laws is pretty irrelevant, especially where it is pretty obvious that the moaner is only moaning because they are inconvenienced by them. Students moan about university fees too, however they can either get on with it and go to university and pay the money, or they can do something else. Anyone who runs their own business and is moaning about the basic and long standing requirements of being an employer just needs to close up shop. It is about morality and not just legality, because they should want to help their employees. They should trust their employees. They should make their employees feel valued. They should act like a human being. If you're just seeing the people that work for your as annoying drones that can just fk off with their lives and needs then you are in the wrong role by a long, long way.

Yep, it's as I thought. No attempt to address the morality of requiring employers to subsidise their employees' life choices. Now it could be that there is a strong argument for them doing just that, but if there is we haven't heard it from you yet. Try moving beyond just "they should" and see if you can come up with a reason why they should. I think you might find that a little more difficult (which I expect is why you haven't done so already).

For instance, you might like to tell us why you think it's alright for employers to provide time off for parenthood but not in order to attend hang gliding courses in California.

Did you not read what i wrote then? They should, because it's the right thing to do, because humans employ humans with actual lives and needs outside work. People aren't just fking slaves are they? As much as some dhead MDs might prefer it. If I have to explain to you why employers need to treat people like humans then I literally don't know where else to go with it. In my encounters with you on here, to be honest you are coming across like a bit of a cock. I am glad I don't have to work with you or for you, or dare to take my family anywhere near you, or live near you. Just try and find some decency in yourself, and acknowledge that there is a wider world past your life and your wants.

[Countdown]

Blown2CV said:

i am saying having opinions about rules and laws is pretty irrelevant, especially where it is pretty obvious that the moaner is only moaning because they are inconvenienced by them. Students moan about university fees too, however they can either get on with it and go to university and pay the money, or they can do something else.

if that were true people would never moan about anything. Theoretically they would either do A and if they didn't like it they would do B. But real life isn't like that. Sometimes you have to accept stuff because it's the "least worst option". And moaning about it is a fair and legitimate response. If enough people moan about stuff sometimes things change. Look at Brexit.....

Blown2CV said:

Anyone who runs their own business and is moaning about the basic and long standing requirements of being an employer just needs to close up shop.

It's not "basic" and "long-standing" is a relative term. Plenty of organisations manage to function quite easily without providing it. All it is is a tax imposed on the Employer

Blown2CV said:

It is about morality and not just legality, because they should want to help their employees.

Morality is subjective. My morals aren't the same as yours. I give to certain charities. Maybe we should impose that upon ALL employers because morally You or I feel it's the "right" thing to do?

Blown2CV said:

They should trust their employees.

What on earth does Trust have to do with things?

Blown2CV said:

They should make their employees feel valued.

Absolutely. But how about letting ME decide how much I value them rather than imposing something arbitrary? Also, if you think an Employee feels "valued" by an Employer when they get something which the Employer has to provide by Law you are living in Cloud Cuckoo land. An Employee feels far more valued when an Employer rewards/remunerates them through choice. And that's what I keep banging on about. If an Employer behaves "morally" and values/recognises/rewards his employees by CHOICE is he more likely to recruit and retain high calibre staff, and the chances are that other Employers will need to follow suit. However, insisting that ALL Employers must provide XYZ benefits means that Employees get the benefit regardless of their performance. Sorry, "some employees" get it, not all. The others will have to pick up the slack whilst the "Employee" is enjoying paid leave to have a baby.

Blown2CV said:

They should act like a human being.

Now you're just being hysterical.

Blown2CV said:

If you're just seeing the people that work for your as annoying drones that can just fk off with their lives and needs then you are in the wrong role by a long, long way.

No, not at all. The majority of my team are good workers, about 35% I'd rate as excellent, 55% as good/reasonable, 5% as skivers, and 5% are complete dead weight. That ratio has been fairly constant in most places I worked.

However, last year I encountered an example of the "Entitled maternitty leave returnee" pissed off because I'd given her junior a temporary promotion to cover her role whilst she was off. She even tried to get HR involved until they told her to FO. it was pathetic. I've got another person on mat leave at the moment and she's brilliant. And I've got another due to go off in May who is also pretty good but fairly new. My point is that I should be able to decide who I want to morally recognise/reward/retain whilst they're on mat leave.

Anyway rant over...

[Morningside]

I'm in my mid 50s and actually like Nicki Minaj's music & style.

[Countdown]

Blown2CV said:

Did you not read what i wrote then? They should, because it's the right thing to do, because humans employ humans with actual lives and needs outside work. People aren't just fking slaves are they? As much as some dhead MDs might prefer it. If I have to explain to you why employers need to treat people like humans then I literally don't know where else to go with it.

When did maternity pay become the benchmark to show that Employers treat staff as "humans"? And given the different maternity benefits across the world, does that suggest that Employers in some countries are less humane than others?

[singlecoil]

Blown2CV said:

singlecoil said:

Blown2CV said:

singlecoil said:

Countdown said:

Blown2CV said:

Some companies now offer several months full pay paternity for Dads, why should they have to pay in taxation to subsidise those companies who are doing the bare minimum required of them by law?

I assume they're paying several months full pay because it benefits THEM. They key difference here is that they're CHOOSING to do it.

I've thought about this since I read it earlier, I don't think there's a better answer to B2CV's strident championship of state-sponsored parenthood.

Whether he will be able to come up with a cogent argument in support of the moral aspect of the question remains to be seen, he may well stick with his 'it's the law' theme.

i am saying having opinions about rules and laws is pretty irrelevant, especially where it is pretty obvious that the moaner is only moaning because they are inconvenienced by them. Students moan about university fees too, however they can either get on with it and go to university and pay the money, or they can do something else. Anyone who runs their own business and is moaning about the basic and long standing requirements of being an employer just needs to close up shop. It is about morality and not just legality, because they should want to help their employees. They should trust their employees. They should make their employees feel valued. They should act like a human being. If you're just seeing the people that work for your as annoying drones that can just fk off with their lives and needs then you are in the wrong role by a long, long way.

Yep, it's as I thought. No attempt to address the morality of requiring employers to subsidise their employees' life choices. Now it could be that there is a strong argument for them doing just that, but if there is we haven't heard it from you yet. Try moving beyond just "they should" and see if you can come up with a reason why they should. I think you might find that a little more difficult (which I expect is why you haven't done so already).

For instance, you might like to tell us why you think it's alright for employers to provide time off for parenthood but not in order to attend hang gliding courses in California.

Did you not read what i wrote then? They should, because it's the right thing to do, because humans employ humans with actual lives and needs outside work. People aren't just fking slaves are they? As much as some dhead MDs might prefer it. If I have to explain to you why employers need to treat people like humans then I literally don't know where else to go with it. In my encounters with you on here, to be honest you are coming across like a bit of a cock. I am glad I don't have to work with you or for you, or dare to take my family anywhere near you, or live near you. Just try and find some decency in yourself, and acknowledge that there is a wider world past your life and your wants.

I've obviously touched a nerve

Incidentally I have never employed anybody and it's a long time since I was anything other than self-employed, so please don't rely on your thoughts about me as a person to try to win your argument.

You completely missed my point when you talk about employers treating their employees well. What I am asking you is to tell me why it's only the ones who want to have children that should enjoy this special treatment. Why not all of them? And if it's going to be all of them who get paid leave to pursue something they have chosen to do (a cycle ride across America for instance) how can this be paid for, and who is going to pay for it?

[Blown2CV]

do you know what; it's your unpopular opinion and you are welcome to it.

[Stan the Bat]

Not that unpopular perhaps.

[gregs656]

singlecoil said:

You completely missed my point when you talk about employers treating their employees well. What I am asking you is to tell me why it's only the ones who want to have children that should enjoy this special treatment. Why not all of them? And if it's going to be all of them who get paid leave to pursue something they have chosen to do (a cycle ride across America for instance) how can this be paid for, and who is going to pay for it?

Think of it as an investment into the next generation.

[deckster]

Countdown said:

Blown2CV said:

They should make their employees feel valued.

Absolutely. But how about letting ME decide how much I value them rather than imposing something arbitrary?

Cut the post down to this because it sort of sums everything up.

The reason we have laws like this, is precisely that. There are certain minimum standards by which we should live our lives and by which we should treat people - things like not firing them on a whim, allowing them to be ill, allowing them time off for holidays - and, indeed, allowing them time off to have a family. This is for the good of the employee, for the good of the nation, and indeed for the good of the employer. In times gone by we did indeed let employers decide how much they valued employees, and frankly that didn't work out too well. Rampant abuse of workers, favouritism, discrimination, you name it. So because we ultimately can't trust employers to do the right thing, they have to be forced to by law. And good thing too.

[singlecoil]

gregs656 said:

Think of it as an investment into the next generation.

To be honest with you I don't think about it much at all, but I got the impression Blown2CV was really enjoying himself so I thought I would go along with it.

[Countdown]

deckster said:

Cut the post down to this because it sort of sums everything up.

The reason we have laws like this, is precisely that. There are certain minimum standards by which we should live our lives and by which we should treat people - things like not firing them on a whim, allowing them to be ill, allowing them time off for holidays - and, indeed, allowing them time off to have a family. This is for the good of the employee, for the good of the nation, and indeed for the good of the employer. In times gone by we did indeed let employers decide how much they valued employees, and frankly that didn't work out too well. Rampant abuse of workers, favouritism, discrimination, you name it. So because we ultimately can't trust employers to do the right thing, they have to be forced to by law. And good thing too.

It is for the good of the Employee.
If it's for the good of the Nation then it should be funded through general taxation.
If it's for the good of the Employer then they should be able to decide whether or not to pay.

I understand why the State intervenes in most of the examples you gave above. However there are certain areas where (IMHO) the State should not get involved and families having children is one of them.

Whilst I've got my Asbestos suit on - child benefit should be scrapped.

[gregs656]

singlecoil said:

To be honest with you I don't think about it much at all, but I got the impression Blown2CV was really enjoying himself so I thought I would go along with it.

I think you did quite well to get him to flounce so quickly, good work.

[Frank7]

Morningside said:

I'm in my mid 50s and actually like Nicki Minaj's music & style.

Well that’s okay, know what I’m sayin’?, it’s when you start
thinking that her butt looks good that you got trouble.

[Shakermaker]

Countdown said:

It is for the good of the Employee.
If it's for the good of the Nation then it should be funded through general taxation.
If it's for the good of the Employer then they should be able to decide whether or not to pay.

I understand why the State intervenes in most of the examples you gave above. However there are certain areas where (IMHO) the State should not get involved and families having children is one of them.

Whilst I've got my Asbestos suit on - child benefit should be scrapped.

You'll either pay it through taxation or you'll pay it through payroll as a direct cost, won't you? Probably would work out to about the same.

In fact, in some places i think it could cost you more. If you currently don't employ many women under the age of 40, your likely exposure to the cost of maternity leave pay is low, but you'd be then expecting the cost to be picked up through general taxation, and thus the cost for you could increase compared to currently where the employer pays more of it directly.

[Dr Jekyll]

Shakermaker said:

You'll either pay it through taxation or you'll pay it through payroll as a direct cost, won't you? Probably would work out to about the same.

In fact, in some places i think it could cost you more. If you currently don't employ many women under the age of 40, your likely exposure to the cost of maternity leave pay is low, but you'd be then expecting the cost to be picked up through general taxation, and thus the cost for you could increase compared to currently where the employer pays more of it directly.

So in effect paying through payroll instead of general taxation is a tax on employing women under 40, that's the problem.