What are your unpopular opinions?

What are your unpopular opinions?

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Countdown

25,476 posts

146 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
Blown2CV said:
you mean like funded by and increase in corporation tax, for example. I think you'll find that many employers go above and beyond their legal responsibilities these days - and they tend to be the ones where people actually go to work, rather than work for a while, realise it's may be a st soulless harsh environment and quit, creating lots of churn.
I have absolutely no problem with companies choosing to pay more. I think any decent/modern/ forward-looking company would ensure it ha d a pay and benefits package that was designed to attract and retain the most suitable talent, exactly for the reasons you mentioned above. However this should be optional, NOT legislated for by the Government. When companies are affected by "Churn" and the poor quality of labour they will either change their behaviours and go out of business

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.

singlecoil

28,195 posts

196 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
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.

PAULJ5555

3,532 posts

126 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
Pointing out the hypocrisy of football fans.


Only getting a season ticket when they hit the Prem, only supporting their national team when they are playing well or the team has changed.

Fans making jokes over the loss of Sala, but not liking jokes against their own chairman dieing in a crash.


227bhp

10,114 posts

78 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
I know of a woman who got pregnant soon after she landed her new £30k job, she took maternity leave for a year then plopped out another so is taking a further year off.
She's a Public Sector 'worker' so basically you and I have funded her for 2 years to sit at home for £60k. She could hand in her resignation at the end of that period.
That was value for money wasn't it.

TwigtheWonderkid

30,980 posts

100 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
PAULJ5555 said:
Pointing out the hypocrisy of football fans.
Your club makes a bid for the star player of a smaller club: It's a great move for him, he needs to think about his career, he'd be crazy to stay where he is when he could join us. He owes them nothing.

A bigger club makes a bid for your star player: Why does he want to go there, he won't be the star player any more, he needs to show loyalty to us who have nurtured him and made him the player he is. He owes us big time.

DoubleD

10,533 posts

58 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
227bhp said:
I know of a woman who got pregnant soon after she landed her new £30k job, she took maternity leave for a year then plopped out another so is taking a further year off.
She's a Public Sector 'worker' so basically you and I have funded her for 2 years to sit at home for £60k. She could hand in her resignation at the end of that period.
That was value for money wasn't it.
Are they paying full salary for a year for each one?

j_4m

1,574 posts

14 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
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.

Countdown

25,476 posts

146 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
DoubleD said:
227bhp said:
I know of a woman who got pregnant soon after she landed her new £30k job, she took maternity leave for a year then plopped out another so is taking a further year off.
She's a Public Sector 'worker' so basically you and I have funded her for 2 years to sit at home for £60k. She could hand in her resignation at the end of that period.
That was value for money wasn't it.
Are they paying full salary for a year for each one?
Highly unlikely. Firstly she will have needed a period of continuous service before she was entitled to OMP. If she was then in my experience they usually get roughly

- 6 weeks full pay
- 12 weeks half pay
- 8 weeks SMP

PAULJ5555

3,532 posts

126 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
Countdown said:
DoubleD said:
227bhp said:
I know of a woman who got pregnant soon after she landed her new £30k job, she took maternity leave for a year then plopped out another so is taking a further year off.
She's a Public Sector 'worker' so basically you and I have funded her for 2 years to sit at home for £60k. She could hand in her resignation at the end of that period.
That was value for money wasn't it.
Are they paying full salary for a year for each one?
Highly unlikely. Firstly she will have needed a period of continuous service before she was entitled to OMP. If she was then in my experience they usually get roughly

- 6 weeks full pay
- 12 weeks half pay
- 8 weeks SMP
Job move could have been in the same organisation or maybe a within the NHS but a different Trust. Her service/benefit could follow her and apply to the new job/roll.

Harry H

1,707 posts

106 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
Countdown said:
Highly unlikely. Firstly she will have needed a period of continuous service before she was entitled to OMP. If she was then in my experience they usually get roughly

- 6 weeks full pay
- 12 weeks half pay
- 8 weeks SMP
Not if she works for the council, they're not like the rest of us, they're special and as a consequence deserve extended rights and pay.

It's a well known fact, happening all over the land. But thats OK as it's a victim less crime and the poor old tax payer can suck it up.

midenginedcoupe

4,649 posts

82 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
Football fans are almost entirely aholes.

Football can be fun. I like watching good teams play well so I've mostly enjoyed watching Arsenal, Man City & Utd, Tottenham and Liverpool. Whilst successful, Liverpool under Benitez were unwatchably turgid, as were Utd since Fergie retired. Hey, they all ebb and flow. So I tend to follow teams more closely when they're playing well.

But I don't have to be a fan of exclusively one club, I don't have to know the top scorer of the under 21s team since the club was founded to be considered a fan at all, and I don't feel the need to be rabidly offensive about any other team that they play against. And I'm certainly not a glory hunter - what on earth does *any* supporter do that helped win a trophy? I had sod all to do with a team's success or otherwise. It can just be fun to go along for the ride.

As for the behaviour of fans, well fk pretty much all of them. Imagine what it would be like for 30,000 people to bellow WAAANKEEEER!!! in your face every time you mis-typed a word on your keyboard at work. Or stumbled over a word or phrase in your presentation. And they think they're *helping*!?

Countdown

25,476 posts

146 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
Harry H said:
Countdown said:
Highly unlikely. Firstly she will have needed a period of continuous service before she was entitled to OMP. If she was then in my experience they usually get roughly

- 6 weeks full pay
- 12 weeks half pay
- 8 weeks SMP
Not if she works for the council, they're not like the rest of us, they're special and as a consequence deserve extended rights and pay.

It's a well known fact, happening all over the land. But thats OK as it's a victim less crime and the poor old tax payer can suck it up.
Fair point. But I think the bulk of it is still at SMP rate which isn't great....

PAULJ5555

3,532 posts

126 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
midenginedcoupe said:
Imagine what it would be like for 30,000 people to bellow WAAANKEEEER!!! in your face every time you mis-typed a word on your keyboard at work. Or stumbled over a word or phrase in your presentation. And they think they're *helping*!?
I would not mind for £40-200K a week.

Wacky Racer

32,272 posts

197 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
Mobile phones, instagram and facebook should be banned for all females between the ages of twelve and twenty eight.

captain_cynic

5,373 posts

45 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
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.

Shakermaker

10,528 posts

50 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
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.
Facebook should be limited to people born between about 1980 and 1992, those who are in the same generational spot as Mark Zuckerburg and amongst the first who were eligible to use it when it launched and was only available to those with a university email address and those who became eligible for one within the first 5-6 years of its life.

Older people should have stuck with Friends Reunited and younger people should have stuck with Snapchat.

By the same rule, I probably shouldn't have joined PH as I am after the apparent "golden era" but that's by the by

Wacky Racer

32,272 posts

197 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
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

22,908 posts

153 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
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

22,908 posts

153 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
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

28,195 posts

196 months

Thursday 24th January 2019
quotequote all
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.

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED