I don't see allowing people to work more hours if they choose to as being contentious. I don't see anyone arguing that people should be forced to work longer hours against their will.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
I don't see allowing people to work more hours if they choose to as being contentious. I don't see anyone arguing that people should be forced to work longer hours against their will.
You really don't think the torys plan to get rid of the working time directive won't put people at risk of being forced to work longer hours as standard?
I think if someone tries to get someone else to work more than their contractual commitment then they will have a breach of contract / constructive dismissal case on their hands. If they force them in a physical sense then they'll have even greater problems.
Obviously if people are successful applicants to a job that's strictly 60 hour per week and decide that it isn't for them they can resign.
You only have to look at the hours they were forcing on junior doctors a few years ago (still do to some degree).
Yes, at the heart of matters is the resistance to change in the CS, and as we've heard from the past even those who will eventually benefit from change will still initially reject it!
Accusations about Priti Patel's bullying (or not) is a side show, the danger is that Government is taking on an all out war on certain CS 'mandarins' and that in itself could disrupt Brexit reforms. Politically Boris cannot afford delays and deviations and he and many of his ministers, in fact the whole cabinet, are likely to adopt a take no prisoner approach in rooting out what they may see as 'fifth-column' remainers in the CS.
Patel seems to be the Governments 'arse-kicker in chief' Minister, piloted in her efforts perhaps by Dominic Cummings and his highly prized intel.
Depends what the job is. The 56 hours you mentioned suggests you're talking about drivers and tbh other road users might well argue that abolishing that rule is contentious when it will be them that gets shunted in the back by a 20 tonne articulated lorry driven by a guy who can barely stay awake.
The S*n on YouTube have a video that's called "Army on standby as Boris declares war on coronavirus with battle plan to kill off deadly bug".
That's Boris, the utter coward who probably thinks paternity leave means abandoning your child, and is apparently some incredible military strategist now. I imagine the battle plan involves hiding in a fridge.
That's Boris, the utter coward who probably thinks paternity leave means abandoning your child, and is apparently some incredible military strategist now. I imagine the battle plan involves hiding in a fridge.
I miss the old Doctor Who episodes.
I'm not. If I were my insurance premiums would be disincentive enough.
he looks like a doctor stuck between regenerations. 'Doctor Where' would be more appropriate for him.
"Right - gimme all your hand sanitiser."
The idea that the pressures on people to work longer hours boil down to people either being "forced" or not is laughably naive.
The BBC have come down hard on Laura Kuenssberg for her peddling of Tory propaganda.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/tweet-by-laura-kuenssberg-9-december-2019
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/tweet-by-laura-kuenssberg-9-december-2019
Literally had a BBC colleague at the scene saying it never happened. On air. On BBC Radio.Found no evidence that she had failed to check the story before publication?
It's a statement the household name reporters would be pissing themselves laughing at and quote tweeting if the Canary made it.
Found no evidence that she had failed to check the story before publication?
She says it was double sourced - that's a sufficient check usually - and it looks like the BBC have accepted that explanation.
Good point. The BBC reporter actually on the scene, who said it didn't happen, only had the one source after all.
I'm more in the feckup camp than in the 'giant tory conspiracy one' on this. But you go ahead and enjoy yourself.
You can tell it just was a feck up by Panorama's expose on the government sources (there must have been two after all) who used the two highest profile TV journalists in the country to peddle demonstrable lies during an election campaign. It must be on next week.
do you think that 19th century european working hours were voluntary on the part of workers?
I think the idea that the state knows better and that forcing people to accept their view as law is oppressive.
If the state feels that working those hours is inhumane, they should advocate for fewer hours. If people listen to them and stop working for employers who demand you work 60 hours then that's democracy in action. Employers who only require 40 hours will become more successful as they will attract better and more productive staff whilst employers who demand 60 hours will have fatigued staff who're less productive. The former will flourish and the latter will disappear.
If however you have a large cohort of people who actively and productivity want to work a 60 hour night shift and with mutual agreement you can run a successful business then everyone is happy.
The alternative is we force people to do something they don't want to do under the guise of "big brother knows best". Big Brother knows shit. Especially as the state never tells bankers they can't work 80 hour weeks, it's always the poor they need to protect from their own perceived stupidity.
that doesn't answer my question.
to quote the Indian Supreme Court from 1982, speaking on the application of forced labour laws to a minimum wage case -
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/496663/
Holy feck. Are you really this naive?
Your example of the free market arriving at the best and optimum working practices for all is a total ideologically based fantasy, demonstrably disproven by reality.
What an incredibly bizarre statement. Did you even think about what you were typing? Even the merest glance at the real world shows us its not only false, but the exact opposite of what actually happens. People work on zero hours contracts when they want known hours, they work in the gig economy when they want to be considered employees, they work for companies that pay below living wage even though it leaves them in poverty, and so on. Hell, the entirety of the post-industrialisation era shows that what you're suggesting simply doesn't happen in the real world. Its why we ended up with powerful unions and why we have parliamentary representation of labour.
The naivety the likes of Finneh shows in everything he says shows that some people simply don't understand the real world. Yet still get's an equal say in it.
I think it's "I'm alright Jack" more than naivety.
Many people who are on zero hours contracts like being on them. It gives them flexibility to choose when they want to work and to also top up their bank savings when they want to. They're not tied down to 36 hours a week when they'd, like all of us, rather have a lie in. I used to be on a zero hours contract and it was the best job I had. I could get three shifts one week so I could work 45 hours and then get three weeks off where I wrestled with the rats surrounding my cardboard house for food scraps because I was getting feck all work unless I was willing to kill myself for the benefit of some jumped up entrepreneur who gave his incompetent brother a management role and skimmed our wages from time to time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51731753
More bullying claims against Patel, you’d like to think she’s on borrowed time but she’ll probably be given a promotion instead.
More bullying claims against Patel, you’d like to think she’s on borrowed time but she’ll probably be given a promotion instead.
Feck the Tories, Elitists and anyone else who says socialism is wrong. Hopefully that helpsSometimes I'm not sure with you
Sure she did. From Guido Fawkes and Joris Bonson.
If you want to see something crazy, ask @finneh what he thinks should happen if a restaurant refuses to serve a black family.
I don't disagree with you, it's the means of protecting the worker that I disagree with as not only do they fail to achieve the aim of protecting the worse off in society, but often actively harm the poorest.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjACegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3U5E1bpQJB7kSRPAzS3fm0
My view as is articulated above in that these regulations generally hurt the poorest and benefit the middle classes and wealthiest by reducing competition. The WTD is no different in limiting hours for the poorest (e.g. my operative on £28k pa who isn't allowed to earn another £4k pa Vs a banker who can work 80 hours without penalty).
The intentions are good but as is often the case the outcomes are undesirable.
I mean, they're not wrong are they or am I missing the point? You get more from a pension than you've paid in?
Last edited:
Erm I think that depends how much you earn?...
Sorry, but I'm asking if the majority of people do or not? Meant to put a question mark at the end of that rather thank make it look like a statement.
Depends on a number of things, the chief of which is how long you live after starting to receive your full pension!
Because people now tend to live longer after they reach (state) pensionable age, some may get back what they paid in, but the whole thing use to be predicated on the basis of most people dying within ten years of retirement, now the predictions are more like the majority surviving 20 years, hence the need to increase the official retirement age.
What a lot of people don't get is that what they paid in over the years has gone. All of it, and more, spent on current pensions at the time of their paying in. All they got for it, apart from the warm glow that comes from looking after others, is a promise that future generations would pay for their own pension when the time came. Just a promise, that's all.