Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[scaramanga]

Apologies if rehashing,but what do you want to achieve that is illegal?
Opt out means the willing can choose to work over 48 hours.
You are in the private sector so can choose to appoint whoever fits your requirements. You can't turn someone down because they refuse to opt out - so you just find a different criteria for rejection.

0 hour contracts are fine - we use a lot of temp labour here.

The issue comes with the longer term training of permanent staff. We need a workforce of trained, permanent employees who can flex with customer demand. If everyone is well trained and therefore well remunerated, we are wasteful and not competitive. If we only train the staff who will work more hours when required, then we fall afoul of the WTD.

Your last point works in theory, but the practicality of it doesn't fall that way. We can (and often have) spent years training someone for them to turn around and decide they no longer want to work more than 40 hours. At that point they are virtually useless to us as a skilled employee, so we have to train someone else who can be flexible, and we're back at not being competitive again.

 

[scaramanga]

Apologies if rehashing,but what do you want to achieve that is illegal?
Opt out means the willing can choose to work over 48 hours.
You are in the private sector so can choose to appoint whoever fits your requirements. You can't turn someone down because they refuse to opt out - so you just find a different criteria for rejection.

We want to use willingness to work overtime as criteria for promotion, training, etc.

See my post above for why in theory it's OK but practically - especially when we need a stable workforce, it isn't really workable.

 

[monkeybarry]

0 hour contracts are fine - we use a lot of temp labour here.

The issue comes with the longer term training of permanent staff. We need a workforce of trained, permanent employees who can flex with customer demand. If everyone is well trained and therefore well remunerated, we are wasteful and not competitive. If we only train the staff who will work more hours when required, then we fall afoul of the WTD.

Your last point works in theory, but the practicality of it doesn't fall that way. We can (and often have) spent years training someone for them to turn around and decide they no longer want to work more than 40 hours. At that point they are virtually useless to us as a skilled employee, so we have to train someone else who can be flexible, and we're back at not being competitive again.

(This is not a political dig - we both know our politics re; employment protections are very different)

I can see your logistical issue and presumably you are working on tight margins and/or training is high cost?

So essentially you are saying you want to be able to terminate anyone that applies the WTD?

 

[scaramanga]

(This is not a political dig - we both know our politics re; employment protections are very different)

I can see your logistical issue and presumably you are working on tight margins and/or training is high cost?

So essentially you are saying you want to be able to terminate anyone that applies the WTD?

I'd hope it wouldn't come to that.

I want to be able to make it clear at the outset of training, promotion, etc that the flexibility is a part of the job. If it really came to that we might have to, but that's not the intent.

 

[monkeybarry]

We want to use willingness to work overtime as criteria for promotion, training, etc.

See my post above for why in theory it's OK but practically - especially when we need a stable workforce, it isn't really workable.

Although I appreciate it's anecdotal, I have worked in SMEs where that is exactly what happened.
It was unwritten of course, but everyone knew the score - the more you deliver for the business, the more you get.
And as such I earned less than many people I started on a level playing field with. I have no issue with that because I made the choice to live my life within different means.

 

[Parklaner81]

Although I appreciate it's anecdotal, I have worked in SMEs where that is exactly what happened.
It was unwritten of course, but everyone knew the score - the more you deliver for the business, the more you get.
And as such I earned less than many people I started on a level playing field with. I have no issue with that because I made the choice to live my life within different means.

Also anecdotal, but I know that not all employees share your outlook.

 

[monkeybarry]

I'd hope it wouldn't come to that.

I want to be able to make it clear at the outset of training, promotion, etc that the flexibility is a part of the job. If it really came to that we might have to, but that's not the intent.

I see the place for that kind of need in many sectors. You said you need flex with customer requirements - the WTD has an average of 48 hours per week (and Belgium have force majeure up to 50), so allows for flex - could you not build this into employment contracts?
It would give a contractual requirement to flex hours worked and would culturally see anyone that just wants to do their standard 36 hours a week move on pretty sharpish.

 

[monkeybarry]

Also anecdotal, but I know that not all employees share your outlook.

We had a few like that. The simple question was put to them when they complained about others getting better opportunities - "I hear your concerns. Let's discuss what you deliver to the business so you can show me why you deserve X,y,z". Amazing how quickly the voices stop at the point.

 

[P.D.]

Really how has the Guardian smeared Johnson? When did the Mirror or Guardian smear the Tory leadership in the same way that the Murdoch press did Corbyn? What a load of brick you speak. Here we go it's that classic Tory defence when all is said and done... "it doesn't matter, cause they're all the same you know."

You know the Guardian for a long time were as anti Corbyn as many other papers - see this https://novaramedia.com/2017/01/08/how-the-guardian-changed-tack-on-corbyn-despite-its-readers/

They smeared him non stop for weeks on end, article after article published and given prominence.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

You know the Guardian for a long time were as anti Corbyn as many other papers - see this https://novaramedia.com/2017/01/08/how-the-guardian-changed-tack-on-corbyn-despite-its-readers/

They smeared him non stop for weeks on end, article after article published and given prominence.

Yeah some people are of the view that the Guardian is a left wing paper. It isn't, it has always been liberal.

 

[SteveAWOL]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1267769528051740673

 

[nayenezgani]

The state of this fudging charlatan.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1268518556146286592

 

[Seedy Ron]

Maybe the "Pick For Britain" ads haven't quite hit the mark?

 

[Diamond Lights]

I make no bones on my politics. I don’t understand why people, well most regular people and certainly the majority of this country, vote for Tories. I just don’t get it. And some now double down.

i mean, the tories could come take a dump on your doorstep and some people will post a meme blaming Labour for it. Not saying labour are great (Corbyn, nice guy, terrible opposition leader), but bloody hell, this government, Christ.

 

[parklane1]

I make no bones on my politics. I don’t understand why people, well most regular people and certainly the majority of this country, vote for Tories. I just don’t get it. And some now double down.

i mean, the tories could come take a dump on your doorstep and some people will post a meme blaming Labour for it. Not saying labour are great (Corbyn, nice guy, terrible opposition leader), but bloody hell, this government, Christ.

Sad to say ALL politicians of all party are self serving arseholes, and they showed the world just that with the farce we had to endure during the Brexit votes in the commons last summer.

 

[Diamond Lights]

I get that but to think this Tory party cares about a regular joe in Sunderland working in a factory, jesus.

People now posting memes saying how difficult a job Boris has and to support him? Crazy. Every country's leader has had a difficult job, and we have made an absolute cluster **** of COVID compared to other nations. Germany has a population of 20m+ more than UK and we have 4x the death rate, that's not just poor luck, that's actively brick management of the situation.

 

[Diamond Lights]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1270977517814456321

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I get that but to think this Tory party cares about a regular joe in Sunderland working in a factory, jesus.

Is your underlying political beliefs coming to the fore there?

 

[Diamond Lights]

Is your underlying political beliefs coming to the fore there?

As i said elsewhere, over the years I've voted Tory, LD and Labour. The point right now is this Tory govt is the absolute worst government in years and people still vote them. Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Social Mobility Commission yesterday (effectively covering last 10 years of Tory Govt):

• Poverty - 600,000 more children are now living in relative poverty than in 2012 and this is projected to increase further due to benefit changes and coronavirus, it says in its report
• Schools - At 16, only 24.7% of disadvantaged students get a good pass in English and Maths GCSE compared with 49.9% of all other pupils
• Employment - Half of all adults from the poorest backgrounds receive no training at all after leaving school
• Health - Life expectancy is falling for women in the most deprived 10% of areas, the commission says, and health inequalities linked to socio-economic background have been exposed by coronavirus.

The funny thing is i'm the archetypical Tory voter on paper, background, job wise. I'd be financially better off under the Tories easily, not even questionable. I'm not affected by any of the above.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

As i said elsewhere, over the years I've voted Tory, LD and Labour. The point right now is this Tory govt is the absolute worst government in years and people still vote them. Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Social Mobility Commission yesterday (effectively covering last 10 years of Tory Govt):

• Poverty - 600,000 more children are now living in relative poverty than in 2012 and this is projected to increase further due to benefit changes and coronavirus, it says in its report
• Schools - At 16, only 24.7% of disadvantaged students get a good pass in English and Maths GCSE compared with 49.9% of all other pupils
• Employment - Half of all adults from the poorest backgrounds receive no training at all after leaving school
• Health - Life expectancy is falling for women in the most deprived 10% of areas, the commission says, and health inequalities linked to socio-economic background have been exposed by coronavirus.

The funny thing is i'm the archetypical Tory voter on paper, background, job wise. I'd be financially better off under the Tories easily, not even questionable. I'm not affected by any of the above.

Im sure i believe you.