Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

Massive caveat  I haven't read any of the details of the change to Employment Tribunals I may be totally off piste

 

But, IMO it is too easy to take these matters to tribunal and they are often used as a speculative wind up by disgruntled employees. In any other comparable situation eg. Small Claims Court, the claimant is required to pay the costs of launching the proceedings, as long as the costs are recoverable if the claim is successful I can't really see whats wrong with the change? Its not an unreasonable decision and the costs suggested don't really appear to me to be excessive. 

 

I wholly agree that employees need protection from unscrupulous employers in the case of wrongful dismissal or harassment but I can't see how the fees would make this less likely to happen. 

 

Equally, isn't this what people also join Trade Unions for? Surely if the Unions feel so strongly about these changes they could alleviate the misery this terrible changes will make by footing the bill for their members so they can pursue such cases? They'll have all that spare cash they're not giving to Labour to spend on something won't they? 

Wrong on quite a few counts

 

Let's start with the last bit. The Unions do feel strongly about this looking at the press reports and are actively involved so it seems in righting the wrong that is occurring here. You don't join a Union retrospectively as a way to get them to fight sackings. (we can ignore the silly comments re Labour - but good to see the "ahh but Labour" is spreading to others). The simple question is do you respect the rights of people based on how wealthy you are (the scheme that is being implemented) or based on them being a person.

 

I agree frivolous claims should be stopped but by pricing them out is not the way, surely?

[snowychap]

Also, I see this bit of nonsense has reared its head again:

Parking for 15 minutes on double yellow lines may be allowed

Motorists could be allowed to park free of charge on double yellow lines for up to fifteen minutes under plans being considered to help boost High Streets.

Drivers in England could be given a "grace period" to pick up goods from shops or leave their cars in bays for longer without being fined.

While the Conservatives are keen on the idea, their Lib Dem coalition partners are understood to have reservations.

Councils have rejected suggestions they are using parking fines as "cash cows".

Parking and waiting on double yellow lines is prohibited - unless stated - for all vehicles except for those making commercial deliveries and pick-ups, blue badge holders and the emergency services.

Some councils already allow motorists to park free of charge for up to 30 minutes close to shops and Conservative ministers in the coalition government are to keen to extend that to give a shot in the arm to small shops.

...

Fair enough if they want to encourage councils to have more free, short term waiting/pick up bays and if they want to encourage them to have, say, the first 30 minutes in a pay and display car park free but this is an utter load of horseshit.

My proposal would around these parts would be to issue tickets to all of the bastards who park like they're the only user of a road (or more often a pavement). Where do they think we are, parking like that? France?

Edited July 29, 2013 by snowychap

[villamark]

If you cut the frivolous claims by charging a fee then, the people who have had their rights violated will get justice much quicker as the ET will not be back up with frivolous claims.

[Eames]

 

Massive caveat  I haven't read any of the details of the change to Employment Tribunals I may be totally off piste

 

But, IMO it is too easy to take these matters to tribunal and they are often used as a speculative wind up by disgruntled employees. In any other comparable situation eg. Small Claims Court, the claimant is required to pay the costs of launching the proceedings, as long as the costs are recoverable if the claim is successful I can't really see whats wrong with the change? Its not an unreasonable decision and the costs suggested don't really appear to me to be excessive. 

 

I wholly agree that employees need protection from unscrupulous employers in the case of wrongful dismissal or harassment but I can't see how the fees would make this less likely to happen. 

 

Equally, isn't this what people also join Trade Unions for? Surely if the Unions feel so strongly about these changes they could alleviate the misery this terrible changes will make by footing the bill for their members so they can pursue such cases? They'll have all that spare cash they're not giving to Labour to spend on something won't they? 

Wrong on quite a few counts

 

Let's start with the last bit. The Unions do feel strongly about this looking at the press reports and are actively involved so it seems in righting the wrong that is occurring here. You don't join a Union retrospectively as a way to get them to fight sackings. (we can ignore the silly comments re Labour - but good to see the "ahh but Labour" is spreading to others). The simple question is do you respect the rights of people based on how wealthy you are (the scheme that is being implemented) or based on them being a person.

 

I agree frivolous claims should be stopped but by pricing them out is not the way, surely?

 

I am aware you don't join a Union retrospectively and never you suggested you c/should hence the quote "footing the bill for their members" You really should read posts more thoroughly before responding. 

 

I'm not entirely sure where you got the "ahhh but Labour" bit from either tbh - apart from the fact I used them in to make a tongue in cheek gag about how the Union's could spend the money they aren't sending Labour's way...... I didn't refer to an older Labour policy or to argue that they are in some way inferior. For someone that moans constantly about "deflection" in debate here, you appear to be somewhat skilled in that particular dark art yourself.

 

So, now we've dealt with the bits you a) haven't read properly and deflected we can deal with the substance. 

 

As long as (and I admit I don't know it does/doesn't) the costs incurred are recoverable from the employer in the event of  successful claim where is the issue with costs? It works perfectly well in the rest of the Court system - if you fight an action and loose you pay the cost. It will naturally deter those who are chancing their arm or those who don't really have a claim, as well as ensuring those who correctly undertake such actions have their rights protected. If any of the above does not apply then I happily concede that it is a poor idea because employees on low incomes will have to make financially difficult decisions that will naturally deter them from claiming rightly or not. 

[Eames]

Also, I see this bit of nonsense has reared its head again:

Parking for 15 minutes on double yellow lines may be allowed

Motorists could be allowed to park free of charge on double yellow lines for up to fifteen minutes under plans being considered to help boost High Streets.

Drivers in England could be given a "grace period" to pick up goods from shops or leave their cars in bays for longer without being fined.

While the Conservatives are keen on the idea, their Lib Dem coalition partners are understood to have reservations.

Councils have rejected suggestions they are using parking fines as "cash cows".

Parking and waiting on double yellow lines is prohibited - unless stated - for all vehicles except for those making commercial deliveries and pick-ups, blue badge holders and the emergency services.

Some councils already allow motorists to park free of charge for up to 30 minutes close to shops and Conservative ministers in the coalition government are to keen to extend that to give a shot in the arm to small shops.

...

Fair enough if they want to encourage councils to have more free, short term waiting/pick up bays and if they want to encourage them to have, say, the first 30 minutes in a pay and display car park free but this is an utter load of horseshit.

My proposal would around these parts would be to issue tickets to all of the bastards who park like they're the only user of a road (or more often a pavement). Where do they think we are, parking like that? France?

What an utterly utterly stupid idea.

 

In most cases double yellow lines are their for a reason ie: having some dickhead park there is going to cause mayhem for the every other motorist. 

 

You could legislate to compel councils to have a 15 minute "waiting" fee to park for a nominal fee eg. 20p or something but to just say "**** it, park it there for 30mins" is utter madness. 

[mjmooney]

 

In most cases double yellow lines are their for a reason ie: having some dickhead park there is going to cause mayhem for the every other motorist.

Springsteen tour trucks given parking tickets in Leeds

 

 

Tour trucks for Bruce Springsteen were given parking tickets ahead of his concert in Leeds.

 

The US rock star was the first act to perform at the new £60m Leeds Arena on Wednesday evening.

 

The trucks delivering equipment for the concert had been parked in a side street near the 13,500-seat venue.

 

Leeds City Council said the tickets had been "legitimately issued" but because of the "special circumstances" they had been revoked.

 

The authority said the area where the trucks were parked had double-yellow lines and was outside the designated unloading zone.

 

A spokesman said: "We accept this is a little embarrassing but the attendant was doing his job - if a little too efficiently.

 

"These were somewhat unusual circumstances with a very large tour involving a tight turnaround of vehicles arriving from the previous night's show in Cardiff on the opening night of a brand new venue."

 

He added: "Having considered the special circumstances, the tickets were quickly cancelled.

 

"When you prepare a city to open and host a huge, state-of-the-art new venue, you're bound to get the odd teething trouble."

 

Keith Wakefield, Labour leader of Leeds Council, said: "It was somebody being a little bit stupid and zealous."

 

Springsteen had personally asked to try out the new venue, which is officially opened on 4 September, as part of his current world tour.

 

BBC

 

[Jon]

 

Also, I see this bit of nonsense has reared its head again:

Parking for 15 minutes on double yellow lines may be allowed

Motorists could be allowed to park free of charge on double yellow lines for up to fifteen minutes under plans being considered to help boost High Streets.

Drivers in England could be given a "grace period" to pick up goods from shops or leave their cars in bays for longer without being fined.

While the Conservatives are keen on the idea, their Lib Dem coalition partners are understood to have reservations.

Councils have rejected suggestions they are using parking fines as "cash cows".

Parking and waiting on double yellow lines is prohibited - unless stated - for all vehicles except for those making commercial deliveries and pick-ups, blue badge holders and the emergency services.

Some councils already allow motorists to park free of charge for up to 30 minutes close to shops and Conservative ministers in the coalition government are to keen to extend that to give a shot in the arm to small shops.

...

Fair enough if they want to encourage councils to have more free, short term waiting/pick up bays and if they want to encourage them to have, say, the first 30 minutes in a pay and display car park free but this is an utter load of horseshit.

My proposal would around these parts would be to issue tickets to all of the bastards who park like they're the only user of a road (or more often a pavement). Where do they think we are, parking like that? France?

What an utterly utterly stupid idea.

 

In most cases double yellow lines are their for a reason ie: having some dickhead park there is going to cause mayhem for the every other motorist. 

 

You could legislate to compel councils to have a 15 minute "waiting" fee to park for a nominal fee eg. 20p or something but to just say "**** it, park it there for 30mins" is utter madness. 

 

Yeah, that was the first thing I thought about this brainless idea. Surely yellow lines are there for a very good reason? If you allow people to start parking wherever they want, it'll take about 5 minutes before the roads are carnage and there's total gridlock, everywhere.

[Risso]

 

Surely the idea of the move is that it encourages employers and employees to sort things out before it gets as far as a tribunal, which can only be good for the employee in any case.  I know how much employment tribunals can cost a business.  Even when it's an open and shut case, where the correct process has been followed to the letter, if people want to go to a tribunal it can cost a business thousands.  This is an example like the insurance fraud that Tony mentions, of people without a legitimate claim spoiling it for everybody else.

But it doesn't Mart. Now you have lodge a claim to get the process started of a few hundred quid. For so many that is something they will not be able to afford, basically the rights of workers have been eroded further and the righer in society, which are typically the companies and those that own them are favoured - that can never be a fair system

 

 

I agree Ian, but I've come across lots of businesses where the costs to them are as unaffordable as they are to the employee.  Employment rights have always been massively stacked in favour of the worker in my opinion, when in reality, it's a simple contract.  A worker agrees to do a certain job, in return for a specified payment.  Even if a worker steals from their employer, if the correct disciplinary process isn't followed they can still take their employer to a tribunal.  It's very difficult to find a balance that's fair to both sides, but a tribunal should be so far down the tracks as a last resort that I think these payments are a good thing.  I assume they get the costs back if the claim is successful?

[snowychap]

As long as (and I admit I don't know it does/doesn't) the costs incurred are recoverable from the employer in the event of  successful claim where is the issue with costs? It works perfectly well in the rest of the Court system - if you fight an action and loose you pay the cost.

I'm not sure that it does work perfectly well, though, does it?

What we have throughout the civil system is something which affords more opportunities (and more 'justice'?) to those with means and that has only increased with the withdrawal of legal aid for so many types of cases.

This would appear to be more of the same though I suppose it also opens up a large 'market' for no win, no fee employment legal services.

[Eames]

 

As long as (and I admit I don't know it does/doesn't) the costs incurred are recoverable from the employer in the event of  successful claim where is the issue with costs? It works perfectly well in the rest of the Court system - if you fight an action and loose you pay the cost.

I'm not sure that it does work perfectly well, though, does it?

What we have throughout the civil system is something which affords more opportunities (and more 'justice'?) to those with means and that has only increased with the withdrawal of legal aid for so many types of cases.

This would appear to be more of the same though I suppose it also opens up a large 'market' for no win, no fee employment legal services.

 

Fair comments - I suppose I meant it "works" in the sense that the loser pays costs or at least contributes to them. I would agree however that the logistics of accessing "justice" are easier when you're sat on a shit load of cash.

[tonyh29]

Also, I see this bit of nonsense has reared its head again:

Parking for 15 minutes on double yellow lines may be allowed

Motorists could be allowed to park free of charge on double yellow lines for up to fifteen minutes under plans being considered to help boost High Streets.

Drivers in England could be given a "grace period" to pick up goods from shops or leave their cars in bays for longer without being fined.

While the Conservatives are keen on the idea, their Lib Dem coalition partners are understood to have reservations.

Councils have rejected suggestions they are using parking fines as "cash cows".

Parking and waiting on double yellow lines is prohibited - unless stated - for all vehicles except for those making commercial deliveries and pick-ups, blue badge holders and the emergency services.

Some councils already allow motorists to park free of charge for up to 30 minutes close to shops and Conservative ministers in the coalition government are to keen to extend that to give a shot in the arm to small shops.

...

Fair enough if they want to encourage councils to have more free, short term waiting/pick up bays and if they want to encourage them to have, say, the first 30 minutes in a pay and display car park free but this is an utter load of horseshit.

My proposal would around these parts would be to issue tickets to all of the bastards who park like they're the only user of a road (or more often a pavement). Where do they think we are, parking like that? France?

 

we have a small village shop near me with single yellow lines out the front ... the fucktards park up on either side of the road whilst they pop in to get their fags ,paper or whatever ... they think there is nothing wrong with it

 

In reality though cars can get through they block the road so that the bus can't get through .. they are just lucky I'm not the local bus driver as they would be coming back to find their 4 x4 has a hint of bus colour about it

 

50 yards up the road are parking bays  .. not only would I enforce parking fines I'd make it compulsory that everyone has to walk or run a mile as part of their fine and stop being so sodding lazy

[snowychap]

I assume they get the costs back if the claim is successful?

According to this document, it will not be automatic but at the discretion of the judge.

On level 1 claims, which it says are those of typically lower value often dealing with things like unpaid wages, pay in lieu of notice, &c. after termination of employment, the issue fee is £160 and the hearing fee is £230 (a total of £390).

It would appear to me that this could well lead to people (especially those who may not qualify for the fee remissions) not pursuing unpaid wages if they are not much more than this sum and also, perhaps, to (some) employers not paying those sums on the basis that (ex)employees are unlikely to take the punt if they could end up losing out (for instance if the costs are not guaranteed to be reimbursed).

[drat01]

 

 

Surely the idea of the move is that it encourages employers and employees to sort things out before it gets as far as a tribunal, which can only be good for the employee in any case.  I know how much employment tribunals can cost a business.  Even when it's an open and shut case, where the correct process has been followed to the letter, if people want to go to a tribunal it can cost a business thousands.  This is an example like the insurance fraud that Tony mentions, of people without a legitimate claim spoiling it for everybody else.

But it doesn't Mart. Now you have lodge a claim to get the process started of a few hundred quid. For so many that is something they will not be able to afford, basically the rights of workers have been eroded further and the righer in society, which are typically the companies and those that own them are favoured - that can never be a fair system

 

 

I agree Ian, but I've come across lots of businesses where the costs to them are as unaffordable as they are to the employee.  Employment rights have always been massively stacked in favour of the worker in my opinion, when in reality, it's a simple contract.  A worker agrees to do a certain job, in return for a specified payment.  Even if a worker steals from their employer, if the correct disciplinary process isn't followed they can still take their employer to a tribunal.  It's very difficult to find a balance that's fair to both sides, but a tribunal should be so far down the tracks as a last resort that I think these payments are a good thing.  I assume they get the costs back if the claim is successful?

 

Mart I would disagree with the comment re massively stacked because they are not, IMO. There is a wider subject I suppose as to workers rights, but that is probably another thread.

 

There possibly does - like anything - need to be reviews on procedures to be taken. The idea on the surface that the Gvmt are implementing here though is that rights are subject to wealth, which is frankly wrong on so many counts. I keep hearing about the worker getting the monies back, but a few flaws in that argument. Firstly legal firms wont typically work with you unless there is a source of income, changes in many civil rights like legal aid, civil liberties etc have eroded a lot of ways to get legal assistance. I keep hearing about "blame culture" etc but surely if you go down this path then you are actually encouraging that. What will typically happen is that the "average Joe" in the street will be shit upon from a great height by certain bosses knowing that the people will neither have the ability (wealth) or the "bravery" to risk losing what little money they have in court - where typically the employers will have access to better funds etc

 

It's a crass way that this gvmt have gone about improving rights of workers and employers, based on fear and wealth - something that is very easy to point the finger at the Tory party for

[robojoel]

Absolutely disgusting. Its like these scumbags know that they only have a limited time and are moving as much in the way of assets into the hands of and law in favour of the rich elite. It is a barefaced and unashamed controlled demolition everything that is still positive in this country In the greedy interests of the rich elite. I for one hope they and their supporters rot in hell, unfortunately I fear the people whose lives will become a living hell as a result will be the poorest, sickest and most underprivileged. But of course the Tory scum don't give a **** about that as they are inevitably either ignorant or selfish, sometimes both.

the true voice of the labour party I see

what a disgusting thing to say .... so someone puts their X in the Box for the Tory party and suddenly they are up there with Harold Shipman and the catholic church on the evil list .... bonkers , absolutely bonkers

So where is any of that related to Labour? - "ahhh but Labour" ...... sigh, I forgot that is the only reply

it's quite clear which party he supports

so I take it from your lack of condemnation that you approve of his comment then

Incorrect, New labour are scum. I would never vote for them in their current right wing position, they are however slightly less contemptable than the current idiots in number ten.

I think if you were in the position of having to rely on the welfare state due to unfortunate circumstances beyond your control to enable you to have basic dignity or just survive you would find my comments slightly less 'bonkers'.

I do however apologise for the fact that you think I have compared you to the catholic church, that would have been reprehensible of me!

On the grand scale of things however I it is a certainty that the privatisation of the NHS alone will cause more deaths than Harold Shipman so no apologies for that one.

Edited July 29, 2013 by robojoel

[snowychap]

Though like everyone else I agree the buses are bloody stupid

The Grauniad reports

...on Monday the prime minister's spokesman said: "This pilot that is currently running is about targeting [illegal immigrants] and it is working."

[bickster]

1) The ad-vans are entirely about keeping the Daily Heil readers sweet

2) The employment tribunal fees are a disgrace, there has to be a better way to sort it out

3) Councils most definitely use parking / bus lane violation as a cash cow. Liverpool Council are even attempting to use it to force everyone to use Hackney cabs instead of Private Hire seemingly which can only backfire on them but it'll cause havoc in the meantime

[tonyh29]

1) The ad-vans are entirely about keeping the Daily Heil readers sweet

 

 

if that were true then why are the ahhh we are not allowed to name them party also spouting out about immigration and how they would get tough on it  ..... it's populists politics and nothing to do with what paper people read 

 

lazy posting   .....

[Eames]

To be fair  to everyone here, whatever colour you take your politics, driving around in a van asking illegal immigrants, most of whom can't read, to text the authorities about going home is perhaps the shittest idea I have ever heard. 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Step one: Get people to 'inform' the authorities on people they suspect of being illegal immigrants.

Step two: Open up processing centres so you can filter actual illegal immigrants and people who have been 'informed' on for a variety of nasty reasons.

Step three: Open up detention centres so you can hold illegal immigrants while the inevitable cycle of appeals carries on for an indefinite amount of time.

Step four: Ship home illegal immigrants and realise while you were doing so more arrived and you've spent a load of money and achieved nothing.

[tonyh29]

To be fair  to everyone here, whatever colour you take your politics, driving around in a van asking illegal immigrants, most of whom can't read, to text the authorities about going home is perhaps the shittest idea I have ever heard. 

 

 

 just cause they were brought up in Somalia or wherever doesn't mean they are illiterate 

 

I assume you mean can't read English