Bolitics The New Condem Government

[tonyh29]

Did everyone wake up and decide page 487 was going to be the pick on TonyH page

[tonyh29]

In here we discus politics and the "Ahhh but... " type posts are just dull tbh, they ruin the thread.Someone will post an argument based on the here and now or give a great opinion then the lazy amongst us will counter with an "Ah but when...". It makes you as bad as the flipping politicians, its all they do most of the time. That time has gone opinions change, counter an argument with one of your own. That is actually worthwhile readingAnd yes I know I'm partially guilty too, I think we collectively should make a concerted effort not to do it, all of us.We are actually better than that and we know it

   As for this thread ... well  tbh all it ever really seems to be is the "lefties" coming on here to post anything negative about the government  , personal attacks on Tories and their supporters ( the thread is full, of them ) and ignoring anything positive about the government ( of course there isn't anything positive  !! )   .. and so of course people like myself come on here to have fun at their expense  .....  sometimes it's a bit of light hearted fun / mischievousness  that for reasons unknown spiral out of control   ....  sometimes like with Murdoch it's a case of wondering why he was never evil prior till 2010   ...mainly it's just Prescott's fault tbh Politics is dull and I'm not always that interested in discussing it , least not every single policy and decision down to the finest detail ...I appreciate some of you are interested and go to Levi'esque lengths in your posts  , my attention span is closer to that of a goldfish however so keep them down to few lines for me please chaps   ... Sometimes a link on Google news will make me venture off to some obscure website like the Spectator   but most of the politics stuff is just a bit meh tbh

speaking as a smelly leftie, who just comes in here from time to time, because there's nothing much to do, but sit and rot in front of televisions, there's always the feint glimmer of hope that some self-made, go-getting, naturally superior, sense of self-entitlement and sod the rest Tory boy (or girl) will have contributed something, some pearl of wisdom, which shows just what a bally good job those shiny faced Eton johnnies are doing. You know, a good policy, or a well thought through idea based on evidence and intellect and research and a vision for the future that goes wider than grabbing for themselves whatever they can....Never seems to happen, though.

Tbf Pete I used to offer plenty of pearls of attempted wisdom , sometime I even used big words and references ...... And I never got an answer , just I guess what would have been the then equivilant of ahhh but the Tories , or some form of avoidance or called a little Englander if it was about Europe

Two wrongs and all that but that's the way it goes unfortunatly ,

I've criticised the govt frequently in this thread and other threads when policy has spilled over , I'm sure deep deep down you could find something the posh Eton boys have done right

Mark - the light hearted stuff is not about the policy , stuff like ATOS I find sickening , the light heartlessness is about the poster(s)... Drat and I have had more warnings for bickering in here than Prescott has Jags

[drat01]

Did everyone wake up and decide page 487 was going to be the pick on TonyH page

 

There was a Y in the day

[villaajax]

And we go back to Prescott

[Jon]

 

stuff like ATOS I find sickening , the light heartlessness is about the poster(s)...

I think the levels of heartlessness the Tories have been administering have been anything but light.

And we go back to Prescott

He once punched someone you know?

[Risso]

 

 

 

 

 god knows Tony, it's hard to work out what the **** you mean with some of your posts.

 

I'm working on a device called a Loc decoder. It's an advanced model from the Demglish range, although needs greater intricacy of design and spec, as Demgish is simply confused and random 'English' whereas loc-speak is often far more cryptic and tends to veer of at tangents.

 

 

I'm working on a similar device to translate what peterms thinks he's saying into what it actually means.  It's called the peterms liguistometer, or "PMSL" for short.

[drat01]

Ahem - zero hours contracts? anyone care to explain why they are good, why so many and the continued rise is a good thing?

[Jon]

Ahem - zero hours contracts? anyone care to explain why they are good, why so many and the continued rise is a good thing?

Well, they are clearly, in many cases, a very bad thing, as they give workers little rights. They are a great means to control/exploit the lower echolons of working society though, which may explain their rise.

 

Just an aside, but where is Red Ed? What the feck is he doing at the moment? Labour needs a leader. It needs a voice.

[OutByEaster?]

Ahem - zero hours contracts? anyone care to explain why they are good, why so many and the continued rise is a good thing?

 

Part of the increase has come about because of how difficult it has become in recent years to offer people casual work - a casual worker can gain the legal right to become an employee pretty quickly nowadays, and then you have a company with a problem - given that you'll have wanted casual workers in order to meet the fluctuation in your demand, it's unlikely you'll be able to support these workers as employees.

 

The Agency Workers Act helps to cut down another of your options, because it grants the same status to agency workers - they're already more expensive on an hour-to-hour basis, but now if you're not careful, you'll end up 'owning' them at the end of 13 weeks.

 

For someone like the VIlla, this means that if you take on a group of casual workers and some workers supplied by an agency at the beginning of the season, by christmas, you have to be careful that they aren't now officially employees. 

 

A business like a football club simply can't pay all of its kiosk staff a salary during the summer, it would be ridiculously expensive - but it's also become very difficult for them to take on workers on an ad hoc basis.

 

Zero hours contracts, where the worker gains all of the rights of an employee, including paid holiday, without the guarantee of any work is the only sensible option currently open to a business like this.

 

This isn't a group of full time jobs being downgraded - this is about the difficulty of having people work for you without them gaining employee status.

 

I'm sure there is misuse, but from my perspective, it's a shame to see something demonised for political gain.

[Jon]

 

Ahem - zero hours contracts? anyone care to explain why they are good, why so many and the continued rise is a good thing?

 

 

 

I'm sure there is misuse, but from my perspective, it's a shame to see something demonised for political gain.

 

It's a worrying trend, irrespective of political/party allegiance IMO. In the mountie's example above, how can say Maccy D's justify these contracts? Do people not shop at Mac D's on a very consistent basis? it's not really seasonal .... yes, it can and does work for some people, but not all. and when it becomes the normal employment contract, the worker becomes shafted, because someone else will accept the 0 hours contract, and you'll be jobless.

[peterms]

I thought as we were discussing zero hour contracts it was perfectly obvious my post was about the cost of ice cream :confused:

So you concede the point that Risso was making then at least that zero hour contracts haven't just come about and have been about for years , even if it isn't as many as 40 ...

This article headline made me chuckle , feel free to rip to shreds as required , obviously its author makers it slightly biased

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10225661/Zero-hours-contracts-why-do-Lefties-always-think-they-know-best.html

 

We've always had flexibility in the workplace.  We've always had ways of coping with variable demand for staff, via part-timers, seasonal staff, relief staff, overtime.  The rapid expansion of zero-hour contracts is not because suddenly employers are faced with unpredictability and have to be able to respond in ways they couldn't do before.  It's about avoiding sick pay, holiday pay, and driving down pay and conditions generally.  It increases the power of employers, turning what was once a contract for predictable hours at predictable pay into dependence on the whim of the employer.

 

Taking McDonalds as an example, we read that 90% of their staff are on these contracts.  Is the nature of their work so unpredictable?  Of course not.  They will know the patterns of customer demand for each hour of the day, and they will know the upper and lower limits of expected variation - it's a basic step in assessing any business process.  And if demand suddenly and unexpectedly changed in one location, then it would do so in a way which couldn't be dealt with by calling up zero hours staff, unless they were standing outside waiting for the call.  If the level of work falls away, then most employers have other things that need doing, rather than sending staff home unpaid.

 

Of course the government loves it because it disguises the extent of unemployment, by pushing people into a state of hidden underemployment, instead of visible unemployment.  It's so hard to know the extent of this that we have one arm of government telling us there are 250,000 people in the whole country on these contracts, while another arm admits there are 300,000 in healthcare alone.  But the whole thing can only work if there is what was famously termed a reserve army of the unemployed, because most of the people on these contracts don't want to turn up just as and when they get a call, they are mainly looking for steady work and predictable income, and if they could get that, they wouldn't be hanging round waiting for the McDonald's shift manager to offer them a couple of hours.

 

There's another Torygraph piece defending this, here.  Look at the photo used for illustration - a social care setting, with a carer playing board games with an older woman, suggesting some link with the world of zero-hours contracts.  I wonder if they have the faintest idea of the reality of social care, with contracts cut to the bone, staff dashing from one address to another, not being paid for travelling time, unable to spend even the minimum contracted time needed to bathe and feed people properly.  As for sitting around playing board games and having a chat, it's a starry-eyed notion of social care, not the shabby reality of rushed staff on minimum wages dashing around trying to do the basics in half the time it's supposed to take. 

 

What's happening is that employment is becoming more tenuous, security is being eroded, the workforce is being increasingly casualised, and more people are more dependent on uncertain and poorly-paid work with no security and subject to the whims of managers.  It's a dream, at least for some employers - the crap ones.

 

[villaajax]

 

And we go back to Prescott

 

He once punched someone you know?

 

 

Come on Jon, I'm sure somebody would have mentioned it by now if it was true.

[tonyh29]

 

 

There's another Torygraph piece defending this, here.  Look at the photo used for illustration - a social care setting, with a carer playing board games with an older woman, suggesting some link with the world of zero-hours contracts.  I wonder if they have the faintest idea of the reality of social care, with contracts cut to the bone, staff dashing from one address to another, not being paid for travelling time, unable to spend even the minimum contracted time needed to bathe and feed people properly.  As for sitting around playing board games and having a chat, it's a starry-eyed notion of social care, not the shabby reality of rushed staff on minimum wages dashing around trying to do the basics in half the time it's supposed to take. 

 

 

 

 

 

not wishing to belittle the point you are trying to make but my Nan is in a care home and has been for a number of years due to Alzheimer's ... as a frequent visitor I feel I can make a valid observation , though of course it's not an indictment of every care home in the country

 

The staff there do exactly as the picture depicts , the theory is it stimulates the brain I guess ... they have quite specific programmes for all the old folk in my nan's home ... sing alongs , quiz's , bingo that sort of thing

 

you've almost fallen into that old politician trap of " our hardworking nurses / teachers / soldiers etc"  that blandy and I discussed in this very thread once ... I don't doubt that some do work 700 hours a week and rush around like lunatics , but that isn't how the entire profession works

[snowychap]

not wishing to belittle the point you are trying to make but my Nan is in a care home and has been for a number of years due to Alzheimer's ... as a frequent visitor I feel I can make a valid observation , though of course it's not an indictment of every care home in the country

 

The staff there do exactly as the picture depicts , the theory is it stimulates the brain I guess ... they have quite specific programmes for all the old folk in my nan's home ... sing alongs , quiz's , bingo that sort of thing

 

you've almost fallen into that old politician trap of " our hardworking nurses / teachers / soldiers etc"  that blandy and I discussed in this very thread once ... I don't doubt that some do work 700 hours a week and rush around like lunatics , but that isn't how the entire profession works

My father receives home care services (four visits a day) from a private company who are one of the service providers to the local social services. His carers, whilst trying to do their best, do not have the time to do (much of) the above (i.e. what the picture depicts) as they are most of the time rushing from and to the next visit.

When he was in the care home for his month or so rehabilitation after coming out of the stroke unit, they did indeed do some of that when it was possible but I also wonder how much of that the carers are actually paid for.

I know it's anecdotal but my brother's partner is a carer and she often gives up her own time to go in/stay on at the BUPA care home where she works in order that the residents there can get these kinds of activities (she also gives up her own time to take them on outings, too). I find it appalling - not that people are willing to (and do) give up their time but that a profit making enterprise is reliant on the good nature of (some of) its employees in order to function well.

Edited August 7, 2013 by snowychap

[OutByEaster?]

 

 

We've always had flexibility in the workplace.  We've always had ways of coping with variable demand for staff, via part-timers, seasonal staff, relief staff, overtime.  The rapid expansion of zero-hour contracts is not because suddenly employers are faced with unpredictability and have to be able to respond in ways they couldn't do before.  It's about avoiding sick pay, holiday pay, and driving down pay and conditions generally.  It increases the power of employers, turning what was once a contract for predictable hours at predictable pay into dependence on the whim of the employer.

 

That flexibility for employers has been eroded - short term contracts suit some business's if part time work is available, if you're bringing in seasonal staff, then you'd best find a second set next season, if someone works two seasons, you own them, relief staff can come through an agency maybe, or casually for a very limited period of time.

 

I'd agree that the rapid expansion of zero-hour contracts isn't because employers are faced with new unpredictability that they need to respond to - it's a reaction to the changes in the traditional solutions to these unpredicabilities (casual work and agencies) - in recent years, these solutions have become almost completely unworkable due to changes in the way in which they are legislated.

 

It's not about avoiding sick pay or holiday pay or driving down conditions generally - for the most part employers are forced into improving these terms as part of being forced to make these workers employees - government has driven down unemployment through forcing employers to make workers into employees - and in doing so, also forced employers into paying a little extra for the welfare of those employees, taking that away from government.

 

Zero hours contract employees are employees - casual workers are workers - if you're an employee you have access to the same rights as any employee, more often that not, this means the same rights and terms as salaried, full time employees - the only difference is that there isn't a guarantee of work.

 

 

 

It increases the power of employers, turning what was once a contract for predictable hours at predictable pay into dependence on the whim of the employer.

 

This for me is the misunderstanding that most irks me on the subject - it is turning what used to be an informal arrangement where work was carried out on an ad-hoc basis into a formalised employment at the expense of the employer. 

 

The vast majority of zero hour contracts are not about people dropping down from full time permanent salaried "normal" full time jobs into zero hours - they're about people stepping up from casual working arrangements that have become unmanageable.

[tonyh29]

 

not wishing to belittle the point you are trying to make but my Nan is in a care home and has been for a number of years due to Alzheimer's ... as a frequent visitor I feel I can make a valid observation , though of course it's not an indictment of every care home in the country

 

The staff there do exactly as the picture depicts , the theory is it stimulates the brain I guess ... they have quite specific programmes for all the old folk in my nan's home ... sing alongs , quiz's , bingo that sort of thing

 

you've almost fallen into that old politician trap of " our hardworking nurses / teachers / soldiers etc"  that blandy and I discussed in this very thread once ... I don't doubt that some do work 700 hours a week and rush around like lunatics , but that isn't how the entire profession works

My father receives home care services (four visits a day) from a private company who are one of the service providers to the local social services. His carers, whilst trying to do their best, do not have the time to do (much of) the above (i.e. what the picture depicts) as they are most of the time rushing from and to the next visit.

When he was in the care home for his month or so rehabilitation after coming out of the stroke unit, they did indeed do some of that when it was possible but I also wonder how much of that the carers are actually paid for.

I know it's anecdotal but my brother's partner is a carer and she often gives up her own time to go in/stay on at the BUPA care home where she works in order that the residents there can get these kinds of activities (she also gives up her own time to take them on outings, too). I find it appalling - not that people are willing to (and do) give up their time but that a profit making enterprise is reliant on the good nature of (some of) its employees in order to function well.

 

 

isn't that the case everywhere though ?  does anyone in the country only work the 37.5 (or whatever)  dead that is required of them and not a second more ?

 

I agree that people that working as carers do seem to give up more of their time than most  and don't get paid enough for the work that they do though

[peterms]

not wishing to belittle the point you are trying to make but my Nan is in a care home and has been for a number of years due to Alzheimer's ... as a frequent visitor I feel I can make a valid observation , though of course it's not an indictment of every care home in the country

 

The staff there do exactly as the picture depicts , the theory is it stimulates the brain I guess ... they have quite specific programmes for all the old folk in my nan's home ... sing alongs , quiz's , bingo that sort of thing

 

you've almost fallen into that old politician trap of " our hardworking nurses / teachers / soldiers etc"  that blandy and I discussed in this very thread once ... I don't doubt that some do work 700 hours a week and rush around like lunatics , but that isn't how the entire profession works

Care homes have a known number of residents, whose needs are assessed and periodically reviewed, and written down in a care plan which sets out exactly what support they need for which activities and at what frequency.  There are set activities which usually take place at known times, like meals, or the examples you give.  There are staffing levels laid down by the regulatory authority, which must be complied with.  More staff will be needed at certain times of day.

 

There will be occasional emergencies, which will be dealt with by diverting staff from planned and non-emergency activities, or through on-call staff at night.  From time to time residents will die, and new residents move in.

 

Where is the unpredictability which might call for staff on zero hours contracts?  There's a need for relief staff to cover sickness and holidays, and part-time staff to cope with busy periods, and there might be occasional very staff-intensive activities like day trips and holidays, where again relief staff will be needed.  But the prevalence of zero hours contracts seems to extend way beyond the genuinely variable and unpredictable parts of the work, in many settings.  In care at home (rather than care homes), it is specifically being used to push down pay and conditions in order to win tenders at the lowest cost.

 

[tonyh29]

 

Ahem - zero hours contracts? anyone care to explain why they are good, why so many and the continued rise is a good thing?

 

Just an aside, but where is Red Ed? What the feck is he doing at the moment? Labour needs a leader. It needs a voice.

 

 

 

I suspect hiding with embarrassment

 

 

 

Doncaster Council tops the league for zero hours contracts ....with 2,759 staff on zero hours contracts

 

 

Edited August 7, 2013 by tonyh29

[snowychap]

isn't that the case everywhere though ?  does anyone in the country only work the 37.5 (or whatever)  dead that is required of them and not a second more ?

I didn't mean the odd bit of unpaid overtime or the sensible flexibility that may have someone doing a bit more one day/week and being forgiven for coming in ten minutes late when the bus is late but rather regular unpaid 'shifts' of work (or regularly being expected to work an 8 hour day but only being paid for a 7.5 hour day).

[peterms]

 

It increases the power of employers, turning what was once a contract for predictable hours at predictable pay into dependence on the whim of the employer.

 

This for me is the misunderstanding that most irks me on the subject - it is turning what used to be an informal arrangement where work was carried out on an ad-hoc basis into a formalised employment at the expense of the employer. 

 

The vast majority of zero hour contracts are not about people dropping down from full time permanent salaried "normal" full time jobs into zero hours - they're about people stepping up from casual working arrangements that have become unmanageable.

 

I don't think anyone has a problem with contractual arrangements accurately reflecting the kind of work someone is actually doing, or recognising that some jobs are seasonal or with a very variable workload, and that employers need to be able to respond to that.

 

The problem is twofold.  First, there's the fact that employers are increasingly using these provisions where there isn't actually the variable work which these contracts are supposedly a response to.  (Similarly, the thing about staff "becoming" employees after a certain time came about because some employers were using different forms of contract to pretend staff weren't actually their employees, even when they worked there all year round; the purpose was to evade some parts of the law).

 

Second, moving away from individual employers to the wider impact, for me there's a problem about the emergence and maintenance of a large group of people with poor pay and conditions and fewer rights, with the state subsidising the employers through having to pay benefits to these people, and with the extent of the issue not even being recognised because they are partly hidden.  I think we should be aiming for higher levels of employment, not covering up a growing problem by subterfuge.  That's where it comes back to government policy.  That's not to say that every single employee on a zero hours contract is being exploited - but many are.  Maintaining high levels of unemployment in order to pressure people into taking crap jobs at low pay with few rights is now government policy, combined with benefit sanctions if they don't take them.