The Student Room Group

Andrea Leadsom Tried To Abolish All Worker’s Rights For Small Companies In 2012

The woman who could be our next Prime Minister wanted to help business owners exploit their employees. It's not enough that the minimum wage isn't enough for anyone to live on and that so many companies opt to pay unskilled workers and graduates as little as they possibly can. No, let's introduce borderline slavery!
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_577b6c78e4b0f7b55795bc7b?edition=uk
(edited 7 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

For small companies with 3 employees or less this is a great idea and it can mean the difference between success and failure. If workers are happy to work for what is advertised or/and then written in their contract that they they CHOOSE to sign, then what is the problem?

A private small business should be able to choose whoever they want to work for them and shouldn't have to make allowances for anybody because they are a different race or gender. Equal rights are stupid.. best man / woman for the job.. simple as that!
The third issue on which I urge the Government to go further is regulation and red tape for businesses. The absolute, top priority, as Her Majesty said, is to get our economy going again, and nowhere more so than in the very small business sector. We must give young people and others who cannot find a job a direct and clear incentive to create one for themselves by starting a business. I urge the Government to look carefully at scrapping the entire burden of regulation on micro-businesses with, say, three employees or fewer. I envisage there being absolutely no regulation whatsoever—no minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights, no unfair dismissal rights, no pension rights—for the smallest companies that are trying to get off the ground, in order to give them a chance. That would all change, however, as soon as the number of employees increased.We could also get Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to provide a simple one-page online form for micro-businesses such as market stall traders, domestic cleaners, gardeners and carpenters. Such businesses, although they may employ people, are often outside the real economy, and when the owners retire or move to another area, they lose that entire asset and have nothing to on-sell. If we could wipe out such regulation for the very smallest businesses, set a flat-rate personal allowance and 20% flat-rate tax, including capital gains—with a turnover restriction, of course—that would get our economy going again and provide a direct incentive for those who are looking for work, particularly young people, to do something for themselves.
Reply 3
Original post by WBZ144
The woman who could be our next Prime Minister wanted to help businesses owners exploit their employees. It's not enough that the minimum wage isn't enough for anyone to live on and that so many companies opt to pay unskilled workers and graduates as little as they possibly can. No, let's introduce borderline slavery!
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_577b6c78e4b0f7b55795bc7b?edition=uk


Workers have contractual rights agreed with their employer, so let's not misrepresent this. It's also notable that many of the people in these small start-ups are self-employed (not even to get into the position of contractors) and don't have these rights.

Perhaps the state should take some of the risk in these circumstances. It's not like we don't subsidise business anyway.
Yeah this isn't as bad as it sounds. As Lib says - if you are a one-person small business you don't have any of those rights so it is tough if you take on a second person to then have to guarantee them especially while you are getting going.

One thing Andrea Leadsom is doing in that speech, is being absolutely explicit in what she means and why. She's not just going on to the usual rambling speech about "red tape strangling our businesses" to get cheers, she's being explicit on her policy suggestions even though some people will regard them controversial.

I think that's a good quality and would be a good quality in a leader, if she stood up and said, "how about we do X, Y and Z, this would help achieve this objective" then everyone could have a good debate and not have one distorted in political sleight of hand.

To be honest I have got fed up of Cameron and Osborne, they just stand up in the Commons thinking its a joke, point scoring against Labour and throwing out various carefully picked stats to make it sound like everything is rosy in the garden of Britain, which as the shock referendum result showed, is far from the truth.
What you people have said is beside the point: do you know how many doors this would open for exploitation? Some people are desperate, so they will "agree" to jobs that give them the short end of the stick. As for those "self-employed" roles within businesses, I have been unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of one of those - tricked into one, in fact, when I was a naive Fresher looking to earn money and gain work experience. Enough businesses find ways to exploit workers to save money already, why give them more options?

And this nonsense about how businesses "have to make allowances" for a certain gender and ethnic minorities - on what do you base your assumptions? There is absolutely no law which requires businesses to do this, and positive discrimination is illegal in the UK. On the other hand certain businesses may choose to do this to improve their international image.
Original post by WBZ144
and positive discrimination is illegal in the UK.


Surely not exactly since we have jobs advertised based on gender/ethnicity?

Cant find the BBC's job page with them now but a couple of months ago there were about 20 apprenticeship type roles which you could only apply for if you were an ethnic minority.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36443113
Original post by MagicNMedicine
Yeah this isn't as bad as it sounds. As Lib says - if you are a one-person small business you don't have any of those rights so it is tough if you take on a second person to then have to guarantee them especially while you are getting going.

One thing Andrea Leadsom is doing in that speech, is being absolutely explicit in what she means and why. She's not just going on to the usual rambling speech about "red tape strangling our businesses" to get cheers, she's being explicit on her policy suggestions even though some people will regard them controversial.

I think that's a good quality and would be a good quality in a leader, if she stood up and said, "how about we do X, Y and Z, this would help achieve this objective" then everyone could have a good debate and not have one distorted in political sleight of hand.

To be honest I have got fed up of Cameron and Osborne, they just stand up in the Commons thinking its a joke, point scoring against Labour and throwing out various carefully picked stats to make it sound like everything is rosy in the garden of Britain, which as the shock referendum result showed, is far from the truth.


It would be nice to have a change from wolves in sheep's clothing to just straight wolves.
Original post by L i b
Workers have contractual rights agreed with their employer, so let's not misrepresent this. It's also notable that many of the people in these small start-ups are self-employed (not even to get into the position of contractors) and don't have these rights.

Perhaps the state should take some of the risk in these circumstances. It's not like we don't subsidise business anyway.


Yes, although she wasn't talking about self-employed people, or the original founders of the company, but employees specifically - I think this was aimed at Tory-voting small business people who have a few low waged employees helping them out.

It's true that rigidities in the labour market at that level inhibit employers from hiring, which is why small businesses are excluded from a lot of regulation anyway, she just wanted to take that a step further and exclude them from things like meeting redundancy obligations.

Very large numbers of people work in businesses like that, so it's a harsh neoliberal measure.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Yes, although she wasn't talking about self-employed people, or the original founders of the company, but employees specifically - I think this was aimed at Tory-voting small business people who have a few low waged employees helping them out.

It's true that rigidities in the labour market at that level inhibit employers from hiring, which is why small businesses are excluded from a lot of regulation anyway, she just wanted to take that a step further and exclude them from things like meeting redundancy obligations.

Very large numbers of people work in businesses like that, so it's a harsh neoliberal measure.


When redundancy and maternity rights were first given, the costs of them for micro-businesses was born by the public purse.
Reply 10
Original post by nulli tertius
When redundancy and maternity rights were first given, the costs of them for micro-businesses was born by the public purse.


When did that change?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Rather Andrea than Theresa May as PM.
Original post by nulli tertius
When redundancy and maternity rights were first given, the costs of them for micro-businesses was born by the public purse.


I thought maternity pay was still largely taxpayer-funded for all businesses?

EDIT: There's a link here about it.
https://www.gov.uk/recover-statutory-payments

Small businesses actually get over-reimbursed slightly for it.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Aj12
When did that change?

Posted from TSR Mobile


It hasn't changed for maternity pay.

For redundancy, employees whose redundancy payments are not met by the small business can apply to the government for reimbursement under the NI scheme.

Andrea Leadsom was proposing destroying all of these things and even the national minimum wage in small businesses, who represent the biggest share of minimum wage workers.

She's a Chile-style extremist neoliberal singing from the same hymn sheet as Gove but with a vicious streak.
Reply 14
Original post by Fullofsurprises
It hasn't changed for maternity pay.

For redundancy, employees whose redundancy payments are not met by the small business can apply to the government for reimbursement under the NI scheme.

Andrea Leadsom was proposing destroying all of these things and even the national minimum wage in small businesses, who represent the biggest share of minimum wage workers.

She's a Chile-style extremist neoliberal singing from the same hymn sheet as Gove but with a vicious streak.


I don't really see it as extreme as that. Realistically how many companies are there with three or less employees, and more to the point, how long do these companies stay that way? Given how many business's fail in their first three years should we not be taking every step possible to nurture their growth?
Original post by Aj12
I don't really see it as extreme as that. Realistically how many companies are there with three or less employees, and more to the point, how long do these companies stay that way? Given how many business's fail in their first three years should we not be taking every step possible to nurture their growth?


Many don't grow - they are things like small shops and also lots and lots of 'firms' doing things like gardening, construction, petcare, etc, etc. Letting them off minimum wage takes a great many workers out of NMW, when the whole point is to get them in it.

Also, as I've indicated, some of the key payments are made for them by the government, so what she's really up to here is a further austerity step.
Original post by Iknowbest
The third issue on which I urge the Government to go further is regulation and red tape for businesses. The absolute, top priority, as Her Majesty said, is to get our economy going again, and nowhere more so than in the very small business sector. We must give young people and others who cannot find a job a direct and clear incentive to create one for themselves by starting a business.


Whilst it is true that reducing red tape can help stimulate SME's (small and medium-sized enterprises) and would definitely help to drive the economy, I believe such a system would need a better safety net for workers and employers to work well. I think there are other barriers that limit business start-ups, and factors that will put people off accepting such changes.

I think that a reduction in red tape for SME's would work much better if we have some form of a universal income or negative income tax. Less red tape has the potential to increase job insecurity as employees can be more easily removed, and so a better safety net is need which I believe the universal income provides. Then for people wishing to start up a business, having a guaranteed universal income to fall back on, provides a safety net which makes risk-taking more feasible.
I think she could make a great PM. She has experience in finance and supported Brexit so would be the person who is most motivated to negotiate the best deal for Britain outside the EU.
To be fair I think she's right

If we strangle small companies at birth with red tape and bureaucracy how will we have companies start to succeeded.

It's while they are in their infancy that these start up need to be protected

As for the OP's complaint if they don't want to do the Job we have people who will
If a business cannot survive without exploiting workers the business model itself if bunk.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending