Would a government want unemployment to be kept high? Watch

pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#21
Report 5 years ago
#21
(Original post by roh)
I have sat in meetings as lawyers discussed doing exactly the above and had a PowerPoint to help demonstrate it, it is not hyperbole.
Okay, provide one actual case where that happened. Funny how employment tribunals aren't a thing of the past, if it was as easy as you say it is. Mighty McDonalds has in the past lost tribunals against teenagers (off the top of my head there was some girl that was fired for giving a friend too much chocolate on a McFlurry, McDonalds lost a wrongful dismissal suit). No, clearly hyperbole.
0
reply
roh
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#22
Report 5 years ago
#22
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Okay, provide one actual case where that happened. Funny how employment tribunals aren't a thing of the past, if it was as easy as you say it is. Mighty McDonalds has in the past lost tribunals against teenagers (off the top of my head there was some girl that was fired for giving a friend too much chocolate on a McFlurry, McDonalds lost a wrongful dismissal suit). No, clearly hyperbole.
Now, you're testing my memory, I think there was a case involving Unilever before the CoA in 2008, but afraid I can't remember the litigant's name it's 2 years since I did employment and this was a fairly minor detail in the case.

Yes, because this is simply a threat, if the employee then goes and gets independent legal advice they will receive the exact same warning, you risk being responsible for their costs, but spun so as to sound like it's unlikely to happen due to how strong their case is (as that lawyer wants them to take it forward). The firm aren't doing anything wrong by giving this warning (though the SRA may be unimpressed by the manner in which it was delivered were they in the room at the time), they will get it anyway if they find their own solicitor or go to the CAB, so it's hardly a detail that's going to turn up in reported cases. In that Unliever case I think the judge gave the firm a mild telling off because it seemed they had been overzealous, but it wasn't the point of law so it wasn't elaborated on.
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#23
Report 5 years ago
#23
(Original post by roh)
Now, you're testing my memory, I think there was a case involving Unilever before the CoA in 2008, but afraid I can't remember the litigant's name it's 2 years since I did employment and this was a fairly minor detail in the case.

Yes, because this is simply a threat, if the employee then goes and gets independent legal advice they will receive the exact same warning, you risk being responsible for their costs, but spun so as to sound like it's unlikely to happen due to how strong their case is (as that lawyer wants them to take it forward). The firm aren't doing anything wrong by giving this warning (though the SRA may be unimpressed by the manner in which it was delivered were they in the room at the time), they will get it anyway if they find their own solicitor or go to the CAB, so it's hardly a detail that's going to turn up in reported cases. In that Unliever case I think the judge gave the firm a mild telling off because it seemed they had been overzealous, but it wasn't the point of law so it wasn't elaborated on.
So in other words, your claim that with a good enough lawyer you can get away with anything by simply threatening millions of pounds in costs (wtf millions?) was indeed hyperbole?
0
reply
slickrick666999
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 5 years ago
#24
Yes, so they can justify more cultural Marxist immigration.
0
reply
natninja
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 5 years ago
#25
(Original post by ozzyoscy)
This is probably an accidentally damning verdict of the schemes and ideas from the past years to 'help unemployment' or cut down JSA claimants, but could there be a viable reason for keeping unemployment high that Joe Public could never realise? Or is it really just governments thinking throwing money at contractors to not look for jobs for claimants or mandatory unpaid placements in retail could somehow help rather than damage?

I can see this just sounds like a veiled attack, but I'm legitimately asking because I see this and think there must be a political reason and that they're pretending to try and help, but wanting figures stay high (or even make them higher).
Conspiracy theories:

To make people more dependent on a state that would provide benefits for them and thus stay in power. (Just about verging on feasible)

The govt. is secretly communist and wants the poor unemployed to revolt (I don't see how some people buy this... well just the uni socialist society)

To encourage people to work more effectively for fear of losing their jobs as there are lots more people willing and capable of doing them (semi-feasible but much stronger arguments for this not to be the case)
0
reply
roh
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#26
Report 5 years ago
#26
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
So in other words, your claim that with a good enough lawyer you can get away with anything by simply threatening millions of pounds in costs (wtf millions?) was indeed hyperbole?
No, I said a good enough legal team can help you get away with pretty much anything, it does that by using things such as threats but also being so good that it very rarely loses and other firms are unwilling to challenge it in court.

Millions are pretty easy to rack up through appeals. Say you have a team of a partner, 2 associates and a trainee on a case. The partner costs 400/hour, associates 250 each and the trainee around 150. These are around the average hourly rates for City lawyers, the partner slightly more than normal because this is an unusually good team. You are thus paying over a grand an hour that they spend on the case, if you choose to pursue this to the Supreme Court they will spend weeks and weeks upon it, plus later on you'll probably have to pay for a brief (maybe 200/hour for a junior, up to a grand for a top QC) and, should it go SC, probably two briefs, one junior and one silk.

I remember there was a TV programme on a few years back about a woman taking the Minsitry for Transport all the way to the House of Lords (before it became the SC) for Judicial Review about a decision to move her out of her house to make way for some kind of road. She was only using a local solicitors, admittedly with a top flight QC brought in for the CoA and HoL cases, and her costs came to 1.2 million.

'Justice, like the Ritz hotel, is open to all'.
1
reply
SnoochToTheBooch
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#27
Report 5 years ago
#27
won't the government just get un-elected if they have low unemployment for too long?
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#28
Report 5 years ago
#28
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
So in other words, your claim that with a good enough lawyer you can get away with anything by simply threatening millions of pounds in costs (wtf millions?) was indeed hyperbole?
Millions may be a bit extreme. Not unheard of though - I'd expect.

However the threat of costs is routinely wheeled out in a bid to deter employees from taking action. Costs are not the norm in EAT hearings and they rarely hit the EAT maximum. Despite this, you will almost always see employers mentioning the staggeringly high costs they will seek should the claimant continue his claim.
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#29
Report 5 years ago
#29
(Original post by roh)
No, I said a good enough legal team can help you get away with pretty much anything, it does that by using things such as threats but also being so good that it very rarely loses and other firms are unwilling to challenge it in court.

Millions are pretty easy to rack up through appeals. Say you have a team of a partner, 2 associates and a trainee on a case. The partner costs 400/hour, associates 250 each and the trainee around 150. These are around the average hourly rates for City lawyers, the partner slightly more than normal because this is an unusually good team. You are thus paying over a grand an hour that they spend on the case, if you choose to pursue this to the Supreme Court they will spend weeks and weeks upon it, plus later on you'll probably have to pay for a brief (maybe 200/hour for a junior, up to a grand for a top QC) and, should it go SC, probably two briefs, one junior and one silk.

I remember there was a TV programme on a few years back about a woman taking the Minsitry for Transport all the way to the House of Lords (before it became the SC) for Judicial Review about a decision to move her out of her house to make way for some kind of road. She was only using a local solicitors, admittedly with a top flight QC brought in for the CoA and HoL cases, and her costs came to 1.2 million.

'Justice, like the Ritz hotel, is open to all'.
Except I was talking about employment tribunals, and in an actual case where an employer has blatantly broken the law in a scenario like I suggested they'd obviously lose. So far all you've proven is that having a good lawyer means you can act like a bullying ****, not that you can magically force a judge to allow you to get away with breaking the law. That's not even mentioning the fact that presumably the government would be on the employees side, since employers firing people just to replace them with jobseekers would make a mockery of the work placement programme.
0
reply
roh
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#30
Report 5 years ago
#30
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Except I was talking about employment tribunals, and in an actual case where an employer has blatantly broken the law in a scenario like I suggested they'd obviously lose. So far all you've proven is that having a good lawyer means you can act like a bullying ****, not that you can magically force a judge to allow you to get away with breaking the law. That's not even mentioning the fact that presumably the government would be on the employees side, since employers firing people just to replace them with jobseekers would make a mockery of the work placement programme.
But if you've sacked someone for earning more you are unlikely to have said as much, unless you're a bit dim. Prior to sacking them they will have spoken to their lawyers and the lawyers will have advised them of some other way to go about it which makes it appear as a more legitimate reason to be sacking the employee. It doesn't need to be six of one half a dozen of the other for a good lawyer to win, they can manage on 2 of one 10 of the other and cases are highly unlikely to come to court which are so cut and dried, particularly where the company has been taking legal advice throughout.

It's the same as with Family law, where the advice you receive prior to initiating a divorce during which you are carefully advised not to do certain things during the process of starting said divorce is as, if not more, important than that which you receive afterwards.
0
reply
ozzyoscy
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#31
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#31
(Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
won't the government just get un-elected if they have low unemployment for too long?
Why's that?

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Except there's no election going on and the figures are from an impartial organisation.
I don't know the ins and outs of how work placements work, but in theory it's illegal to fire someone simply to hire a cheaper replacement. Again, the fact that private sector employment is up (especially in low paid jobs where the bulk of work placements are) and the economy is growing would suggest that heaven forbid the government might have done their homework and prevented companies from simply laying off their workforce and getting jobseekers in as free replacements. Everything you say has been suggested here on TSR by doomsayers in the past yet no one has produced any evidence to support the theory and it remains nothing more than conjecture.
I have seen plenty of personal experiences. I could try going on a massive Google hunt to find them but I can't be arsed. People have certainly had their hours cut or worse to make way for the freebies.

It's illegal to sack people for no reason, or unfair reason, in certain circumstances. It's all about proof and loopholes. If you hate black people and you've just been installed as manager of a Poundland shop, and you have a black employee, you can't sack him for being black.

You can, however, let him go as 'the role isn't for him' and reel off a list of miniscule grievances of things he's done incorrectly. Missed a bit of facing up on Monday, came back from break 3 minutes late on Tuesday, didn't ask customers if they wanted a bag on Wednesday on the till, didn't sweep the floor after closing on Thursday even though I never told him to, was seen standing around talking to a colleague on Friday for a minute.

You could make some of it up if you want. What's he gonna do, require proof?

Adding to that, many businesses like Poundland use the probation loophole and put all staff on permanent probation. It's actually their policy.

So that's that problem dealt with, the black guy is gone because he wasn't up to standard and was on probation. Since 2012, but probation nonetheless!

Have you been unemployed and applied for jobs? If you have, the following will be familiar:

"[You were unsuccessful because] other candidates had more relevant skills and experience"

This is said, word-for-word (almost as if they've been told exactly what to say and are copying and pasting it in all emails), to anyone asking for feedback on their rejection. This includes entry-level jobs where no experience is required or preferred, and training can and will be given, to an applicant with 5 years' experience in the role.

In theory, you could sue them, but in reality who's going to bother and where's the proof that discrimination is afoot?
1
reply
freedomtocreate
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#32
Report 5 years ago
#32
(Original post by ozzyoscy)
Why's that?



I have seen plenty of personal experiences. I could try going on a massive Google hunt to find them but I can't be arsed. People have certainly had their hours cut or worse to make way for the freebies.

It's illegal to sack people for no reason, or unfair reason, in certain circumstances. It's all about proof and loopholes. If you hate black people and you've just been installed as manager of a Poundland shop, and you have a black employee, you can't sack him for being black.

You can, however, let him go as 'the role isn't for him' and reel off a list of miniscule grievances of things he's done incorrectly. Missed a bit of facing up on Monday, came back from break 3 minutes late on Tuesday, didn't ask customers if they wanted a bag on Wednesday on the till, didn't sweep the floor after closing on Thursday even though I never told him to, was seen standing around talking to a colleague on Friday for a minute.

You could make some of it up if you want. What's he gonna do, require proof?

Adding to that, many businesses like Poundland use the probation loophole and put all staff on permanent probation. It's actually their policy.

So that's that problem dealt with, the black guy is gone because he wasn't up to standard and was on probation. Since 2012, but probation nonetheless!

Have you been unemployed and applied for jobs? If you have, the following will be familiar:

"[You were unsuccessful because] other candidates had more relevant skills and experience"

This is said, word-for-word (almost as if they've been told exactly what to say and are copying and pasting it in all emails), to anyone asking for feedback on their rejection. This includes entry-level jobs where no experience is required or preferred, and training can and will be given, to an applicant with 5 years' experience in the role.

In theory, you could sue them, but in reality who's going to bother and where's the proof that discrimination is afoot?
I applied for Tesco's, because I wanted a summer job. I got told by the manager because I was 18 I was too young. I was like wtf, I am able to do full time jobs now, I can do everything specified for the job. I felt it was discrimination against my age.
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#33
Report 5 years ago
#33
(Original post by ozzyoscy)
I have seen plenty of personal experiences. I could try going on a massive Google hunt to find them but I can't be arsed. People have certainly had their hours cut or worse to make way for the freebies.
How convenient. And of course it was definitely that reason, not simply a coincidence or correlation? Obviously a disgruntled lower level employee knows all the inner workings of a business? Isn't exaggerating at all to make a political point?
0
reply
ozzyoscy
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#34
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#34
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
How convenient. And of course it was definitely that reason, not simply a coincidence or correlation? Obviously a disgruntled lower level employee knows all the inner workings of a business? Isn't exaggerating at all to make a political point?
A coincidence or correlation? A lower level employee not knowing 'all the inner workings of a business'*? Disgruntled? Exaggerating to make a political point?

How convenient.

*this is gibberish

What you choose to believe is completely irrelevant, but thanks for the info. I'll file it on record in case any future positions become open.

(Original post by freedomtocreate)
I applied for Tesco's, because I wanted a summer job. I got told by the manager because I was 18 I was too young. I was like wtf, I am able to do full time jobs now, I can do everything specified for the job. I felt it was discrimination against my age.
That's what it was if he was stupid enough to say that was the reason, unless there's a legal reason (but 18 is the minimum required, and the likes of Co-op have five-foot 15 year olds in suits walking around as duty managers anyway). You actually have a case if you want to punish him legally for it, or at least make a complaint. More of a case than others, anyway.
0
reply
Llamageddon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#35
Report 5 years ago
#35
No. Whether or not the government is prepared to do what it would take to keep unemployment low is another matter.
0
reply
Futility
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#36
Report 5 years ago
#36
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Unemployment was 8.1% at the 2010 General Election. It's now 7.8%. (Your graph stops at 2012, it's now mid 2013).
Again, according to the office for national statistics, the unemployment rate has continued to rise into 2013.
0
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#37
Report 5 years ago
#37
(Original post by Clip)
Gordon Brown was blatantly trying to create a client state. Whether or not that includes the unemployed is debatable - but he certainly wanted to engineer millions of Labour-dependent voters.
Well unemployment was nowhere near as high under his era as it was when Thatcher was in power so perhaps she was trying to engineer a state full of Labour-dependent voters?
0
reply
Ripper-Roo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#38
Report 5 years ago
#38
Generally speaking, no as they want to be popular and it means paying more money out in benefits.

But it wouldn't surprise me if the fact that they need to pay benefits will make them want unemployment so they can build reliant voters and then justify higher taxes.
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#39
Report 5 years ago
#39
(Original post by ozzyoscy)
What you choose to believe is completely irrelevant, but thanks for the info. I'll file it on record in case any future positions become open.
What an absolute **** you are being. Heaven forbid I dare probe your convenient anecdote right?
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#40
Report 5 years ago
#40
(Original post by Futility)
Again, according to the office for national statistics, the unemployment rate has continued to rise into 2013.
I like how you keep using out of date information. Almost as if you have a confirmation bias. It's not February, it's July, and the latest data, from March to May, shows the unemployment rate at 7.8%. The unemployment rate at the last General Election was 8.1%. So once again, I was correct when I said unemployment has fallen under the coalition.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1045)
79.05%
Leave (277)
20.95%

Watched Threads

View All