Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    Companies are not stupid, they will often withdraw workforces if it is to warm, and most have extensive health and safety policies. Companies are not stupid, even if their only motivation is profit, then they already would have taken steps to reduce the temperature, because it improves profitability and lowers the chance of the company from getting sued. Also the Health and safety executive already enforces something like this.The question is however is whether it can be used otherwise, you could potentially stay at home whenever you want if the temperature is above freezing due to the ambiguity of which unit is being used.No if more energy is being used, then cheap reliable (fossil) fuel will be used as it. Therefore reducing the renewable energy %. Also there is a contradiction in your posts. In your first post you imply that companies are selfish and are motivated by money. Yet you assume that Energy companies (under investigation for monopolising the market) will be altruistic by investigating in expensive renewable energy instead of cheap easy energy.Why would I hold a grudge? It wouldn't have effected the outcome, I was disappointed because you were so short-sighted in fielding yourself. I most certainly do not vote no on everything you put forwards. I make my mind up on the content. I have voted for many bits of UKIP legislation in this parliament. Yet again baseless and potentially libellous if we were real MPs.May I enquire why you inserted the word 'all' I assume that you are referring to the Conservative party here. In which case, I doubt that would be forgotten soon.Are you also threatening to get your MPs to vote automatically no to all Conservative and Opposition legislation? Remember which party is the boss in our relationship.Nope, not any more.
    I'll add your points into a second reading.
    • Offline

      18
      (Original post by Cryptographic)
      Companies are not stupid, they will often withdraw workforces if it is to warm, and most have extensive health and safety policies. Companies are not stupid, even if their only motivation is profit, then they already would have taken steps to reduce the temperature, because it improves profitability and lowers the chance of the company from getting sued. Also the Health and safety executive already enforces something like this.


      The question is however is whether it can be used otherwise, you could potentially stay at home whenever you want if the temperature is above freezing due to the ambiguity of which unit is being used.


      No if more energy is being used, then cheap reliable (fossil) fuel will be used as it. Therefore reducing the renewable energy %. Also there is a contradiction in your posts. In your first post you imply that companies are selfish and are motivated by money. Yet you assume that Energy companies (under investigation for monopolising the market) will be altruistic by investigating in expensive renewable energy instead of cheap easy energy.



      Why would I hold a grudge? It wouldn't have effected the outcome, I was disappointed because you were so short-sighted in fielding yourself. I most certainly do not vote no on everything you put forwards. I make my mind up on the content. I have voted for many bits of UKIP legislation in this parliament. Yet again baseless and potentially libellous if we were real MPs.

      May I enquire why you inserted the word 'all' I assume that you are referring to the Conservative party here. In which case, I doubt that would be forgotten soon.

      Are you also threatening to get your MPs to vote automatically no to all Conservative and Opposition legislation? Remember which party is the boss in our relationship.



      Nope, not any more.
      I feel like i should weigh in here.

      Crypto i do hope you accept my apology on behalf of Ruitker. He is very jumped up and should not have said anything!

      He has no authority over who is an MP and who isn't.

      Do not take his words as what we as UKIP think. We certainly don't have such a system in place to vote no against any particular policy just because of the party it is from.

      We vote on what we collectively think.

      (Original post by Ruitker)
      QFA
      Watch what you are saying. When you are posting here you are speaking on behalf of us, do not disappoint us again!
      • Wiki Support Team
      • Welcome Squad
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      Nothing annoys me more than when us Brits moan about it being too hot. It's never too hot in the UK. Never. Not once. It barely even exceeds 30 here. This country has two temperatures: Cold and warm. Right now it's warm, I still wear two layers in this sometimes (a shirt with an undershirt for comfort or something).

      I am afraid I cannot support the bill. I just don't think the heat is a problem here, it's not a particularly amazing argument: but the country needs to man up and deal with it. It's not hot enough here to justify such a large expense on businesses.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Jarred)
      Nothing annoys me more than when us Brits moan about it being too hot. It's never too hot in the UK. Never. Not once. It barely even exceeds 30 here. This country has two temperatures: Cold and warm. Right now it's warm, I still wear two layers in this sometimes (a shirt with an undershirt for comfort or something). I am afraid I cannot support the bill. I just don't think the heat is a problem here, it's not a particularly amazing argument: but the country needs to man up and deal with it. It's not hot enough here to justify such a large expense on businesses.
      It really is. You clearly haven't stepped inside a factory during the summer. The past few days have been hell. The regulation is needed, it isn't fair for the workers.
      • Community Assistant
      • Wiki Support Team
      • Political Ambassador
      • PS Reviewer
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by adam9317)
      QFA
      I've altered the temperatures in the Bill as requested.
      • Political Ambassador
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by toronto353)
      I've altered the temperatures in the Bill as requested.
      Thanks for your assistance.

      The temperatures for manual work/ office work have been corrected!


      Posted from TSR Mobile
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      No, in its current state. With the changes below, I will vote Aye, if there is a next time.

      1) 28 degrees? Fahrenheit? Celsius? KELVIN? Units are needed to be more specific.
      2) As mentioned, humidity is a HUGE factor too!
      3) 28 and 26 degrees (presumably celsius), is FAR too high! Especially for manual labour - 26 should be more 20! Awful and crude numbers!

      Personally, this isn't really something I see the UK legislatures should decide on, but rather the (Model) European Parliament. That is SOLELY personal, not for amendments!
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      In principle, yes, in a way this forms a key part of workers' rights. If you want to employ staff, pay them fairly and look after them well. Air-con system can double as air pump heaters in winter and are about 300-400% efficient therefore energy usage and cost is low, quite convenient in winter particularly.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      Nay. People in different parts of the country are used to different temperatures and 2000 pounds per person is rather too high. Also, why isn't there a minimum temperature? Don't get me wrong I'm all for more government involvement and control over corporations.

      I think we need to pass a law by which if the majority of the workers in a firm are unhappy with the temperature, then they can take this to the court in other to force the employer to provide cooling/heating facilities or improve them.
      • Wiki Support Team
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by arminb)
      Nay. People in different parts of the country are used to different temperatures and 2000 pounds per person is rather too high. Also, why isn't there a minimum temperature? Don't get me wrong I'm all for more government involvement and control over corporations.

      I think we need to pass a law by which if the majority of the workers in a firm are unhappy with the temperature, then they can take this to the court in other to force the employer to provide cooling/heating facilities or improve them.
      I think minimum temperature is already dealt with, so theoretically as long as it's at least that warm it can be as warm as you like.
      • Political Ambassador
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by arminb)
      Nay. People in different parts of the country are used to different temperatures and 2000 pounds per person is rather too high. Also, why isn't there a minimum temperature? Don't get me wrong I'm all for more government involvement and control over corporations.

      I think we need to pass a law by which if the majority of the workers in a firm are unhappy with the temperature, then they can take this to the court in other to force the employer to provide cooling/heating facilities or improve them.
      There already is a law for minimum temperatures,which I think is 13 Celsius for manual work and 15 Celsius for office work


      Posted from TSR Mobile
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by O133)
      I think minimum temperature is already dealt with, so theoretically as long as it's at least that warm it can be as warm as you like.
      (Original post by adam9317)
      There already is a law for minimum temperatures,which I think is 13 Celsius for manual work and 15 Celsius for office work


      Posted from TSR Mobile
      Ok, fair enough.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      This is needed.The temperature on top of a press today in the factory was 46 degrees! It is unsafe to work at these temperatures.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      No. This is insane.
      • Offline

        12
        This is too strict, yes we need to regulate working conditions but I'd like to see more backing and maybe some research to prove the optimum working conditions
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Cryptographic)
        No making people work in extreme heat without any attempt to alleviate it is stupid and cruel, they are demoralising their workforce and opening them up for injury liability. However a government legislating on such a common sense facet of life is ridiculous and authoritarian.
        ah but crypto if it were common sense there wouldn't need to be a law to enforce it. This would also increase productivity as when i'm incredibly hot I work sluggish.
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by DErasmus)
        ah but crypto if it were common sense there wouldn't need to be a law to enforce it. This would also increase productivity as when i'm incredibly hot I work sluggish.
        But some employers do not use common sense. The H&S executive already says that it has to be 'reasonable'. If you think your workplace is too hot, then complain to them.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Cryptographic)
        But some employers do not use common sense. The H&S executive already says that it has to be 'reasonable'. If you think your workplace is too hot, then complain to them.
        Instead of having to make a formal complaint would it not be easier for the government to just define reasonable in legal terms?
        • Wiki Support Team
        Offline

        19
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Cryptographic)
        But some employers do not use common sense. The H&S executive already says that it has to be 'reasonable'. If you think your workplace is too hot, then complain to them.
        "Reasonable" is a subjective term. I'd certainly like to see objective limits.
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by DErasmus)
        Instead of having to make a formal complaint would it not be easier for the government to just define reasonable in legal terms?
        (Original post by O133)
        "Reasonable" is a subjective term. I'd certainly like to see objective limits.
        No, because it will haul major costs onto smaller companies (potentially shutting them), makes no allowance for malfunction and takes no account of humidity. Rigid guidelines like this are stupid for the reasons outlined above.

        If you can't be arsed to complain then it clearly isn't that bad. Arguably that sets the limit by itself. 'Reasonable' is defined as the temperature below the threshold where employees complain, by the current system.
       
       
       
      TSR Support Team

      We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

      Updated: August 3, 2014
    • 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.

    • Poll
      Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    • 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.

    • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

      Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

      Quick reply
      Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.