Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Should workers have fewer rights? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    We don't have jobs for life guaranteed. You don't know what you're on about.
    What I'm saying is that guaranteed jobs for life are a bad idea for the reasons I mention, and by extension any laws that prohibit companies from firing their staff are counter productive because overall they make the economy less efficient.

    Let me put it another way. Do you think the economy would be enhanced if the consumer was forced to shop at Tesco for example? No, because the guaranteed customer base would encourage those in charge of Tesco to become slovenly. They would no longer need to compete with the other supermarkets because which would drive standards down and they'd be no incentive to improve things because of the lack of profit it would generate. Tesco provides a top notch service because the consumer can 'sack' them at any time by moving over to a competitor. This mechanism works exactly the same in the personal employment market too and any gov't interference only creates more problems than it solves.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    What I'm saying is that guaranteed jobs for life are a bad idea for the reasons I mention, and by extension any laws that prohibit companies from firing their staff are counter productive because overall they make the economy less efficient.

    Let me put it another way. Do you think the economy would be enhanced if the consumer was forced to shop at Tesco for example? No, because the guaranteed customer base would encourage those in charge of Tesco to become slovenly. They would no longer need to compete with the other supermarkets because which would drive standards down and they'd be no incentive to improve things because of the lack of profit it would generate. Tesco provides a top notch service because the consumer can 'sack' them at any time by moving over to a competitor. This mechanism works exactly the same in the personal employment market too and any gov't interference only creates more problems than it solves.
    Except that is no longer how business works is it? Tesco has lost traction in recent years, so it is a poor example, but at one point it was a byword for monopoly. It used its resources to buy up small high-street outfits and mean customers essentially had no choice but to use Tesco.

    The best example is the train companies. If you are unhappy with your local franchise, how are you supposed to "sack" them and use another one?

    With the advent of globalisation, corporations are now able to monopolise markets across the Western world and thereby to channel taxes and revenue away from the countries in which they operate. They are unassailable except by the breakdown of consumerist society, which is fated to happen and beginning to happen.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Tesco provides a top notch service because the consumer can 'sack' them at any time by moving over to a competitor.
    *cough* horsemeat *cough*

    But to reiterate the post above me. 'Sacking' a company does not work if it is already entrenched.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaliack)
    Examples?

    I don't see HSBC, Barclays, Tesco, Primark etc. all shutting down and moving to a different country.

    Firing is only really a problem in the public sector, and so there is scope for changing that. However, that problem doesn't really exist in the private sector. Let's not forget that an employer such as Tesco would quite easily take a £10k lawsuit to fire an unproductive lard (Even though that lard won't easily win the case most of the time)
    Where is primarks clothing made? Is all of Tesco's products made in the UK? Were are most phone centers based? Were are most electronics produced? Production and engineering is almost non existent in this country any more. With regards to your example, the employee would be the one taking Tesco to court not the other way round, besides they will most likely be on a short term contract so Tesco can hire and get rid of staff quickly by not renewing contracts.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    *cough* horsemeat *cough*

    But to reiterate the post above me. 'Sacking' a company does not work if it is already entrenched.
    I just knew some smart alec would come up with that.

    Two things:

    1) Supermarkets like Tesco create an enormous amount of value. Yes they slip up from time to time, but if we were to measure in £'s the value they add vs the unexpected costs impose on us I suspect the former would heavily outweigh the latter. There's no denying that Tesco are vital to the British economy. Furthermore given the scale of their operation it would totally unrealistic to expect them to always get things spot: this is why from time to time high street retailers issue product recall notices. I would like to see you run a multi £bn business and never make a mistake!


    2) They were lied to by their suppliers. What exactly do you suppose they should do? Quite reasonably the supermarkets expect their suppliers to follow the laws of the land and only sell meat as advertised. If anyone slipped up it was the regulators who once again were asleep at the wheel. Tesco et al pay an enourmous amount in taxes in order to have laws upheld so why should they then start to act as an informal regulator themselves?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Except that is no longer how business works is it? Tesco has lost traction in recent years, so it is a poor example, but at one point it was a byword for monopoly. It used its resources to buy up small high-street outfits and mean customers essentially had no choice but to use Tesco.

    The best example is the train companies. If you are unhappy with your local franchise, how are you supposed to "sack" them and use another one?

    With the advent of globalisation, corporations are now able to monopolise markets across the Western world and thereby to channel taxes and revenue away from the countries in which they operate. They are unassailable except by the breakdown of consumerist society, which is fated to happen and beginning to happen.
    What utter drivel. Tesco has only been used a byword for monopoly by uninformed do-gooders who havn't yet come to terms with the economic implications of home grown veg. If you can replace the services Tesco offer by growing your own veg or raising your own livestock then by default Tesco do not have a monopoly, and as far as I'm aware they only own a tiny fraction of all the agricultural land available in the UK.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    2) I know. We owe Margaret Thatcher a debt of gratitude for that one.
    I saw her walking on one of those closed mines, with high heels and her suit. She was determined to make sure socialists go down.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I just knew some smart alec would come up with that.

    Two things:

    1) Supermarkets like Tesco create an enormous amount of value. Yes they slip up from time to time, but if we were to measure in £'s the value they add vs the unexpected costs impose on us I suspect the former would heavily outweigh the latter. There's no denying that Tesco are vital to the British economy. Furthermore given the scale of their operation it would totally unrealistic to expect them to always get things spot: this is why from time to time high street retailers issue product recall notices. I would like to see you run a multi £bn business and never make a mistake!
    It may be true that Tesco brings lots of money into the economy. But that doesnt change the fact (and probably highlights) that we can't 'sack' a company like tescos.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kka25)
    I saw her walking on one of those closed mines, with high heels and her suit. She was determined to make sure socialists go down.
    Thatcher didn't hate the mining industry or miners themselves, what she abhorred with every fibre of her being were the government subsidies that were being used to prop the industry up.

    If I ran a loss making enterprise I wouldn't expect public money to help keep my company afloat, why single out certain industries for special treatment?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    It may be true that Tesco brings lots of money into the economy. But that doesnt change the fact (and probably highlights) that we can't 'sack' a company like tescos.
    If you chose to shop at Asda rather than Tesco the effect is the same as a sacking. The consumer employs Tesco, we can choose to 'sack' them at any time.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Thatcher didn't hate the mining industry or miners themselves, what she abhorred with every fibre of her being were the government subsidies that were being used to prop the industry up.

    If I ran a loss making enterprise I wouldn't expect public money to help keep my company afloat, why single out certain industries for special treatment?
    I agree.

    Yet, some people seem(ed) to hate her (a lot).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Come on- let's engage the old brain. It is blatantly obvious that law protecting workers from unfair and ill thought out sackings do NOT in fact create 'jobs for life'.

    You are saying that jobs for life are bad and that, therefore, legislation making it more difficult to fire someone should be changed.

    However, it is very possible to sack people within a relatively short space of time. Ergo, we do not have 'jobs for life' protected by legislation.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    Come on- let's engage the old brain. It is blatantly obvious that law protecting workers from unfair and ill thought out sackings do NOT in fact create 'jobs for life'.

    You are saying that jobs for life are bad and that, therefore, legislation making it more difficult to fire someone should be changed.

    However, it is very possible to sack people within a relatively short space of time. Ergo, we do not have 'jobs for life' protected by legislation.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    There's no such thing as an unfair sacking. Why should lazy, useless and incompetent workers enjoy the right to extract money from companies without providing anything valuable in return? If a contract is drawn up between the employer and employee that's different of course, but in principle I do support the right for companies to sack at will. Employers aren't responsible for putting food on the table of their employees, we have a welfare state for that.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    There's no such thing as an unfair sacking. Why should lazy, useless and incompetent workers enjoy the right to extract money from companies without providing anything valuable in return? If a contract is drawn up between the employer and employee that's different of course, but in principle I do support the right for companies to sack at will. Employers aren't responsible for putting food on the table of their employees, we have a welfare state for that.
    Don't be obtuse; of course there is. If your boss decides that s/he doesn't like your face but you are good at your job and perform your duties according to the standard in your contract then it is unfair for them to sack you.

    In any case your little snipe doesn't change the point of my post.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    There's no such thing as an unfair sacking. Why should lazy, useless and incompetent workers enjoy the right to extract money from companies without providing anything valuable in return? If a contract is drawn up between the employer and employee that's different of course, but in principle I do support the right for companies to sack at will. Employers aren't responsible for putting food on the table of their employees, we have a welfare state for that.
    You do realise that your position reflects that of the law in all but name don't you?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Employment rights make workers lazy, this is an inconvenient truth of human nature.

    Guaranteeing workers jobs for life inevitably creates a culture of laziness and underperformance. Why work hard when it becomes more or less impossible for your boss to fire you? It won't happen, the incentive is to do as little as possible in return for your wage thus maximising personal utility. To get the best out of workers we need to keep them scared, and make sure they understand they can be replaced at any time.

    Is it time to go further and implement an Alan Sugar style hire and fire culture?
    No.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    No.
    Ah ha! Is this a prime example of the towering intellect you were refering to in the other thread? I'm impressed.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Ah ha! Is this a prime example of the towering intellect you were refering to in the other thread? I'm impressed.
    I just literally could not disagree more, so I thought that post best summed up my thoughts and feelings. I am happy to discuss further.

    Poor workers rights just leads to job instability and more people claiming benefits. Which is the last thing you want.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Even when it complies with 'regulations', an employer should still maintain the right to terminate them. That's the whole point of a strike, employees gamble on whether they have the upper hand, remove this and you see the situations we have seen over the last few years, countless strikes that appal the mind, take the whole BA situation for instance.
    Well, in the case of the BA strike, BA used the courts to try and stop the strikes. In the end, the strikes went ahead. BA then acted illegally in victimising the strikers.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    They have the right to fight, but they shouldn't have the right to sucker punch their employer as they do now.
    Employers already have most of the power. The point about strike action is to remind the employer that they can't function without a workforce.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    What I'm saying is that guaranteed jobs for life are a bad idea for the reasons I mention, and by extension any laws that prohibit companies from firing their staff are counter productive because overall they make the economy less efficient.

    Let me put it another way. Do you think the economy would be enhanced if the consumer was forced to shop at Tesco for example? No, because the guaranteed customer base would encourage those in charge of Tesco to become slovenly. They would no longer need to compete with the other supermarkets because which would drive standards down and they'd be no incentive to improve things because of the lack of profit it would generate. Tesco provides a top notch service because the consumer can 'sack' them at any time by moving over to a competitor. This mechanism works exactly the same in the personal employment market too and any gov't interference only creates more problems than it solves.
    We don't have guaranteed jobs for life.

    What are you on about? What rights should be removed from workers?
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

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.