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

Should workers have fewer rights? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    What good are employment rights when 26% of the population are unemployed, dummy? If these rights were so effective wouldn't more people have jobs?

    Seriously, some of you Guardian reading lefties need to wake up and smell the coffee - the EU has been a disaster for workers hence why even the Labour party are now calling for less immigration and a referendum on our continued membership.
    Please tell me this is not a serious comment.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    What good are employment rights when 26% of the population are unemployed, dummy? If these rights were so effective wouldn't more people have jobs?

    Seriously, some of you Guardian reading lefties need to wake up and smell the coffee - the EU has been a disaster for workers hence why even the Labour party are now calling for less immigration and a referendum on our continued membership.
    You are once again completely confusing and trying to find correlation between two largely unrelated issues. It just doesn't flow contextually.

    FWIW I don't read the Guardian and voted blue in 2010.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    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)
    I think HSBC generates something like 90% of its profits outwith the UK, they are the one bank that might carry out the threat of moving their Headquarters outwith the UK.

    Tesco still generates most of its profits in the UK but the contribution of its overseas operations (excluding USA where like most British retailers it is struggling) is growing. The UK for it is now ex growth, hence the weaker valuation on a P/E basis than a number of years ago.

    Don't know much about the others as I have never held shares in either so have never had the need to find out how they operate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    What good are employment rights when 26% of the population are unemployed, dummy? If these rights were so effective wouldn't more people have jobs?

    Seriously, some of you Guardian reading lefties need to wake up and smell the coffee - the EU has been a disaster for workers hence why even the Labour party are now calling for less immigration and a referendum on our continued membership.
    So would you say that once 25% of the population are unemployed we scrap all discrimination laws against age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marriage status, race and religion?

    Once 20% of the population are unemployed we scrap protection against unlawful harassment and victimisation and allow that to occur in the work place?

    Once 15% of the population are unemployed we scrap protection against working time regulations and force staff to work 80 hour weeks?

    Once 10% of the population are unemployed we drop healthy and safety laws within the workplace and actively encourage negligence and corporate manslaughter?

    How on earth does it make sense in your head that taking away such rights will be beneficial to anybody?


    Unemployment is affected by the state of the economy, not because workers have been afforded employment rights. Do you really think that EU Directives on health & safety whilst preparing food has caused people to become unemployed all over Europe? Or was that to do with an inevitable crisis in the banking industry?

    What the hell does Labours stance on immigration have to do with protection afforded to the rights of workers?



    Please, do tell me exactly what rights you think employees or workers should not be entitled to and why. Do you think we should not have protection from being discriminated against, harassed, victimised, unlawfully dismissed, constructively dismissed, dismissed purely on the grounds of wearing religious attire?



    All I'm asking you for is to tell me exactly what employment rights you believe that workers or employers should not have. Don't spout off about the Greek economy, unemployment in Ireland or banana's from Africa which are all totally unrelated.



    Without researching it, you wouldn't even be able to tell me the difference between an employee and a worker. Nor would you be able to tell me the difference in employment rights that each one is afforded. So unless you really scratch up on your Employment & Labor Law knowledge on employee status alone, you've no hope in hell in constructing a promising argument.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    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.



    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.
    My point exactly, BA should be able to treat the strikers as they wish, the whole point of a strike is the workforce against the employer, as opposed to the workforce and law binding the employer to sit back idle and either give the workers what they want or have no workforce, with no other options. An employer should be able to deal with a strike as they see fit, not be bound as they are.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    My point exactly, BA should be able to treat the strikers as they wish, the whole point of a strike is the workforce against the employer, as opposed to the workforce and law binding the employer to sit back idle and either give the workers what they want or have no workforce, with no other options. An employer should be able to deal with a strike as they see fit, not be bound as they are.
    There are very strict rules governing legal strikes, you can't just create an event on Facebook and click 'invite all', make a few banners and chants and have a few days off of work.

    Unions are there to help protect employees from having their rights abused, and to be sacked on the grounds of merely being a member of a Union is unacceptable. Employers should not be able to treat their employees as they wish, that's a ridiculous suggestion.

    However, I do agree with you to some extent. I'm all up for Unions providing advice and support to employees about their rights so that they don't get abused. Most people don't know their employment rights so it's only fair for them to become a member of a Union to get the support without being discriminated against for doing so. BUT, I don't like the way, as you say, that employees can strike, leaving the employer's hands tied with no other choice than to accept their demands. I do find the balance of power in actual Union action is somewhat discomforting. Company's are essentially held to ransom...

    I can't really say much more about it, because I'm unable to propose a suitable solution. But as someone looking to work in Employee Relations in HR in the future, it does make me uncomfortable.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rybee)
    So would you say that once 25% of the population are unemployed we scrap all discrimination laws against age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marriage status, race and religion?

    Once 20% of the population are unemployed we scrap protection against unlawful harassment and victimisation and allow that to occur in the work place?

    Once 15% of the population are unemployed we scrap protection against working time regulations and force staff to work 80 hour weeks?

    Once 10% of the population are unemployed we drop healthy and safety laws within the workplace and actively encourage negligence and corporate manslaughter?

    How on earth does it make sense in your head that taking away such rights will be beneficial to anybody?


    Unemployment is affected by the state of the economy, not because workers have been afforded employment rights. Do you really think that EU Directives on health & safety whilst preparing food has caused people to become unemployed all over Europe? Or was that to do with an inevitable crisis in the banking industry?

    What the hell does Labours stance on immigration have to do with protection afforded to the rights of workers?



    Please, do tell me exactly what rights you think employees or workers should not be entitled to and why. Do you think we should not have protection from being discriminated against, harassed, victimised, unlawfully dismissed, constructively dismissed, dismissed purely on the grounds of wearing religious attire?



    All I'm asking you for is to tell me exactly what employment rights you believe that workers or employers should not have. Don't spout off about the Greek economy, unemployment in Ireland or banana's from Africa which are all totally unrelated.



    Without researching it, you wouldn't even be able to tell me the difference between an employee and a worker. Nor would you be able to tell me the difference in employment rights that each one is afforded. So unless you really scratch up on your Employment & Labor Law knowledge on employee status alone, you've no hope in hell in constructing a promising argument.
    The point I'm making is that the EU wants a free reign to meddle in the economic affairs of member states, but when things turn to crap they throw their hands up in air and proclaim with a straight face that 'it's not our fault gov, our intentions were sincere'. Sorry but that doesn't wash: you cannot have it both ways. If the EU is at least partially responsible for the employment market as you say then by default they share some of the blame when unemployment rockets, I bet if things were looking up you'd be the first to claim that it's due to the EU's enlightened policies on H&S and workers' rights.

    Yes, I would like all the regulations on equality, diversity and safety you mention abolished because I would love nothing more than to see the quasi-communist EU confined to the dustbin of history. We're more than capable of cooking up our own employment legislation thank you very much, the 1974 Health and Safety at work act which is put up on the wall of every British workplace is testament to this.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rybee)
    There are very strict rules governing legal strikes, you can't just create an event on Facebook and click 'invite all', make a few banners and chants and have a few days off of work.

    Unions are there to help protect employees from having their rights abused, and to be sacked on the grounds of merely being a member of a Union is unacceptable. Employers should not be able to treat their employees as they wish, that's a ridiculous suggestion.

    However, I do agree with you to some extent. I'm all up for Unions providing advice and support to employees about their rights so that they don't get abused. Most people don't know their employment rights so it's only fair for them to become a member of a Union to get the support without being discriminated against for doing so. BUT, I don't like the way, as you say, that employees can strike, leaving the employer's hands tied with no other choice than to accept their demands. I do find the balance of power in actual Union action is somewhat discomforting. Company's are essentially held to ransom...

    I can't really say much more about it, because I'm unable to propose a suitable solution. But as someone looking to work in Employee Relations in HR in the future, it does make me uncomfortable.
    I know the current system, what I'm saying is that it is wrong, you should not have total immunity to employer action if you strike, as people currently do, because then you may hold an employer to ransom essentially.

    I agree with your second point, Unions still have too much sway. Advice and so forth is great, but very few of todays Unions actually do their job, and from anecdotal evidence, ever since the 70's 'Union men' at the top have been as corrupt and greedy as the CEO's of the companys they try to 'hold to account'.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    The point I'm making is that the EU wants a free reign to meddle in the economic affairs of member states, but when things turn to crap they throw their hands up in air and proclaim with a straight face that 'it's not our fault gov, our intentions were sincere'. Sorry but that doesn't wash: you cannot have it both ways. If the EU is at least partially responsible for the employment market as you say then by default they share some of the blame when unemployment rockets, I bet if things were looking up you'd be the first to claim that it's due to the EU's enlightened policies on H&S and workers' rights.

    Yes, I would like all the regulations on equality, diversity and safety you mention abolished because I would love nothing more than to see the quasi-communist EU confined to the dustbin of history. We're more than capable of cooking up our own employment legislation thank you very much, the 1974 Health and Safety at work act which is put up on the wall of every British workplace is testament to this.
    You still cannot grasp that employment rights have no real blame for the crisis, can you?

    Also, what specifically about the provision of those rights do you object to? How does the effect of those regulations fit into your argument?

    Are you capable of specific, coherent analysis?

    You seem very happy to sit there and bash out all this Daily Mail/UKIP style rhetoric, but each of your posts leave me wondering if you really understand what you are talking about.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    The point I'm making is that the EU wants a free reign to meddle in the economic affairs of member states, but when things turn to crap they throw their hands up in air and proclaim with a straight face that 'it's not our fault gov, our intentions were sincere'. Sorry but that doesn't wash: you cannot have it both ways. If the EU is at least partially responsible for the employment market as you say then by default they share some of the blame when unemployment rockets, I bet if things were looking up you'd be the first to claim that it's due to the EU's enlightened policies on H&S and workers' rights.

    Yes, I would like all the regulations on equality, diversity and safety you mention abolished because I would love nothing more than to see the quasi-communist EU confined to the dustbin of history. We're more than capable of cooking up our own employment legislation thank you very much, the 1974 Health and Safety at work act which is put up on the wall of every British workplace is testament to this.
    That's just complete rubbish from someone who is obviously poorly educated on such topic. You still can't grasp the difference between UK Employment Law, EU Directives, Employment Rights, Unemployment and the current Financial Crisis?

    All I asked of you was to give me one employment right that you want abolished, and you can't name any? Not a single one? All that does for me is conform that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

    I'm not going to converse with you anymore on this issue, I'd have more luck at turning the pope into a Muslim.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rybee)
    That's just complete rubbish from someone who is obviously poorly educated on such topic. You still can't grasp the difference between UK Employment Law, EU Directives, Employment Rights, Unemployment and the current Financial Crisis. I'm not going to converse with you anymore on this issue, I'd have more luck at turning the pope into a Muslim.
    I think we are in agreement!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    You still cannot grasp that employment rights have no real blame for the crisis, can you?

    Also, what specifically about the provision of those rights do you object to? How does the effect of those regulations fit into your argument?

    Are you capable of specific, coherent analysis?

    You seem very happy to sit there and bash out all this Daily Mail/UKIP style rhetoric, but each of your posts leave me wondering if you really understand what you are talking about.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I can give you a concrete example if you wish. When I worked in a pub kitchen some years ago the landlord wanted to employ a teenager to come and wash the dishes once or twice a week, but thanks to the mountain of rules and regulations he needed to follow* governing everything from the hours the youngster could work (this was a pub remember) to the holiday pay etc he would have been entitled the landlord decided it wasn't worth the bother.

    This is an example of a real productive job that was lost as a direct consequence of our workers' rights culture. How will this sort of thing not have an impact on the economy? Please answer me that if you can put down your copy of the Guardian for long enough.

    *Some of which are documented here: https://www.gov.uk/child-employment/...ild-employment
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    I think we are in agreement!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Starting to wonder whether he's just a very sly troll that we've both fallen for! :eek:

    I honestly give up trying to rationalise with him, it's just not worth it!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rybee)
    Starting to wonder whether he's just a very sly troll that we've both fallen for! :eek:

    I honestly give up trying to rationalise with him, it's just not worth it!
    It's possible.

    If not, I'm pretty sure they realise that they haven't thought it all through yet.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rybee)
    That's just complete rubbish from someone who is obviously poorly educated on such topic. You still can't grasp the difference between UK Employment Law, EU Directives, Employment Rights, Unemployment and the current Financial Crisis?

    All I asked of you was to give me one employment right that you want abolished, and you can't name any? Not a single one? All that does for me is conform that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

    I'm not going to converse with you anymore on this issue, I'd have more luck at turning the pope into a Muslim.
    As I said from the outset I'd like to see all employment rights abolished because I believe they gum up the wheels of industry. But if I was forced to pick one I would go for the national minimum wage. People weren't out on the streets prior to it's inception in 1999, and it deters (criminalises even) small business owners who may want to take on staff but can't justify paying unskilled, untrained labourers the full amount. What if the worker is only worth £5 p/h and the labourer is happy to accept this in return for valuable on-the-job training that could earn him/her a lot more down the line? Very simply the transaction doesn't take place and the labourer remains languishing on the dole que.

    All employment rights suffer from unintented consequences such as this, but the liberal left are too bound up in their own self-righteousness to notice.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rybee)
    Starting to wonder whether he's just a very sly troll that we've both fallen for! :eek:

    I honestly give up trying to rationalise with him, it's just not worth it!
    What you mean is you've lost the debate so you're going to throw childish insults around instead.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    My point exactly, BA should be able to treat the strikers as they wish, the whole point of a strike is the workforce against the employer, as opposed to the workforce and law binding the employer to sit back idle and either give the workers what they want or have no workforce, with no other options. An employer should be able to deal with a strike as they see fit, not be bound as they are.
    Back to the days of lock outs, massacres and assassinations then?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    As I said from the outset I'd like to see all employment rights abolished because I believe they gum up the wheels of industry. But if I was forced to pick one I would go for the national minimum wage. People weren't out on the streets prior to it's inception in 1999, and it deters (criminalises even) small business owners who may want to take on staff but can't justify paying unskilled, untrained labourers the full amount. What if the worker is only worth £5 p/h and the labourer is happy to accept this in return for valuable on-the-job training that could earn him/her a lot more down the line? Very simple the transaction doesn't take place and the labourer remains languishing on the dole que.

    All employment rights suffer from unintented consequences such as this, but the liberal left are too bound up in their own self-righteousness to notice.
    Ok let's get rid of the min wage. Employers start paying £5 per hour or perhaps leave it at £6.21 for the next ten years.

    Inflation means people lose out to the tune of 4% per year. How do they cope? They turn to state help.

    Oh no wait, I suppose you'd want to cut all welfare at the same time? Umm.... Oh... That's alright, we'll just increase the poverty level in the UK and have ghettos all over the place.

    Oh no wait, I bet that offends some nationalist principle you hold about looking after our own?

    #stuck

    Oh and before you rant blindly on about how cutting min wage will increase employment and improve the economy, I'd like to see if you can find one credible piece of evidence that suggests this is the case.

    Please recognise when you are in a grown up debate and keep your populist views to the likes of socialism and Islam bashing....


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    What you mean is you've lost the debate so you're going to throw childish insults around instead.
    Ha "lost the debate"..

    You've failed to answer a single question. When asked for specifics and coherence you just returned to your original post (which as I've pointed out makes little sense anyway).

    I'm not saying there isn't a single shred of merit to your ideas, and as always debate is good. But in this case you haven't advanced anything at all.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Back to the days of lock outs, massacres and assassinations then?
    So witty
 
 
 
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.