you have to admire the filthy tube scum/drivers

pqrdef

The_White_Horse wrote: »

if you do your job well, your employer will not want to get rid of you.

What a load of rubbish. In the 19th century, employers regularly and routinely laid off their workers whenever the order book was a bit thin, or the supplies were late, or the steam engine broke down, or whatever. All sort of business risks could be laid by just letting the workers' kids go hungry.

ILW

pqrdef wrote: »

What a load of rubbish. In the 19th century, employers regularly and routinely laid off their workers whenever the order book was a bit thin, or the supplies were late, or the steam engine broke down, or whatever. All sort of business risks could be laid by just letting the workers' kids go hungry.

That does put an employer into the role of social services.

I guess it's OK for the employers kids to go hungry because he has to pay workers who are producing nothing?

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

From the point of view of the person that is paying, why should it be so different?
Does not everybody have a right to try to get what in their opinion is the best value when spending their own money?

Let's say your wife has a career as a nurse, which she loves. She put herself through university, got a job as a reguar nurse in which she worked for three years, then over the next four years she finds herself as a senior nurse and then ward manager. After ten years in her nursing career she finds, by accident, that's she pregnant. You're honestly okay with her going in to work, telling them, and her work saying "ahh, you're preggers. Well, get your stuff and go home. Your pay stops today as you're sacked. Good luck. There's loads of nurses out there, we'll just employ one of them in your job."

You see that as a perfectly acceptable part of a civilised, caring society? The employer is getting best value for money, so the whole situation is fine to you?

What do you do for a living ILW? Would you be completely cool with turning up at work tomorrow and your boss sacking you right then and there with no explanation? Would you happily say, "well, you're paying so fair enough. Bye everyone."?

ILW

Cleaver wrote: »

What do you do for a living ILW? Would you be completely cool with turning up at work tomorrow and your boss sacking you right then and there with no explanation? Would you happily say, "well, you're paying so fair enough. Bye everyone."?

I have my own micro business.

My customers are the ones that decide how much I get paid, or indeed whether I get paid at all. If they do not like me or the products and services I offer they just take their business elsewhere.
They do not have to give an explanation beyond any contract and they would never agree to a contract that forced them to go on using me beyond where it suited them.

Obviously I do not get sick pay, maternity leave, payments for work related stress or anything else.

I do believe the raltionship between an employer and employee should be closer to a customer, supplier relationship.

A lot of this employment legislation is holding back small businesses and in many cases stopping them recruiting and expanding.

zagfles

Cleaver wrote: »

Every now and again this board leaves me amazed, and this is one of those times. I guess it's part of the fun of posting on here.

The first point is just plain dumb. An employee can leave if he doesn't like his boss being black therefore it's perfectly fine for a white person to sack a black person based on the colour of his skin? Really? You honestly think that?

No. If you actually bother to read what I wrote, I started "not that I disagree". I was simply pointing out that it's a bit of an anomaly that the employer-employee relationship is one of the few where one party is not given total freedom of choice over who they can form the relationship with, and must give valid reasons for breaking it.

The employer is basically denied the basic freedoms we all take for granted in other contexts. Of course there are good reasons for this, but we shouldn't forget the basic fact that discrimination is perfectly OK and legal in the context of most relationships we form.

Mind you in a few years maybe we will see people who refuse to shop in "the P**i shop" being sued...

torontoboy45

ILW wrote: »

I have my own micro business.

My customers are the ones that decide how much I get paid, or indeed whether I get paid at all. If they do not like me or the products and services I offer they just take their business elsewhere.
They do not have to give an explanation beyond any contract and they would never agree to a contract that forced them to go on using me beyond where it suited them.

Obviously I do not get sick pay, maternity leave, payments for work related stress or anything else.

I do believe the raltionship between an employer and employee should be closer to a customer, supplier relationship.

A lot of this employment legislation is holding back small businesses and in many cases stopping them recruiting and expanding.

or you could have said 'employment law really gets in the way of letting me max out profits. I should be able to hire and fire with impunity'.

you don't receive sick pay, maternity leave, etc. because you chose to set up in business; if you were on the books of another firm I'm certain you'd be whistling another tune.

ILW

torontoboy45 wrote: »

or you could have said 'employment law really gets in the way of letting me max out profits. I should be able to hire and fire with impunity'.

you don't receive sick pay, maternity leave, etc. because you chose to set up in business; if you were on the books of another firm I'm certain you'd be whistling another tune.

Fair point, but I do believe that as a country we need more people to set up businesses if we wish to get out of the mess we are in. Much of the legislation makes what is a difficult thing to do even harder.
That is unless you believe in an economy that consists of just a few mega corporations having all the trade.
I like many small firms have decided not to hire, primarily down to the fact that the legislation could ruin me.

I guess my perspective is different from many, as I have never felt that I had a right to anything that I did not earn.

zagfles

ILW wrote: »

Fair point, but I do believe that as a country we need more people to set up businesses if we wish to get out of the mess we are in. Much of the legislation makes what is a difficult thing to do even harder.
That is unless you believe in an economy that consists of just a few mega corporations having all the trade.
I like many small firms have decided not to hire, primarily down to the fact that the legislation could ruin me.

I guess my perspective is different from many, as I have never felt that I had a right to anything that I did not earn.

One of the problems is that one man band small businesses are subject to basically the same legislation as a mega corporation who can afford HR departments, payroll departments etc.

It's one thing having employment law skewed towards the employee in a large company, but it's not really fair where the employer is a one man band...

ILW

A point that those such as Torontoboy will never understand. He seems to thing profit is a dirty word. Sadly his thinking is just leading to a survival of the largest companies situation, which I believe he would also dislike.

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

My customers are the ones that decide how much I get paid, or indeed whether I get paid at all. If they do not like me or the products and services I offer they just take their business elsewhere.
They do not have to give an explanation beyond any contract and they would never agree to a contract that forced them to go on using me beyond where it suited them.

All very true. Not quite sure how this has any connection whatsoever to getting rid of all employment law though?

ILW wrote: »

Obviously I do not get sick pay, maternity leave, payments for work related stress or anything else.

I do believe the raltionship between an employer and employee should be closer to a customer, supplier relationship.

A lot of this employment legislation is holding back small businesses and in many cases stopping them recruiting and expanding.

Again, agree. The current employment laws, as they stand, are not in sync with small businesses and need to be changed (in my opinion). But could we get back to discussing the point in hand, which is you saying that you'd be in favour of a law stating that anyone can be sacked for any reason whatsoever, which includes women if they become pregnant? The two points you've made above have nothing to do with that.