No 10 Adviser Attacks 'Socialist' Vince Cable

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by hallmark
I'm neither a Tory voter nor foaming at the mouth, however are you seriously saying you don't see the correlation between reduction on the laws controlling employers and those same employers hiring more people? There's nothing complicated about it. Every law that's introduced increases the cost of employing people & makes it make less business sense to do so. We're talking simple business facts here, not moral rights & wrongs.


Taking this to the logical conclusion you could allow employers to treat workers as slaves......

You may not vote but you are certainly a Tory

why is that a logical conclusion?

do you feel that people have no economic value that has to be bid for?

if so why is anyone paid more than the minimum wage?

ILW

chucky wrote: »

Quite.

I guess all their staff are the highly motivated cream who get paid very high salaries a bit like merchant banks because they all have high flying roles. Even the admin staff, the canteen staff and the people in the mail room are the cream of their specific job sector.

No wait...

Google UK sub out all cleaning and catering.

Businesses are all different and I believe it should be down to the management how they run things.

If the Google system is the most successful it will prevail and the less worker friendly employers will go bust.

chucky

ILW wrote: »

Google UK sub out all cleaning and catering.

Businesses are all different and I believe it should be down to the management how they run things.

If the Google system is the most successful it will prevail and the less worker friendly employers will go bust.

Yes ok, everyone that works at Google are the highly motivated cream and everyone that works there is on a high salary according to ILW. There is no mail room, there is no HR office and there are no support roles and if there are, they are contracted out because that's what ILW says.

Fella

BobQ wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by hallmark
I'm neither a Tory voter nor foaming at the mouth, however are you seriously saying you don't see the correlation between reduction on the laws controlling employers and those same employers hiring more people? There's nothing complicated about it. Every law that's introduced increases the cost of employing people & makes it make less business sense to do so. We're talking simple business facts here, not moral rights & wrongs.


Taking this to the logical conclusion you could allow employers to treat workers as slaves......

You may not vote but you are certainly a Tory

You can take anything to the "logical conclusion" & come up with something that's complete cobblers.

You may not think you're a moron but you are certainly a moron.

BTW much as I'm not a Tory I consider that a far lesser insult than if you were to imply I supported the current disgrace that represents the Labour Party. Feel free to try again though, if it pleases you.

ILW

chucky wrote: »

Yes ok, everyone that works at Google are the highly motivated cream and everyone that works there is on a high salary according to ILW. There is no mail room, there is no HR office and there are no support roles and if there are, they are contracted out because that's what ILW says.

Still no idea what your point is.

Are you saying that because Google are successful, then all other businesses in the UK should be forced to offer the same working environment?

chucky

ILW wrote: »

Still no idea what your point is.

Are you saying that because Google are successful, then all other businesses in the UK should be forced to offer the same working environment?

You should have followed the original point instead of going on your usual tangent.

Google looks after staff. Staff respond through increased production. Google are not the only company that do this, there are many morem. These companies do this for all staff, not just the cream and high earners. Hope that is clear.

That is all.

ILW

chucky wrote: »

You should have followed the original point instead of going on your usual tangent.

Google looks after staff. Staff respond through increased production. Google are not the only company that do this, there are many morem. These companies do this for all staff, not just the cream and high earners. Hope that is clear.

That is all.

So it appears your point is that some companies get good results by being generous to their staff. That is fair enough.

There are also successful profitable companies that are not so good to their employees.

Surely it is up to the company to decide how they wish to run things.

chucky

ILW wrote: »

So it appears your point is that some companies get good results by being generous to their staff. That is fair enough.

That is correct.

ILW wrote: »

There are also successful profitable companies that are not so good to their employees.

Of course.

ILW wrote: »

Surely it is up to the company to decide how they wish to run things.

and the employees.

ILW

chucky wrote: »

That is correct.

Of course.

and the employees.

Guess that is where our opinions differ.

I believe the management should make these decisions, if they wish to consult the employees that is fine, but this should not be a legla requirement.

The employees always have the option to walk if they think someone else is offering a better deal.

chucky

ILW wrote: »

Guess that is where our opinions differ.

I believe the management should make these decisions, if they wish to consult the employees that is fine, but this should not be a legla requirement.

The employees always have the option to walk if they think someone else is offering a better deal.

Well in a perfect theoretical world it doesn't matter but in the real world employee satisfaction is very important more in boom times than slow times as the job market is more liquid and it's easier to find work.