No 10 Adviser Attacks 'Socialist' Vince Cable

heathcote123

Joe_Bloggs wrote: »

@Conrad and entirely theoretical.

Consider an alternative way of life. Let's say that every worker had a ten week rolling contract. After that they could be re-hired /fired or choose to move on. How would you be able to sell mortgages to these people ?

It would not surprise me if these people then used their collective political will motivated by joint suffering to eventually change the government that allowed this system to theoretically exist in the first place.

J_B.

There seems to be some kind of thinking here that busineses want to fire their employees whenever possible.

Employees make the business - companies go to great lengths to get the right people and to keep them.

heathcote123

Conrad wrote: »

I see today yet another supposed believer in levelling and re - distribution has been found out.

Will Self, another socialist with a £1m+ home.
Ken Livingston barracking people over Tax, then actively paying as little as he can.

Billy Bragg and his £1.8m house overlooking the channel.

Shirley Williams (I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, particularly when it comes to the poor), with her 2 Hertfordshire mansions.

Tony Ben with his Essex mansion and farm, plus £4m Holland Park home.


At least Tories dont pretend not to like money.

Lets not forget David Millibands primrose hill mansion, which him & Ed conveniently managed to avoid paying any inheritance tax on, the good socialists that they are.

Thats the thing about socialists - all politicians have a tendency to make you sick, but the left have refined hypocracy to a tee, in particular lords prescott and kinnock.

And did Ken ever release his tax returns as promised many times in the run up to the mayoral election.... erm.. no.

pqrdef

heathcote123 wrote: »

There seems to be some kind of thinking here that busineses want to fire their employees whenever possible.

Time was when employers would lay off workers at the drop of a hat, any time the order book was a bit light. I mean, why should they take on market fluctuation as a business risk, when the workers' kids could just go hungry? They weren't his problem, were they.

Fella

heathcote123 wrote: »

There seems to be some kind of thinking here that busineses want to fire their employees whenever possible.

Employees make the business - companies go to great lengths to get the right people and to keep them.

Exactly. All this utter garbage that employers would be able to fire someone "because they didn't like the look of them" blah blah is nonsense & anyone who's actually run a business knows that. The problem is most people saying it have never run a business & know nothing.

StevieJ

pqrdef wrote: »

Time was when employers would lay off workers at the drop of a hat, any time the order book was a bit light. I mean, why should they take on market fluctuation as a business risk, when the workers' kids could just go hungry? They weren't his problem, were they.

Actually Engels makes the point in his 1892 preface to his 1848 book, The condition of the working class in England 1844 (free on Kindle). Even where there was a degree of employee protection, the employers could use subtle means, like pandering to unions when the order books were full but then provoking strikes when the order books were not so full.

Firstly, the factory hands. The fixing by Act of Parliament of their working-day within relatively rational limits has restored their physical constitution and endowed them with a moral superiority, enhanced by their local concentration. They are undoubtedly better off than before 1848. The best proof is that, out of ten strikes they make, nine are provoked by the manufacturers in their own interests, as the only means of securing a reduced production.

StevieJ

Fella wrote: »

Exactly. All this utter garbage that employers would be able to fire someone "because they didn't like the look of them" blah blah is nonsense & anyone who's actually run a business knows that. The problem is most people saying it have never run a business & know nothing.

I thought the report made that very point but stated that it was worth putting up with for the greater good? I can only assume you are shooting from the hip without actually knowing what is in the report?

New legislation would prescribe that it is not unfair dismissal if the employer simply states he is not happy with the employee’s performance and then consults,gives notice and pays a defined level of compensation linked to the employee’s salary and length of employment.

Fella

StevieJ wrote: »

I thought the report made that very point but stated that it was worth putting up with for the greater good? I can only assume you are shooting from the hip without actually knowing what is in the report?

You're talking about what the report said & I'm talking about what employers do. Employers don't fire people on a whim & anyone who's every actually employed people know that. Is it correct to assume you haven't created any jobs & therefore don't know what you're talking about?

StevieJ

Fella wrote: »

You're talking about what the report said & I'm talking about what employers do. Employers don't fire people on a whim & anyone who's every actually employed people know that. Is it correct to assume you haven't created any jobs & therefore don't know what you're talking about?

If you say so Are these the same sort of people who used to put up signs like these?

ILW

StevieJ wrote: »

If you say so Are these the same sort of people who used to put up signs like these?

That would fall under non employment legislation now.

pqrdef

Fella wrote: »

Employers don't fire people on a whim

Of course they don't. They're not allowed to.

They have to find more subtle ways of encouraging unwanted staff to leave. This usually results in a mutually acceptable outcome. But they wouldn't bother about that if they didn't have to.