No 10 Adviser Attacks 'Socialist' Vince Cable

Conrad

adouglasmhor wrote: »

One of the stupidest and least factual statements you have ever posted; and there is no lack of competition.

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.

Joe_Bloggs

@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.

Wheezy_2

According to OECD data, the UK already has one of the lowest levels of employee protection in the developed world.




http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3746,en_2649_37457_42695243_1_1_1_37457,00.html

ILW

If an employee is no longer making any money for an employer, why should the employer be forced into continuing to pay them money?

Just wondering if there is an answer.

ILW

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.

Just like running your own business or being self employed. Many manage.

Joe_Bloggs

Perhaps these new theoretical 'employees' could be termed subcontractors.
J_B.

pqrdef

ILW wrote: »

It does appear that if you employ someone, you are somehow expected to take on the role of surrogate mother in some cases. It does put people off taking on staff.

Good job it's not still the middle ages, when employers typically hired labourers for a year at a time and provided bed and board in their own houses.

Even in the 19th century, the most admired employers are those who built model villages for their workers, not the ones who promptly sacked and evicted any scullery-maid with a sniffle.

In the 20th century, the nanny state took over many functions previously taken on by good employers. Strange how it's usually the advocates of small government who object to those functions being passed back.

Employment rights do what good employers would do anyway. They're hated because they introduce a measure of equality, whereas most employers would otherwise operate a hierarchy, treating managers as human beings and shopfloor workers as a lower form of life - the same attitude that wrecked British industry in the first place.

The_White_Horse

but you don't need to jeapordise all workers do you? you only need to relax the laws for those with under 12 months service, or maybe 24. this way firms will feel able to hire new staff if they feel they need it, but get rid of them immediately if they feel they cannot afford them anymore.

people already in work are not the issue.

STUPID LEFTIES.

wymondham

grizzly1911 wrote: »

He has also lived in the real world, done a real job and has been round the block a few times.

All of which help give a more balanced perspective.

indeed, unlike professional politicians who only get to look at the world through their bubble and wonder in amazement what its like.....

grizzly1911

ILW wrote: »

If an employee is no longer making any money for an employer, why should the employer be forced into continuing to pay them money?

Just wondering if there is an answer.

If there is no work and the job has fallen away, then redundancy.