What grinds my gears...

[Chiltern Fox]

Natalie Sawyer on the RADIO. One of the world's greatest injustices. ?

[Buce]

On 05/09/2018 at 06:15, Mike Oxlong said:

The use of “people of colour”

 

It’s such an overwhelmingly desperate attempt to be non offensive 

 

19 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Isn't it also actually considered quite offensive nowadays? 

 

 

 

18 hours ago, MattP said:

Chukka Umanna has literally just used it now on Politics Live, so I think it's still OK. (person of colour, not able bodied)

 

18 hours ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Is white a colour? I’m really pale skinned and very white. 

 

https://www.blackhistorymonth.org.uk/article/section/opinion/wouldnt-write-afro-caribbean-today-people-colour-ok-now/

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Wrote a relatively long post on this, but decided not to go balls deep immediately as I would undoubtedly get drawn into a number of discussion arguments etc that I don't really want to, but I'd be interested in getting people's thoughts on this?  

 

Might chuck in what I wrote later today. 

 

 

 

[Innovindil]

2 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Wrote a relatively long post on this, but decided not to go balls deep immediately as I would undoubtedly get drawn into a number of discussion arguments etc that I don't really want to, but I'd be interested in getting people's thoughts on this?  

 

Might chuck in what I wrote later today. 

 

 

 

£9 for lunch? Having a laugh surely. 

 

Take a sandwich. 

 

Next debate please. 

[Alf Bentley]

50 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

£9 for lunch? Having a laugh surely. 

 

Take a sandwich. 

 

Next debate please. 

 

Easily said and done if you're a mature, experienced adult. 

A bit different for a 17-year-old starting her first job.

 

And what if staff lunch is the expectation of the employer and/or colleagues?

That's a big stand to expect a newly-employed 17-year-old to make.

 

To what extent the father is justified in blaming the Tories, I'm not sure.

On one level, they are the govt so he may be justified if legislation allows employers to pressure staff into buying company output at exorbitant rates....whether the blame should be shared would depend whose legislation it was.

If the employer is breaking the law, it's the employer's fault and he should report them - or perhaps threaten to do so (though his daughter might not thank him!).

If there is no pressure applied and staff are told that they can bring in sandwiches, there's less of an issue - though they'd still be a miserly employer.

 

Lower pay rates for young people is a difficult one. If rates for young people had to match the adult rate, most would struggle to get work competing against experienced adults & employers would be less inclined to take a chance on youth.

£4.20 per hour is bollocks, though - and the differential between adult and youth rates shouldn't be as great as it is, or it is indeed exploiting the vulnerable.

The Tories are at least partly to blame for that, as they have systematically allowed much lower pay and benefits for the young.

Whether Labour has a record to be proud of, I'm not sure. There were differentials before 2010, not sure how great. The father is a Labour councillor in Crawley (thanks, Google), so that is relevant. 

 

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Easily said and done if you're a mature, experienced adult. 

A bit different for a 17-year-old starting her first job.

 

And what if staff lunch is the expectation of the employer and/or colleagues?

That's a big stand to expect a newly-employed 17-year-old to make.

I've been making sandwiches since I started school. It is not a difficult task. If a 17 year old can't manage it, then quite frankly £4/hr is overpaying. 

 

If buying lunch at £9 a pop is an expectation, then you're surrounded by an employer and colleagues who are all out of touch bellends tbh. I don't know of any employer who does not allow outside food brought in, I'd imagine there are some, but I'd expect these to be very few and far between. 

 

The minimum wage can be debated until the cows come home, but when all is said and done, it is a minimum, not maximum. If you are worth more, you get paid more.

[AKCJ]

1 hour ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Wrote a relatively long post on this, but decided not to go balls deep immediately as I would undoubtedly get drawn into a number of discussion arguments etc that I don't really want to, but I'd be interested in getting people's thoughts on this?  

 

Might chuck in what I wrote later today. 

 

 

 

I tell you what grinds my gears. People bringing politics into everything.

 

I'm only guessing, but i'm assuming this young lass works at a cafe/restaurant and she's been asked to pay the full price for her lunch? 

 

At worst this is a case of management forgetting to tell her that she doesn't get a free lunch and is expected to bring her own or pay full price. **** all to do with the Tories, and i'm generally a Labour voter.

[Finnegan]

I've worked in kitchens that give you a lunch and kitchens that don't, it's always just been about how tight the gaffer is. 

 

Would agree, take a ****ing sandwich for christ sakes.

 

I hate seeing this sort of shit used to beat "The  Tories", it comes across as entitled nonsense and gives them ammunition to dismiss "THE LEFT" when there's a legitimate complaint. 

[Alf Bentley]

30 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I've been making sandwiches since I started school. It is not a difficult task. If a 17 year old can't manage it, then quite frankly £4/hr is overpaying. 

 

If buying lunch at £9 a pop is an expectation, then you're surrounded by an employer and colleagues who are all out of touch bellends tbh. I don't know of any employer who does not allow outside food brought in, I'd imagine there are some, but I'd expect these to be very few and far between. 

 

The minimum wage can be debated until the cows come home, but when all is said and done, it is a minimum, not maximum. If you are worth more, you get paid more.

 

I wasn't suggesting that it was a difficult task to make a sandwich. 

I meant that it was a lot to expect a 17-year-old on her first day to tell her employer she was bringing in sandwiches, not eating the employer's food. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

I'm assuming that she had NOT been told that she could bring in sandwiches and HAD been told that company food was available for purchase, but didn't know the cost.

If she went to work not knowing where she'd get her lunch or chose not to take sandwiches despite being told she could or despite knowing the cost of buying food, that's her look-out.

 

As you say, not worth getting into a lengthy debate about the minimum wage. But if people will inevitably get paid their worth, why not set the minimum wage at zero, then everyone will get their worth?

In 1993-94 (before the minimum wage), when I was paid £2.50 per hour for bar work, presumably that was my worth, even though an adult barman now will get at least £7.83 (much higher, even allowing for inflation)?

 

I agree with others, though, that the comment blaming the Tories is simplistic and unhelpful.

 

Edited 6 September 2018 by Alf Bentley

[Sol thewall Bamba]

44 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

The Tories are at least partly to blame for that, as they have systematically allowed much lower pay and benefits for the young.

They're partly to blame yes but part of the original rant I was going to post was pointing out that it was Labour that set lower rates for younger workers in the Minimum Wage Act 1998. They then didn't do anything to abolish it in the next 9 years of government. 

 

The point above about paying younger people less to incentivize investing in youth makes sense, I had never thought about it that way before.

[ScouseFox]

the fact it costs a 17 year old a fiver to get (presumably) a bus to work an back is nuts tbf. and the fact they can be paid £4.20 an hour for doing the same job and a 25 year old who is probably on nearly twice as much. 

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

They're partly to blame yes but part of the original rant I was going to post was pointing out that it was Labour that set lower rates for younger workers in the Minimum Wage Act 1998. They then didn't do anything to abolish it in the next 9 years of government. 

 

The point above about paying younger people less to incentivize investing in youth makes sense, I had never thought about it that way before.

 

Yes, that's partly why I didn't think it was fair to just blame the current govt. I have the impression (without having checked the facts) that the Tories have increased the differential between young workers and older workers - they've certainly done that with benefits. If so, they deserve blame for that. Whether the differential in the Labour legislation was fair, I don't know. Given the politics of the time, they had to have some differential in the original legislation as many employers - and the Tory Party - were opposed to any minimum wage (and there would have been a risk in ratcheting pay up too much). As you imply, though, if the differential was excessive then Labour had another decade of majority govt to change that.

 

To me, it does seem reasonable to have a differential to take account of experience or lack thereof, and to help school-leavers to get an initial foothold in employment. Mind you, age and experience aren't the same thing. A 19-year-old might have a year's relevant experience and a newly-employed 25-year-old or 55-year-old might have none, so it's a grey area.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

18 minutes ago, ScouseFox said:

the fact it costs a 17 year old a fiver to get (presumably) a bus to work an back is nuts tbf

Worked out in my post that she would be spending 15% of her net income on travel. Not unreasonable imo. 

Edited 6 September 2018 by Sol thewall Bamba

[Lovejoy]

15 hours ago, Chiltern Fox said:

Natalie Sawyer on the RADIO. One of the world's greatest injustices. ?

She is absolutely garbage on Talksport . 

Edited 6 September 2018 by Lovejoy

[Izzy]

40 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

In 1993-94 (before the minimum wage), when I was paid £2.50 per hour for bar work, presumably that was my worth, even though an adult barman now will get at least £7.83 (much higher, even allowing for inflation)?

 

I agree with others, though, that the comment blaming the Tories is simplistic and unhelpful.

 

Pfft, you had it good Alf 

 

When I started work aged 16 in 1989 I was on £29.50 A WEEK - which is about 80p an hour!

 

I couldn't survive on that after bus fair and lunches but it was job and a rung on the ladder. Within 6 months I went up to £80 a week (£2 an hour) and 2 years later I was Assistant Manager on £10k a year. 

 

And all that under Thatcher the bitch  

 

It's all character building and if people are prepared to listen, learn and work had they'll eventually get the rewards..

[SouthStandUpperTier]

When you answer the phone to someone and they're still having a conversation with someone else. Ignorant gits.

[Alf Bentley]

34 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Pfft, you had it good Alf 

 

When I started work aged 16 in 1989 I was on £29.50 A WEEK - which is about 80p an hour!

 

I couldn't survive on that after bus fair and lunches but it was job and a rung on the ladder. Within 6 months I went up to £80 a week (£2 an hour) and 2 years later I was Assistant Manager on £10k a year. 

 

And all that under Thatcher the bitch  

 

It's all character building and if people are prepared to listen, learn and work had they'll eventually get the rewards..

 

Oh, I know there's a whole big grey area over pay for very young or inexperienced employees. There's the whole issue of unpaid internships, for a start.

That's why I'm not opposed to there being a differential. Not sure how it should be organised - and certainly not sure that £4-odd is justified for any age, except as a trainee or apprentice leading to a viable wage in time.

 

At 16, I presume you were still under the parental roof (like the girl under discussion). The real impact is probably felt by those slightly older who need more independence, or may even be self-supporting.

 

Yes, some people can move up the ladder. But not everyone is a high-flyer like you!  

(Fact check, though: If you started in 1989 and took 2 years to make Assistant Manager, you have good old Johnny Major to thank - and Thatcher to blame for your 80p/£2 per hour. ).

 

When I was on £2.50 per hour for bar work, it was only a part-time job to support my studies, but it did leave me seriously skint....although that was partly because I spent some of my wages on the other side of the bar!

Some other bar staff were more badly affected than I was.

 

There are a lot of grey areas, though. In 1997, I did a 3-week internship with the Labour Party during the general election as part of my studies - unpaid apart from travel/subsistence. I was happy to do that as it was beneficial to me, interesting and I could afford it. Some young people these days are expected to do unpaid internships that they cannot afford - or to accept pay levels that they cannot live on (and I'm talking more about 20-year-olds, not 16-year-olds).

Edited 6 September 2018 by Alf Bentley

[Beliall]

19 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

When you answer the phone to someone and they're still having a conversation with someone else. Ignorant gits.

so much this. winds me up so much, especially since these same people will answer the phone ,, and have a chat even if im having a real conversation with them in person. i just hang up on them now 

[leicsmac]

52 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Pfft, you had it good Alf 

 

When I started work aged 16 in 1989 I was on £29.50 A WEEK - which is about 80p an hour!

 

I couldn't survive on that after bus fair and lunches but it was job and a rung on the ladder. Within 6 months I went up to £80 a week (£2 an hour) and 2 years later I was Assistant Manager on £10k a year. 

 

And all that under Thatcher the bitch  

 

It's all character building and if people are prepared to listen, learn and work had they'll eventually get the rewards..

4

Sorry Izzy, but this - the idea that suffering breeds character and the workplace is somehow just - grinds my gears, because too often it's bollocks.

 

But we've covered the reasons for all that before so I'll leave it at that.

[The Doctor]

On 05/09/2018 at 12:44, Izzy Muzzett said:

Is white a colour? I’m really pale skinned and very white. 

Depends if you're defining colour by pigmentation or light. If we're looking at light, the colour you see is the wavelengths not absorbed by the surface you're looking at - so if the surface is white then it's every colour (since white light is reflecting at every wavelength in the visible spectrum). If you're working on pigmentation, white would be the absence of any pigmentation and therefore colourless.

[Innovindil]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Sorry Izzy, but this - the idea that suffering breeds character and the workplace is somehow just - grinds my gears, because too often it's bollocks.

 

But we've covered the reasons for all that before so I'll leave it at that.

Where did he say suffering builds character? He said working builds character, and as a general rule of thumb, it does. People who have to work for their stuff appreciate it a whole lot more than the people who have it handed to them. 

[AKCJ]

23 hours ago, Finnegan said:

End of the day, most offence should come from intent really. If someone is clearly trying to be polite and is just out of date on the right lingo and you choose to be offended, you're the **** tbh. 

 

If you've taken the time to explain to them why you'd rather they not use X term and they still do, they are. 

 

Ain't rocket science. 

In theory, yes. But there is a lot of ignorance in the world and some people just don't understand modern Britain.

 

My Grandad will say shite like "Who is the dark lad playing up front for them?" to me at the footie. He's being as polite as he knows best and doesn't mean harm whatsoever, but ultimately that's an offensive thing to say.

 

I personally think it's best that we all learn how to talk to people without offending them (to a reasonable extent) rather than offending people before learning.

[Izzy]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Sorry Izzy, but this - the idea that suffering breeds character and the workplace is somehow just - grinds my gears, because too often it's bollocks.

 

But we've covered the reasons for all that before so I'll leave it at that.

Yeah we've been here before Mac so all I'll say is that I wasn't suffering on a low wage as I still lived at home (as is the 17 year old girl in the tweet I believe).

 

What it did though was motivate me to improve and better myself to eventually be rewarded with a pay rise. It may often be bollux but I look back fondly on cleaning toilets and vacuuming the floor because it helped me to relate and empathise with what my own staff were doing when I was ultimately in charge.

 

Edited 6 September 2018 by Izzy Muzzett

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

In theory, yes. But there is a lot of ignorance in the world and some people just don't understand modern Britain.

 

My Grandad will say shite like "Who is the dark lad playing up front for them?" to me at the footie. He's being as polite as he knows best and doesn't mean harm whatsoever, but ultimately that's an offensive thing to say.

 

I personally think it's best that we all learn how to talk to people without offending them (to a reasonable extent) rather than offending people before learning.

Are you going to start sending pensioners on diversity courses? 

 

Language and what is offensive will develop over time, perfectly normal things we say and do now will be considered abusive and objectionable in 2050.

 

If someone really does get upset by a old guy using the term "dark lad" then they need some real problems to deal with.

Edited 6 September 2018 by MattP

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Where did he say suffering builds character? He said working builds character, and as a general rule of thumb, it does. People who have to work for their stuff appreciate it a whole lot more than the people who have it handed to them. 

IMO he said "working for a wage he couldn't survive on after travel and other expenses" - sounds an awful lot like suffering to me, though he has now clarified.

 

I don't disagree with the final sentence there, but I do take issue with the assertion that hard work, listening etc will eventually lead to rewards - it doesn't all of the time, and not even most of the time.

 

2 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Yeah we've been here before Mac so all I'll say is that I wasn't suffering on a low wage as I still lived at home (as is the 17 year old girl in the tweet I believe).

 

What it did though way motivate me to improve and better myself to eventually be rewarded with a pay rise. It may often be bollux but I look back fondly on cleaning toilets and vacuuming the floor because it helped me to relate and empathise what my own staff were doing when I was ultimately in charge.

 

That's fair enough, thanks for the clarification.

 

Motivation caused by crisis is often a good one, yes - and I'm glad it turned out well for you. Just piping up with a reminder that it ain't always so.