Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
davieG

The Good News thread, local jobs, economy etc

By davieG, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Ross-Kemp

Ross-Kemp

Posted
Posted

£3 million spent on refurbishments and £1 million grant.

For me it's not positive news. We shouldn't have to pay companies to operate in Leicester.

Why? That's an initial £4 million outlay, however it's going to be keeping 300 highly skilled workers in the city.

Also to have a company the size of IBM in Leicester is fantastic news for the city.

What else do you suggest? Another 'garden' in the town centre? Because that cost £4million.

I know what I'd rather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

I see what you mean, it would have been more positive if it had happened without the need for government intervention.

 

Sign of the times unfortunately, big respected companied aren't going to be queuing up to set up base in Leicester without a few incentives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted (edited)

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't it would seem

 

People on the left will now be annoyed as it's not another poundshop going up and people on zero hour contracts being employed.

Edited by MattP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buce

Buce

Posted
Posted (edited)

People on the left will now be annoyed as it's not another poundshop going up and people on zero hour contracts being employed.

What, the Poundshops that take part in the workfare scheme? Zero hour contracts? The left is firmly against both. And why would anyone complain about job-creation on this scale?

Edited by Buce
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rincewind

Rincewind

Posted
Posted

There is nothing wrong with creating jobs for full time work. The type of zero hour contract which I object to is where a person may have 5 hours one week and 15 another and has to sit waiting for a phone call which could come late on the day before.

Another high court judge has deemed workshare as illegal but no doubt this will be ignored and goalposts will be moved. There have bee cases where people have been laid off then sent back to the same company to do the job they left under the scheme. If a vacancy is available why not take a person on full time? The answer is probably that with work share the employer is not obliged to give the employee the same rights and benefits as they do to  those on full time contracts thus saving them money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Webbo

Webbo

Posted
Posted

There is nothing wrong with creating jobs for full time work. The type of zero hour contract which I object to is where a person may have 5 hours one week and 15 another and has to sit waiting for a phone call which could come late on the day before.

Another high court judge has deemed workshare as illegal but no doubt this will be ignored and goalposts will be moved. There have bee cases where people have been laid off then sent back to the same company to do the job they left under the scheme. If a vacancy is available why not take a person on full time? The answer is probably that with work share the employer is not obliged to give the employee the same rights and benefits as they do to  those on full time contracts thus saving them money.

It's probably because there isn't enough work to employ someone 40 hours pw, every week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted (edited)

What, the Poundshops that take part in the workfare scheme? Zero hour contracts? The left is firmly against both. And why would anyone complain about job-creation on this scale?

 

Five months to go before an election with the Tories in power? Of course they don't want job creation at the minute.

 

There is nothing wrong with creating jobs for full time work. The type of zero hour contract which I object to is where a person may have 5 hours one week and 15 another and has to sit waiting for a phone call which could come late on the day before.

Another high court judge has deemed workshare as illegal but no doubt this will be ignored and goalposts will be moved. There have bee cases where people have been laid off then sent back to the same company to do the job they left under the scheme. If a vacancy is available why not take a person on full time? The answer is probably that with work share the employer is not obliged to give the employee the same rights and benefits as they do to  those on full time contracts thus saving them money.

 

Any sources for this Ken? I'm sure we would have read about it had the scheme been declared illegal? Or is this another fantasy from a dodgy blog like the 'fact' the UK was about to be taken to all sorts of international courts for it's genocide of the disabled?

Edited by MattP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MooseBreath

MooseBreath

Posted
Posted

No, he means the IBM subsidy is good news although really it isn't that great. It could be a good deal, or we could just be writing a nice cheque for £4million of public money to a US based multinational.

300 employees paying about £10k income tax per year and that's your £4m back in 16 months. Not to mention corporation tax and rent on the office space plus the variety of services required. It's a productive investment that benefits local people. For me it's exactly what the government should be doing with public money instead of wasting it on public sector non-jobs and welfare payments.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MooseBreath

MooseBreath

Posted
Posted (edited)

Largely unreported news that climate change stats are still being blatantly faked. That whole "2014 was the warmest year ever" thing? Total bullshit. A decade of no temperature rises can no longer be explained and they've started to falsify data in order to keep the money flowing in.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

Edited by MooseBreath
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

I think the university of East Anglia were caught fiddling these figures as well a few years ago.

If global warming is so obvious why are they doing it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

I still remember what one of the professors at Leicester Uni told me about this when I was taking a module on high altitude and climate related physics.

"There are only two things we know for sure about climate change. One is that CO2 levels are rising. The other is that humans have had some effect on this.

Everything else - the degree of the effect, whether it's largely human driven or just natural cycling, what changes it's going to lead to in the future, all of that - is pure speculating. Anyone who tells you otherwise, expert or no, is lying. We simply don't have enough data over enough time to see whether we're doing damage or whether this is just part of the pattern, or both."

In any case, when the current interglacial period ends, we'll have bigger problems to deal with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...