Rincewind Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 Before I retired I would have done them if the hours and days were agreed in the way agency work is done.
Hirsty The Blue 94 Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 Only just caught up with the Bercow story. Seems that William Hague spent his last days as an MP before resigning with egg all over his face. Although I agree in parts with the propositions it has been done in potentially the most underhand and undemocratic way imaginable. Loved how Bercow gave Hague a stare down as he was reading out the result of the ballot.
leicsmac Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 When you speak to people looking for work with qualifications this is the impression I'm getting now, don't get me wrong it's not a nationwide acclaimed point of view, if you strike up a conversation with someone in a weatherspoons at 11am you'll probably get the response there is nothing out there and they can't get a job. I don't think zero hour contracts are actually supposed to be there for people planning a future, the companies who use them are places like MacDonalds and Sports Direct, I'd imagine the vast majority of people on these contracts are students, mothers and various other people who only want a few hours a week. I know you don't like Social Darwinism but people have to take responsibility for themselves, if you are 35 years old and serving fries part time you've probably made a bit of a balls up of your education and havn't bothered to rectify it despite being given ample time and opportunity to do so. Fair points all. Like I said, I hope you're right. I do however think that personal responsibility and action, while a fine thing, is not an absolute. The actions of other people towards you and those around you matter too, and because of that I don't like blanket condemnation of those in difficult circumstances. Isn't it about time you just got a proper job instead of messing around doing courses? What is science communication anyway? Journalism? Why Moosey...I never knew you cared so much about my personal working wellbeing. I'm honoured! As far as a 'proper job' goes...for five years out the last six I have been working eight hours a day, five days a week (the other year was of course spent studying to add to my skillset, backed by my own money). Then going home and paying rent and bills and all the expenses that someone doing a 'proper job' would also do. That sounds like 'proper' work to me, though of course you might disagree. And I thought you said studying to add to your skills that make you more employable was a good, nay necessary thing, in todays working environment? I've no idea why I'm answering this question, but yes, it is journalism as a type - explaining to less science and tech-savvy investors why sticking a few quid in a new scinece company is a good idea. Basically acting as a go between the hard scientists (who mostly aren't that good at communication or explaining things to the layman) and the money/political boyos who just want to know how exactly it will benefit them in 10 PPT slides or less.
leicsmac Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 Back on topic...what on Earth were Hague and company thinking, trying to nix Bercow this close to an election?
MooseBreath Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 Why Moosey...I never knew you cared so much about my personal working wellbeing. I'm honoured! As far as a 'proper job' goes...for five years out the last six I have been working eight hours a day, five days a week (the other year was of course spent studying to add to my skillset, backed by my own money). Then going home and paying rent and bills and all the expenses that someone doing a 'proper job' would also do. That sounds like 'proper' work to me, though of course you might disagree. And I thought you said studying to add to your skills that make you more employable was a good, nay necessary thing, in todays working environment? I've no idea why I'm answering this question, but yes, it is journalism as a type - explaining to less science and tech-savvy investors why sticking a few quid in a new scinece company is a good idea. Basically acting as a go between the hard scientists (who mostly aren't that good at communication or explaining things to the layman) and the money/political boyos who just want to know how exactly it will benefit them in 10 PPT slides or less. Just a bit odd that, having complained about a lack of jobs in your field, and then learning that there is actually a skills shortage in your field, you've decided that instead of getting one of those jobs you're going to go back to college to learn something new again. I think that's great and all, but I don't think you have the right to continue to complain about a lack of jobs when you're swerving all opportunities to get one.
MooseBreath Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 I guess this isn't a surprise but, the creators of jobs and wealth are backing the conservatives this morning. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32141412
Jon the Hat Posted 1 April 2015 Author Posted 1 April 2015 I guess this isn't a surprise but, the creators of jobs and wealth are backing the conservatives this morning. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32141412 Labour supporters on Monday: Listen to the CEOs! A European exit is bad!! No referendum!! Vote Labour! Labour supporters on Wednesday: Don't listen to the CEOs! They are only out for themselves!! Vote Labour!
Alf Bentley Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 I guess this isn't a surprise but, the creators of jobs and wealth are backing the conservatives this morning. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32141412 What a shocking development! Millionaire big business bosses support the Tories. They cite cuts in their corporation tax as particularly influential in their decision - but are also believed to approve of low pay, job insecurity, tax cuts for high earners and a relaxed attitude to tax avoidance. Next thing you know the unions will be coming out in support of Labour, citing the need for better pay and conditions, investment in public services, a fair, progressive tax system and a clampdown on tax avoidance. An aside (1): How utterly gutless of them NOT to actually call for people to vote Tory ("We believe a change in course will threaten jobs and deter investment" etc is all they say about the election). Presumably this is so that, if a Labour-led government is elected, they can turn round and say "Well! We didn't mean don't vote Labour....we just meant let's not change the policies too much ......and you're not doing that, are you, Ed, we're all mates together here!" An aside (2): Now that these big bosses have sought to influence the democratic process, Labour should write to each of them asking them to reveal where they stand on an EU referendum, which they chose not to mention. An aside (3): If these big bosses are "the creators of wealth" (presumably the only ones, judging from the definite article), why the fvck do they bother employing all the apparently worthless scum who actually DO the jobs, but presumably contribute nothing to the wealth of those companies? Must just be out of the good of their little wet liberal hearts, I presume?
Benji Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 I've got a wife and 3 daughters.They've all got their own individual shampoos and conditioners . They all go out together for their haircuts, if it took 3 hours each I wouldn't see them all day and half the night. Sounds like you're missing a trick - should be advocating that they go together on a Saturday and "take as much time as they need".
MooseBreath Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 What a shocking development! Millionaire big business bosses support the Tories. They cite cuts in their corporation tax as particularly influential in their decision - but are also believed to approve of low pay, job insecurity, tax cuts for high earners and a relaxed attitude to tax avoidance. Next thing you know the unions will be coming out in support of Labour, citing the need for better pay and conditions, investment in public services, a fair, progressive tax system and a clampdown on tax avoidance. An aside (1): How utterly gutless of them NOT to actually call for people to vote Tory ("We believe a change in course will threaten jobs and deter investment" etc is all they say about the election). Presumably this is so that, if a Labour-led government is elected, they can turn round and say "Well! We didn't mean don't vote Labour....we just meant let's not change the policies too much ......and you're not doing that, are you, Ed, we're all mates together here!" An aside (2): Now that these big bosses have sought to influence the democratic process, Labour should write to each of them asking them to reveal where they stand on an EU referendum, which they chose not to mention. An aside (3): If these big bosses are "the creators of wealth" (presumably the only ones, judging from the definite article), why the fvck do they bother employing all the apparently worthless scum who actually DO the jobs, but presumably contribute nothing to the wealth of those companies? Must just be out of the good of their little wet liberal hearts, I presume? You got it, Alf, the creators of jobs and wealth are backing the conservatives!
Buce Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 Two-thirds of leading economists say austerity has been bad for the economy. Obviously they don't know what they're talking about... http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32143952 http://cfmsurvey.org/surveys/importance-elections-uk-economic-activity
Charl91 Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 Slightly late to the party, but my 2 pence on zero hours. Zero hours can be a problem or can be fantastic. It depends on the employer. I suppose working on a supply-teaching basis, I was working zero hours about 6 months ago. It was nice to have flexibility with my hours, and the opportunity to have a day off when I liked, even if I didn't get as much work as I would have liked. So that was absolutely fine. On the other hand, I got absolutely shafted on a zero hours contract by my boss when I worked at a pub. It took me about 2 months of looking to finally get that job. Having been told initially that they were looking to employ for full time, on average, I would get 16 hours a week. I only just earned enough to pay my rent, and bills (though on many weeks I didn't) and certainly didn't earn enough to buy food. You were expected to jump through ridiculous hoops to keep your hours. For example, I was often told to come in at a certain time (say 4pm) only then to be told that it wasn't very busy, so to not log on, but sit and wait without getting paid until it was busy enough to sign in and start working. I remember one time I sat and waited for about 2 hours, worked for 1 hour and then got sent home. Since I had to pay for the bus to get there, I earned just over £2 on that day, for about 3 hours of my time (4 including travel). The other thing they did, is that you were obliged to take a 30 minute (unpaid) break if you worked a certain amount of hours in a shift (say 8 or so). So sometimes I would arrive, be told to immediately take my 30 minute break because it wasn't busy (before I even started working) and then work for the next 8 or 9 hours straight. However, you couldn't complain about any of those things, because if you did, then you were guaranteed to lose lots of your hours for the next week. Let's not pretend this is a black or white situation. Zero hours contracts can be great or terrible, depending on your employer. While I wouldn't scrap them, I do agree that something needs to be done to stop the abuse of the system by some employers.
MooseBreath Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 Two-thirds of leading economists say austerity has been bad for the economy. Obviously they don't know what they're talking about... http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32143952 Well no, again you're deliberately misrepresenting what is actually being said there. Fifty economists were asked if they thought austerity had a positive impact on aggregate economic activity. You wouldn't expect 'austerity' itself to have a positive impact. You might expect 'improvements to efficiency' to have a positive impact but that's not what was asked. It's a very poor question to the point of being completely meaningless.
Jon the Hat Posted 1 April 2015 Author Posted 1 April 2015 I'll be voting green Always good to have a comedy vote in the mix.
Jimothy Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 I'll be voting green When was the voting age lowered to 12?
leicsmac Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 Just a bit odd that, having complained about a lack of jobs in your field, and then learning that there is actually a skills shortage in your field, you've decided that instead of getting one of those jobs you're going to go back to college to learn something new again. I think that's great and all, but I don't think you have the right to continue to complain about a lack of jobs when you're swerving all opportunities to get one. The course I intend to take is part time and will (hopefully) be in conjunction with full time work. Don't worry yourself unduly. As I have said before, I personally don't mind looking around a lot for jobs and retraining and travelling to get them. I'm (moderately) young and the idea of being stuck in a crappy job staring at a cubicle or a PC for years on end is boring as fvck to me. I like changes - frequent ones. I know it's something rather difficult for such an ardent believer in Randian lack of altruism and personal responsibility to grasp, but I actually have concern for those who aren't me and my immediate social group. The ones too old or not skilled enough to be able to retrain and find new work in this new working environment we find ourselves in after being made redundant after 20 years of work at the same company, for instance. Change in this case is good in my view , but not everyone can handle it. And...that's not their fault.
Guest MattP Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 Labour supporters on Monday: Listen to the CEOs! A European exit is bad!! No referendum!! Vote Labour! Labour supporters on Wednesday: Don't listen to the CEOs! They are only out for themselves!! Vote Labour! So true! What a shocking development! Millionaire big business bosses support the Tories. They cite cuts in their corporation tax as particularly influential in their decision - but are also believed to approve of low pay, job insecurity, tax cuts for high earners and a relaxed attitude to tax avoidance. Next thing you know the unions will be coming out in support of Labour, citing the need for better pay and conditions, investment in public services, a fair, progressive tax system and a clampdown on tax avoidance. An aside (1): How utterly gutless of them NOT to actually call for people to vote Tory ("We believe a change in course will threaten jobs and deter investment" etc is all they say about the election). Presumably this is so that, if a Labour-led government is elected, they can turn round and say "Well! We didn't mean don't vote Labour....we just meant let's not change the policies too much ......and you're not doing that, are you, Ed, we're all mates together here!" An aside (2): Now that these big bosses have sought to influence the democratic process, Labour should write to each of them asking them to reveal where they stand on an EU referendum, which they chose not to mention. An aside (3): If these big bosses are "the creators of wealth" (presumably the only ones, judging from the definite article), why the fvck do they bother employing all the apparently worthless scum who actually DO the jobs, but presumably contribute nothing to the wealth of those companies? Must just be out of the good of their little wet liberal hearts, I presume? An aside (1) - How do you know they want people to vote Tory? You don't. Some of those businessmen who have signed that letter supported Labour in previous elections, some could be supporting parties such as the Lib Dems or UKIP as well as the Conservatives, warning of the dangers of a Miliband led Labour government to business doesn't automatically assume they want to vote Conservative, I'm quite certain the majority do but it wouldn't be 100%. An aside (2) - They should, and as pointed out by John above Labour needs to actually start telling us whether we should listen to the nasty business people or not, it seems to depend on what they say from day to day when the CEO's and IBS are actually a credible source to listen too. An aside (3) - Every single boss I have ever worked for has always expressed the value of every worker in the company from the boardroom to the shop floor to the cleaner, they are all the wealth and job creators. Every single one. We've now got Ed coming out with some baffling policy regarding zero hour contracts, anyone who is on one for 12 weeks would then be offered a permanent role, so we've now just going to end up with businesses throwing people out after 11 weeks, a shocking piece of legislation for some small businesses as well who have very different workloads month by month. Typical Labour stuff this, not really about sensible politics but about soundbites - sledgehammer cracking a nut stuff that is clearly to result in more unemployment and an expanding welfare state that I'm actually sure they want. When was the voting age lowered to 12? I'd imagine that's probably what the Greens would intend to lower it to, along with the age of consent
Stadt Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 I'm not voting green you dickheads If even I was 7 months older
Buce Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 Well no, again you're deliberately misrepresenting what is actually being said there. Fifty economists were asked if they thought austerity had a positive impact on aggregate economic activity. You wouldn't expect 'austerity' itself to have a positive impact. You might expect 'improvements to efficiency' to have a positive impact but that's not what was asked. It's a very poor question to the point of being completely meaningless. " Two-thirds of the 33 economists who responded disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposition that austerity had been good for the UK." I'm not mis-representing anything, deliberately or otherwise: that is a direct quote from the article. Disagree all you like, but don't shoot the messenger.
reynard Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 The reason I asked is to see if you/wife fell into the statistical average age of those on on these contracts. Glad it works well for you, but it's misguided to believe that due to your own personal circumstances that everyone on a zero contract is hunky dory, and it's all about employee power, it's definetlly not. I don't seem to recall saying it was hunky dory but if you want to think that then fine. It is quite obvious it works for some and not for others and that largely depends upon the employer.
Stadt Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 I knew!At least someone pays attention !What is Argar like Matt?
Rincewind Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 there are also those with mental conditions that prevent them from getting high paid jobs that require numeracy and reading skills. at one time they could go into engineering shoe hosiery or mining work but those types of jobs are not abundant these days leaving them to fight over Poundshop jobs and stacking shelves. many are in their fifties and employers are reluctant to spend money on training someone that may only a few years of work in them.
Guest MattP Posted 1 April 2015 Posted 1 April 2015 " Two-thirds of the 33 economists who responded disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposition that austerity had been good for the UK." I'm not mis-representing anything, deliberately or otherwise: that is a direct quote from the article. Disagree all you like, but don't shoot the messenger. Does it really matter? I don't think it does. I've learnt already most economists talk absolute shite, vast majority were predicting triple dip recessions and mass unemployment 3-4 years ago. Go and read some David Blanchflower over the last few years if you want a good laugh. It's look a bigger racket than fortune telling.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.