FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Sacking employees made easier

Jump to newest
 

By *phrodite OP   Woman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

Thats what Osbourne is promising us now ... Sounds to me like we are moving backwards instead of forwards

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Thats what Osbourne is promising us now ... Sounds to me like we are moving backwards instead of forwards "

sounds like a good idea to me.. if people cant do their job and refuse to improve its really hard to get rid of them and this open up the job to someone who wants it and will do a good job...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *etillanteWoman
over a year ago

.

But also can be used as a threat to an employee

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_poloWoman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester


"Thats what Osbourne is promising us now ... Sounds to me like we are moving backwards instead of forwards "

Which bit of the employment law reforms are you referring to?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Why is it that when the govt announce something people always look for the negatives in it, like something shady is going on to protect bosses who've grown fat on the backs of their poor down-trodden workers?

If someone isn't pulling their weight in their job, and after repeated attempts to give them the kick up the arse that they need, and they still don't do what they're employed to do then a boss has the right to fire them. It is ridiculous to insist that a worker's job should be protected at all costs and often to the detriment of the company employing them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_poloWoman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester


"Thats what Osbourne is promising us now ... Sounds to me like we are moving backwards instead of forwards

sounds like a good idea to me.. if people cant do their job and refuse to improve its really hard to get rid of them and this open up the job to someone who wants it and will do a good job... "

Rubbish. If people can't do their job or won't do it to the required standard (and you have the correct proceedures in place) it is a splash of piss to get rid of them... OK it's 3 splashes of piss actually, but still as easy as piss.

And as of April, employers will have even longer before the employee has any right to even try and claim unfair dismissal.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But also can be used as a threat to an employee"

if they are doing something which can be cause for that to be used as a threat then surely that's the point in having the change.. atm its too hard for employers to get rid of people after their probationary period and they end up stuck with a poor worker which for smaller businesses can be very damaging!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

yes, could you be a bit more specific please?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You will always get unscrupulous bosses who sack workers for little reason and chance their luck at a tribunal, that will never change as I found out last year, but to allow people to bring dismissal cases without any risk to themselves, and often in unwinnable cases, is sheer stupidity and a waste of taxpayers money and court time.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

wish this was about sucking employees tho...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_poloWoman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester


"wish this was about sucking employees tho..."

That's actually more difficult than sacking them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ucsparkMan
over a year ago

dudley

I never had a problem getting rid of someone that cannot or does not want to do their job. Always tried to work to the five "p's" planning prevents piss poor performance, give them job description and contract they work to it or leave quite simple to me

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"wish this was about sucking employees tho..."

expect come back

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_poloWoman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester


"But also can be used as a threat to an employee

if they are doing something which can be cause for that to be used as a threat then surely that's the point in having the change.. atm its too hard for employers to get rid of people after their probationary period and they end up stuck with a poor worker which for smaller businesses can be very damaging!"

I fail to see how it is so difficult.

Lack of skill:

Interview 1 - Performance improvement discussion with agreed standards and timescale for them to be met, with appropriate support planned and review date.

Interview 2 - Performance improvement interview following a failure to meet standards. Agree standards and timescale for them to be met, with appropriate support planned and review date.

Interview 3 - You're crap, fuck off!

Lack of will:

Discipline 1 - Informal warning

Discipline 2 - Written warning

Discipline 3 - Final warning

Discipline 4 - you're crap, fuck off!

Alternatively for lack of will:

Discipline 1 - Final Warning

Discipline 2 - You're crap, fuck off!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

That don't work at all in the some public sector industries though. In fact it is notoriously difficult to get rid of underperforming employees.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_poloWoman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester


"That don't work at all in the some public sector industries though. In fact it is notoriously difficult to get rid of underperforming employees."

They have the same employment laws as everyone else... having the minerals to use them is a different matter.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Public sector interview:

Can you say yes?

Yes?

ok yer fine.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"That don't work at all in the some public sector industries though. In fact it is notoriously difficult to get rid of underperforming employees.

They have the same employment laws as everyone else... having the minerals to use them is a different matter."

I know they do but where Siren used to work she had a colleague who basically worked on his own website all day but when her boss tried to get rid of him he was blocked by HR and he sat out the last five years of his career until retirement doing fook all.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Thats what Osbourne is promising us now ... Sounds to me like we are moving backwards instead of forwards

sounds like a good idea to me.. if people cant do their job and refuse to improve its really hard to get rid of them and this open up the job to someone who wants it and will do a good job...

Rubbish. If people can't do their job or won't do it to the required standard (and you have the correct proceedures in place) it is a splash of piss to get rid of them... OK it's 3 splashes of piss actually, but still as easy as piss.

And as of April, employers will have even longer before the employee has any right to even try and claim unfair dismissal."

In my own personal experience (it was not me they sacked to be fair lol) it took almost a year in one case and almost 2 years in another as there were so called mitigating circumstances. In both cases agreements were made.

Having said that I gathered from this morning's statement that it will be a lot quicker and less formal if Ozzy gets his way. I am a bit worried, I must admit. Not for myself but for others who may not have the confidence to fight.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Public sector interview:

Can you say yes?

Yes?

ok yer fine."

lol, was that the most taxing question?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"That don't work at all in the some public sector industries though. In fact it is notoriously difficult to get rid of underperforming employees.

They have the same employment laws as everyone else... having the minerals to use them is a different matter.

I know they do but where Siren used to work she had a colleague who basically worked on his own website all day but when her boss tried to get rid of him he was blocked by HR and he sat out the last five years of his career until retirement doing fook all."

I have seen this, too - but then I have also seen the opposite, that somebody was made scapegoat for a more senior person's incompetence. Works both ways I guess

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Don't worry if you get dismissed seek a new job

...............collecting the new fees, issuing refunds – and working out who has to pay in the first place.

Mammoth task.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ellhatterMan
over a year ago

slough

those in positions of power/responsibility and incompetent in their jobs should indeed be sacked imo: such as teachers, social workers, care workers, teaching assistants -- and i've seen enough of them ! fucking unbelievable what i have seen !

ditto bankers .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Anyone who does not perform their job according to what they were contracted to do should go.

However, we do need some safeguards or the unscrupulous will may use dismissal to avoid redundancy payments, get rid of old employees in favour of newer cheaper ones etc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_poloWoman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester


"

Having said that I gathered from this morning's statement that it will be a lot quicker and less formal if Ozzy gets his way. I am a bit worried, I must admit. Not for myself but for others who may not have the confidence to fight."

I might be worried myself... well I might be if you'd say what he's actually proposing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Employment disputes are never clear cut. No-one is ever going to say "you're right I'm crap, I'll leave"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You can do anything if you follow whatever policies and procedures in place. Problem is, the length of time it takes to get through it all, to get the outcome required.

If you can't do your job as expected, then you either retrain, regrade or resign.

Bad employees drag down companies and risk every ones jobs (Except public sectors).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adchickCouple
over a year ago

Cyprus

Try getting rid of a civil servant.

It's nigh on impossible. And there's thousands of crap, useless, bone idle, workshy and irritatingly fuckwitted civil servants around.

I wish I could use the 3 strikes rule on them.

I'd soon get rid of some shite.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ellhatterMan
over a year ago

slough

yep ditto incompetent teachers/ assistants ; so heavily unionized impossible to get rid off; and most of the time the head's don't even care lol.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

yes i agree with this new thingy that the eton boys are drawing up.... what what!

It will surely make it easier for us the voter/taxes payers to sack the incompetant clowns that run our government/banks!

hear hear!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Another silly Tory proposal, another chance to attack people in the public sector. *shock horror*

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 20/03/12 20:44:22]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Another silly Tory proposal, another chance to attack people in the public sector. *shock horror*"

There were too many of them created under Labour anyway so it's time to shed a few public sector workers who were given non-existent jobs unneccessarily.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Can you name any of these non existent jobs? Have any concrete examples?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Can you name any of these non existent jobs? Have any concrete examples?"

Sure, got em all written down on a old bog roll somewhere round here. What a pointless response.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Can you name any of these non existent jobs? Have any concrete examples?

Sure, got em all written down on a old bog roll somewhere round here. What a pointless response. "

People love to state there are "non-jobs" all over the public sector but its strange that there are never any examples. Odd that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Can you name any of these non existent jobs? Have any concrete examples?

Sure, got em all written down on a old bog roll somewhere round here. What a pointless response.

People love to state there are "non-jobs" all over the public sector but its strange that there are never any examples. Odd that."

Did a quick bit of research for you.

Thanks Channel 4. Here goes:

~

A decade ago, there were 5,221,000 public sector employees. In 2009, there were 6,070,000 – an increase of 849,000. (That was under a Labour govt remember?)

With John Major's Conservative govt in charge in 1990-1997 the recovery was powered by business not government. Between 1991 and 1997, around 800,000 public sector jobs disappeared, while around 1.7 million private sector jobs were created.

Isn't it a bit of a coincidence that the 800k public sector jobs shed by the Conservatives were recreated by the incoming Labour govt - with a few more added in for good measure.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Having said that I gathered from this morning's statement that it will be a lot quicker and less formal if Ozzy gets his way. I am a bit worried, I must admit. Not for myself but for others who may not have the confidence to fight.

I might be worried myself... well I might be if you'd say what he's actually proposing."
just google it - obviously different sources have different slants

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland

Public sector workers the scapegoats againI see we seem to be the cause of all the UKs ills (of course the banks and big city money men had nothing to do with it.

I work in government and I do a fair days work with time cards to account for every minute and believe me the times are not generous.

I am also paid a lot less for my trade than when I worked in the private sector and the only reason I am still here is I am within a cpl miles from work and if I wanted to go back to private I would be working away from home and at my age I no longer wish ti do this.

Dont believe all the shit thats being soread by the media and government about the public sector workers.

What needs to be looked at is the private firms running government departments and sites that is where a big slice of taxpayers money goes with little return.

i

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 20/03/12 21:07:54]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Can you name any of these non existent jobs? Have any concrete examples?

Sure, got em all written down on a old bog roll somewhere round here. What a pointless response.

People love to state there are "non-jobs" all over the public sector but its strange that there are never any examples. Odd that.

Did a quick bit of research for you.

Thanks Channel 4. Here goes:

~

A decade ago, there were 5,221,000 public sector employees. In 2009, there were 6,070,000 – an increase of 849,000. (That was under a Labour govt remember?)

With John Major's Conservative govt in charge in 1990-1997 the recovery was powered by business not government. Between 1991 and 1997, around 800,000 public sector jobs disappeared, while around 1.7 million private sector jobs were created.

Isn't it a bit of a coincidence that the 800k public sector jobs shed by the Conservatives were recreated by the incoming Labour govt - with a few more added in for good measure."

And public services, schools, hospitals were in an appalling condition. Just because there has been an increase doesn't mean they've all gone on pointless jobs.

It wasn't hard after 1992 for the economy to get better was it? after Black monday under the Tories and the recessions of the early 1990's

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uslaffMan
over a year ago

manchester


"You will always get unscrupulous bosses who sack workers for little reason and chance their luck at a tribunal, that will never change as I found out last year, but to allow people to bring dismissal cases without any risk to themselves, and often in unwinnable cases, is sheer stupidity and a waste of taxpayers money and court time."

I thought the "loser" at an industrial tribunal had to pay all costs,I didnt realise it cost the task payer anything ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Did a quick bit of research for you.

Thanks Channel 4. Here goes:

~

A decade ago, there were 5,221,000 public sector employees. In 2009, there were 6,070,000 – an increase of 849,000. (That was under a Labour govt remember?)

With John Major's Conservative govt in charge in 1990-1997 the recovery was powered by business not government. Between 1991 and 1997, around 800,000 public sector jobs disappeared, while around 1.7 million private sector jobs were created.

Isn't it a bit of a coincidence that the 800k public sector jobs shed by the Conservatives were recreated by the incoming Labour govt - with a few more added in for good measure.

And public services, schools, hospitals were in an appalling condition. Just because there has been an increase doesn't mean they've all gone on pointless jobs.

It wasn't hard after 1992 for the economy to get better was it? after Black monday under the Tories and the recessions of the early 1990's"

Please, if you're going to continue this, do some research. Have a google for stock market crash frequencies. Whoever was in govt in the 1990s would have copped the recession in much the same way that Labour would have continued with this one had they won the election in 2010. It was on it's way and nothing could stop it. It wasn't the banker's fault, it wasn't greedy fat cat bosses either. It was inevitable. And for one simple reason:

Nothing can perpetually rise, and nothing can perpetually fall.

You create a Pyramid otherwise where those at the top get ever higher while those joining successively at the bottom find they can never reach the top because of those above them. Eventually the whole thing comes tumbling down like a house of cards.

In a recession jobs are lost. That's a fact. Private and public sector jobs have been lost in this recession but to my way of thinking the public sector jobs were created under Labour purely to create Labour voters in much the same way that the doors to Britain were flung wide open to anyone who wanted to come here in order to create more Labour voters - and still it didn't save them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Its all ok - the tories are swingers..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"You will always get unscrupulous bosses who sack workers for little reason and chance their luck at a tribunal, that will never change as I found out last year, but to allow people to bring dismissal cases without any risk to themselves, and often in unwinnable cases, is sheer stupidity and a waste of taxpayers money and court time.

I thought the "loser" at an industrial tribunal had to pay all costs,I didnt realise it cost the task payer anything ?"

The costs are borne by the taxpayer. Neither side, regardless of who wins, can claim for costs from the other.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Did a quick bit of research for you.

Thanks Channel 4. Here goes:

~

A decade ago, there were 5,221,000 public sector employees. In 2009, there were 6,070,000 – an increase of 849,000. (That was under a Labour govt remember?)

With John Major's Conservative govt in charge in 1990-1997 the recovery was powered by business not government. Between 1991 and 1997, around 800,000 public sector jobs disappeared, while around 1.7 million private sector jobs were created.

Isn't it a bit of a coincidence that the 800k public sector jobs shed by the Conservatives were recreated by the incoming Labour govt - with a few more added in for good measure.

And public services, schools, hospitals were in an appalling condition. Just because there has been an increase doesn't mean they've all gone on pointless jobs.

It wasn't hard after 1992 for the economy to get better was it? after Black monday under the Tories and the recessions of the early 1990's

Please, if you're going to continue this, do some research. Have a google for stock market crash frequencies. Whoever was in govt in the 1990s would have copped the recession in much the same way that Labour would have continued with this one had they won the election in 2010. It was on it's way and nothing could stop it. It wasn't the banker's fault, it wasn't greedy fat cat bosses either. It was inevitable. And for one simple reason:

Nothing can perpetually rise, and nothing can perpetually fall.

You create a Pyramid otherwise where those at the top get ever higher while those joining successively at the bottom find they can never reach the top because of those above them. Eventually the whole thing comes tumbling down like a house of cards.

In a recession jobs are lost. That's a fact. Private and public sector jobs have been lost in this recession but to my way of thinking the public sector jobs were created under Labour purely to create Labour voters in much the same way that the doors to Britain were flung wide open to anyone who wanted to come here in order to create more Labour voters - and still it didn't save them."

Ive done lots of research ta. True they couldnt of prevented it but it doesnt mean it was the Tories economic savy that sorted it all out.

Maybe they did do that, still doesn't mean those jobs are bad. You could say the Tories are doing there party doners bidding.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its all ok - the tories are swingers..

"

you can have ann widdecombe then

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its all ok - the tories are swingers..

you can have ann widdecombe then

"

shit - is the only other option

norma

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its all ok - the tories are swingers..

you can have ann widdecombe then

"

I think i just died a little inside thinking about that

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its all ok - the tories are swingers..

you can have ann widdecombe then

shit - is the only other option

norma "

you're right!

They feed their own daughters beefburgers you know, and tell everyone it's okay!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nJ_NW_cplCouple
over a year ago

wirral

[Removed by poster at 20/03/12 21:38:51]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nJ_NW_cplCouple
over a year ago

wirral


"You will always get unscrupulous bosses who sack workers for little reason and chance their luck at a tribunal, that will never change as I found out last year, but to allow people to bring dismissal cases without any risk to themselves, and often in unwinnable cases, is sheer stupidity and a waste of taxpayers money and court time.

I thought the "loser" at an industrial tribunal had to pay all costs,I didnt realise it cost the task payer anything ?

The costs are borne by the taxpayer. Neither side, regardless of who wins, can claim for costs from the other."

Spot on wishy although this may be about to change. A charge of £1000 to bring an unfair dismissal charge may be levied and returned only if you win. The problem comes with the 2 year rule that says you can be sacked for nothing inside 2 years and as long as no “isms” (racism, ageism) have been committed you can not even go to a tribunal.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why is it that when the govt announce something people always look for the negatives in it, like something shady is going on to protect bosses who've grown fat on the backs of their poor down-trodden workers?

If someone isn't pulling their weight in their job, and after repeated attempts to give them the kick up the arse that they need, and they still don't do what they're employed to do then a boss has the right to fire them. It is ridiculous to insist that a worker's job should be protected at all costs and often to the detriment of the company employing them."

This sounds as though it came straight from the pages of the Daily Mail.

Conservatives don't bring in legislation enabling employers to sack employees more easily with people who don't do their job properly on their minds. They do it with workers on their minds who don't doff their caps and tug their forelocks to their employers but stand up for themselves in a country where the gap between rich and poor has always been historically greater than it has in comparable countries such as France, Germany, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries (except in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s). The British Conservative Party stand for the conservation of that status quo, as anyone who has read even just a few books about political philosophy or British political history would know .No Tory would have denied this in the nineteenth century, but then, they didn't need to, as the people who might have resented the fact that the gap between rich and poor was so great, ie the poor, weren't allowed to vote. But they had to deny it after universal suffrage was brought in because then they needed the support of substantial sections of the lower class, which is the largest class, to win elections, and even most members of that class are not stupid enough to want to vote for a party which effectively proclaims its belief that it is right and proper for them to be poor whilst a few people are obscenely rich.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ive done lots of research ta. True they couldnt of prevented it but it doesnt mean it was the Tories economic savy that sorted it all out.

Maybe they did do that, still doesn't mean those jobs are bad. You could say the Tories are doing there party doners bidding."

No counter-argument to offer eh?

Ok, done the research on stock market crashes for you:

1919-21: Depression - Liberal (David Lloyd George)

1930-31: Great Depression - Labour (Ramsay MacDonald)

1939-45: WW2 - Conservative (Chamberlain/Churchill)

Mid-70s: Recession - Labour (Wilson/Callaghan)

Early 80s: Recession - Conservative (Thatcher)

Early 90s: Recession - Conservative (Major)

Late 2000s: Recession - Labour (Brown)

Do you see the pattern? Only two of those recessions have occured under a Tory govt, and only one of them occured under a Tory govt inherited from another Tory govt (Major's).

But look at the frequency of them, every ten years there is a recession, or a correction, but every 60-80 years there is a Depression (WW2 messed up the chronology in the 20th Century), and every 100 years'ish we're in for a Big One - and that's not too far away from where we are now.

How does it happen so frequently?

Markets are driven by stockbrokers, buying and selling, making a buck here, losing a buck there - and they take risks with other people's money (a stockbroker makes money regardless of whether his client wins or loses). The young brokers coming into the game have never seen a crash and trade recklessly, then one happens and they get their fingers burned, but they've never seen a Recession, and continue trading recklessly whilst new brokers are coming through and joining the party. Then a Recession hits and they all get burned a little bit more - but they've not seen a Depression yet, and continue trading to make back the losses they've just incurred. We're now 30-40 years down the line. Those first young traders know a big one is coming and get the hell out, the ones behind them suspect something's wrong but not sure what - and keep trading, but the new kids on the block haven't got a fookin scooby what's about to hit them and trade like there's no tomorrow - and then WHAM! the whole fookin thing collapses.

It happened in the 19th Century (1847 Financial Markets Collapse) and in the 18th too (1720 Stock Market Crash).

Have a read of The South Sea Bubble and The Madness of Crowds. Required reading for trainee brokers.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But they had to deny it after universal suffrage was brought in because then they needed the support of substantial sections of the lower class, which is the largest class, to win elections"

pssst.. WW1 put an end to that sort of imperialism when females from the lower classes were almost begged to get out and work to keep the war effort going. Happened again in WW2 also. There was no way the poor were going back to doffing their caps and Great Britain plc had realised that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ive done lots of research ta. True they couldnt of prevented it but it doesnt mean it was the Tories economic savy that sorted it all out.

Maybe they did do that, still doesn't mean those jobs are bad. You could say the Tories are doing there party doners bidding.

No counter-argument to offer eh?

Ok, done the research on stock market crashes for you:

1919-21: Depression - Liberal (David Lloyd George)

1930-31: Great Depression - Labour (Ramsay MacDonald)

1939-45: WW2 - Conservative (Chamberlain/Churchill)

Mid-70s: Recession - Labour (Wilson/Callaghan)

Early 80s: Recession - Conservative (Thatcher)

Early 90s: Recession - Conservative (Major)

Late 2000s: Recession - Labour (Brown)

Do you see the pattern? Only two of those recessions have occured under a Tory govt, and only one of them occured under a Tory govt inherited from another Tory govt (Major's).

But look at the frequency of them, every ten years there is a recession, or a correction, but every 60-80 years there is a Depression (WW2 messed up the chronology in the 20th Century), and every 100 years'ish we're in for a Big One - and that's not too far away from where we are now.

How does it happen so frequently?

Markets are driven by stockbrokers, buying and selling, making a buck here, losing a buck there - and they take risks with other people's money (a stockbroker makes money regardless of whether his client wins or loses). The young brokers coming into the game have never seen a crash and trade recklessly, then one happens and they get their fingers burned, but they've never seen a Recession, and continue trading recklessly whilst new brokers are coming through and joining the party. Then a Recession hits and they all get burned a little bit more - but they've not seen a Depression yet, and continue trading to make back the losses they've just incurred. We're now 30-40 years down the line. Those first young traders know a big one is coming and get the hell out, the ones behind them suspect something's wrong but not sure what - and keep trading, but the new kids on the block haven't got a fookin scooby what's about to hit them and trade like there's no tomorrow - and then WHAM! the whole fookin thing collapses.

It happened in the 19th Century (1847 Financial Markets Collapse) and in the 18th too (1720 Stock Market Crash).

Have a read of The South Sea Bubble and The Madness of Crowds. Required reading for trainee brokers."

How does cutting jobs and sue pressing spending get you out of a recession? It doesn't, it worsens it and that's the truth of the conservative plans this time around. Germany's recovered, The US is recovering and they've spent money. It's Keynesian economics and it was the method that helped Roosivelt bring the US out of the great depression in such a strong fashion.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *waymanMan
over a year ago

newcastle


"Thats what Osbourne is promising us now ... Sounds to me like we are moving backwards instead of forwards

sounds like a good idea to me.. if people cant do their job and refuse to improve its really hard to get rid of them and this open up the job to someone who wants it and will do a good job... "

If you find it hard to get rid of people on capability grounds it's because you're a shit manager, not because of the law....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *waymanMan
over a year ago

newcastle


"Why is it that when the govt announce something people always look for the negatives in it, like something shady is going on to protect bosses who've grown fat on the backs of their poor down-trodden workers?

If someone isn't pulling their weight in their job, and after repeated attempts to give them the kick up the arse that they need, and they still don't do what they're employed to do then a boss has the right to fire them. It is ridiculous to insist that a worker's job should be protected at all costs and often to the detriment of the company employing them."

Which bit of law insists that people who can;t do their job be kept in a job then?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *waymanMan
over a year ago

newcastle


"That don't work at all in the some public sector industries though. In fact it is notoriously difficult to get rid of underperforming employees."

Really?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i dont work in the public sector but have many friends who do who have also mentioned this, obviously i have no evidence for this before anyone asks

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


" It's Keynesian economics and it was the method that helped Roosivelt bring the US out of the great depression in such a strong fashion."

A monkey could have been in charge of the US economy in 1931 and it would have recovered as there was nothing else it could do. When something is at the lowest it can possibly go the only way is up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why is it that when the govt announce something people always look for the negatives in it, like something shady is going on to protect bosses who've grown fat on the backs of their poor down-trodden workers?

If someone isn't pulling their weight in their job, and after repeated attempts to give them the kick up the arse that they need, and they still don't do what they're employed to do then a boss has the right to fire them. It is ridiculous to insist that a worker's job should be protected at all costs and often to the detriment of the company employing them.

Which bit of law insists that people who can;t do their job be kept in a job then?"

I didn't state that the law insists on it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

thinking out loud yet again..... how many "conservative" posters are actually using their workplace/bought computers/phones to post here rather than "work". Do tell

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"thinking out loud yet again..... how many "conservative" posters are actually using their workplace/bought computers/phones to post here rather than "work". Do tell"

Your point being?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

if using work based technology at min then you're not omly slacking and open to punitive action but could also be challenged under fraud legislation, Anyway, if doing so would you agree double standards are being applied?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland

It isnt as hard as you think to get rid of public sector workers there were two given marching orders where I was and one of those was due to nothing more than a personality clash between him and a cpl of the supervision and nothing to do with his ability etc.

A lot of own.incompetent managers but you dont see those getting the boot as they look after thier

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"if using work based technology at min then you're not omly slacking and open to punitive action but could also be challenged under fraud legislation, Anyway, if doing so would you agree double standards are being applied?"

So only Conservatives hold jobs that warrant a company laptop?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Whatnonsense. It's not about who owns them but who employs the technology! I'm making the point that if it's ok to use them inappropriately or while in paid employment or working from home then those doing so are indeed in violation of employment/fraud laws and as such are subject to rebuke. Asking a simple question ...... Is it ok to log on to this or any other site on company technology whilst "in harness"?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Whatnonsense. It's not about who owns them but who employs the technology! I'm making the point that if it's ok to use them inappropriately or while in paid employment or working from home then those doing so are indeed in violation of employment/fraud laws and as such are subject to rebuke. Asking a simple question ...... Is it ok to log on to this or any other site on company technology whilst "in harness"? "

That's not what you asked though is it? You asked how many conservative posters are using company provided equipment to log on here, and I asked what the relevance was of how someone votes as to what equipment they use to log onto the internet.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"Thats what Osbourne is promising us now ... Sounds to me like we are moving backwards instead of forwards

sounds like a good idea to me.. if people cant do their job and refuse to improve its really hard to get rid of them and this open up the job to someone who wants it and will do a good job...

Rubbish. If people can't do their job or won't do it to the required standard (and you have the correct proceedures in place) it is a splash of piss to get rid of them... OK it's 3 splashes of piss actually, but still as easy as piss.

And as of April, employers will have even longer before the employee has any right to even try and claim unfair dismissal."

Entirely agree - spot on!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

ok, for clarification conservative as in puritanical, holier than though folk who apply legislation and lord over others whilst holding double standards regarding most things, who enjoy our lifestyle(god bless them) and yet uphold family values and wear chelsea shirts whilst fornicating(though lord knows they need someone to score for them). Dummy version....... Double standards! If applying mantle of right to one then needs to be applied to all. One can't have one law for us and another for them Shirkers are shirkers regardless of any perceived political loyalties.........Discuss, lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

BTW. I did ask a simple question...... Is it ok to use technology owned by our employer to access non work related sites?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"ok, for clarification conservative as in puritanical, holier than though folk who apply legislation and lord over others whilst holding double standards regarding most things, who enjoy our lifestyle(god bless them) and yet uphold family values and wear chelsea shirts whilst fornicating(though lord knows they need someone to score for them). Dummy version....... Double standards! If applying mantle of right to one then needs to be applied to all. One can't have one law for us and another for them Shirkers are shirkers regardless of any perceived political loyalties.........Discuss, lol"

So you're asking if any Conservative Lords or MPs are members here and use a work pc to access the site?

I doubt it very much.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Wasn't there an Italian MP that was caught doing somthing like that. It was during a hearing to impeach one of Beleaconi's ministers I think and this Italian MP was caught looking at Escorts on his iPad

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top