The Labour Government

Worsleyweb said:
It’s a disgrace / my kids have been to private schools and I am mates with one of the bursars. She says 20 percent are behind on fees and most are just relatively successful hard working people with good jobs such as doctors or lawyers.

They pay significant tax already and 15k a year net is a huge burden. It’s a bloody disgrace and enough reason to not vote for these wankers alone.

Hard working people penalised.

It has made my blood boil today.

Politics of envy.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you or they are worried about mate. Calm the fuck down will you.
Everybody and his dog knows how easy it is to economise for piddling amounts like school fees, or, say, the deposit on a first home.

Tell these shirkers and benefit whores to do one of the following:

A) get a better job,
B) cancel Netflix, and/or Sky TV
C) Drink less Costa Coffee

That’s it. Problem solved so you can stop pissing your keks now me old china.
Any one of A,B, or C will magically eradicate any financial woes. It’s what your lot have been telling the genuine poor for years.

I’m on the side of hardworking taxpayers. Why should they have to give these benefit-scrounging spongers a handout?

You tories, you’ve always got your hands out for other people’s money.
 
WNRH said:
The proposed new employment rights bill has some concerning implications for small/medium businesses who are already struggling.

Going from two years service to one day for unfair dismissal rights is too extreme and is not practical. There are more bad employees than there are bad employers yet the rights that are being proposed are too one sided.
Click to expand...

You get a job offer
You resign from current job
Boss of new job feels he/she can take piss as they can sack you for no reason

It's unfair dismissa we are talking about here a bad employee would lose a claim no?

Why do people think unfairly dismissing people at say a year or two is right?
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Really, we want to make thousands of SMEs go out out business because they can't cope with the stress of possibly hiring the wrong person or having a claim against them. I thought we wanted to increase employment not decrease it?

I will be writing to my new MP to inform her of the massive risks of bringing in this legislation.
Click to expand...

It's a manifesto pledge. You'll get a nothingburger back and it will pass into law.
 
Last edited:
Postman Pep said:
Strong Karen vibes here .... I demand to speak to the manager ;-)

On a serious note isn't this just the risk and reward nature of capitalism? Why should employers be insulated from the cost of making poor decisions? If they can't cope with the stress maybe they should get out and let somebody else fill the void?
Click to expand...
You think it's that easy? If it were everyone would be doing it. Instead most choose the easier but no less noble path of being an employee.

About two thirds of new businesses go under in the first three years, and yet some of you on here want to increase that figure?

Small business owners are the lifeblood of the UK economy, not the big national and multinationals who don't pay their fair share of tax and yet have all the influence.

Anyway I can see we are going round in circles, so happy to leave you to it chaps.
 
WNRH said:
You do realise that not all employers are fat sloths with a cigar stroking a cat sneering down at the workers from above don’t you?

The majority are good hard working people who give people in society a chance and opportunities.

It’s not as simple as saying pay a better wage to attract a better applicant. The minimum wage is all that some employers can afford.

These small businesses are the backbone of the country and the economy, giving people their first, continued or last chance of employment.
Click to expand...

The Ghandi route won't work I'm afraid so let's get real here.

Too little employment laws business will generally take piss

Too many some employees will take the piss.

Finding the correct balance is hard, in fact probably impossible. Being able to sack someone without good reason after 2 years is far too long, a year is far too long. There actually isn't a fair amount of time to sack someone unfairly. By definition it's unfair hence the name.
 
hilts said:
Plus those figures are skewed by high earners. Some people need to look outside their own bubble and check out job sites, the amounts of jobs at min wage or above are huge.
Click to expand...

National Living Wage is £11.44 ph - times the mythical 35 hrs per week full time - times 52 weeks with all benefits £20820 - £40k pa is the exception not the rule
 
bluethrunthru said:
National Living Wage is £11.44 ph - times the mythical 35 hrs per week full time - times 52 weeks with all benefits £20820 - £40k pa is the exception not the rule
Click to expand...

Can we just call it the minimum wage?

Just because the Tories tried to rewrite reality doesn't mean we need to use their language. Hopefully labour remove this nonsense name or make it match the actual living wage.
 
Postman Pep said:
Strong Karen vibes here .... I demand to speak to the manager ;-)

On a serious note isn't this just the risk and reward nature of capitalism? Why should employers be insulated from the cost of making poor decisions? If they can't cope with the stress maybe they should get out and let somebody else fill the void?
Click to expand...
The employee should take the risk, I mean losing their jobs could mean the difference between feeding their kids or paying the rent.
Don't worry after 2 years that risk reduces.

You don't mind working your lunch or working another Saturday do you? I know what I said at the interview but times change. We all have to make sacrifices, I mean Julians school fees are due.

I could always find someone else if you don't want to be fkexible?
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
You think it's that easy? If it were everyone would be doing it. Instead most choose the easier but no less noble path of being an employee.
Click to expand...
I never said it was and I know from experience how difficult it is being married to someone who started up a niche, and initially successful, retail outlet.
Churchlawtonblue said:
About two thirds of new businesses go under in the first three years, and yet some of you on here want to increase that figure?
Click to expand...
Again projection .... nobody has said that.
Churchlawtonblue said:
Small business owners are the lifeblood of the UK economy, not the big national and multinationals who don't pay their fair share of tax and yet have all the influence.
Click to expand...
Nice to see that you have identified the true culprits in this doom cycle.
Churchlawtonblue said:
Anyway I can see we are going round in circles, so happy to leave you to it chaps.
Click to expand...
That will be the content of your third strongly worded letter to your MP ;-)
 
WNRH said:
The proposed new employment rights bill has some concerning implications for small/medium businesses who are already struggling.

Going from two years service to one day for unfair dismissal rights is too extreme and is not practical. There are more bad employees than there are bad employers yet the rights that are being proposed are too one sided.
Click to expand...
We heard the same tired old Tory shit about the minimum wage.
 
Just seen Starmer leading the way with the opposition, bringing the country under the ‘One’ umbrella.

All good, so far.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Can we just call it the minimum wage?

Just because the Tories tried to rewrite reality doesn't mean we need to use their language. Hopefully labour remove this nonsense name or make it match the actual living wage.
Click to expand...

call it whatever we want its fucking inadequate - people are equating 2024 wages with cost of living in the 1980's and until we can get people out of that mindset we are fucked
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top