And the NHS will be swimming in cash £350 million per week for starters.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The unemployment fudge
- Thread starter urban genie
- Start date
And the NHS will be swimming in cash £350 million per week for starters.
Less than 3% of those employed are on zero hours contracts, and the numbers are falling as businesses move away from them.
Stop making excuses.
Sorry I don't by this 3% fuckin' BS its 2 million people they are worth more than some poxy percentage. As moving away from this funny they just went up by 100k https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rs-contracts-in-uk-rose-by-100000-in-2017-ons
Sorry I don't by this 3% fuckin' BS its 2 million people they are worth more than some poxy percentage. As moving away from this funny they just went up by 100k https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rs-contracts-in-uk-rose-by-100000-in-2017-ons
"According to the LFS, the number of people employed on “zero-hours contracts” in their main job, during October to December 2017 was 901,000, representing 2.8% of all people in employment. This latest estimate is 4,000 lower than that for October to December 2016 (905,000 or 2.8% of people in employment)."
Why don't you read the actual ONS report rather than the dickhead slanting the Guardian puts on it?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan...donotguaranteeaminimumnumberofhours/april2018
Don’t forget, there’s a huge difference between unemployment numbers and economically inactive numbers. The 16-64 age group has an unemployment number of 1.4M, give or take. Working population (16-64), in work is about 32million, giving an ‘employment rate’ of about 75% but an ‘unemployment rate’ of 4.5%.
What we don’t do is class the economically inactive (not actively looking for work in the last 4 weeks or unable to start work in the next 2 weeks) as unemployed. So, 25% of the people aged 16-64 don’t have a job, but we have ‘full employment’.
The government doesn't even control the statistics but there is no point in reporting on how many people are not employed as opposed to how many are looking for work. They are two completely different things. We don't for example class a millionaire not working as unemployed..
Today nearly 76% are employed but 20% choose not to work or can't work, are in education, in prison or whatever... That leaves 4%. The unemployment rate is therefore 4% and not 25%.
So no we aren't achieving true full employment but that would be impossible without bringing in forced labour or forced conscription or something.
"According to the LFS, the number of people employed on “zero-hours contracts” in their main job, during October to December 2017 was 901,000, representing 2.8% of all people in employment. This latest estimate is 4,000 lower than that for October to December 2016 (905,000 or 2.8% of people in employment)."
Why don't you read the actual ONS report rather than the dickhead slanting the Guardian puts on it?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan...donotguaranteeaminimumnumberofhours/april2018
It also doesn't tell you how many people are on zero hours who want to be which I reckon will be a fair few.
I was on zero hours as a student in a big pub chain and it was fine because it works both ways, I could turn down work to study because I wasn't contracted to do any number of hours. After that if I wanted the hours they were there. I suppose the downside is if the hours aren't there but then who puts someone on an employment contract to not use them?
Had I been on a proper contract for say 20 hours and I needed time to say study for an exam, I would have to had booked it as holidays or swapped with someone so it wouldn't of worked as well.
It also doesn't tell you how many people are on zero hours who want to be which I reckon will be a fair few.
I was on zero hours as a student in a big pub chain and it was fine because it works both ways, I could turn down work to study because I wasn't contracted to do any number of hours. After that if I wanted the hours they were there. I suppose the downside is if the hours aren't there but then who puts someone on an employment contract to not use them?
Had I been on a proper contract for say 20 hours and I needed time to say study for an exam, I would have to had booked it as holidays or swapped with someone so it wouldn't of worked as well.
The only survey I've seen that tries to address this is here:
https://www.cipd.co.uk/about/media/press/041215-zero-hours
What it doesn't really ask is whether they would prefer to move over to fixed hour contracts though. There's anecdotal evidence that McDonalds workers when given the opportunity to switch rejected moving off ZHC but that's not strong really.
Many choose it, especially for second jobs, which is why it's only the number on them for primary jobs which matter.
I like to think if Cameron ran on a platform of dousing the country in petrol, setting fire to it and then fucking off he wouldn’t have got the votes. Strangely all I saw was things like ‘Conservatives believe in the EU Single Market and our membership of it’. Odd that he didn’t mention this was a lie and that burning everything to the ground was the Conservatives preferred economic policy.
Cameron was a staunt remainer, he ordered the fear campaign along with Osborne who famously claimed there would be an immediate emergency budget if we voted to leave. He also ordered the civil service to produce them leaflets outlining why we shouldn't vote to leave. He went because there was no possible way he could lead Brexit having campaigned to remain.
Cameron promised a referendum in 2015, he won a majority. We had a referendum and the people then voted to leave. In 2017 it got so terrible that another election came along and yet again the Tories won even more votes although lost ground in seats.
I think you need to retune with what people want because clearly staying in the EU just isn't it, it isn't even the policy of the Labour leader.
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 20,331
I think you need to retune with what people want because clearly staying in the EU just isn't it, it isn't even the policy of the Labour leader.
What do you suggest? Re-education camp? Courses in how to be an obedient little Brexiteer?
Get in the fucking sea with that shit.
What do you suggest? Re-education camp? Courses in how to be an obedient little Brexiteer?
Get in the fucking sea with that shit.
No no, the point was the tories in your view are burning the country to the ground. Clearly the rest of the country does not share this view given they have kept them in power for the last 8 years.
No no, the point was the tories in your view are burning the country to the ground. Clearly the rest of the country does not share this view given they have kept them in power for the last 8 years.
But the haven't been in power because 7 years out of those 8 have been in coalition.