FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Does this count?
Does this count?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Link isnt a good one Repost a better one fella" Doesnt it work? Works for me? It's on the bbc website about workers rights It's also in the ft. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive " Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph." I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Headline reads ‘ Minister denies plans to scrap some workers rights’ So speculation which has been denied." 
End of discussion.
We all now the last thing this gmnt would every do is say something that isnt 100% true | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected." If you pay cash knowing that it's not going to be declared then you are just as guilty by paying it. Were you given the option? Very often someone paying cash wouldn't be charged Vat if applicable, which as you rightly point out isn't the right thing to do. My point being it's not just the person you are paying the cash to who is in the wrong. Besides which, cash is being used less and less as are cheques, mostly being paid straight into the bank. Try getting that past HMRC. As for workers rights, there are many good ones, but just as many that aren't so. Like everything else is about getting the right balance. But you're not interested in that, more just a bash the government thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Headline reads ‘ Minister denies plans to scrap some workers rights’ So speculation which has been denied.
End of discussion.
We all now the last thing this gmnt would every do is say something that isnt 100% true "End of discussion as far as I’m concerned. Out of interest Lionel, are you currently furloughed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. If you pay cash knowing that it's not going to be declared then you are just as guilty by paying it. Were you given the option? Very often someone paying cash wouldn't be charged Vat if applicable, which as you rightly point out isn't the right thing to do. My point being it's not just the person you are paying the cash to who is in the wrong. Besides which, cash is being used less and less as are cheques, mostly being paid straight into the bank. Try getting that past HMRC. As for workers rights, there are many good ones, but just as many that aren't so. Like everything else is about getting the right balance. But you're not interested in that, more just a bash the government thread." Most tradesmen dont take cash It's an article from the BBC Presumably that's on your long list of 'unreliable sources? Oh and it's in the ft too. You can add that one too your list. Which begs the question..what do you consider a reliable outlet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected." There are a lots of self employed people who do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Headline reads ‘ Minister denies plans to scrap some workers rights’ So speculation which has been denied.
End of discussion.
We all now the last thing this gmnt would every do is say something that isnt 100% true
End of discussion as far as I’m concerned.
Out of interest Lionel, are you currently furloughed? "Can I ask..why is that remotely any of your business? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Headline reads ‘ Minister denies plans to scrap some workers rights’ So speculation which has been denied.
End of discussion.
We all now the last thing this gmnt would every do is say something that isnt 100% true
End of discussion as far as I’m concerned.
Out of interest Lionel, are you currently furloughed?
Can I ask..why is that remotely any of your business?"Curiosity! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Headline reads ‘ Minister denies plans to scrap some workers rights’ So speculation which has been denied.
End of discussion.
We all now the last thing this gmnt would every do is say something that isnt 100% true
End of discussion as far as I’m concerned.
Out of interest Lionel, are you currently furloughed?
Can I ask..why is that remotely any of your business?
Curiosity!"Nope I've worked all the way through. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Headline reads ‘ Minister denies plans to scrap some workers rights’ So speculation which has been denied.
End of discussion.
We all now the last thing this gmnt would every do is say something that isnt 100% true
End of discussion as far as I’m concerned.
Out of interest Lionel, are you currently furloughed?
Can I ask..why is that remotely any of your business?
Curiosity!
Nope I've worked all the way through."Your employer must be getting value for money then! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Headline reads ‘ Minister denies plans to scrap some workers rights’ So speculation which has been denied.
End of discussion.
We all now the last thing this gmnt would every do is say something that isnt 100% true
End of discussion as far as I’m concerned.
Out of interest Lionel, are you currently furloughed?
Can I ask..why is that remotely any of your business?
Curiosity!
Nope I've worked all the way through.
Your employer must be getting value for money then!"Invaluable contribution  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Headline reads ‘ Minister denies plans to scrap some workers rights’ So speculation which has been denied.
End of discussion.
We all now the last thing this gmnt would every do is say something that isnt 100% true
End of discussion as far as I’m concerned.
Out of interest Lionel, are you currently furloughed?
Can I ask..why is that remotely any of your business?
Curiosity!
Nope I've worked all the way through.
Your employer must be getting value for money then!
Invaluable contribution
"Obviously the same can’t be said about you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. If you pay cash knowing that it's not going to be declared then you are just as guilty by paying it. Were you given the option? Very often someone paying cash wouldn't be charged Vat if applicable, which as you rightly point out isn't the right thing to do. My point being it's not just the person you are paying the cash to who is in the wrong. Besides which, cash is being used less and less as are cheques, mostly being paid straight into the bank. Try getting that past HMRC. As for workers rights, there are many good ones, but just as many that aren't so. Like everything else is about getting the right balance. But you're not interested in that, more just a bash the government thread. Most tradesmen dont take cash It's an article from the BBC Presumably that's on your long list of 'unreliable sources? Oh and it's in the ft too. You can add that one too your list. Which begs the question..what do you consider a reliable outlet?" You were the one saying the self employed have lots of benefits, quoting you pay cash insinuating the person receiving that cash wasn't going to declare it. Back in October I had to take six weeks off work due to a work related 'injury'. During this time I didn't get paid, unlike an employed person. Luckily I have an insurance to cover my mortgage. Which only paid out this week, three months later and only covering my mortgage, nothing else, so I've had to go into my meagre savings during that time which is generally enough to pay my tax bill. So yes, that's a great benefit! The biggest benefit I have found is I no longer have to work for someone I don't like! Which I did for 20 years. So I know it from both sides, although working rights are a lot more in the favour of the worker than back then. As for the BBC, I gave up listening to their bias a few years ago, but as I said previously I listen to many sources, read many articles and have experience, enough to make up my own mind. All media has its own agenda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Headline reads ‘ Minister denies plans to scrap some workers rights’ So speculation which has been denied.
End of discussion.
We all now the last thing this gmnt would every do is say something that isnt 100% true
End of discussion as far as I’m concerned.
Out of interest Lionel, are you currently furloughed? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. If you pay cash knowing that it's not going to be declared then you are just as guilty by paying it. Were you given the option? Very often someone paying cash wouldn't be charged Vat if applicable, which as you rightly point out isn't the right thing to do. My point being it's not just the person you are paying the cash to who is in the wrong. Besides which, cash is being used less and less as are cheques, mostly being paid straight into the bank. Try getting that past HMRC. As for workers rights, there are many good ones, but just as many that aren't so. Like everything else is about getting the right balance. But you're not interested in that, more just a bash the government thread. Most tradesmen dont take cash It's an article from the BBC Presumably that's on your long list of 'unreliable sources? Oh and it's in the ft too. You can add that one too your list. Which begs the question..what do you consider a reliable outlet? You were the one saying the self employed have lots of benefits, quoting you pay cash insinuating the person receiving that cash wasn't going to declare it. Back in October I had to take six weeks off work due to a work related 'injury'. During this time I didn't get paid, unlike an employed person. Luckily I have an insurance to cover my mortgage. Which only paid out this week, three months later and only covering my mortgage, nothing else, so I've had to go into my meagre savings during that time which is generally enough to pay my tax bill. So yes, that's a great benefit! The biggest benefit I have found is I no longer have to work for someone I don't like! Which I did for 20 years. So I know it from both sides, although working rights are a lot more in the favour of the worker than back then. As for the BBC, I gave up listening to their bias a few years ago, but as I said previously I listen to many sources, read many articles and have experience, enough to make up my own mind. All media has its own agenda." I don't disagree What agenda does the bbc have? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected." There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. If you pay cash knowing that it's not going to be declared then you are just as guilty by paying it. Were you given the option? Very often someone paying cash wouldn't be charged Vat if applicable, which as you rightly point out isn't the right thing to do. My point being it's not just the person you are paying the cash to who is in the wrong. Besides which, cash is being used less and less as are cheques, mostly being paid straight into the bank. Try getting that past HMRC. As for workers rights, there are many good ones, but just as many that aren't so. Like everything else is about getting the right balance. But you're not interested in that, more just a bash the government thread. Most tradesmen dont take cash It's an article from the BBC Presumably that's on your long list of 'unreliable sources? Oh and it's in the ft too. You can add that one too your list. Which begs the question..what do you consider a reliable outlet? You were the one saying the self employed have lots of benefits, quoting you pay cash insinuating the person receiving that cash wasn't going to declare it. Back in October I had to take six weeks off work due to a work related 'injury'. During this time I didn't get paid, unlike an employed person. Luckily I have an insurance to cover my mortgage. Which only paid out this week, three months later and only covering my mortgage, nothing else, so I've had to go into my meagre savings during that time which is generally enough to pay my tax bill. So yes, that's a great benefit! The biggest benefit I have found is I no longer have to work for someone I don't like! Which I did for 20 years. So I know it from both sides, although working rights are a lot more in the favour of the worker than back then. As for the BBC, I gave up listening to their bias a few years ago, but as I said previously I listen to many sources, read many articles and have experience, enough to make up my own mind. All media has its own agenda. I don't disagree What agenda does the bbc have?" I actually said the BBC was bias. But you probably can't see that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. " I didn't say everyone. The point was made that self employed people have less advantages than those employed. I said I don't see the point in comparing the 2 sectors and then said that self employed people have other advantages. The thread is about workers rights..its self destructive pitting 1 against the other. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. If you pay cash knowing that it's not going to be declared then you are just as guilty by paying it. Were you given the option? Very often someone paying cash wouldn't be charged Vat if applicable, which as you rightly point out isn't the right thing to do. My point being it's not just the person you are paying the cash to who is in the wrong. Besides which, cash is being used less and less as are cheques, mostly being paid straight into the bank. Try getting that past HMRC. As for workers rights, there are many good ones, but just as many that aren't so. Like everything else is about getting the right balance. But you're not interested in that, more just a bash the government thread. Most tradesmen dont take cash It's an article from the BBC Presumably that's on your long list of 'unreliable sources? Oh and it's in the ft too. You can add that one too your list. Which begs the question..what do you consider a reliable outlet? You were the one saying the self employed have lots of benefits, quoting you pay cash insinuating the person receiving that cash wasn't going to declare it. Back in October I had to take six weeks off work due to a work related 'injury'. During this time I didn't get paid, unlike an employed person. Luckily I have an insurance to cover my mortgage. Which only paid out this week, three months later and only covering my mortgage, nothing else, so I've had to go into my meagre savings during that time which is generally enough to pay my tax bill. So yes, that's a great benefit! The biggest benefit I have found is I no longer have to work for someone I don't like! Which I did for 20 years. So I know it from both sides, although working rights are a lot more in the favour of the worker than back then. As for the BBC, I gave up listening to their bias a few years ago, but as I said previously I listen to many sources, read many articles and have experience, enough to make up my own mind. All media has its own agenda. I don't disagree What agenda does the bbc have? I actually said the BBC was bias. But you probably can't see that. " You said all media has an agenda..presumably the bbc doesnt count as media? Whst bias does the bbc have? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive " I'm confused, aren't brexiteers and leavers the same people? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. I didn't say everyone. The point was made that self employed people have less advantages than those employed. I said I don't see the point in comparing the 2 sectors and then said that self employed people have other advantages. The thread is about workers rights..its self destructive pitting 1 against the other." This is what you actually said ‘There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared’ So you were saying that self employed get plenty of benefits, not less and you are clearly implying that they all work for cash in hand | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive I'm confused, aren't brexiteers and leavers the same people?" I apologise..should have said remainers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. I didn't say everyone. The point was made that self employed people have less advantages than those employed. I said I don't see the point in comparing the 2 sectors and then said that self employed people have other advantages. The thread is about workers rights..its self destructive pitting 1 against the other. This is what you actually said ‘There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared’ So you were saying that self employed get plenty of benefits, not less and you are clearly implying that they all work for cash in hand" I'm not getting into a debate about the differences between self employed people and people who work for someone. The link is clearly nothing to do with that and you are most certainly not in any way trying to divert attention away from the subject. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. I didn't say everyone. The point was made that self employed people have less advantages than those employed. I said I don't see the point in comparing the 2 sectors and then said that self employed people have other advantages. The thread is about workers rights..its self destructive pitting 1 against the other. This is what you actually said ‘There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared’ So you were saying that self employed get plenty of benefits, not less and you are clearly implying that they all work for cash in hand I'm not getting into a debate about the differences between self employed people and people who work for someone. The link is clearly nothing to do with that and you are most certainly not in any way trying to divert attention away from the subject." You mean it’s clear that you’re talking bollox and have no wriggle room! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. I didn't say everyone. The point was made that self employed people have less advantages than those employed. I said I don't see the point in comparing the 2 sectors and then said that self employed people have other advantages. The thread is about workers rights..its self destructive pitting 1 against the other. This is what you actually said ‘There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared’ So you were saying that self employed get plenty of benefits, not less and you are clearly implying that they all work for cash in hand I'm not getting into a debate about the differences between self employed people and people who work for someone. The link is clearly nothing to do with that and you are most certainly not in any way trying to divert attention away from the subject. You mean it’s clear that you’re talking bollox and have no wriggle room!" I'll say it once more just to be crystal clear. As i have no desire to be sucked into another soul destroying pointless argument. The thread is about workers rights. Have a read of the link I posted. It's nothing to do with self employed people(as I never brought that up) As this is the 2nd attempt by you to derail the thread ,I'll leave it there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. I didn't say everyone. The point was made that self employed people have less advantages than those employed. I said I don't see the point in comparing the 2 sectors and then said that self employed people have other advantages. The thread is about workers rights..its self destructive pitting 1 against the other. This is what you actually said ‘There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared’ So you were saying that self employed get plenty of benefits, not less and you are clearly implying that they all work for cash in hand I'm not getting into a debate about the differences between self employed people and people who work for someone. The link is clearly nothing to do with that and you are most certainly not in any way trying to divert attention away from the subject. You mean it’s clear that you’re talking bollox and have no wriggle room! I'll say it once more just to be crystal clear. As i have no desire to be sucked into another soul destroying pointless argument. The thread is about workers rights. Have a read of the link I posted. It's nothing to do with self employed people(as I never brought that up) As this is the 2nd attempt by you to derail the thread ,I'll leave it there. "OK, so am I quoting you correctly or not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. I didn't say everyone. The point was made that self employed people have less advantages than those employed. I said I don't see the point in comparing the 2 sectors and then said that self employed people have other advantages. The thread is about workers rights..its self destructive pitting 1 against the other. This is what you actually said ‘There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared’ So you were saying that self employed get plenty of benefits, not less and you are clearly implying that they all work for cash in hand I'm not getting into a debate about the differences between self employed people and people who work for someone. The link is clearly nothing to do with that and you are most certainly not in any way trying to divert attention away from the subject. You mean it’s clear that you’re talking bollox and have no wriggle room! I'll say it once more just to be crystal clear. As i have no desire to be sucked into another soul destroying pointless argument. The thread is about workers rights. Have a read of the link I posted. It's nothing to do with self employed people(as I never brought that up) As this is the 2nd attempt by you to derail the thread ,I'll leave it there. "So what workers rights have gone? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. I didn't say everyone. The point was made that self employed people have less advantages than those employed. I said I don't see the point in comparing the 2 sectors and then said that self employed people have other advantages. The thread is about workers rights..its self destructive pitting 1 against the other. This is what you actually said ‘There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared’ So you were saying that self employed get plenty of benefits, not less and you are clearly implying that they all work for cash in hand I'm not getting into a debate about the differences between self employed people and people who work for someone. The link is clearly nothing to do with that and you are most certainly not in any way trying to divert attention away from the subject. You mean it’s clear that you’re talking bollox and have no wriggle room! I'll say it once more just to be crystal clear. As i have no desire to be sucked into another soul destroying pointless argument. The thread is about workers rights. Have a read of the link I posted. It's nothing to do with self employed people(as I never brought that up) As this is the 2nd attempt by you to derail the thread ,I'll leave it there.
OK, so am I quoting you correctly or not?
"C’mon Lionel, answer the question! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual you misquote, my post about self employment was an answer to your paragraph below.... Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive You also stated every time you have had work done you've paid cash, insinuating. As for how is the BBC bias, I've already answered your question. Read my previous answer, then you have no need to ask the question again. If this thread has been hijacked by a self employed discussion whilst I bought the subject up, you continued it, insinuating we are all 'dodgy'." You said the bbc were biased. I asked you in what way and you have refused to answer. If you quote the exact bit where I used the word 'dodgy'ill gladly apologise Cheers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. I didn't say everyone. The point was made that self employed people have less advantages than those employed. I said I don't see the point in comparing the 2 sectors and then said that self employed people have other advantages. The thread is about workers rights..its self destructive pitting 1 against the other. This is what you actually said ‘There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared’ So you were saying that self employed get plenty of benefits, not less and you are clearly implying that they all work for cash in hand I'm not getting into a debate about the differences between self employed people and people who work for someone. The link is clearly nothing to do with that and you are most certainly not in any way trying to divert attention away from the subject. You mean it’s clear that you’re talking bollox and have no wriggle room! I'll say it once more just to be crystal clear. As i have no desire to be sucked into another soul destroying pointless argument. The thread is about workers rights. Have a read of the link I posted. It's nothing to do with self employed people(as I never brought that up) As this is the 2nd attempt by you to derail the thread ,I'll leave it there.
So what workers rights have gone?"Have you read the link? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. I didn't say everyone. The point was made that self employed people have less advantages than those employed. I said I don't see the point in comparing the 2 sectors and then said that self employed people have other advantages. The thread is about workers rights..its self destructive pitting 1 against the other. This is what you actually said ‘There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared’ So you were saying that self employed get plenty of benefits, not less and you are clearly implying that they all work for cash in hand I'm not getting into a debate about the differences between self employed people and people who work for someone. The link is clearly nothing to do with that and you are most certainly not in any way trying to divert attention away from the subject. You mean it’s clear that you’re talking bollox and have no wriggle room! I'll say it once more just to be crystal clear. As i have no desire to be sucked into another soul destroying pointless argument. The thread is about workers rights. Have a read of the link I posted. It's nothing to do with self employed people(as I never brought that up) As this is the 2nd attempt by you to derail the thread ,I'll leave it there.
OK, so am I quoting you correctly or not?
C’mon Lionel, answer the question!"Radio silence? Must be an emergency at work ?? There’s also a sense of irony ( or is it hypocrisy) when someone sits on here 24/7 banging on about workers rights whilst continuing to pick up their pay check. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual you misquote, my post about self employment was an answer to your paragraph below.... Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive You also stated every time you have had work done you've paid cash, insinuating. As for how is the BBC bias, I've already answered your question. Read my previous answer, then you have no need to ask the question again. If this thread has been hijacked by a self employed discussion whilst I bought the subject up, you continued it, insinuating we are all 'dodgy'. You said the bbc were biased. I asked you in what way and you have refused to answer. If you quote the exact bit where I used the word 'dodgy'ill gladly apologise Cheers "By insinuating that self employed took cash and didn't declare it. I haven't refused to answer your question about the BBC. I've answered it! I'd be interested in anyone else reading this can see that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual you misquote, my post about self employment was an answer to your paragraph below.... Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive You also stated every time you have had work done you've paid cash, insinuating. As for how is the BBC bias, I've already answered your question. Read my previous answer, then you have no need to ask the question again. If this thread has been hijacked by a self employed discussion whilst I bought the subject up, you continued it, insinuating we are all 'dodgy'. You said the bbc were biased. I asked you in what way and you have refused to answer. If you quote the exact bit where I used the word 'dodgy'ill gladly apologise Cheers
By insinuating that self employed took cash and didn't declare it.
I haven't refused to answer your question about the BBC. I've answered it!
I'd be interested in anyone else reading this can see that?"If you point out where I used the word dodgy I'll gladly apologise. Cheers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. I didn't say everyone. The point was made that self employed people have less advantages than those employed. I said I don't see the point in comparing the 2 sectors and then said that self employed people have other advantages. The thread is about workers rights..its self destructive pitting 1 against the other. This is what you actually said ‘There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared’ So you were saying that self employed get plenty of benefits, not less and you are clearly implying that they all work for cash in hand I'm not getting into a debate about the differences between self employed people and people who work for someone. The link is clearly nothing to do with that and you are most certainly not in any way trying to divert attention away from the subject. You mean it’s clear that you’re talking bollox and have no wriggle room! I'll say it once more just to be crystal clear. As i have no desire to be sucked into another soul destroying pointless argument. The thread is about workers rights. Have a read of the link I posted. It's nothing to do with self employed people(as I never brought that up) As this is the 2nd attempt by you to derail the thread ,I'll leave it there.
OK, so am I quoting you correctly or not?
C’mon Lionel, answer the question!
Radio silence? Must be an emergency at work ??
There’s also a sense of irony ( or is it hypocrisy) when someone sits on here 24/7 banging on about workers rights whilst continuing to pick up their pay check."Well I was wrong They didnt dispute it ,they are just happy to ignore the actual thread itself. Who would have thought it  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. I didn't say everyone. The point was made that self employed people have less advantages than those employed. I said I don't see the point in comparing the 2 sectors and then said that self employed people have other advantages. The thread is about workers rights..its self destructive pitting 1 against the other. This is what you actually said ‘There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared’ So you were saying that self employed get plenty of benefits, not less and you are clearly implying that they all work for cash in hand I'm not getting into a debate about the differences between self employed people and people who work for someone. The link is clearly nothing to do with that and you are most certainly not in any way trying to divert attention away from the subject. You mean it’s clear that you’re talking bollox and have no wriggle room! I'll say it once more just to be crystal clear. As i have no desire to be sucked into another soul destroying pointless argument. The thread is about workers rights. Have a read of the link I posted. It's nothing to do with self employed people(as I never brought that up) As this is the 2nd attempt by you to derail the thread ,I'll leave it there.
OK, so am I quoting you correctly or not?
C’mon Lionel, answer the question!
Radio silence? Must be an emergency at work ??
There’s also a sense of irony ( or is it hypocrisy) when someone sits on here 24/7 banging on about workers rights whilst continuing to pick up their pay check.
Well I was wrong
They didnt dispute it ,they are just happy to ignore the actual thread itself.
Who would have thought it
"What are you on about? Answer the question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual you misquote, my post about self employment was an answer to your paragraph below.... Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive You also stated every time you have had work done you've paid cash, insinuating. As for how is the BBC bias, I've already answered your question. Read my previous answer, then you have no need to ask the question again. If this thread has been hijacked by a self employed discussion whilst I bought the subject up, you continued it, insinuating we are all 'dodgy'. You said the bbc were biased. I asked you in what way and you have refused to answer. If you quote the exact bit where I used the word 'dodgy'ill gladly apologise Cheers
By insinuating that self employed took cash and didn't declare it.
I haven't refused to answer your question about the BBC. I've answered it!
I'd be interested in anyone else reading this can see that?
If you point out where I used the word dodgy I'll gladly apologise.
Cheers
"He said you insinuated it, which you clearly did in your quote that I posted above | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. If you pay cash knowing that it's not going to be declared then you are just as guilty by paying it. Were you given the option? Very often someone paying cash wouldn't be charged Vat if applicable, which as you rightly point out isn't the right thing to do. My point being it's not just the person you are paying the cash to who is in the wrong. Besides which, cash is being used less and less as are cheques, mostly being paid straight into the bank. Try getting that past HMRC. As for workers rights, there are many good ones, but just as many that aren't so. Like everything else is about getting the right balance. But you're not interested in that, more just a bash the government thread." **************************** Spot-on, in my opinion. Eva | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/01/15/boris-johnson-considers-post-brexit-overhaul-workers-rights/amp/ In the telegraph now aswell. So that's the bbc,the guardian,the ft,the telegraph.the indy,the national and various online sources. But apparently all such outlets have an agenda there it's fair to take the story with a pinch of salt." Still waiting for an answer!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. " We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance." What’s your productivity been like this morning? Purely in the interest of balance! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But at least you are talking about the actual topic "You were the one that introduced cash in hand etc into the thread, 5th post down! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. I didn't say everyone. The point was made that self employed people have less advantages than those employed. I said I don't see the point in comparing the 2 sectors and then said that self employed people have other advantages. The thread is about workers rights..its self destructive pitting 1 against the other. This is what you actually said ‘There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared’ So you were saying that self employed get plenty of benefits, not less and you are clearly implying that they all work for cash in hand I'm not getting into a debate about the differences between self employed people and people who work for someone. The link is clearly nothing to do with that and you are most certainly not in any way trying to divert attention away from the subject. You mean it’s clear that you’re talking bollox and have no wriggle room! I'll say it once more just to be crystal clear. As i have no desire to be sucked into another soul destroying pointless argument. The thread is about workers rights. Have a read of the link I posted. It's nothing to do with self employed people(as I never brought that up) As this is the 2nd attempt by you to derail the thread ,I'll leave it there.
So what workers rights have gone?
Have you read the link?"Yes and it does not list any workers rights that have gone it's all speculation. So I ask you again what workers rights have gone because clearly you know or otherwise you are making up a story about nothing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. I didn't say everyone. The point was made that self employed people have less advantages than those employed. I said I don't see the point in comparing the 2 sectors and then said that self employed people have other advantages. The thread is about workers rights..its self destructive pitting 1 against the other. This is what you actually said ‘There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared’ So you were saying that self employed get plenty of benefits, not less and you are clearly implying that they all work for cash in hand I'm not getting into a debate about the differences between self employed people and people who work for someone. The link is clearly nothing to do with that and you are most certainly not in any way trying to divert attention away from the subject. You mean it’s clear that you’re talking bollox and have no wriggle room! I'll say it once more just to be crystal clear. As i have no desire to be sucked into another soul destroying pointless argument. The thread is about workers rights. Have a read of the link I posted. It's nothing to do with self employed people(as I never brought that up) As this is the 2nd attempt by you to derail the thread ,I'll leave it there.
So what workers rights have gone?
Have you read the link?
Yes and it does not list any workers rights that have gone it's all speculation.
So I ask you again what workers rights have gone because clearly you know or otherwise you are making up a story about nothing?
"So what you are staying is..that because it hasn't actually happens..it wont happen? The story has appeared in several media outlets..please explain to me how 'I'm making it up? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/01/15/boris-johnson-considers-post-brexit-overhaul-workers-rights/amp/ In the telegraph now aswell. So that's the bbc,the guardian,the ft,the telegraph.the indy,the national and various online sources. But apparently all such outlets have an agenda there it's fair to take the story with a pinch of salt." Now you're getting it! They will all have a different perspective on it, if you read each individual report or do you only read the headlines? Ok, with the BBC... The BBC are bias, but you wouldn't get that. Any clearer now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/01/15/boris-johnson-considers-post-brexit-overhaul-workers-rights/amp/ In the telegraph now aswell. So that's the bbc,the guardian,the ft,the telegraph.the indy,the national and various online sources. But apparently all such outlets have an agenda there it's fair to take the story with a pinch of salt. Now you're getting it! They will all have a different perspective on it, if you read each individual report or do you only read the headlines? Ok, with the BBC... The BBC are bias, but you wouldn't get that. Any clearer now?" There arent individual reports. There is 1 report. This report has been seen by the ft. This report contains suggestions which affects issues like the working week,breaks etc. Each outlet has reported this story in the same fashion. You mentioned gmnt basking before yet the telegraph and ft dont strike me as being particularly anti tory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance." Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) " Look at the differences in workplaces without unions. Amazon being the prime example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. What’s your productivity been like this morning? Purely in the interest of balance! " I’ll take that as didley squat! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) Look at the differences in workplaces without unions. Amazon being the prime example. " Amazon is a dreadful employer, sports direct and many, many others are equally bad. A good union is one solution, another would be local minimum (living) wages like there used to be, and reducing in work benefits so that employers aren't being subsidised by the taxpayer to pay as little as possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. I didn't say everyone. The point was made that self employed people have less advantages than those employed. I said I don't see the point in comparing the 2 sectors and then said that self employed people have other advantages. The thread is about workers rights..its self destructive pitting 1 against the other. This is what you actually said ‘There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared’ So you were saying that self employed get plenty of benefits, not less and you are clearly implying that they all work for cash in hand I'm not getting into a debate about the differences between self employed people and people who work for someone. The link is clearly nothing to do with that and you are most certainly not in any way trying to divert attention away from the subject. You mean it’s clear that you’re talking bollox and have no wriggle room! I'll say it once more just to be crystal clear. As i have no desire to be sucked into another soul destroying pointless argument. The thread is about workers rights. Have a read of the link I posted. It's nothing to do with self employed people(as I never brought that up) As this is the 2nd attempt by you to derail the thread ,I'll leave it there.
So what workers rights have gone?
Have you read the link?
Yes and it does not list any workers rights that have gone it's all speculation.
So I ask you again what workers rights have gone because clearly you know or otherwise you are making up a story about nothing?
"They love using words like "could" and "at risk". Nothing concrete, just speculative. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. I didn't say everyone. The point was made that self employed people have less advantages than those employed. I said I don't see the point in comparing the 2 sectors and then said that self employed people have other advantages. The thread is about workers rights..its self destructive pitting 1 against the other. This is what you actually said ‘There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared’ So you were saying that self employed get plenty of benefits, not less and you are clearly implying that they all work for cash in hand I'm not getting into a debate about the differences between self employed people and people who work for someone. The link is clearly nothing to do with that and you are most certainly not in any way trying to divert attention away from the subject. You mean it’s clear that you’re talking bollox and have no wriggle room! I'll say it once more just to be crystal clear. As i have no desire to be sucked into another soul destroying pointless argument. The thread is about workers rights. Have a read of the link I posted. It's nothing to do with self employed people(as I never brought that up) As this is the 2nd attempt by you to derail the thread ,I'll leave it there.
So what workers rights have gone?
Have you read the link?
Yes and it does not list any workers rights that have gone it's all speculation.
So I ask you again what workers rights have gone because clearly you know or otherwise you are making up a story about nothing?
They love using words like "could" and "at risk".
Nothing concrete, just speculative."Which is where we were 3 hours ago | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. I didn't say everyone. The point was made that self employed people have less advantages than those employed. I said I don't see the point in comparing the 2 sectors and then said that self employed people have other advantages. The thread is about workers rights..its self destructive pitting 1 against the other. This is what you actually said ‘There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared’ So you were saying that self employed get plenty of benefits, not less and you are clearly implying that they all work for cash in hand I'm not getting into a debate about the differences between self employed people and people who work for someone. The link is clearly nothing to do with that and you are most certainly not in any way trying to divert attention away from the subject. You mean it’s clear that you’re talking bollox and have no wriggle room! I'll say it once more just to be crystal clear. As i have no desire to be sucked into another soul destroying pointless argument. The thread is about workers rights. Have a read of the link I posted. It's nothing to do with self employed people(as I never brought that up) As this is the 2nd attempt by you to derail the thread ,I'll leave it there.
So what workers rights have gone?
Have you read the link?
Yes and it does not list any workers rights that have gone it's all speculation.
So I ask you again what workers rights have gone because clearly you know or otherwise you are making up a story about nothing?
They love using words like "could" and "at risk".
Nothing concrete, just speculative."So you would say the ft is not a credible source? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) Look at the differences in workplaces without unions. Amazon being the prime example. Amazon is a dreadful employer, sports direct and many, many others are equally bad. A good union is one solution, another would be local minimum (living) wages like there used to be, and reducing in work benefits so that employers aren't being subsidised by the taxpayer to pay as little as possible. " In Germany there is a close relationship between unions and gmnt They work collaboratively and there is little friction and a healthy economy. That doesn't happen here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Brexit post https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55656593 It's almost numbingly predictable what will happen. Leavers will say its proof positive of what the future holds. Whilst brexiteers will somehow spin working longer and getting less time off as some sort of positive Try being self employed, no holidays, time off or illness and still being paid. In fairness I haven't read the link you posted, just responding to your last paragraph. I think it's a bit pointless comparing self employed to working for someone tbh. There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared. Anyway its not really about that. Its workers rights in general which they said wouldnt be affected. There are a lots of self employed people who do not do cash in hand work as they are unable to do so due the services they provide. To tar all self employed with the same bush shows a very narrow understanding of the self employed sector. I didn't say everyone. The point was made that self employed people have less advantages than those employed. I said I don't see the point in comparing the 2 sectors and then said that self employed people have other advantages. The thread is about workers rights..its self destructive pitting 1 against the other. This is what you actually said ‘There are plenty of benefits that self employed people get. Every single time I've had some work done,its been paid by cash,so I doubt very much if it's been declared’ So you were saying that self employed get plenty of benefits, not less and you are clearly implying that they all work for cash in hand I'm not getting into a debate about the differences between self employed people and people who work for someone. The link is clearly nothing to do with that and you are most certainly not in any way trying to divert attention away from the subject. You mean it’s clear that you’re talking bollox and have no wriggle room! I'll say it once more just to be crystal clear. As i have no desire to be sucked into another soul destroying pointless argument. The thread is about workers rights. Have a read of the link I posted. It's nothing to do with self employed people(as I never brought that up) As this is the 2nd attempt by you to derail the thread ,I'll leave it there.
So what workers rights have gone?
Have you read the link?
Yes and it does not list any workers rights that have gone it's all speculation.
So I ask you again what workers rights have gone because clearly you know or otherwise you are making up a story about nothing?
They love using words like "could" and "at risk".
Nothing concrete, just speculative.
So you would say the ft is not a credible source?"Its as credible as most. Then the same article gets syndicated with other media outlets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Headline reads ‘ Minister denies plans to scrap some workers rights’ So speculation which has been denied." It's a bit old news. As an agency worker I was guaranteed a minimum number of hours under E.U. law. That law was rescinded by this government from April last year. Under this government I as an agency worker I am not guaranteed an hours. So they can deny all they like, their record so far doesn't instil much faith on my part. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) Look at the differences in workplaces without unions. Amazon being the prime example. Amazon is a dreadful employer, sports direct and many, many others are equally bad. A good union is one solution, another would be local minimum (living) wages like there used to be, and reducing in work benefits so that employers aren't being subsidised by the taxpayer to pay as little as possible. In Germany there is a close relationship between unions and gmnt They work collaboratively and there is little friction and a healthy economy. That doesn't happen here." I've worked quite a bit in Germany and for German companies, we can learn from them BUT they've had horrendous Union corruption scandals, VW Union boss went to prison in a sex and drugs racket: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/feb/22/europe And I've seen first hand corrupt anti competitive German government support that damaged my UK business. I've said before countries like Holland would be a better example of decent living standards for all employees. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories have always been at the vanguard of big business. Leapords dont change their spots. Workers rights come a distant second. The only thing that has changed Is people are actually supporting them making their own lives worse. You couldnt make it up." Is that why the Tories campaigned for us to stay in the EU? You couldn't make it up  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance." Blimey looks like the Unite Union and dear old Len are up to their necks in the Liverpool Chippy tits investigation https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unite-has-links-to-companies-investigated-for-bribery-69sf6gx55 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Blimey looks like the Unite Union and dear old Len are up to their necks in the Liverpool Chippy tits investigation https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unite-has-links-to-companies-investigated-for-bribery-69sf6gx55" Separate thread? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No surprise there really. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The hypocrisy on here is genuinely off the scale" Explain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Blimey looks like the Unite Union and dear old Len are up to their necks in the Liverpool Chippy tits investigation https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unite-has-links-to-companies-investigated-for-bribery-69sf6gx55 Separate thread?" Well the OP was about workers rights and you brought the unions into it. And I don’t think UK union history over the last forty years has been all glorious. I suspect we’re not going to agree on that. (Even ‘Made in Dagenham’ seemed to happen in spite of the union not because of it). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Blimey looks like the Unite Union and dear old Len are up to their necks in the Liverpool Chippy tits investigation https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unite-has-links-to-companies-investigated-for-bribery-69sf6gx55 Separate thread? Well the OP was about workers rights and you brought the unions into it. And I don’t think UK union history over the last forty years has been all glorious. I suspect we’re not going to agree on that. (Even ‘Made in Dagenham’ seemed to happen in spite of the union not because of it)." It's quite simple. If chippy tits has been getting money on the side,as looks likely,he should be hammered. If union officials have done the same, ditto. I'm not like the hypocrits on here who wont have a word said against their betters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. " America has loads of different unions what are you on about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. " I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. " America is the perfect example where Walmart is subsidised with 1.5 billion a year of taxpayer money paid to top up with food stamps the wages of their employees who can’t afford to live on the wages paid. Pork barrel politics, lobbying, is the reason it happens. America has a very mobile labour force and if subsidies were removed Walmart would have to pay higher market rates to suit the local area. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on" Have you worked in a place with a union? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on" I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct?" I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on" I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. " If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it" I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways." It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it." Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart?" Eh? Comes from primary legislation in Parliament. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart?" Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one" Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. " Just out of interest, how much is the head of your union paid? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Headline reads ‘ Minister denies plans to scrap some workers rights’ So speculation which has been denied. It's a bit old news. As an agency worker I was guaranteed a minimum number of hours under E.U. law. That law was rescinded by this government from April last year. Under this government I as an agency worker I am not guaranteed an hours. So they can deny all they like, their record so far doesn't instil much faith on my part." Going off my real life experience of the latest changes implemented by this government for agency workers I fear the worst. The full time production line workers were guaranteed 20 hours pay under E.U. Law. They are now guaranteed nothing. How anyone is supposed to make an financial plans on that basis I don’t know. Going off the chaos with the haulage industry, when they said we needed to leave the EU to reduce bureaucracy they meant reduce workers rights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Just out of interest, how much is the head of your union paid? " Why is that in any way relevant? Should they do the job for free? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Just out of interest, how much is the head of your union paid? Why is that in any way relevant? Should they do the job for free?" No. How much does he earn? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Just out of interest, how much is the head of your union paid? Why is that in any way relevant? Should they do the job for free? No. How much does he earn? " I dont know Why is it relevant? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Just out of interest, how much is the head of your union paid? Why is that in any way relevant? Should they do the job for free? No. How much does he earn? I dont know Why is it relevant?" About 140-150,000? Who do you think he votes for? And why is he not paid, say, the average of the workers he is supposed to represent? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Just out of interest, how much is the head of your union paid? Why is that in any way relevant? Should they do the job for free? No. How much does he earn? I dont know Why is it relevant? About 140-150,000? Who do you think he votes for? And why is he not paid, say, the average of the workers he is supposed to represent? " Still waiting on the relevance aspect | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Headline reads ‘ Minister denies plans to scrap some workers rights’ So speculation which has been denied. It's a bit old news. As an agency worker I was guaranteed a minimum number of hours under E.U. law. That law was rescinded by this government from April last year. Under this government I as an agency worker I am not guaranteed an hours. So they can deny all they like, their record so far doesn't instil much faith on my part. Going off my real life experience of the latest changes implemented by this government for agency workers I fear the worst. The full time production line workers were guaranteed 20 hours pay under E.U. Law. They are now guaranteed nothing. How anyone is supposed to make an financial plans on that basis I don’t know. Going off the chaos with the haulage industry, when they said we needed to leave the EU to reduce bureaucracy they meant reduce workers rights." Are you referring to the Pay Between Assignments or the Swedish Derogation as it is commonly known? If so, what has changed from April 20 is that agency workers will have the right to the same remuneration as full time employees after 12 weeks qualifying period, prior to that date they gave up that right if they received pay between assignments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Just out of interest, how much is the head of your union paid? Why is that in any way relevant? Should they do the job for free? No. How much does he earn? I dont know Why is it relevant? About 140-150,000? Who do you think he votes for? And why is he not paid, say, the average of the workers he is supposed to represent? Still waiting on the relevance aspect " The relevance is do the people who run the unions look after the workers or themselves? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Just out of interest, how much is the head of your union paid? Why is that in any way relevant? Should they do the job for free? No. How much does he earn? I dont know Why is it relevant? About 140-150,000? Who do you think he votes for? And why is he not paid, say, the average of the workers he is supposed to represent? Still waiting on the relevance aspect The relevance is do the people who run the unions look after the workers or themselves? " That is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the salary or who they vote for. Try again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Just out of interest, how much is the head of your union paid? Why is that in any way relevant? Should they do the job for free? No. How much does he earn? I dont know Why is it relevant? About 140-150,000? Who do you think he votes for? And why is he not paid, say, the average of the workers he is supposed to represent? Still waiting on the relevance aspect The relevance is do the people who run the unions look after the workers or themselves? That is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the salary or who they vote for. Try again." you just don't like to say how much they 'earn' do you? Because you would have to admit that the people who run those organisations are the very same type of people you claim to dislike so much | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Just out of interest, how much is the head of your union paid? Why is that in any way relevant? Should they do the job for free? No. How much does he earn? I dont know Why is it relevant? About 140-150,000? Who do you think he votes for? And why is he not paid, say, the average of the workers he is supposed to represent? Still waiting on the relevance aspect The relevance is do the people who run the unions look after the workers or themselves? That is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the salary or who they vote for. Try again. you just don't like to say how much they 'earn' do you? Because you would have to admit that the people who run those organisations are the very same type of people you claim to dislike so much "And you cant answer a simple question Using your logic if someone earns a half decent amount they dont care for the people under them? Therefore drs couldnt give a fuck about their patients Even for you,its a ridiculous argument. You realise peoples members pay for their salary? That they have to put themselves up for election and no one is forced to join the union? They do so willingly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Headline reads ‘ Minister denies plans to scrap some workers rights’ So speculation which has been denied. It's a bit old news. As an agency worker I was guaranteed a minimum number of hours under E.U. law. That law was rescinded by this government from April last year. Under this government I as an agency worker I am not guaranteed an hours. So they can deny all they like, their record so far doesn't instil much faith on my part. Going off my real life experience of the latest changes implemented by this government for agency workers I fear the worst. The full time production line workers were guaranteed 20 hours pay under E.U. Law. They are now guaranteed nothing. How anyone is supposed to make an financial plans on that basis I don’t know. Going off the chaos with the haulage industry, when they said we needed to leave the EU to reduce bureaucracy they meant reduce workers rights. Are you referring to the Pay Between Assignments or the Swedish Derogation as it is commonly known? If so, what has changed from April 20 is that agency workers will have the right to the same remuneration as full time employees after 12 weeks qualifying period, prior to that date they gave up that right if they received pay between assignments." Really because we had both. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Headline reads ‘ Minister denies plans to scrap some workers rights’ So speculation which has been denied. It's a bit old news. As an agency worker I was guaranteed a minimum number of hours under E.U. law. That law was rescinded by this government from April last year. Under this government I as an agency worker I am not guaranteed an hours. So they can deny all they like, their record so far doesn't instil much faith on my part. Going off my real life experience of the latest changes implemented by this government for agency workers I fear the worst. The full time production line workers were guaranteed 20 hours pay under E.U. Law. They are now guaranteed nothing. How anyone is supposed to make an financial plans on that basis I don’t know. Going off the chaos with the haulage industry, when they said we needed to leave the EU to reduce bureaucracy they meant reduce workers rights. Are you referring to the Pay Between Assignments or the Swedish Derogation as it is commonly known? If so, what has changed from April 20 is that agency workers will have the right to the same remuneration as full time employees after 12 weeks qualifying period, prior to that date they gave up that right if they received pay between assignments. Really because we had both." Yes, that is what’s changed in April 2020 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. " Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Just out of interest, how much is the head of your union paid? Why is that in any way relevant? Should they do the job for free? No. How much does he earn? I dont know Why is it relevant? About 140-150,000? Who do you think he votes for? And why is he not paid, say, the average of the workers he is supposed to represent? Still waiting on the relevance aspect The relevance is do the people who run the unions look after the workers or themselves? That is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the salary or who they vote for. Try again. you just don't like to say how much they 'earn' do you? Because you would have to admit that the people who run those organisations are the very same type of people you claim to dislike so much
And you cant answer a simple question
Using your logic if someone earns a half decent amount they dont care for the people under them?
Therefore drs couldnt give a fuck about their patients
Even for you,its a ridiculous argument.
You realise peoples members pay for their salary?
That they have to put themselves up for election and no one is forced to join the union?
They do so willingly"Not now they aren't thanks to the government in 1990. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Just out of interest, how much is the head of your union paid? Why is that in any way relevant? Should they do the job for free? No. How much does he earn? I dont know Why is it relevant? About 140-150,000? Who do you think he votes for? And why is he not paid, say, the average of the workers he is supposed to represent? Still waiting on the relevance aspect The relevance is do the people who run the unions look after the workers or themselves? That is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the salary or who they vote for. Try again. you just don't like to say how much they 'earn' do you? Because you would have to admit that the people who run those organisations are the very same type of people you claim to dislike so much
And you cant answer a simple question
Using your logic if someone earns a half decent amount they dont care for the people under them?
Therefore drs couldnt give a fuck about their patients
Even for you,its a ridiculous argument.
You realise peoples members pay for their salary?
That they have to put themselves up for election and no one is forced to join the union?
They do so willingly" what qualifications do you need to be Head of a union? And how can they justify taking so many of their members contributions to pay for their ridiculous wages? What is it they do exactly? And put up for election? That's a joke, they are some of the most closed corrupt organisations going | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Headline reads ‘ Minister denies plans to scrap some workers rights’ So speculation which has been denied. It's a bit old news. As an agency worker I was guaranteed a minimum number of hours under E.U. law. That law was rescinded by this government from April last year. Under this government I as an agency worker I am not guaranteed an hours. So they can deny all they like, their record so far doesn't instil much faith on my part. Going off my real life experience of the latest changes implemented by this government for agency workers I fear the worst. The full time production line workers were guaranteed 20 hours pay under E.U. Law. They are now guaranteed nothing. How anyone is supposed to make an financial plans on that basis I don’t know. Going off the chaos with the haulage industry, when they said we needed to leave the EU to reduce bureaucracy they meant reduce workers rights. Are you referring to the Pay Between Assignments or the Swedish Derogation as it is commonly known? If so, what has changed from April 20 is that agency workers will have the right to the same remuneration as full time employees after 12 weeks qualifying period, prior to that date they gave up that right if they received pay between assignments. Really because we had both. Yes, that is what’s changed in April 2020" Let’s hope companies wouldn’t only offer 12 week contracts in that case even though they legally can. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Headline reads ‘ Minister denies plans to scrap some workers rights’ So speculation which has been denied. It's a bit old news. As an agency worker I was guaranteed a minimum number of hours under E.U. law. That law was rescinded by this government from April last year. Under this government I as an agency worker I am not guaranteed an hours. So they can deny all they like, their record so far doesn't instil much faith on my part. Going off my real life experience of the latest changes implemented by this government for agency workers I fear the worst. The full time production line workers were guaranteed 20 hours pay under E.U. Law. They are now guaranteed nothing. How anyone is supposed to make an financial plans on that basis I don’t know. Going off the chaos with the haulage industry, when they said we needed to leave the EU to reduce bureaucracy they meant reduce workers rights. Are you referring to the Pay Between Assignments or the Swedish Derogation as it is commonly known? If so, what has changed from April 20 is that agency workers will have the right to the same remuneration as full time employees after 12 weeks qualifying period, prior to that date they gave up that right if they received pay between assignments. Really because we had both. Yes, that is what’s changed in April 2020 Let’s hope companies wouldn’t only offer 12 week contracts in that case even though they legally can." You should be given that information at the beginning of the contract | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Just out of interest, how much is the head of your union paid? Why is that in any way relevant? Should they do the job for free? No. How much does he earn? I dont know Why is it relevant? About 140-150,000? Who do you think he votes for? And why is he not paid, say, the average of the workers he is supposed to represent? Still waiting on the relevance aspect The relevance is do the people who run the unions look after the workers or themselves? That is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the salary or who they vote for. Try again. you just don't like to say how much they 'earn' do you? Because you would have to admit that the people who run those organisations are the very same type of people you claim to dislike so much
And you cant answer a simple question
Using your logic if someone earns a half decent amount they dont care for the people under them?
Therefore drs couldnt give a fuck about their patients
Even for you,its a ridiculous argument.
You realise peoples members pay for their salary?
That they have to put themselves up for election and no one is forced to join the union?
They do so willingly"That ridiculous argument you are on about is exactly the argument you use against the tories they have money they dnt care about the workers so make your mind up . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Just out of interest, how much is the head of your union paid? Why is that in any way relevant? Should they do the job for free? No. How much does he earn? I dont know Why is it relevant? About 140-150,000? Who do you think he votes for? And why is he not paid, say, the average of the workers he is supposed to represent? Still waiting on the relevance aspect The relevance is do the people who run the unions look after the workers or themselves? That is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the salary or who they vote for. Try again. you just don't like to say how much they 'earn' do you? Because you would have to admit that the people who run those organisations are the very same type of people you claim to dislike so much
And you cant answer a simple question
Using your logic if someone earns a half decent amount they dont care for the people under them?
Therefore drs couldnt give a fuck about their patients
Even for you,its a ridiculous argument.
You realise peoples members pay for their salary?
That they have to put themselves up for election and no one is forced to join the union?
They do so willinglyNot now they aren't thanks to the government in 1990. "?? Are you saying people were forced to join a union and pay into it or if they were forced they did not need to pay. Seems very unfair | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law" Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Just out of interest, how much is the head of your union paid? Why is that in any way relevant? Should they do the job for free? No. How much does he earn? I dont know Why is it relevant? About 140-150,000? Who do you think he votes for? And why is he not paid, say, the average of the workers he is supposed to represent? Still waiting on the relevance aspect The relevance is do the people who run the unions look after the workers or themselves? That is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the salary or who they vote for. Try again. you just don't like to say how much they 'earn' do you? Because you would have to admit that the people who run those organisations are the very same type of people you claim to dislike so much
And you cant answer a simple question
Using your logic if someone earns a half decent amount they dont care for the people under them?
Therefore drs couldnt give a fuck about their patients
Even for you,its a ridiculous argument.
You realise peoples members pay for their salary?
That they have to put themselves up for election and no one is forced to join the union?
They do so willingly
what qualifications do you need to be Head of a union? And how can they justify taking so many of their members contributions to pay for their ridiculous wages? What is it they do exactly? And put up for election? That's a joke, they are some of the most closed corrupt organisations going "Can you provide some evidence for your last statement please? You realise to go on strike you need to have a turnout of a certain amount? This does not apply to general elections? And unions are corrupt? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot." you should report them its against the law to not pay sick pay and paternity leave, LAW nothing to do with unions.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Just out of interest, how much is the head of your union paid? Why is that in any way relevant? Should they do the job for free? No. How much does he earn? I dont know Why is it relevant? About 140-150,000? Who do you think he votes for? And why is he not paid, say, the average of the workers he is supposed to represent? Still waiting on the relevance aspect The relevance is do the people who run the unions look after the workers or themselves? That is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the salary or who they vote for. Try again. you just don't like to say how much they 'earn' do you? Because you would have to admit that the people who run those organisations are the very same type of people you claim to dislike so much
And you cant answer a simple question
Using your logic if someone earns a half decent amount they dont care for the people under them?
Therefore drs couldnt give a fuck about their patients
Even for you,its a ridiculous argument.
You realise peoples members pay for their salary?
That they have to put themselves up for election and no one is forced to join the union?
They do so willinglyThat ridiculous argument you are on about is exactly the argument you use against the tories they have money they dnt care about the workers so make your mind up . "I've literally no idea what you are prattling on about? What is this exact cut of point where you care about someone or you dont? Fair play though for contribution to the most ridiculous argument ever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot.you should report them its against the law to not pay sick pay and paternity leave, LAW nothing to do with unions. "Do you live in the real world? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot.you should report them its against the law to not pay sick pay and paternity leave, LAW nothing to do with unions.
Do you live in the real world?"Yes it seems you dont ,would you like me to direct you to the relevant gov web pages? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot." At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot.you should report them its against the law to not pay sick pay and paternity leave, LAW nothing to do with unions.
Do you live in the real world?Yes it seems you dont ,would you like me to direct you to the relevant gov web pages?"I've worked in places where you dont get sick pay. Even if you do..its statuary sick pay which is much less than your normal wages. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law" Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot.you should report them its against the law to not pay sick pay and paternity leave, LAW nothing to do with unions.
Do you live in the real world?Yes it seems you dont ,would you like me to direct you to the relevant gov web pages?
I've worked in places where you dont get sick pay.
Even if you do..its statuary sick pay which is much less than your normal wages."right so statutory sick pay is not sick pay now did you get paternity too or was it because these places you worked in was before 2003? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it" Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot.you should report them its against the law to not pay sick pay and paternity leave, LAW nothing to do with unions.
Do you live in the real world?Yes it seems you dont ,would you like me to direct you to the relevant gov web pages?
I've worked in places where you dont get sick pay.
Even if you do..its statuary sick pay which is much less than your normal wages.right so statutory sick pay is not sick pay now did you get paternity too or was it because these places you worked in was before 2003?"I've worked in places which dont pay sick pay I know off places which break all sorts of rules in terms of employment law. If you dont think such things happen you are deluded | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law" I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery." What, like British Leyland? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot.you should report them its against the law to not pay sick pay and paternity leave, LAW nothing to do with unions.
Do you live in the real world?Yes it seems you dont ,would you like me to direct you to the relevant gov web pages?
I've worked in places where you dont get sick pay.
Even if you do..its statuary sick pay which is much less than your normal wages.right so statutory sick pay is not sick pay now did you get paternity too or was it because these places you worked in was before 2003?
I've worked in places which dont pay sick pay
I know off places which break all sorts of rules in terms of employment law.
If you dont think such things happen you are deluded"You really should have made a better cv working for low life companies like you have,but personally i would have taken them to an employment tribunal got my dues and stopped others having the same problem too.What did you do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. What, like British Leyland? " 1 evasion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot.you should report them its against the law to not pay sick pay and paternity leave, LAW nothing to do with unions.
Do you live in the real world?Yes it seems you dont ,would you like me to direct you to the relevant gov web pages?
I've worked in places where you dont get sick pay.
Even if you do..its statuary sick pay which is much less than your normal wages.right so statutory sick pay is not sick pay now did you get paternity too or was it because these places you worked in was before 2003?
I've worked in places which dont pay sick pay
I know off places which break all sorts of rules in terms of employment law.
If you dont think such things happen you are deludedYou really should have made a better cv working for low life companies like you have,but personally i would have taken them to an employment tribunal got my dues and stopped others having the same problem too.What did you do?"Answer my question above | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery." Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. " 2 evasions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot.you should report them its against the law to not pay sick pay and paternity leave, LAW nothing to do with unions.
Do you live in the real world?Yes it seems you dont ,would you like me to direct you to the relevant gov web pages?
I've worked in places where you dont get sick pay.
Even if you do..its statuary sick pay which is much less than your normal wages.right so statutory sick pay is not sick pay now did you get paternity too or was it because these places you worked in was before 2003?
I've worked in places which dont pay sick pay
I know off places which break all sorts of rules in terms of employment law.
If you dont think such things happen you are deludedYou really should have made a better cv working for low life companies like you have,but personally i would have taken them to an employment tribunal got my dues and stopped others having the same problem too.What did you do?
Answer my question above "i have what did you do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. 2 evasions" How is it an evasion when you have still not answer the earlier questions? I thought you would have been the ideal person to answer about unions. You are just deflecting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Come on Costa..for the hatrick" You evaded many more times already | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. 2 evasions" Says the King of Evaders 
You couldn’t make it up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot.you should report them its against the law to not pay sick pay and paternity leave, LAW nothing to do with unions.
Do you live in the real world?Yes it seems you dont ,would you like me to direct you to the relevant gov web pages?
I've worked in places where you dont get sick pay.
Even if you do..its statuary sick pay which is much less than your normal wages.right so statutory sick pay is not sick pay now did you get paternity too or was it because these places you worked in was before 2003?
I've worked in places which dont pay sick pay
I know off places which break all sorts of rules in terms of employment law.
If you dont think such things happen you are deludedYou really should have made a better cv working for low life companies like you have,but personally i would have taken them to an employment tribunal got my dues and stopped others having the same problem too.What did you do?
Answer my question above i have what did you do?"Searches back.. no you haven't in the slightest. That's 3 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. 2 evasions Says the King of Evaders
You couldn’t make it up "And we have 4 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. What, like British Leyland? 1 evasion." Well I've worked at Toyota in Derby and wasn't in a union, I never really asked but I'm not sure who was to be honest. Where I work now, along with about 300 others, none of us are in a union, we get 30+ days holiday and the company pays into an insurance scheme for sick pay which means we get 100% for so many weeks, then 90%,80% etc. Unions have had their uses but are, like the Labour Party, a thing of the past. And people like Len Mckluskey, taking the pay of workers for ridiculous salaries and mortgages on London flats should be called out for the hypocrites that they are | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. 2 evasions How is it an evasion when you have still not answer the earlier questions? I thought you would have been the ideal person to answer about unions. You are just deflecting" You asked what benefits would you get ..which I listed I asked you a question which you avoided and asked another. If you cant be bothered answering a simple yes or no question,dont expect me to answer yours | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. 2 evasions Says the King of Evaders
You couldn’t make it up
And we have 4"Says the man who crawls into his hole and refuses to come out to play when his total stupidity is laid bare for all to see | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) " Ah Bob Crow.
Certain part of my business have a union they recently had to have a clear out as money was being appropriated for things shall we say that were not union related.
You see the words “greedy unions” propagated time after time and there is often some truth to it sadly.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot.you should report them its against the law to not pay sick pay and paternity leave, LAW nothing to do with unions.
Do you live in the real world?Yes it seems you dont ,would you like me to direct you to the relevant gov web pages?
I've worked in places where you dont get sick pay.
Even if you do..its statuary sick pay which is much less than your normal wages.right so statutory sick pay is not sick pay now did you get paternity too or was it because these places you worked in was before 2003?
I've worked in places which dont pay sick pay
I know off places which break all sorts of rules in terms of employment law.
If you dont think such things happen you are deludedYou really should have made a better cv working for low life companies like you have,but personally i would have taken them to an employment tribunal got my dues and stopped others having the same problem too.What did you do?
Answer my question above i have what did you do?
Searches back.. no you haven't in the slightest.
That's 3"can you highlight the question i haven't answered please as dont have a clue what it was even after reading back i will then answer and expect you to do the same. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. What, like British Leyland? 1 evasion. Well I've worked at Toyota in Derby and wasn't in a union, I never really asked but I'm not sure who was to be honest. Where I work now, along with about 300 others, none of us are in a union, we get 30+ days holiday and the company pays into an insurance scheme for sick pay which means we get 100% for so many weeks, then 90%,80% etc. Unions have had their uses but are, like the Labour Party, a thing of the past. And people like Len Mckluskey, taking the pay of workers for ridiculous salaries and mortgages on London flats should be called out for the hypocrites that they are " Just because you write a paragraph doesnt mean have answered the question. Fucking hell it's not rocket science Who has the best terms and conditions? A car factory for example, which is often, not all,unionized. Or a non unionized place like say amazon Last chance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. 2 evasions Says the King of Evaders
You couldn’t make it up
And we have 4
Says the man who crawls into his hole and refuses to come out to play when his total stupidity is laid bare for all to see"Awww You get a tity lip cos I've been ignoring you. Bless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot.you should report them its against the law to not pay sick pay and paternity leave, LAW nothing to do with unions.
Do you live in the real world?Yes it seems you dont ,would you like me to direct you to the relevant gov web pages?
I've worked in places where you dont get sick pay.
Even if you do..its statuary sick pay which is much less than your normal wages.right so statutory sick pay is not sick pay now did you get paternity too or was it because these places you worked in was before 2003?
I've worked in places which dont pay sick pay
I know off places which break all sorts of rules in terms of employment law.
If you dont think such things happen you are deludedYou really should have made a better cv working for low life companies like you have,but personally i would have taken them to an employment tribunal got my dues and stopped others having the same problem too.What did you do?
Answer my question above i have what did you do?
Searches back.. no you haven't in the slightest.
That's 3can you highlight the question i haven't answered please as dont have a clue what it was even after reading back i will then answer and expect you to do the same."I've posted it 3 times now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. 2 evasions How is it an evasion when you have still not answer the earlier questions? I thought you would have been the ideal person to answer about unions. You are just deflecting You asked what benefits would you get ..which I listed I asked you a question which you avoided and asked another. If you cant be bothered answering a simple yes or no question,dont expect me to answer yours " I asked what am I missing out on and can a union force a company to give benefits in excess of legal requirements. Instead of an answer you asked another question (which I have answered) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) Ah Bob Crow.
Certain part of my business have a union they recently had to have a clear out as money was being appropriated for things shall we say that were not union related.
You see the words “greedy unions” propagated time after time and there is often some truth to it sadly.
"What happened in the clear out? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. 2 evasions How is it an evasion when you have still not answer the earlier questions? I thought you would have been the ideal person to answer about unions. You are just deflecting You asked what benefits would you get ..which I listed I asked you a question which you avoided and asked another. If you cant be bothered answering a simple yes or no question,dont expect me to answer yours I asked what am I missing out on and can a union force a company to give benefits in excess of legal requirements. Instead of an answer you asked another question (which I have answered)" Yep we will leave it there as you have no intention of asking my thrice asked question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. 2 evasions Says the King of Evaders
You couldn’t make it up
And we have 4
Says the man who crawls into his hole and refuses to come out to play when his total stupidity is laid bare for all to see
Awww
You get a tity lip cos I've been ignoring you.
Bless."Not at all. I’m just pleased you know when you’re beaten | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) Ah Bob Crow.
Certain part of my business have a union they recently had to have a clear out as money was being appropriated for things shall we say that were not union related.
You see the words “greedy unions” propagated time after time and there is often some truth to it sadly.
What happened in the clear out?"I say clear out people stood down. Was done in a very murky fashion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot.you should report them its against the law to not pay sick pay and paternity leave, LAW nothing to do with unions.
Do you live in the real world?Yes it seems you dont ,would you like me to direct you to the relevant gov web pages?
I've worked in places where you dont get sick pay.
Even if you do..its statuary sick pay which is much less than your normal wages.right so statutory sick pay is not sick pay now did you get paternity too or was it because these places you worked in was before 2003?
I've worked in places which dont pay sick pay
I know off places which break all sorts of rules in terms of employment law.
If you dont think such things happen you are deludedYou really should have made a better cv working for low life companies like you have,but personally i would have taken them to an employment tribunal got my dues and stopped others having the same problem too.What did you do?
Answer my question above i have what did you do?
Searches back.. no you haven't in the slightest.
That's 3can you highlight the question i haven't answered please as dont have a clue what it was even after reading back i will then answer and expect you to do the same.
I've posted it 3 times now."mate i have not got a clue what you ask me is it so hard just to copy and paste it again so that we can move on or is this just your usual diversion tactic again because you dont want to answer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot.you should report them its against the law to not pay sick pay and paternity leave, LAW nothing to do with unions.
Do you live in the real world?Yes it seems you dont ,would you like me to direct you to the relevant gov web pages?
I've worked in places where you dont get sick pay.
Even if you do..its statuary sick pay which is much less than your normal wages.right so statutory sick pay is not sick pay now did you get paternity too or was it because these places you worked in was before 2003?
I've worked in places which dont pay sick pay
I know off places which break all sorts of rules in terms of employment law.
If you dont think such things happen you are deludedYou really should have made a better cv working for low life companies like you have,but personally i would have taken them to an employment tribunal got my dues and stopped others having the same problem too.What did you do?
Answer my question above i have what did you do?
Searches back.. no you haven't in the slightest.
That's 3can you highlight the question i haven't answered please as dont have a clue what it was even after reading back i will then answer and expect you to do the same.
I've posted it 3 times now.mate i have not got a clue what you ask me is it so hard just to copy and paste it again so that we can move on or is this just your usual diversion tactic again because you dont want to answer?"Ive asked it 3 times. Its not hard to find | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) Ah Bob Crow.
Certain part of my business have a union they recently had to have a clear out as money was being appropriated for things shall we say that were not union related.
You see the words “greedy unions” propagated time after time and there is often some truth to it sadly.
What happened in the clear out?
I say clear out people stood down. Was done in a very murky fashion. "So there was shady goings on and people either 'left'or were told to stand down? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. 2 evasions How is it an evasion when you have still not answer the earlier questions? I thought you would have been the ideal person to answer about unions. You are just deflecting You asked what benefits would you get ..which I listed I asked you a question which you avoided and asked another. If you cant be bothered answering a simple yes or no question,dont expect me to answer yours I asked what am I missing out on and can a union force a company to give benefits in excess of legal requirements. Instead of an answer you asked another question (which I have answered) Yep we will leave it there as you have no intention of asking my thrice asked question." As I said I have answered your question but you refuse to answer mine. Was it a legal requirement for these benefits at this place you worked. Can a union force a company to give benefits in excess of legal requirements | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) Ah Bob Crow.
Certain part of my business have a union they recently had to have a clear out as money was being appropriated for things shall we say that were not union related.
You see the words “greedy unions” propagated time after time and there is often some truth to it sadly.
What happened in the clear out?
I say clear out people stood down. Was done in a very murky fashion.
So there was shady goings on and people either 'left'or were told to stand down?"Oh nobody left took some brass balls that.
Just decided to stand down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) Ah Bob Crow.
Certain part of my business have a union they recently had to have a clear out as money was being appropriated for things shall we say that were not union related.
You see the words “greedy unions” propagated time after time and there is often some truth to it sadly.
What happened in the clear out?
I say clear out people stood down. Was done in a very murky fashion.
So there was shady goings on and people either 'left'or were told to stand down?
Oh nobody left took some brass balls that.
Just decided to stand down. "So they left their position in the union? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot.you should report them its against the law to not pay sick pay and paternity leave, LAW nothing to do with unions.
Do you live in the real world?Yes it seems you dont ,would you like me to direct you to the relevant gov web pages?
I've worked in places where you dont get sick pay.
Even if you do..its statuary sick pay which is much less than your normal wages.right so statutory sick pay is not sick pay now did you get paternity too or was it because these places you worked in was before 2003?
I've worked in places which dont pay sick pay
I know off places which break all sorts of rules in terms of employment law.
If you dont think such things happen you are deludedYou really should have made a better cv working for low life companies like you have,but personally i would have taken them to an employment tribunal got my dues and stopped others having the same problem too.What did you do?
Answer my question above i have what did you do?
Searches back.. no you haven't in the slightest.
That's 3can you highlight the question i haven't answered please as dont have a clue what it was even after reading back i will then answer and expect you to do the same.
I've posted it 3 times now.mate i have not got a clue what you ask me is it so hard just to copy and paste it again so that we can move on or is this just your usual diversion tactic again because you dont want to answer?
Ive asked it 3 times.
Its not hard to find "just about sums your childish attitude up im asking for help as i dont for the life of me know what the question is and you just keep repeating the same childish crap.If this is your attitude at work i am not surprised that you could only get employment at the places you have described.Maybe taking a look at yourself and your attitude may halp you in the future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) Ah Bob Crow.
Certain part of my business have a union they recently had to have a clear out as money was being appropriated for things shall we say that were not union related.
You see the words “greedy unions” propagated time after time and there is often some truth to it sadly.
What happened in the clear out?
I say clear out people stood down. Was done in a very murky fashion.
So there was shady goings on and people either 'left'or were told to stand down?
Oh nobody left took some brass balls that.
Just decided to stand down.
So they left their position in the union?"Yes. I’m not sure if they left the union though. I’m not involved in that arm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. 2 evasions How is it an evasion when you have still not answer the earlier questions? I thought you would have been the ideal person to answer about unions. You are just deflecting You asked what benefits would you get ..which I listed I asked you a question which you avoided and asked another. If you cant be bothered answering a simple yes or no question,dont expect me to answer yours I asked what am I missing out on and can a union force a company to give benefits in excess of legal requirements. Instead of an answer you asked another question (which I have answered) Yep we will leave it there as you have no intention of asking my thrice asked question. As I said I have answered your question but you refuse to answer mine. Was it a legal requirement for these benefits at this place you worked. Can a union force a company to give benefits in excess of legal requirements" I'm typing this 1 last time. You said to me..what am i missing out on. I answered. I asked a question.3 times. You have refused to answer it..I think we all now why. Pray tell why should I answer yours? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) Ah Bob Crow.
Certain part of my business have a union they recently had to have a clear out as money was being appropriated for things shall we say that were not union related.
You see the words “greedy unions” propagated time after time and there is often some truth to it sadly.
What happened in the clear out?
I say clear out people stood down. Was done in a very murky fashion.
So there was shady goings on and people either 'left'or were told to stand down?
Oh nobody left took some brass balls that.
Just decided to stand down.
So they left their position in the union?
Yes. I’m not sure if they left the union though. I’m not involved in that arm. "I'm confused You said they stood down? Stood down from what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot.you should report them its against the law to not pay sick pay and paternity leave, LAW nothing to do with unions.
Do you live in the real world?Yes it seems you dont ,would you like me to direct you to the relevant gov web pages?
I've worked in places where you dont get sick pay.
Even if you do..its statuary sick pay which is much less than your normal wages.right so statutory sick pay is not sick pay now did you get paternity too or was it because these places you worked in was before 2003?
I've worked in places which dont pay sick pay
I know off places which break all sorts of rules in terms of employment law.
If you dont think such things happen you are deludedYou really should have made a better cv working for low life companies like you have,but personally i would have taken them to an employment tribunal got my dues and stopped others having the same problem too.What did you do?
Answer my question above i have what did you do?
Searches back.. no you haven't in the slightest.
That's 3can you highlight the question i haven't answered please as dont have a clue what it was even after reading back i will then answer and expect you to do the same.
I've posted it 3 times now.mate i have not got a clue what you ask me is it so hard just to copy and paste it again so that we can move on or is this just your usual diversion tactic again because you dont want to answer?
Ive asked it 3 times.
Its not hard to find just about sums your childish attitude up im asking for help as i dont for the life of me know what the question is and you just keep repeating the same childish crap.If this is your attitude at work i am not surprised that you could only get employment at the places you have described.Maybe taking a look at yourself and your attitude may halp you in the future."
Outstanding
I'm not answering a question that has been asked 3 times and I'll just get a strop on again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) Ah Bob Crow.
Certain part of my business have a union they recently had to have a clear out as money was being appropriated for things shall we say that were not union related.
You see the words “greedy unions” propagated time after time and there is often some truth to it sadly.
What happened in the clear out?
I say clear out people stood down. Was done in a very murky fashion.
So there was shady goings on and people either 'left'or were told to stand down?
Oh nobody left took some brass balls that.
Just decided to stand down.
So they left their position in the union?
Yes. I’m not sure if they left the union though. I’m not involved in that arm.
I'm confused
You said they stood down?
Stood down from what?"They were on a committee I believe. Some sort of position in the union that allowed them to claim expenses. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. 2 evasions How is it an evasion when you have still not answer the earlier questions? I thought you would have been the ideal person to answer about unions. You are just deflecting You asked what benefits would you get ..which I listed I asked you a question which you avoided and asked another. If you cant be bothered answering a simple yes or no question,dont expect me to answer yours I asked what am I missing out on and can a union force a company to give benefits in excess of legal requirements. Instead of an answer you asked another question (which I have answered) Yep we will leave it there as you have no intention of asking my thrice asked question. As I said I have answered your question but you refuse to answer mine. Was it a legal requirement for these benefits at this place you worked. Can a union force a company to give benefits in excess of legal requirements I'm typing this 1 last time. You said to me..what am i missing out on. I answered. I asked a question.3 times. You have refused to answer it..I think we all now why. Pray tell why should I answer yours?" That wasn't me no wonder i cant find the question so now we can move on what did you do about your employer who wouldnt pay sick or paternity leave? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) Ah Bob Crow.
Certain part of my business have a union they recently had to have a clear out as money was being appropriated for things shall we say that were not union related.
You see the words “greedy unions” propagated time after time and there is often some truth to it sadly.
What happened in the clear out?
I say clear out people stood down. Was done in a very murky fashion.
So there was shady goings on and people either 'left'or were told to stand down?
Oh nobody left took some brass balls that.
Just decided to stand down.
So they left their position in the union?
Yes. I’m not sure if they left the union though. I’m not involved in that arm.
I'm confused
You said they stood down?
Stood down from what?
They were on a committee I believe. Some sort of position in the union that allowed them to claim expenses. "So they lost that position they held in the union? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) Ah Bob Crow.
Certain part of my business have a union they recently had to have a clear out as money was being appropriated for things shall we say that were not union related.
You see the words “greedy unions” propagated time after time and there is often some truth to it sadly.
What happened in the clear out?
I say clear out people stood down. Was done in a very murky fashion.
So there was shady goings on and people either 'left'or were told to stand down?
Oh nobody left took some brass balls that.
Just decided to stand down.
So they left their position in the union?
Yes. I’m not sure if they left the union though. I’m not involved in that arm.
I'm confused
You said they stood down?
Stood down from what?
They were on a committee I believe. Some sort of position in the union that allowed them to claim expenses.
So they lost that position they held in the union?"Yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. 2 evasions How is it an evasion when you have still not answer the earlier questions? I thought you would have been the ideal person to answer about unions. You are just deflecting You asked what benefits would you get ..which I listed I asked you a question which you avoided and asked another. If you cant be bothered answering a simple yes or no question,dont expect me to answer yours I asked what am I missing out on and can a union force a company to give benefits in excess of legal requirements. Instead of an answer you asked another question (which I have answered) Yep we will leave it there as you have no intention of asking my thrice asked question. As I said I have answered your question but you refuse to answer mine. Was it a legal requirement for these benefits at this place you worked. Can a union force a company to give benefits in excess of legal requirements I'm typing this 1 last time. You said to me..what am i missing out on. I answered. I asked a question.3 times. You have refused to answer it..I think we all now why. Pray tell why should I answer yours?That wasn't me no wonder i cant find the question so now we can move on what did you do about your employer who wouldnt pay sick or paternity leave?"4th time What place of work what have the better terms and conditions for its workforce? A car factory for example which was heavily unionized or somewhere like Amazon? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) Ah Bob Crow.
Certain part of my business have a union they recently had to have a clear out as money was being appropriated for things shall we say that were not union related.
You see the words “greedy unions” propagated time after time and there is often some truth to it sadly.
What happened in the clear out?
I say clear out people stood down. Was done in a very murky fashion.
So there was shady goings on and people either 'left'or were told to stand down?
Oh nobody left took some brass balls that.
Just decided to stand down.
So they left their position in the union?
Yes. I’m not sure if they left the union though. I’m not involved in that arm.
I'm confused
You said they stood down?
Stood down from what?
They were on a committee I believe. Some sort of position in the union that allowed them to claim expenses.
So they lost that position they held in the union?
Yes. "Am I missing something? They blagged something and were punished. Why is that bad? I'm assuming it wasnt a trifling amount like £11b or they went on bbc and denied it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. 2 evasions How is it an evasion when you have still not answer the earlier questions? I thought you would have been the ideal person to answer about unions. You are just deflecting You asked what benefits would you get ..which I listed I asked you a question which you avoided and asked another. If you cant be bothered answering a simple yes or no question,dont expect me to answer yours I asked what am I missing out on and can a union force a company to give benefits in excess of legal requirements. Instead of an answer you asked another question (which I have answered) Yep we will leave it there as you have no intention of asking my thrice asked question. As I said I have answered your question but you refuse to answer mine. Was it a legal requirement for these benefits at this place you worked. Can a union force a company to give benefits in excess of legal requirements I'm typing this 1 last time. You said to me..what am i missing out on. I answered. I asked a question.3 times. You have refused to answer it..I think we all now why. Pray tell why should I answer yours?That wasn't me no wonder i cant find the question so now we can move on what did you do about your employer who wouldnt pay sick or paternity leave?
4th time
What place of work what have the better terms and conditions for its workforce?
A car factory for example which was heavily unionized or somewhere like Amazon?"Mate you have got your knickers right in a twist, that was not ME you were discussing with we were talking about sick pay and maternity pay nothing more that was a whole different conversation which i was not part of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) Ah Bob Crow.
Certain part of my business have a union they recently had to have a clear out as money was being appropriated for things shall we say that were not union related.
You see the words “greedy unions” propagated time after time and there is often some truth to it sadly.
What happened in the clear out?
I say clear out people stood down. Was done in a very murky fashion.
So there was shady goings on and people either 'left'or were told to stand down?
Oh nobody left took some brass balls that.
Just decided to stand down.
So they left their position in the union?
Yes. I’m not sure if they left the union though. I’m not involved in that arm.
I'm confused
You said they stood down?
Stood down from what?
They were on a committee I believe. Some sort of position in the union that allowed them to claim expenses.
So they lost that position they held in the union?
Yes.
Am I missing something?
They blagged something and were punished.
Why is that bad?
I'm assuming it wasnt a trifling amount like £11b or they went on bbc and denied it?"Not sure what you are missing think you may be on the defensive. I was just relaying an experience with a union. I suppose it’s bad though as they just stood down after spending essentially their members money. Should have in my opinion been referred to the Police. Smacks of cover up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. 2 evasions How is it an evasion when you have still not answer the earlier questions? I thought you would have been the ideal person to answer about unions. You are just deflecting You asked what benefits would you get ..which I listed I asked you a question which you avoided and asked another. If you cant be bothered answering a simple yes or no question,dont expect me to answer yours I asked what am I missing out on and can a union force a company to give benefits in excess of legal requirements. Instead of an answer you asked another question (which I have answered) Yep we will leave it there as you have no intention of asking my thrice asked question. As I said I have answered your question but you refuse to answer mine. Was it a legal requirement for these benefits at this place you worked. Can a union force a company to give benefits in excess of legal requirements I'm typing this 1 last time. You said to me..what am i missing out on. I answered. I asked a question.3 times. You have refused to answer it..I think we all now why. Pray tell why should I answer yours?That wasn't me no wonder i cant find the question so now we can move on what did you do about your employer who wouldnt pay sick or paternity leave?
4th time
What place of work what have the better terms and conditions for its workforce?
A car factory for example which was heavily unionized or somewhere like Amazon?Mate you have got your knickers right in a twist, that was not ME you were discussing with we were talking about sick pay and maternity pay nothing more that was a whole different conversation which i was not part of. "So you carnt answer the question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) Ah Bob Crow.
Certain part of my business have a union they recently had to have a clear out as money was being appropriated for things shall we say that were not union related.
You see the words “greedy unions” propagated time after time and there is often some truth to it sadly.
What happened in the clear out?
I say clear out people stood down. Was done in a very murky fashion.
So there was shady goings on and people either 'left'or were told to stand down?
Oh nobody left took some brass balls that.
Just decided to stand down.
So they left their position in the union?
Yes. I’m not sure if they left the union though. I’m not involved in that arm.
I'm confused
You said they stood down?
Stood down from what?
They were on a committee I believe. Some sort of position in the union that allowed them to claim expenses.
So they lost that position they held in the union?
Yes.
Am I missing something?
They blagged something and were punished.
Why is that bad?
I'm assuming it wasnt a trifling amount like £11b or they went on bbc and denied it?
Not sure what you are missing think you may be on the defensive. I was just relaying an experience with a union.
I suppose it’s bad though as they just stood down after spending essentially their members money. Should have in my opinion been referred to the Police. Smacks of cover up. "Not at all. They did something wrong and lost their positions Was it a police matter? I dont know what they did..fiddling expenses..I don't know..is that a police matter? How many mps went to court? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, back to the subject - As someone who's been on the sharp end of the stick a couple of times, I'm all for employees rights, BUT There is a very real limit. If you look at France, it can be virtually impossible to dismiss anyone, AND the employer often pays the same in employment taxes as the worker receives. Don't think they have zero hours contracts not sure. You end up with companies simply not employing as many people as they might like and holding onto deadweight. Productivity goes down (our productivity is terrible as well) and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, goes up. There has to be some commercial balance. We have some of the most restrictive anti union legislation in europe. Most places now dont even have unions. Zero hr contracts etc and they want to reduce workers rights further? Thats not balance. Although unions could have helped me, at the same time I want employers who are not too terrified to employ people. A balance, as I say. (Ridiculous individuals like Bob Crow didn't exactly help the union cause but that's another issue) Ah Bob Crow.
Certain part of my business have a union they recently had to have a clear out as money was being appropriated for things shall we say that were not union related.
You see the words “greedy unions” propagated time after time and there is often some truth to it sadly.
What happened in the clear out?
I say clear out people stood down. Was done in a very murky fashion.
So there was shady goings on and people either 'left'or were told to stand down?
Oh nobody left took some brass balls that.
Just decided to stand down.
So they left their position in the union?
Yes. I’m not sure if they left the union though. I’m not involved in that arm.
I'm confused
You said they stood down?
Stood down from what?
They were on a committee I believe. Some sort of position in the union that allowed them to claim expenses.
So they lost that position they held in the union?
Yes.
Am I missing something?
They blagged something and were punished.
Why is that bad?
I'm assuming it wasnt a trifling amount like £11b or they went on bbc and denied it?
Not sure what you are missing think you may be on the defensive. I was just relaying an experience with a union.
I suppose it’s bad though as they just stood down after spending essentially their members money. Should have in my opinion been referred to the Police. Smacks of cover up.
Not at all.
They did something wrong and lost their positions
Was it a police matter?
I dont know what they did..fiddling expenses..I don't know..is that a police matter?
How many mps went to court?"Not sure I mentioned MPs mate. But if Unions and MPs can fiddle their members and constituents then it’s not ok. Luckily my moral compass is different from yours it seems as you seem to think it’s ok. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. 2 evasions How is it an evasion when you have still not answer the earlier questions? I thought you would have been the ideal person to answer about unions. You are just deflecting You asked what benefits would you get ..which I listed I asked you a question which you avoided and asked another. If you cant be bothered answering a simple yes or no question,dont expect me to answer yours I asked what am I missing out on and can a union force a company to give benefits in excess of legal requirements. Instead of an answer you asked another question (which I have answered) Yep we will leave it there as you have no intention of asking my thrice asked question. As I said I have answered your question but you refuse to answer mine. Was it a legal requirement for these benefits at this place you worked. Can a union force a company to give benefits in excess of legal requirements I'm typing this 1 last time. You said to me..what am i missing out on. I answered. I asked a question.3 times. You have refused to answer it..I think we all now why. Pray tell why should I answer yours?That wasn't me no wonder i cant find the question so now we can move on what did you do about your employer who wouldnt pay sick or paternity leave?
4th time
What place of work what have the better terms and conditions for its workforce?
A car factory for example which was heavily unionized or somewhere like Amazon?Mate you have got your knickers right in a twist, that was not ME you were discussing with we were talking about sick pay and maternity pay nothing more that was a whole different conversation which i was not part of.
So you carnt answer the question "why would i get involved in questions about something i have had no input in ? do you care to get back to our conversation and take that one up with the person you were debating with or are you just going to agree that there are laws on sick pay and paternity leave and nothing to do with unions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unions have been hammered the last 40 years and as a result workers are worse off. Like I said yesterday compare how workers are treated in non unionized workplaces and union ised. If you want to see how a workforce is treated without unions ,simply look at America. I work for a company that does not have or ever had a union. Never been happier at work. What am I missing out on I'll put it another way. Who do you think has better terms and conditions? A heavily unionized place like say..a car factory? Or a non unionized setting like Amazon or sports direct? I'm not in either of those sectors you point out and no union exists at my workplace. This is why I asked what am I missing out on I didnt say you were .I asked you a simple question. If you look back to my first post(which you responded to) it was me that asked the question. It appears I am missing out so in any future job move I may consider a place where i can join a union if worth it I dont know where you work. You seem to be implying because 1 person has never needed a union in the past, there seems to be no need for them. A slightly narrow view. Unions are there to protect workers rights in a variety of ways. It's a large company with many sites but neither auto or Amazon type. I don't know why you say I am implying anything. I asked what am I missing out on. If I had a narrow view I would not bother even considering it. Well I dont know where you work so I cant comment. Where do you think things like holiday pay,sick pay,maternity leave health and safety conditions..come from? Do you think the employer just gives them out of the goodness of their heart? Forgive my lack of employment law but assumed most if not all of them are law or at least have a minimum level in law but not sure. Are you saying that a union can force a company to give benefits over and above the law?. The place I work abides by the law and with things like holidays goes beyond it . If however a company is forced by a union to go even further then I may well look at one Not every work place has the same conditions. It goes back to my above about the difference between union and non unionized workplaces. Quite true that different companies have different conditions but surely they all need to comply with the law. You were saying the benefits like maternity pay, holidays, health and safety ect were due to being in a union. I am not so sure as believe its law. So if I joined a company with a union would they be able to force the company to give benefits in excess of the law Ive worked in non unionized places where you dont get sick pay,paternity leave,non paid breaks etc What do you think would happen if you kicked up a stink in somewhere like Amazon? You would be out the door like a shot. At the time you worked for that company was these things a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law Amnesty international did a report into Amazon Have a read of it Is that who you was working for then. If not it does not answer my question. We're these things a legal requirement when you worked there. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are not required by law I asked a simple question about 2 hours ago and I'm still waiting for an answer. Would a heavily unionized place like a car factory Have the same conditions as somewhere like Amazon? A simple yes or no will suffice Lets see how many answers I get with whataboutery. Actually as I pointed out I asked a question first and still awaiting the answer. Instead of answering you ask other questions and moan you don't get answers. As I also said I do not work in either the auto industry or Amazon so don't know. I also said I don't know much about unions. So again at the time you worked there were these benefits a legal requirement. Can a union force a company to give benefits that are in excess of the law. 2 evasions How is it an evasion when you have still not answer the earlier questions? I thought you would have been the ideal person to answer about unions. You are just deflecting You asked what benefits would you get ..which I listed I asked you a question which you avoided and asked another. If you cant be bothered answering a simple yes or no question,dont expect me to answer yours I asked what am I missing out on and can a union force a company to give benefits in excess of legal requirements. Instead of an answer you asked another question (which I have answered) Yep we will leave it there as you have no intention of asking my thrice asked question. As I said I have answered your question but you refuse to answer mine. Was it a legal requirement for these benefits at this place you worked. Can a union force a company to give benefits in excess of legal requirements I'm typing this 1 last time. You said to me..what am i missing out on. I answered. I asked a question.3 times. You have refused to answer it..I think we all now why. Pray tell why should I answer yours?" The only answer you gave after many requests was about maternity pay, health and safety ect which are not benefits of being in a union they are legal requirements for all companies. You still after many many times of asking have answered my questions. You always seem to respond to a question with a question and demand yours are answered but won't answer any yourself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
