The Right tighten the screw that little bit more..

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seth's mindset is poisonous.

Exactly. Without the workers, the fat cats have no income. Sending jobs overseas meant the people who give their money to the fat cats have no more money, so the fat cats don't have an income any more. "Who cares" fits their attitude perfectly. They're clueless, greedy, stupid people.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...Chancellor George Osborne said that if the government was to support job creation it could not "shy away from looking at difficult issues"...

"Creation"? Is Boy-George sure he's got the right word there?

[Rum]

I'm not sure I would agree with that analysis. They aren't stupid by any means. Capital is super-international now and most of the manufacturing jobs are in low wage economies and funded by the ever richer rich people of the west and elsewhere, leaving the average citizen in the so called 'developed' world poorer and poorer.

Of course Seth would have us getting on our bikes and offering to work in Chinese factories at cheaper rates than the Chinese themselves.

Seth's mindset is poisonous.

Exactly. Without the workers, the fat cats have no income. Sending jobs overseas meant the people who give their money to the fat cats have no more money, so the fat cats don't have an income any more. "Who cares" fits their attitude perfectly. They're clueless, greedy, stupid people.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I say stupid, not unintelligent. And then that would only apply to the "best" of them. It was stupid to milk the working class to death so they could get a yacht that was 10' longer.

[Seth]

Seth's mindset is poisonous.

No, redistributionist, Marxist mindsets that view other people's money and property as belonging to the collective are poisonous. That you think that an employer owes you a job and a wage, even when economic conditions do not warrant employing you, is indicative of such a mindset.

It's pure theft to use the force of government to steal from business owners the fruits of THEIR labor to satisfy the needs and desires of workers who don't want to hit the bricks and find another job when their services to the company are no longer needed. It presumes "ownership" in the business that does not exist. Employees are paid full value for their work as a part of their regular paycheck, and they are due nothing more than what was contracted for in the beginning. If workers want to RISK their paychecks by buying into the company, then they will be entitled to a greater share of the profits, if any, but they also risk losing that investment, just like every other investor does.

[Seth]

I say stupid, not unintelligent. And then that would only apply to the "best" of them. It was stupid to milk the working class to death so they could get a yacht that was 10' longer.

You want to point to one luxury yacht laborer who was "milked to death?" Didn't think so. I'm betting that every one of them took home a paycheck in exactly the amount that they agreed was just compensation for their labor contribution to the creation of the yacht. Why should they get more than they bargained for?

[Coito ergo sum]

Bastards

At: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13361130

Redundancy rules could be relaxed, says government


Rules governing levels of compensation for workplace discrimination, and how long firms have to consult staff over job losses, are to be reviewed.

Chancellor George Osborne said that if the government was to support job creation it could not "shy away from looking at difficult issues".

The protection of staff terms and conditions when a firm is transferred to a new owner is also to be reviewed.

Labour said the proposals would make working life less secure.

"George Osborne's only idea for growth is to make it easier to cut pay and pensions, dismiss employees without giving time to plan for the future and make working life more insecure," said shadow business secretary John Denham.

"Successful companies have a workforce that is confident, dedicated and fairly rewarded," he added.

The government says it wants to remove unnecessary bureaucracy within current employment law.

At the moment, firms cannot make more than 100 workers redundant within 90 days of informing them of redundancies.

It seems the knee-jerk reaction that these evil Tories are evil is somewhat misplaced.

Are they really suggesting such an awful change? Someone set the rule that a firm can't make more than 100 workers redundant within 90 days of informing them of redundancies. It's basically a way to slow down reductions in force. The employers certainly have a fairly reasonable argument. When an employer is facing dire financial circumstances, they often have to act and act fast to stop significant bleeding. When you remove a company's ability to make changes to save the entity, then you make it harder to stay in business. It would seem to me that the discussion ought to be about specific economics and the realities of what is happening. No wise decision can be arrived at by middle finger pointing and simple knee-jerk reactions about "companies should be able to do what they want" on the one hand and "the evil Tories suck ass and we should never make any adjustments that aren't increases in something that helps employees."

Unless I'm missing something, the article doesn't detail what the dramatic changes are to be. If I missed it, I'm sorry, and maybe someone can point it out to me.

[Seth]

Seth, unions and employment rights are not the same thing as socialism. Employment law and rights exist (mostly) to protect the employee from unfair mistreatment. That's not socialism. Unions exist to give employees a collective voice when negotiating with employers. That's not socialism either.

It certainly is socialism, particularly these days, when the major labor unions in the US and elsewhere are openly aligned with the Communist Party and the Socialist Worker's Party.

The question presented here is whether "employment rights" should include socialistic elements like forcing an employer to continue to pay employees they no longer require. What's "unfair mistreatment" about firing superfluous employees? The essence of the complaint was that the government was intending to CHANGE the employment laws to allow employers more flexibility in firing redundant employees, so as to reduce the burden on business having to support idlers and layabouts who are being propped up by the company as the direct result of socialist labor policies.

[Coito ergo sum]

I say stupid, not unintelligent. And then that would only apply to the "best" of them. It was stupid to milk the working class to death so they could get a yacht that was 10' longer.

You want to point to one luxury yacht laborer who was "milked to death?" Didn't think so. I'm betting that every one of them took home a paycheck in exactly the amount that they agreed was just compensation for their labor contribution to the creation of the yacht. Why should they get more than they bargained for?

I think it would be untrue to say that people only accept jobs for which they think they are receiving "just" compensation. I've accepted unjust compensation for jobs before. I had to live with it, and I made the deal. But, don't confuse accepting a deal with "agreeing that the compensation is JUST." Those are two different things.

[Seth]

Seth, unions and employment rights are not the same thing as socialism. Employment law and rights exist (mostly) to protect the employee from unfair mistreatment. That's not socialism. Unions exist to give employees a collective voice when negotiating with employers. That's not socialism either.

Yeah but they get in the way of the rich shitting all over the rest of us, which is their natural right!

How exactly do the rich "shit all over you?" Because they refuse to turn their money over to you? Sound like simple envy to me. They have money, you don't. You want their money but you don't want to earn it, you want the government to be your agent in stealing their money from them. Pure Marxist drivel.

How about you go get rich yourself?

[Seth]

I say stupid, not unintelligent. And then that would only apply to the "best" of them. It was stupid to milk the working class to death so they could get a yacht that was 10' longer.

You want to point to one luxury yacht laborer who was "milked to death?" Didn't think so. I'm betting that every one of them took home a paycheck in exactly the amount that they agreed was just compensation for their labor contribution to the creation of the yacht. Why should they get more than they bargained for?

I think it would be untrue to say that people only accept jobs for which they think they are receiving "just" compensation. I've accepted unjust compensation for jobs before. I had to live with it, and I made the deal. But, don't confuse accepting a deal with "agreeing that the compensation is JUST." Those are two different things.

If you accepted it, it's just. You were not enslaved or forced to work for less than you agreed to. When you accept a job voluntarily, you ratify a contract with the employer as to how much work you will provide for how much pay. If you don't like the pay scale, then find another job. If you can't find another job because YOU aren't qualified for a higher paying job, whose fault is that? It's YOUR FAULT, and you need to apply yourself to become better qualified and of greater value to an employer.

Sorry, but whatever you agree to accept by way of compensation is absolutely just compensation for your labor BECAUSE YOU AGREED TO IT for reasons of your own having nothing to do with the employer's need to hire an employee to do a job.

Just because YOU think you're worth more than the employer does means nothing, and particularly it does not make the wage you accept "unjust."

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth, unions and employment rights are not the same thing as socialism. Employment law and rights exist (mostly) to protect the employee from unfair mistreatment. That's not socialism. Unions exist to give employees a collective voice when negotiating with employers. That's not socialism either.

It certainly is socialism, particularly these days, when the major labor unions in the US and elsewhere are openly aligned with the Communist Party and the Socialist Worker's Party.

The question presented here is whether "employment rights" should include socialistic elements like forcing an employer to continue to pay employees they no longer require. What's "unfair mistreatment" about firing superfluous employees? The essence of the complaint was that the government was intending to CHANGE the employment laws to allow employers more flexibility in firing redundant employees, so as to reduce the burden on business having to support idlers and layabouts who are being propped up by the company as the direct result of socialist labor policies.

I gotta side with Pappa. Laws concerning employment rights are not socialism, per se. Socialism is when the means of production are owned by the State or "publicly." There have been laws governing the treatment of workers, and there have been unions, since before there ever was socialism.

Some union folks are aligned with communists and socialists, and may even be communists and socialists. But, unions and employment laws themselves are not socialism. They can and do of course exist within socialist systems, but they can and do also exist in other systems.

And, to assume that the employees are idlers and layabouts lacks foundation. It's likely in a reduction in force that many being reduced are good workers. Say a plant is closing - you think only the idlers and layabouts are laid off? Such an assumption is completely unwarranted. In fact, what the article is talking about is not even the letting go of idlers and layabouts, who may be fired for violations of work rules, what we're talking about is an employer making someone who is not terminable for cause (like idling or laying about), but has to be let go for economic reasons.

[Seth]

Seth's mindset is poisonous.

Exactly. Without the workers, the fat cats have no income. Sending jobs overseas meant the people who give their money to the fat cats have no more money, so the fat cats don't have an income any more. "Who cares" fits their attitude perfectly. They're clueless, greedy, stupid people.

Actually, sending some jobs overseas meant lower costs of production, and therefore lower, more competitive prices in the market, which translates to more goods purchased by consumers.

But you're quite right that there is a delicate balance between offshoring and profit, and companies watch that very carefully. They know full well that if the population that they are trying to sell to has no jobs, it has no money to buy their goods, which directly affects the bottom line of the company. So, "fat cats" don't offshore unwisely, they do so carefully, fully cognizant of the economic conditions of the market they are creating goods for, so that the consumers in that market will have sufficient disposable income to buy their products.

You really don't understand free market economics, do you?

[Seth]

Seth, unions and employment rights are not the same thing as socialism. Employment law and rights exist (mostly) to protect the employee from unfair mistreatment. That's not socialism. Unions exist to give employees a collective voice when negotiating with employers. That's not socialism either.

It certainly is socialism, particularly these days, when the major labor unions in the US and elsewhere are openly aligned with the Communist Party and the Socialist Worker's Party.

The question presented here is whether "employment rights" should include socialistic elements like forcing an employer to continue to pay employees they no longer require. What's "unfair mistreatment" about firing superfluous employees? The essence of the complaint was that the government was intending to CHANGE the employment laws to allow employers more flexibility in firing redundant employees, so as to reduce the burden on business having to support idlers and layabouts who are being propped up by the company as the direct result of socialist labor policies.

I gotta side with Pappa. Laws concerning employment rights are not socialism, per se. Socialism is when the means of production are owned by the State or "publicly." There have been laws governing the treatment of workers, and there have been unions, since before there ever was socialism.

That's a narrow definition of socialism I'm afraid, and one that does not reflect reality. What you're actually referring to is communism. However, the point is that there are "worker protection and treatment laws" that are legitimately intended to protect workers from physical harm in the workplace, and there are redistributive employment laws that use the force of government, through unions, to interfere with the free operation of the labor market and the negotiations for labor contracts in ways that favor the workers over the interests of the employers. That is the primary purpose of labor unions today, pure socialistic skewing of the free labor market in favor of union employees at the expense of employers by government fiat. That's what this thread is about. It's not about protecting workers from being injured or making sure they get their paycheck, it's about forcing companies to support and pay for employees they no longer need because the unions and the socialists don't like the idea of workers being fired. They think that working for a company is a right, and that they have the right to hold a job forever, whether or not the company needs them. That's absolutely socialist.

Some union folks are aligned with communists and socialists, and may even be communists and socialists. But, unions and employment laws themselves are not socialism. They can and do of course exist within socialist systems, but they can and do also exist in other systems.

Depends on the specific employment law.

And, to assume that the employees are idlers and layabouts lacks foundation.

If they are being paid not to work by order of the government, they cannot be anything but idlers and layabouts.

It's likely in a reduction in force that many being reduced are good workers. Say a plant is closing - you think only the idlers and layabouts are laid off? Such an assumption is completely unwarranted. In fact, what the article is talking about is not even the letting go of idlers and layabouts, who may be fired for violations of work rules, what we're talking about is an employer making someone who is not terminable for cause (like idling or laying about), but has to be let go for economic reasons.

I'm not talking about the quality of any particular worker, I'm referring to the fact that if a company has no need of an employee and nothing for him to do, but the company must continue to employ that employee because the government says the employee cannot be laid off or fired, that employee must perforce be an idler or layabout because there's no productive work for them to do.

[Rum]

You seem to miss the point. Labour laws were introduced, for example, to stop 10 year olds being used in coal mines at a penny a day, stopping people having to work 6.5 days a week and more and moderating at least to some extent the rapacious exploitation of labour by the owners of the means of production. They introduced a little bit of humanity into a barbarous relationship dynamic.