Politics

[ewerk 30368]

Wasn't sure where best to put this so I thought that it might engage some discussion in here.

 

Well worth a read:

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/our-work-culture-is-killing-us

 

 

Overall a rather depressing view of the workplace and employers in general. In between the waffle there were two points I picked out:

 

i. Unpaid work - As BW has said, the TUC figures are likely to be inflated, that's not to say that it isn't happening. When I began my previous job it allowed me to claim time off in lieu or overtime for hours worked beyond my contract. At the time we were the only region in the UK afforded this luxury, the rest got nothing. After a couple of years they took away the overtime part and a year later removed the entitlement to TOIL, all in the name of 'bringing us in line with UK working practices. At the same time the shift on focus for our work was moving towards an export model of shifting everyone out to England or further afield Monday - Friday. So basically I was getting up to fly to the airport on a Monday morning at 5am working to at least 7pm every evening and getting home on a Friday night about 7pm. But that was the game and you either accept to play it or you don't. Myself and many of my colleagues opted out of the game after a few years because we found better alternatives. The point is though that this is largely a problem for those in decent jobs on decent money, chasing the next step up the corporate ladder. It isn't so much affecting those stacking shelves at a supermarket or working on a production line as they are on an hourly wage with well established overtime arrangements. Those who play the game do so willingly.

 

ii. Alcohol tests - This isn't a massive intrusion into anyone's private life. Anyone who comes into work still tipsy or dying with a hangover is fair game. I'm trying to manage a small business and if I have an employee in with a hangover doing fuck all for most of the day then it affects me. Why should they get paid to do fuck all because they got pissed the night before? It isn't too much to ask anyone to come into work in a fit state to perform their duties as normal. Personally I wouldn't use an alcohol testing kit as it isn't hard to tell if someone is massively hung over and is perhaps overkill but the idea that people should be allowed to get smashed and roll into work with a hangover without repercussions is ridiculous*.

 

*Of course we've all done it but it's very much different when it's you paying the wages.

[ewerk 30368]

I like how CT actually thinks he is winning the argument. I can imagine him all smug and cheerful in the taxi rank praying for a girl who has no cash and wants to pay for her lift in kind.

 

 

Tory supporter = sexual predator.

 

Wind your neck in.

[Gemmill 44491]

Good article. I absolutely detest my job at the minute.

[Christmas Tree 4709]

 

 

 

Overall a rather depressing view of the workplace and employers in general. In between the waffle there were two points I picked out:

 

i. Unpaid work - As BW has said, the TUC figures are likely to be inflated, that's not to say that it isn't happening. When I began my previous job it allowed me to claim time off in lieu or overtime for hours worked beyond my contract. At the time we were the only region in the UK afforded this luxury, the rest got nothing. After a couple of years they took away the overtime part and a year later removed the entitlement to TOIL, all in the name of 'bringing us in line with UK working practices. At the same time the shift on focus for our work was moving towards an export model of shifting everyone out to England or further afield Monday - Friday. So basically I was getting up to fly to the airport on a Monday morning at 5am working to at least 7pm every evening and getting home on a Friday night about 7pm. But that was the game and you either accept to play it or you don't. Myself and many of my colleagues opted out of the game after a few years because we found better alternatives. The point is though that this is largely a problem for those in decent jobs on decent money, chasing the next step up the corporate ladder. It isn't so much affecting those stacking shelves at a supermarket or working on a production line as they are on an hourly wage with well established overtime arrangements. Those who play the game do so willingly.

 

ii. Alcohol tests - This isn't a massive intrusion into anyone's private life. Anyone who comes into work still tipsy or dying with a hangover is fair game. I'm trying to manage a small business and if I have an employee in with a hangover doing fuck all for most of the day then it affects me. Why should they get paid to do fuck all because they got pissed the night before? It isn't too much to ask anyone to come into work in a fit state to perform their duties as normal. Personally I wouldn't use an alcohol testing kit as it isn't hard to tell if someone is massively hung over and is perhaps overkill but the idea that people should be allowed to get smashed and roll into work with a hangover without repercussions is ridiculous*.

 

*Of course we've all done it but it's very much different when it's you paying the wages.

Pretty much agree with this.

 

Problem is that on your way up the corporate ladder you are usually younger and enjoy your job more. Once you get to the top you still want all the rewards but want to spend more time enjoying the many fruits of your labour.

 

You could all follow my lead and leap off!

 

As for alcohol it's pretty easy to spot and deal with persistent offenders in my experience.

 

Overall though life is becoming a lot tougher. We now have to try and compete globally. It's dog eat dog.

 

 

[Happy Face 29]

I wonder how they've calculated the overtime. Is it just an average of everyones overtime? Or an average of everyone's work week....with the average Calculated as the hours over and above average contracted hours?

 

No-one does less than their contracted hours do they? So the vast majority can clock off on the dot, the average overtime cannot be skewed downwards by those that do less than their usual paid hours. It can only be skewed upwards by those that choose to do an inordinate amount overtime

 

Rather than concentrating on the average amount of extra hours folks do, they should say what the average total hours is for a full time employee. I doubt it would be in the high forties.

 

That said, something the article doesn't mention is what we've had at work where we keep getting mailed from HQ about the benefits of not having 2 phones (1 personal, 1 work) and instead, using our own personal smartphone to access work mails, calendars, apps etc.

 

Complete piss-take that sort of thing IYAM.

[Gemmill 44491]

I had one day last week where I got up, worked at home from 4 to 6am, got ready and went into work and left the office at 9:30pm.

 

I'm not doing it to climb any corporate ladder either, I just want an easy life. Need to think about downsizing my life.

[Renton 21392]

Interesting, although I would seriously question the figures from the TUC. No chance at all that they would overstate that one, is there?...

For people not on fixed shifts, it sounds about right.

[Happy Face 29]

 

 

 

UK services growth at 16-year high!

Activity in the UK services sector last month increased at its fastest rate since May 1997, a closely watched survey suggests.

The Markit/CIPS PMI services index rose to 62.5 in October from 60.3 in September, beating forecasts of 59.8.

Readings higher than 50 indicate growth.

Markit said the services sector, which accounts for around three quarters of the economy, was the "major driving force" behind the UK's economic upturn.

Employers were hiring people at the fastest rate since 1997, the survey found.

 

 

 

So basically once again the Tories have sorted the economy out and got us back to a similar path to when Labour inherited the last Tory golden spell.

 

Basically Labour need to learn lessons and buy into a private sector lead economy rather than "buying votes" by using public money to buy public sector and benefit votes.

 

The Labour fanboys will never budge, but to see a government putting private sector first, whilst taking millions of poor out of paying tax, linking pensions to RPI, spending more on the NHS than Labour promised and legislating for gay marriage is a welcome sight.

 

5 more years.

 

So your answer to my question is that the Conservative growth has been built on encouraging private sector investment while the Labour growth was built on public funding?

 

What about Public Private Partnerships? Labour embraced private investment to fund improvements from the very start didn't they?

 

And what about help to buy? Is that not a tory plan to throw public money at private business via individuals that those private companies see as too high risk, in order to stimulate growth?

 

I didn't vote Labour. I'm just trying to understand your enthusiasm/disdain gap.

[Renton 21392]

I had one day last week where I got up, worked at home from 4 to 6am, got ready and went into work and left the office at 9:30pm.

 

I'm not doing it to climb any corporate ladder either, I just want an easy life. Need to think about downsizing my life.

I'll be on a train to Manchester at 6.15 tomorrow, be back in Newcastle after 8 probably. 14 hours not including the commute to the station. As I won't be at work to biometrically scan in, it'll be counted as 7.5 hours. This is fairly typical. And like you, I just want an easy life now, not advancement.

 

At the same time, I'm being harassed by HR for daring to take 5 days off over the space of a calender year, even though my record the previous decade was fairly exemplary, and I had been diagnosed with pneumonia by a GP for 3 of those days.

 

It's really noticeable in the NHS now staff are treated like shit and it is bound to affect morale. And this is supposed to be one of the better employers.

[Christmas Tree 4709]

So your answer to my question is that the Conservative growth has been built on encouraging private sector investment while the Labour growth was built on public funding?

 

What about Public Private Partnerships? Labour embraced private investment to fund improvements from the very start didn't they?

 

And what about help to buy? Is that not a tory plan to throw public money at private business via individuals that those private companies see as too high risk, in order to stimulate growth?

 

I didn't vote Labour. I'm just trying to understand your enthusiasm/disdain gap.

As I always say, all governments do good stuff and not so good stuff.

 

Labour basically inherited a very good economic position created by the last Tory government in 1997. They then also benefitted from a continued boomtown as did most of the Globe. Unfortunately this boom time was built on debt and came crashing down.

 

The coalition took over, were honest about their plans, followed them through against howls from the opposition IMF etc yet are now reaping the rewards and seeing some of these major Economic bodies eating humble pie. So yes they deserve credit for a bloody good job done in such a short space of time.

 

Fundamentally though, Labour believe in a very large government while the conservatives believe in a very small one. That leads Labour to want to spend more of our money where the conservatives believe in cutting taxes.

 

Labours view would be great if there was unlimited money for a government to play with, but when you have to borrow to build big governments it's not clever.

 

As for help to buy, it's a loan so the money comes back (with interest?) and it's not that these are uncreditworthy people, they simply can't put together a ridiculous sized deposit.

 

As we keep saying, it was banks investing in dodgy overseas debt that caused a problem not defaulters on UK mortgages.

 

Personally I think having a coalition has probably been perfect for the last 3 years and wouldn't mind the same again at the next election to see the job through.

 

I shudder at the thought of Balls getting control.

[NJS 4375]

For people not on fixed shifts, it sounds about right.

Unpaid overtime is rife in banking (and thats for the plebs like me not the public face) but it's something ive never bought into. Unless I'm in the middle of something I leave at five on the dot but I see loads staying. Stupid thing is they dont generally work but tend to surf etc - its all a sad attempt to convince people they deserve a bonus which I know from past experience has sweet fa to do with shit like that and nothing to do with how they do their job in general.

 

My view is I'd much rather get out and have more time to myself even if it ends up costing me a few hundred quid.

 

 

[Happy Face 29]

As I always say, all governments do good stuff and not so good stuff.

 

Labour basically inherited a very good economic position created by the last Tory government in 1997. They then also benefitted from a continued boomtown as did most of the Globe. Unfortunately this boom time was built on debt and came crashing down.

 

The coalition took over, were honest about their plans, followed them through against howls from the opposition IMF etc yet are now reaping the rewards and seeing some of these major Economic bodies eating humble pie. So yes they deserve credit for a bloody good job done in such a short space of time.

 

Fundamentally though, Labour believe in a very large government while the conservatives believe in a very small one. That leads Labour to want to spend more of our money where the conservatives believe in cutting taxes.

 

Labours view would be great if there was unlimited money for a government to play with, but when you have to borrow to build big governments it's not clever.

 

As for help to buy, it's a loan so the money comes back (with interest?) and it's not that these are uncreditworthy people, they simply can't put together a ridiculous sized deposit.

 

As we keep saying, it was banks investing in dodgy overseas debt that caused a problem not defaulters on UK mortgages.

 

Personally I think having a coalition has probably been perfect for the last 3 years and wouldn't mind the same again at the next election to see the job through.

 

I shudder at the thought of Balls getting control.

 

The fact that these people cannot afford the standard deposit for the property they want to buy suggests they are not credit worthy.

 

Rather than fix the fundamental problems of ballooning property valuations and lending to people that can't afford the debt, this government has put a sticking plaster on to appease both the buyers and lenders. Like a dealer giving a junkie a free fix.

 

The dodgy overseas debt consisted of exactly these sorts of unaffordable mortgages packaged together and sold on as healthy investment opportunites. The banks would then take out insurance on these investments that they knew were shitty...and then collected on the default as well.

 

It's an international cluster fuck that the tories not only choose to ignore, but probably couldn't do anything about even if they had the best will in the world....that goes for Labour too.

[Christmas Tree 4709]

The fact that these people cannot afford the standard deposit for the property they want to buy suggests they are not credit worthy.

 

Rather than fix the fundamental problems of ballooning property valuations and lending to people that can't afford the debt, this government has put a sticking plaster on to appease both the buyers and lenders. Like a dealer giving a junkie a free fix.

 

The dodgy overseas debt consisted of exactly these sorts of unaffordable mortgages packaged together and sold on as healthy investment opportunites. The banks would then take out insurance on these investments that they knew were shitty...and then collected on the default as well.

 

It's an international cluster fuck that the tories not only choose to ignore, but probably couldn't do anything about even if they had the best will in the world....that goes for Labour too.

Your totally and utterly wrong!

 

We are talking about decent couples with canny jobs and salaries who historically would have had no problem getting a mortgage and already have a 5% deposit saved up.

 

These are not the people who caused the crash.

[Meenzer 15429]

 

As we keep saying, it was banks investing in dodgy overseas debt that caused a problem not defaulters on UK mortgages.

 

"We" don't believe for a minute that ridiculous property bubbles are sustainable (and yes, Brown is as responsible as anyone for the last one, which is what makes it all the more criminal that the current government are merrily sailing towards a new one). Property is already obscenely overpriced in this country, whether the average deposit demanded by banks is 5%, 10% or 20% - I honestly have no idea how current and future generations will cope unless someone agrees to take the hit on a crash, which obviously isn't going to happen. Encouraging people to get themselves into mortgages on massively disproportionately valued assets isn't a good thing, if anything I'd say it's morally wrong, but it's the only moral that seems to hold sway.

[Meenzer 15429]

 

The fact that these people cannot afford the standard deposit for the property they want to buy suggests they are not credit worthy.

 

Rather than fix the fundamental problems of ballooning property valuations and lending to people that can't afford the debt, this government has put a sticking plaster on to appease both the buyers and lenders. Like a dealer giving a junkie a free fix.

 

The dodgy overseas debt consisted of exactly these sorts of unaffordable mortgages packaged together and sold on as healthy investment opportunites. The banks would then take out insurance on these investments that they knew were shitty...and then collected on the default as well.

 

It's an international cluster fuck that the tories not only choose to ignore, but probably couldn't do anything about even if they had the best will in the world....that goes for Labour too.

 

Your prett'y much write.

[Happy Face 29]

Your totally and utterly wrong!

 

We are talking about decent couples with canny jobs and salaries who historically would have had no problem getting a mortgage and already have a 5% deposit saved up.

 

These are not the people who caused the crash.

 

It doesn't matter how decent anyone is, it's basic maths. If their salary isn't good enough to be able to afford a 10% deposit then the risk associated with that mortgage is increased. If you cannot save 10% of the value of the property you want in a couple of years, then you are not someone who can afford to pay off the full balance (plus interest) in 25 years, and you are probably rushing into it and should stick to renting.

 

These are not the people that caused the crash, obviously. Legislators that allowed 100% mortgages contributed, along with the banks that pushed them, knew it was a bad idea and took insurance against those people.

 

The same legislators/banks are now trying to say 5% is fine, and you're lapping it up as being an excellent solution. Wise up.

[Meenzer 15429]

 

It doesn't matter how decent anyone is, it's basic maths. If their salary isn't good enough to be able to afford a 10% deposit then the risk associated with that mortgage is increased. If you cannot save 10% of the value of the property you want in a couple of years, then you are not someone who can afford to pay off the full balance (plus interest) in 25 years, and you are probably rushing into it and should stick to renting.

 

These are not the people that caused the crash, obviously. Legislators that allowed 100% mortgages contributed, along with the banks that pushed them, knew it was a bad idea and took insurance against those people.

 

The same legislators/banks are now trying to say 5% is fine, and you're lapping it up as being an excellent solution. Wise up.

 

Your write agen. But then we live in a country where Big Brother constantly tells you you're not a real person unless you're busting a gut to Get On The Property Ladder, a message that comes from politicians, property porn on the telly and all points inbetween. Now that's immoral.

[Renton 21392]

There's a clear shortage of available housing in this country. Two solutions, either increase supply to match demand and let prices stabilize or drop, OR let the government artificially stimulate demand by providing loans which will inevitably lead to further inflation of house prices. How is the latter possibly good in the longer term?

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3859]

 

 

Tory supporter = sexual predator.

 

Wind your neck in.

No Taxi Driver = sexual predator

[Meenzer 15429]

How is the latter possibly good in the longer term?

 

Sadly, existing homeowners dictate the terms of the public debate because they're seen as better people (and electorally they probably are, at least for now while they're a majority). Higher prices for new buyers = higher prices for sellers = Ponzi scheme glee.

[Meenzer 15429]

(and yes, I realise by using the phrase "Ponzi scheme" I've triggered every Godwin's Law klaxon there is)

[Happy Face 29]

So, CT, ignoring the sub-prime mortgage crisis which you've not understood, the main difference you've referred to is a vague notion that Labour love big government and the Conservatives keep out of things.

 

So I'm left confused by your proud claims on NHS spending increases. Do you have any other examples that actually support your view the right way around?

[Christmas Tree 4709]

It doesn't matter how decent anyone is, it's basic maths. If their salary isn't good enough to be able to afford a 10% deposit then the risk associated with that mortgage is increased. If you cannot save 10% of the value of the property you want in a couple of years, then you are not someone who can afford to pay off the full balance (plus interest) in 25 years, and you are probably rushing into it and should stick to renting.

 

These are not the people that caused the crash, obviously. Legislators that allowed 100% mortgages contributed, along with the banks that pushed them, knew it was a bad idea and took insurance against those people.

 

The same legislators/banks are now trying to say 5% is fine, and you're lapping it up as being an excellent solution. Wise up.

Big deposits are new and a knee jerk over reaction.

 

Millions like me probably got on the property ladder in the 80's when 100% mortgages were freely available.

 

Being unable to pull together a £20,000 to £40,000 deposit does not equate to being unable to pay off a mortgage. (Particularly when a lot of the mortgage payments are far lower than renting).

 

And again, the crash was not caused by our housing market, our mortgage borrowers or our low deposit mortgages.

 

On the whole most people in this country managed quite well.

 

As for the bigger picture, an upsurge in the construction sector has so many benefits for the rest of our recovery and the uk economy in general.

 

A bit like Labour keeping the car industry afloat, this is just what's needed.

[Christmas Tree 4709]

So, CT, ignoring the sub-prime mortgage crisis which you've not understood, the main difference you've referred to is a vague notion that Labour love big government and the Conservatives keep out of things.

 

So I'm left confused by your proud claims on NHS spending increases. Do you have any other examples that actually support your view the right way around?

You seem to not understand that the sub prime mortgage crisis was an overseas problem.

[NJS 4375]

You seem to not understand that the sub prime mortgage crisis was an overseas problem.

There's no "overseas" in banking.