The Politics Thread

[Harry Genshaw]

Since we were able to uproot the Chagossian Islanders and dump em across the atlantic, it should be easy enough for us to say to the Gibraltarians - "sorry, you aint British anymore. You can vote to be truly independent or become part of Spain. Its up to you"

I'm embarrassed to confess that I had never heard of the Chagossian Island business. So I looked it up. To my horror HMG won its appeal basing its arguments on Canada's treatment of Japanese Canadians in WW2. Basically we rounded up all the Canadians of Japanese extraction on the West Coast for national security reasons and moved them to Saskatchewan for the duration. This is a terrible precedent for the UK to use as this has been a source of great national shame to us. These people never got any kind of compensation at the time. It is only recently that the Canadian government has apologized and paid more compensation. It is almost universally agreed that there was never any justification for moving an entire people simply because of their racial background. In WW1 I believe we rounded up and interned Italians and Ukrainians but no one cared back then.

The UK govt has paid compensation (possibly a couple of times iirc) but despite now accepting it was wrong and brutal, since we did it to let the US have a military base out there - and they show no signs of wanting to part with it - we have to continue with the cruel charade. I don't suppose there's many of the original islanders left alive. A truly shameful episode in our country's history - and we've had a few.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

http://openlettertometrolink.blogspot.c ... l?spref=fb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I guess this is the sort of thing LK is on about...

Is it really called a 'My Get Me There'?!

[thebish]

http://openlettertometrolink.blogspot.c ... l?spref=fb

I guess this is the sort of thing LK is on about...

Is it really called a 'My Get Me There'?!

[Lord Kangana]

The point by Kylie Hodges is an important one to pull out from the jokes. London still has an integrated, largley-publicly-owned system. In contrast Manchester has a plethora of competing disparate entities. Integration of resources is difficult in that environment, because profit for the company is raised above passenger consideration.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm not totally sure what you mean by 'integrated' in this context. The Tube is obviously 'integrated' by its nature, but what do you mean beyond that? That there aren't multiple providers trying to cover one route, with others left completely unserved - that sort of thing?

[Lord Kangana]

Tickets across London transport are transferable (they're issued by the same source). If you note what she says, there was a problem (again) with the bus driver (from a different company) complaining that he's not been informed. I've been in the same situation in London where the line is closed and you just hop on a bus at a moments notice. No company is losing out to another.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Tickets across London transport are transferable (they're issued by the same source). If you note what she says, there was a problem (again) with the bus driver (from a different company) complaining that he's not been informed. I've been in the same situation in London where the line is closed and you just hop on a bus at a moments notice. No company is losing out to another.

Yes, the tickets - of course.

But the jumping on a bus thing... isn't that more to do with the fact that there are always buses running, rather than any integration?

[Lord Kangana]

Have you read what she says? The bus driver argued with her because he hadn't been informed. If you're working for a rival company, you're not going to give your service for free to others. If you're working for the same, it stands to reason that a fare has already been paid to you, so there is less grounds upon which to quibble.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Alright - I'm sold.

[William the White]

I've just made a donation to the legal challenge being made to the zero hours contracts that 90% of Sports Direct employees 'benefit' from...

If you wish to do the same...

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/campaigns" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Harry Genshaw]

I've just made a donation to the legal challenge being made to the zero hours contracts that 90% of Sports Direct employees 'benefit' from...

If you wish to do the same...

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/campaigns" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Outrageous scheme and I've yet to hear a convincing argument that it benefits some employees as Vince Cable said.

When they first appeared in the UK (via Burger King & Daewoo iirc) they had staff who had to be on site but 'clocked off' when there were no customers. In BK's case, they had staff in the restaurant for 8 hours who were only getting paid for 5 or 6 hours. Talk about exploitation

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I suppose there are some employees who would like a contract that means they can opt out of doing any hours from time to time, for some reason (studies, children, caring etc), but the key distinction made in that petition is that there should be a choice.

The challenge has now raised its funding target, so I will leave them to it and wish them well. It completely subverts a lot of employment law if you can just stop giving people hours instead of dismissing them properly.

[Bruce Rioja]

I've just made a donation to the legal challenge being made to the zero hours contracts that 90% of Sports Direct employees 'benefit' from...

If you wish to do the same...

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/campaigns" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Outrageous scheme and I've yet to hear a convincing argument that it benefits some employees as Vince Cable said.

Brilliant. I can't believe it that those of us that have signed off of the EU Working Time Directive are now being supported by objectors to zero hour contracts. Given the hours I work I'll earn a fecking fortune out of this.

[Lord Kangana]

I doubt it Bruce. your employer, ultimately, holds the purse strings. You just have to hope that government intervenes enough to stop that relationship being exploitative. And besides, in our industry most people are signed up to a 40 or 45 hour contract. Which is about half of what they'll actually work. In a practical sense, the only way to challenge this is to leave. But then, where else do you go, who will employ you?

[Prufrock]

I've just made a donation to the legal challenge being made to the zero hours contracts that 90% of Sports Direct employees 'benefit' from...

If you wish to do the same...

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/campaigns" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Outrageous scheme and I've yet to hear a convincing argument that it benefits some employees as Vince Cable said.

When they first appeared in the UK (via Burger King & Daewoo iirc) they had staff who had to be on site but 'clocked off' when there were no customers. In BK's case, they had staff in the restaurant for 8 hours who were only getting paid for 5 or 6 hours. Talk about exploitation

They're useful in a very narrow way for students who have holiday jobs. They save the pain of rejoining and leaving every holiday. It's a small benefit, but it is one. As Crayons says though, it's one thing having the choice...

[Bruce Rioja]

I doubt it Bruce. your employer, ultimately, holds the purse strings. You just have to hope that government intervenes enough to stop that relationship being exploitative. And besides, in our industry most people are signed up to a 40 or 45 hour contract. Which is about half of what they'll actually work. In a practical sense, the only way to challenge this is to leave. But then, where else do you go, who will employ you?

Oh indeed. My tongue was firmly in my cheek there. Nobody put a gun to my head when I signed my contract. Likewise people on zero hour contracts are perfectly free to sell their skill set to the highest bidder they can find. If that bidder happens to be Mike Ashley then so be it.

[BWFC_Insane]

I doubt it Bruce. your employer, ultimately, holds the purse strings. You just have to hope that government intervenes enough to stop that relationship being exploitative. And besides, in our industry most people are signed up to a 40 or 45 hour contract. Which is about half of what they'll actually work. In a practical sense, the only way to challenge this is to leave. But then, where else do you go, who will employ you?

Oh indeed. My tongue was firmly in my cheek there. Nobody put a gun to my head when I signed my contract. Likewise people on zero hour contracts are perfectly free to sell their skill set to the highest bidder they can find. If that bidder happens to be Mike Ashley then so be it.

So employers should be free to screw staff so long as it's lower level, less skilled staff?

Many on "zero hour" contracts don't have a choice. But thats ok is it?

[Bruce Rioja]

I doubt it Bruce. your employer, ultimately, holds the purse strings. You just have to hope that government intervenes enough to stop that relationship being exploitative. And besides, in our industry most people are signed up to a 40 or 45 hour contract. Which is about half of what they'll actually work. In a practical sense, the only way to challenge this is to leave. But then, where else do you go, who will employ you?

Oh indeed. My tongue was firmly in my cheek there. Nobody put a gun to my head when I signed my contract. Likewise people on zero hour contracts are perfectly free to sell their skill set to the highest bidder they can find. If that bidder happens to be Mike Ashley then so be it.

So employers should be free to screw staff so long as it's lower level, less skilled staff?

Many on "zero hour" contracts don't have a choice. But thats ok is it?

How's someone being screwed if they enter into an agreement with someone of their own free volition?

[BWFC_Insane]

I doubt it Bruce. your employer, ultimately, holds the purse strings. You just have to hope that government intervenes enough to stop that relationship being exploitative. And besides, in our industry most people are signed up to a 40 or 45 hour contract. Which is about half of what they'll actually work. In a practical sense, the only way to challenge this is to leave. But then, where else do you go, who will employ you?

Oh indeed. My tongue was firmly in my cheek there. Nobody put a gun to my head when I signed my contract. Likewise people on zero hour contracts are perfectly free to sell their skill set to the highest bidder they can find. If that bidder happens to be Mike Ashley then so be it.

So employers should be free to screw staff so long as it's lower level, less skilled staff?

Many on "zero hour" contracts don't have a choice. But thats ok is it?

How's someone being screwed if they enter into an agreement with someone of their own free volition?

Because they don't have any choice? Take a zero hours contract or don't have a job and can't pay your rent or feed your kids etc.

Face it, if everyone had a choice like you or I there wouldn't be a million people on zero hours. Sure it may suit some of those but for many it doesn't. And they're on it, because they don't have the choice.

[Athers]

Curiously I thought the CIPD survey said 14% of people were dissatisfied with the arrangement.

I don't know what % of the 86% are just happy to have a job, however!

I can see why it would work fine for someone at age 60 odd who wants to keep their hand in and still earn a few quid, or if you are the secondary earner in a couple and want the equivalent to a part-time job where you can have [unpaid] holidays whenever you want.

If you're on one as a single parent though, and where the employer also makes the unreasonable demand that you can't work anywhere else, you could quickly get into trouble.