Nick
Administrator
They are optional?
They are optional?so why not make them optional? If people don't want a traditional full time contract then fair enough.
so why not make them optional? If people don't want a traditional full time contract then fair enough.
You only take home £116,000 and you're looking for sympathy, i don't think I've seen much on here that rates as more ridiculous. Not all benefits go to lazy spongers you know, I've a sister in law who has just lost her disability allowance despite having a debilitating illness and being on more steroids than a gym full of meatheads (not all gym users are meatheads). She has gained so much weight she resembles a barrage balloon and finds it difficult to climb the stairs but the assessor seems to know better than her GP and her specialist or could they simply be targeting the week and the sick in order to meet some performance related target of their own. Yeah I feel really sorry for anybody who only takes home £116,000.No ofc it’s not, but say I earn 200,000 a year, why is it right that I only take 116,000 home?
I have no problem with paying tax, but I do when there are people that sit on their areas all day, and expect hard working people to pay for it.
They are optional?
You only take home £116,000 and you're looking for sympathy, i don't think I've seen much on here that rates as more ridiculous. Not all benefits go to lazy spongers you know, I've a sister in law who has just lost her disability allowance despite having a debilitating illness and being on more steroids than a gym full of meatheads (not all gym users are meatheads). She has gained so much weight she resembles a barrage balloon and finds it difficult to climb the stairs but the assessor seems to know better than her GP and her specialist or could they simply be targeting the week and the sick in order to meet some performance related target of their own. Yeah I feel really sorry for anybody who only takes home £116,000.
In my experience again it has been like that, the managers where I have worked, have always offered full time or part time (Zhc) but I know this isn’t always the case and understand what you mean.as in take it or leave it. I mean give people a choice between ZHC or full time contracts if people prefer to be on them.
But you said to get rid of them completely did you not? Might be wrong if so then I apologise.
I am all for people being given full time contracts if they want them, but I do think forcing companies to give employees full time contracts will lead to more unemployment. At the pub I worked at for example. If they had more staff like me ( I worked 45 hours a week) then they would probably cut their staff by 2/3 because they don’t need the others?
Yes with that I agree, but I don’t think abolishing them helps employment or standard of living across the board.I did, and a few people have posted saying extolling their virtues and saying people want them , if that's the case, giver people a choice between them and full time contracts.
You only take home £116,000 and you're looking for sympathy, i don't think I've seen much on here that rates as more ridiculous. Not all benefits go to lazy spongers you know, I've a sister in law who has just lost her disability allowance despite having a debilitating illness and being on more steroids than a gym full of meatheads (not all gym users are meatheads). She has gained so much weight she resembles a barrage balloon and finds it difficult to climb the stairs but the assessor seems to know better than her GP and her specialist or could they simply be targeting the week and the sick in order to meet some performance related target of their own. Yeah I feel really sorry for anybody who only takes home £116,000.
I did, and a few people have posted saying extolling their virtues and saying people want them , if that's the case, giver people a choice between them and full time contracts.
Full time contracts will I assume mean at the expense of the 66% who prefer the arrangement and higher unemployment
how would giving out zero hour contracts lead to higher unemployment?
If 66 percent prefer them then surely giving full time contracts to the 34 percent wouldn't make a great deal of difference.
Why did Mike Ashley bow to pressure and stop using them at Sports Direct if they were so popular?
Ok I shouldn't have aimed that directly at You, I stand by the sentiment of my post though, for me taxation should be used to create a fairer society. I'm not against people becoming wealthy I just think that those at the bottom of the heap should be looked after before somebody on said £116,000 gets a tax break. Apologies again for my error.And furthermore I have never said that all money goes to lazy spongers, and there are cases where people do need benefits. As I say I have no problem with tax, I do however question how fair it is to be taxed for doing better in your field than others.
Ok I shouldn't have aimed that directly at You, I stand by the sentiment of my post though, for me taxation should be used to create a fairer society. I'm not against people becoming wealthy I just think that those at the bottom of the heap should be looked after before somebody on said £116,000 gets a tax break. Apologies again for my error.
We have a fair society, where people who work harder or smarter earn more and pay more, but not yet prohibitively more, tax. A fairer society is the left wing euphemism for 'vote for us so we can Duck the country up'
Globalisation and unregulated banks fucked the economy up in reality. The Labour incumbents at the time just added to the disaster with negligent fiscal policy as usual.
I didn't say we had an equal society, there is no such thing. We have a fair society, where people who want to put extra in and earn more may do so. If you punish those people, then that would be an unfair society. It would also be disastrous for everyone else when they vote with their feet and you lose all the tax they pay.
Let me see 10 years ago, that was Blair wasn't it, no wait a minute G Brown. Labour were in power from 1997 to 2010, a lot of damage was done then.
Is it fair that I am given pay rises below inflation even if I hit all my criteria?
I was talking about generations rather than political parties but since you're keen, who was it who got the free market ball rolling in the first place?
Whoever it was should be praised unless you are saying free market forces are draconian?
Social democracy calls for a healthy balance of free market and state influence. A deregulated free market tends to lead to the economic crashes of the late 80s and late 2000s.
but there hasn't always been zero hour contracts. You know that they are not being used soley for students and casual labour. They are no good for people with families who need a regular income but many find themselves on them as they have become more widespread.
I think he will become pm. He will achieve enough in 5 years for the Tories to return. What I'm looking forward to most of all is hearing how labour reinvent themselves, talk down the country and blame everything on the Tories next time. I think they will remain hard left now forever.
Edit: it amazes me that they are succeeding in blaming the Tories this time. Such short memories.
How can you say that damage has been done by Brexit and blame the Conservatives? It was a manifesto pledge that had to be followed through or they would have been criticised for not delivering. Clearly it was wanted or they wouldn't have won that election nor the 17m that voted for it would have been given the opportunity, but as we have still not left yet and wont do for some time, to say that it's damaging is merely guessing. Let's wait and see what happens first.
Eh? It is easy to blame the Conservatives. "I blame the Conservatives" There, I said it.
Manifesto pledge? Are you having a laugh? Dementia tax, grammar schools, fox hunting, energy price cap, fixed term parliament act, winter fuel payments...care to comment on those manifesto pledges?
A vanity project just to shut up a few back benchers and we'll be suffering for decades because of it.
"I blame the Conservatives". Oh look, I said it again.
I don’t see your point? You are blaming the conservatives for overseeing the will of the people?
How dare they uphold democracy!
Yes it might have been marginal brexit. But 52% still voted for it. It’s the will of the people at the end of the day.
The way it's going the 'will of the people' will move more and more against it by March 2019, apart from the zealots desperate for deregulation.
So what we have another vote just before we agree a deal? And make a U-turn?
Yep, agree with most of this. Fox hunting ffs, what were they thinking? I'd add that I think the brexit referendum was also motivated by nicking ukip's votes in 2015. I agree with brexit, not be cause I'm selfish but because I believe it is best for everyone (UK and Europe). But that doesn't change what motivated Cameron to offer the referendum.Eh? It is easy to blame the Conservatives. "I blame the Conservatives" There, I said it.
Manifesto pledge? Are you having a laugh? Dementia tax, grammar schools, fox hunting, energy price cap, fixed term parliament act, winter fuel payments...care to comment on those manifesto pledges?
A vanity project just to shut up a few back benchers and we'll be suffering for decades because of it.
"I blame the Conservatives". Oh look, I said it again.
Yep, agree with most of this. Fox hunting ffs, what were they thinking? I'd add that I think the brexit referendum was also motivated by nicking ukip's votes in 2015. I agree with brexit, not be cause I'm selfish but because I believe it is best for everyone (UK and Europe). But that doesn't change what motivated Cameron to offer the referendum.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?