Comments on: Morons http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/ It is all obvious or trivial except... Wed, 23 May 2012 15:34:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: john b http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-3721 john b Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:10:10 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/#comment-3721 You mean France has a workforce of 60 million? Wow, that's a good effort at getting the elderly back in the workforce, although I'm not so keen on the child labour aspect of things. If the legislation gets written such that if you hire a female temp for seven weeks and she takes maternity leave after six and a half weeks, you're then obliged to pay her another 18 weeks' maternity pay - yes, obviously I oppose that. At the moment, the legislation hasn't been written so it's entirely unclear how this will work... You mean France has a workforce of 60 million? Wow, that’s a good effort at getting the elderly back in the workforce, although I’m not so keen on the child labour aspect of things.

If the legislation gets written such that if you hire a female temp for seven weeks and she takes maternity leave after six and a half weeks, you’re then obliged to pay her another 18 weeks’ maternity pay – yes, obviously I oppose that.

At the moment, the legislation hasn’t been written so it’s entirely unclear how this will work…

]]> By: Cleanthes http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-3718 Cleanthes Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:12:16 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/#comment-3718 Tell that to the 3% - that's 1.8 MILLION people - affected. You still haven't answered why you - apparently - in favour of the staggeringly obvious downsides of giving maternity pay to temp workers, viz women - who take up proportionately much more temp and part time work (timmy - I'm sure you can provide some numbers) - will be at a MASSIVE disadvantage in the temp labour market. Tell that to the 3% – that’s 1.8 MILLION people – affected.

You still haven’t answered why you – apparently – in favour of the staggeringly obvious downsides of giving maternity pay to temp workers, viz women – who take up proportionately much more temp and part time work (timmy – I’m sure you can provide some numbers) – will be at a MASSIVE disadvantage in the temp labour market.

]]> By: john b http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-3691 john b Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:30:31 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/#comment-3691 UK unemployment rate: 5%. France unemployment rate: 8% France higher? Yes. France so high that the trade-off between protection and hiring is clearly broken? Hardly... UK unemployment rate: 5%. France unemployment rate: 8%

France higher? Yes. France so high that the trade-off between protection and hiring is clearly broken? Hardly…

]]> By: Kay Tie http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-3667 Kay Tie Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:04:52 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/#comment-3667 Oh, and by the way: like AntiCitizenOne, I've vowed never to hire an employee ever again. Contractors all the way. Stick that in your socialist pipe and smoke the unintended consequences (while I and my contractors spend the 23% National Insurance we jointly saved). Oh, and by the way: like AntiCitizenOne, I’ve vowed never to hire an employee ever again. Contractors all the way. Stick that in your socialist pipe and smoke the unintended consequences (while I and my contractors spend the 23% National Insurance we jointly saved).

]]> By: Kay Tie http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-3666 Kay Tie Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:02:22 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/#comment-3666 "AntiCitizenOne, I do hope you never need a permanent job yourself. Like - really need it." Dear French person. I do hope you never need a permanent job yourself. Like - really need it. Yes, yes, I know you like - really need one now, because YOU'RE FUCKING UNEMPLOYED right now because no employer wants to hire you because they can never fire you because you're "protected" from that. Betcha feel good that you've got these "protections" in the unlikely event you should ever get a job. Yes, let's bring that brilliant French model to the UK. “AntiCitizenOne,

I do hope you never need a permanent job yourself.

Like – really need it.”

Dear French person. I do hope you never need a permanent job yourself. Like – really need it. Yes, yes, I know you like – really need one now, because YOU’RE FUCKING UNEMPLOYED right now because no employer wants to hire you because they can never fire you because you’re “protected” from that. Betcha feel good that you’ve got these “protections” in the unlikely event you should ever get a job.

Yes, let’s bring that brilliant French model to the UK.

]]> By: Martin http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-3662 Martin Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:54:49 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/#comment-3662 AntiCitizenOne, I do hope you never need a permanent job yourself. Like - really need it. AntiCitizenOne,

I do hope you never need a permanent job yourself.

Like – really need it.

]]> By: Cleanthes http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-3654 Cleanthes Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:30:51 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/#comment-3654 "maternity rights" Ok John, so that just means that no woman of childbearing age will ever have a temp job lasting more than 5 weeks and 4 days. I'm sure you're fine with that. “maternity rights”

Ok John, so that just means that no woman of childbearing age will ever have a temp job lasting more than 5 weeks and 4 days.

I’m sure you’re fine with that.

]]> By: john b http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-3651 john b Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:18:13 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/#comment-3651 @ Tim - all the sources I've seen suggest that the AWD only covers working time, pay, discrimination and maternity rights. Only the last of these has any impact on point 1. But I'm open to a source that proves me wrong... @ Tim – all the sources I’ve seen suggest that the AWD only covers working time, pay, discrimination and maternity rights. Only the last of these has any impact on point 1. But I’m open to a source that proves me wrong…

]]> By: AntiCitizenOne http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-3640 AntiCitizenOne Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:58:31 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/#comment-3640 I will continue to use contractors instead of employess. I will continue to use contractors instead of employess.

]]> By: john b http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-3638 john b Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:49:53 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/#comment-3638 Surely there are two issues here: 1) should temps have the same protection against redundancy as normal staff? 2) should temps be treated equally in other ways to normal staff doing the same job? For 1, obviously not, or they wouldn't be temps. I can't see the justification for 2, though. Either there shouldn't be employment protection, SSP, statutory holiday, etc, at all, or everyone in employment deserves it. AIUI, the new rules specifically don't prevent temps from being laid off when they're not needed (if I'm wrong on that, then obviously I oppose the new rules totally). They just ensure that - if you're seeking to bring someone in for the duration of a project - you have to give them the same total package as if you resourced the project with internal secondees of equal ability. Tim adds: I'm reasonably certain that 1) is true. Normal redundancy rules kick in after that 6 weeks. Surely there are two issues here:
1) should temps have the same protection against redundancy as normal staff?
2) should temps be treated equally in other ways to normal staff doing the same job?

For 1, obviously not, or they wouldn’t be temps. I can’t see the justification for 2, though. Either there shouldn’t be employment protection, SSP, statutory holiday, etc, at all, or everyone in employment deserves it.

AIUI, the new rules specifically don’t prevent temps from being laid off when they’re not needed (if I’m wrong on that, then obviously I oppose the new rules totally). They just ensure that – if you’re seeking to bring someone in for the duration of a project – you have to give them the same total package as if you resourced the project with internal secondees of equal ability.

Tim adds: I’m reasonably certain that 1) is true. Normal redundancy rules kick in after that 6 weeks.

]]> By: dearieme http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-3634 dearieme Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:37:48 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/#comment-3634 We've bought a Polish dictionary. We’ve bought a Polish dictionary.

]]> By: Mark Wadsworth http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-3628 Mark Wadsworth Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:44:41 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/morons/#comment-3628 Not a problem, once it's all gone wrong, they will introduce new Reg's saying that companies who take on temporary staff have to contribute x% of their pay to a special earmarked fund that will be used to pay their holiday and sick pay and so on. And then they'll drop the limit from 6 to 2 weeks and so on. There's no unintended consequence that can't be fixed and made worse. Not a problem, once it’s all gone wrong, they will introduce new Reg’s saying that companies who take on temporary staff have to contribute x% of their pay to a special earmarked fund that will be used to pay their holiday and sick pay and so on. And then they’ll drop the limit from 6 to 2 weeks and so on. There’s no unintended consequence that can’t be fixed and made worse.

]]>