Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Some humans. Some of us have worked from home since long before covid and get far more done than we do in the office.
Of course WFH can work, and it some circumstances and with some employees it is a much more effective way of working, but as a policy for all workers it has failed, which is why I think the vast majority of those who did not WFH prior to Covid will be back in the office this year.
The problem is that WFH was introduced as a policy or a plan.
It was, in most cases, send people home with a work laptop.
Many of the people sent home 5 days a week had no experience of WFH. Nor did their managers. There were no tool or techniques.
In short, it worked about as well as attaching parachutes to people and kicking them out of planes with no training.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
I agree with you G, the amounts they are asking for is just stupid. Will be precious few in private sector getting bumper pay rises , inflation or not. No way can the public purse afford stupid numbers but Government should make a reasonable offer and say that is it take it or go get another job.
Gooooood. So your nurse or teacher takes your advice and quits. We can't just go down the jobcentre and pull someone in off the streets. These are professional highly trained roles and we already have a huge shortage of them.
So how does "if you don't like it go get a job" help the situation?
It is worse than that. They quit their £600 a week job, and end up getting paid £600 a shift as agency staff from time to time as we are short of nurses. Brilliant management!
This is what the Tories are dying on an ideological hill for, to lose permanent staff and turn them into agency workers at a huge multiple of the price instead of paying them in real terms what we have been doing previously.
Once again the public sector is about 20 years late to the party.
In this case, it's - "We can't afford head count and the wages would be too high. So let's get contractors in."
To be fair, it did take a decade or 2 for private companies to realise that having contractors in the building for 10 years at a time was a sign. A giant fucking sign saying "Hire some staff".
Under normal circumstances I am absolutely opposed to strikes and believe that anyone striking should be prepared to quit instead. I also believe the employer should have an absolute right to sack people who strike immediately and replace them with others who want to work, if there's others available.
However I still believe that people should have a right to strike, even if I'd normally oppose it, and to be honest these seem like the most appropriate circumstances to do so.
The Government thinks it has enough money to maintain the Triple Lock and give those who are not working an increase in their income to match inflation, yet expects those who are working for a living to be taking a hammering with a large real terms cut in wages. How is that reasonable?
If we were "all in it together" then that would be one thing, but we are not. Client groups are getting inflation-matching pay increases while others aren't, that is not acceptable and why should those in work not strike in those circumstances?
Those who are working should see their wages increase at least by as much as those who are not in work. Don't like that? Get a job.
Keeping the triple lock has defined this era of inflation, everyone now not getting an 11% rise at the taxpayer's expense is, rightly IMO, incensed. If they can give 12.5m retirees an extra 11% then what's 0.4m nurses asking for 10%, or 0.05m ambulance drivers asking for 8%, or 0.2m junior doctors asking for 9% etc...
It was the single biggest error that the government made and they are now reaping the reward from that with endless strikes in the public sector from workers who have seen the 11% benchmark given to old people.
Those on just state pension without a private pension are on less than minimum wage (also going up with inflation) and on about a third of the average salary whether in the public or private sector
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
I agree with you G, the amounts they are asking for is just stupid. Will be precious few in private sector getting bumper pay rises , inflation or not. No way can the public purse afford stupid numbers but Government should make a reasonable offer and say that is it take it or go get another job.
Gooooood. So your nurse or teacher takes your advice and quits. We can't just go down the jobcentre and pull someone in off the streets. These are professional highly trained roles and we already have a huge shortage of them.
So how does "if you don't like it go get a job" help the situation?
It is worse than that. They quit their £600 a week job, and end up getting paid £600 a shift as agency staff from time to time as we are short of nurses. Brilliant management!
This is what the Tories are dying on an ideological hill for, to lose permanent staff and turn them into agency workers at a huge multiple of the price instead of paying them in real terms what we have been doing previously.
Once again the public sector is about 20 years late to the party.
In this case, it's - "We can't afford head count and the wages would be too high. So let's get contractors in."
To be fair, it did take a decade or 2 for private companies to realise that having contractors in the building for 10 years at a time was a sign. A giant fucking sign saying "Hire some staff".
It just seems the current lot are so blinded by their anti union ideology that they have forgotten all about the free market and supply and demand. If we have 100k+ vacancies in the NHS offering big real terms pay cuts is simply bizarre.
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Completely untrue. If I don't do my job, I get fired. If I try to do it in the office, I get very little actual work done. Some useful networking, yes, but don't need to do that 5 days a week. If I want to do any real work, I stay at home.
I think the key bit there is that you have a metric - "If I don't do my job, I get fired."
In many jobs that have been turned into WFH (in the worst way possible), the only check on what people were doing was the manager nosing around on occasion.
Sad to see Jacinda go, she was a great leader who showed how a modern left-wing party could win and win big in this day and age. Much for UK Labour to learn.
It's refreshing to see power relinquished in this fashion. It's normally clasped tight till the bitter end. She's the dead opposite of the Donald Trumps of this world - the actual, the wannabees, the admirers, the apologists - and that's a good way to be.
We make the same point and you get 5 likes and I get 1. Obviously the way you tell 'em. Actually you were better.
It is why dictators always fail and why some leadership roles have time limits on them.
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Some humans. Some of us have worked from home since long before covid and get far more done than we do in the office.
Of course WFH can work, and it some circumstances and with some employees it is a much more effective way of working, but as a policy for all workers it has failed, which is why I think the vast majority of those who did not WFH prior to Covid will be back in the office this year.
The average working week for most office workers now is Tuesday to Thursday with Monday and Friday wfh. That is likely here to stay with the office used more for team meetings, presentations and networking etc
Under normal circumstances I am absolutely opposed to strikes and believe that anyone striking should be prepared to quit instead. I also believe the employer should have an absolute right to sack people who strike immediately and replace them with others who want to work, if there's others available.
However I still believe that people should have a right to strike, even if I'd normally oppose it, and to be honest these seem like the most appropriate circumstances to do so.
The Government thinks it has enough money to maintain the Triple Lock and give those who are not working an increase in their income to match inflation, yet expects those who are working for a living to be taking a hammering with a large real terms cut in wages. How is that reasonable?
If we were "all in it together" then that would be one thing, but we are not. Client groups are getting inflation-matching pay increases while others aren't, that is not acceptable and why should those in work not strike in those circumstances?
Those who are working should see their wages increase at least by as much as those who are not in work. Don't like that? Get a job.
Keeping the triple lock has defined this era of inflation, everyone now not getting an 11% rise at the taxpayer's expense is, rightly IMO, incensed. If they can give 12.5m retirees an extra 11% then what's 0.4m nurses asking for 10%, or 0.05m ambulance drivers asking for 8%, or 0.2m junior doctors asking for 9% etc...
It was the single biggest error that the government made and they are now reaping the reward from that with endless strikes in the public sector from workers who have seen the 11% benchmark given to old people.
Those on just state pension without a private pension are on less than minimum wage (also going up with inflation) and on about a third of the average salary whether in the public or private sector
So deal with that through pension credit and don't bung all your rich voters cash that could have been shared more equally with public sector workers?
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Completely untrue. If I don't do my job, I get fired. If I try to do it in the office, I get very little actual work done. Some useful networking, yes, but don't need to do that 5 days a week. If I want to do any real work, I stay at home.
Over the past 30 months I have dealt with LA's and HA's whose engineers & Accounts department work from home. The change has been dramatic to the extent that they have gone from blue chip clients to ones that we no longer do business with. It can take weeks to get an answer regarding a project and payment times have gone from 2 weeks to 6 months.
I am actually friends with a number of these engineers, they have spent WFH doing their house up, playing golf every day etc etc. Work became a side issue to them and their employer did not care. It was madness.
So to say it is completely untrue is not my experience.
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Some humans. Some of us have worked from home since long before covid and get far more done than we do in the office.
Theory X and Y isn't it? Some problems people need the supervision, some need to be left alone. Smart managers and systems do both on a case by case basis.
Unfortunately, not all systems are smart like that.
Under normal circumstances I am absolutely opposed to strikes and believe that anyone striking should be prepared to quit instead. I also believe the employer should have an absolute right to sack people who strike immediately and replace them with others who want to work, if there's others available.
However I still believe that people should have a right to strike, even if I'd normally oppose it, and to be honest these seem like the most appropriate circumstances to do so.
The Government thinks it has enough money to maintain the Triple Lock and give those who are not working an increase in their income to match inflation, yet expects those who are working for a living to be taking a hammering with a large real terms cut in wages. How is that reasonable?
If we were "all in it together" then that would be one thing, but we are not. Client groups are getting inflation-matching pay increases while others aren't, that is not acceptable and why should those in work not strike in those circumstances?
Those who are working should see their wages increase at least by as much as those who are not in work. Don't like that? Get a job.
Keeping the triple lock has defined this era of inflation, everyone now not getting an 11% rise at the taxpayer's expense is, rightly IMO, incensed. If they can give 12.5m retirees an extra 11% then what's 0.4m nurses asking for 10%, or 0.05m ambulance drivers asking for 8%, or 0.2m junior doctors asking for 9% etc...
It was the single biggest error that the government made and they are now reaping the reward from that with endless strikes in the public sector from workers who have seen the 11% benchmark given to old people.
Those on just state pension without a private pension are on less than minimum wage (also going up with inflation) and on about a third of the average salary whether in the public or private sector
But UK pensioners are among the wealthiest in the world, very few only have the state pension as their sole source of income and for those we could have ensured a higher than inflation rise through the pension credit. The Tories are going to lose in 2024 and it will be because they are no longer the party of those who want to get on in life, it is the party of those who already did and now want to pull up the ladder.
Under normal circumstances I am absolutely opposed to strikes and believe that anyone striking should be prepared to quit instead. I also believe the employer should have an absolute right to sack people who strike immediately and replace them with others who want to work, if there's others available.
However I still believe that people should have a right to strike, even if I'd normally oppose it, and to be honest these seem like the most appropriate circumstances to do so.
The Government thinks it has enough money to maintain the Triple Lock and give those who are not working an increase in their income to match inflation, yet expects those who are working for a living to be taking a hammering with a large real terms cut in wages. How is that reasonable?
If we were "all in it together" then that would be one thing, but we are not. Client groups are getting inflation-matching pay increases while others aren't, that is not acceptable and why should those in work not strike in those circumstances?
Those who are working should see their wages increase at least by as much as those who are not in work. Don't like that? Get a job.
Keeping the triple lock has defined this era of inflation, everyone now not getting an 11% rise at the taxpayer's expense is, rightly IMO, incensed. If they can give 12.5m retirees an extra 11% then what's 0.4m nurses asking for 10%, or 0.05m ambulance drivers asking for 8%, or 0.2m junior doctors asking for 9% etc...
It was the single biggest error that the government made and they are now reaping the reward from that with endless strikes in the public sector from workers who have seen the 11% benchmark given to old people.
Indeed. I would go further and say something I've never said before in my life which is that I think [most of] the unions are being very restrained in the circumstances.
Normally in a negotiation if the other side is low-balling you, then you go high, with an intention to then meet in the middle. The unions are starting with demands below the Triple Lock threshold, that is to be honest pretty generous of them.
If the offer is 3%, and the reasonable benchmark is 11%, then the counter-demand should typically be 19%. The offer is 8% below benchmark, so start demands 8% above instead, then meet in the middle. That the idea of 19% might sound outrageous only speaks to how outrageous offering 3% when the benchmark is 11% is.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
I agree with you G, the amounts they are asking for is just stupid. Will be precious few in private sector getting bumper pay rises , inflation or not. No way can the public purse afford stupid numbers but Government should make a reasonable offer and say that is it take it or go get another job.
Gooooood. So your nurse or teacher takes your advice and quits. We can't just go down the jobcentre and pull someone in off the streets. These are professional highly trained roles and we already have a huge shortage of them.
So how does "if you don't like it go get a job" help the situation?
It is worse than that. They quit their £600 a week job, and end up getting paid £600 a shift as agency staff from time to time as we are short of nurses. Brilliant management!
This is what the Tories are dying on an ideological hill for, to lose permanent staff and turn them into agency workers at a huge multiple of the price instead of paying them in real terms what we have been doing previously.
Once again the public sector is about 20 years late to the party.
In this case, it's - "We can't afford head count and the wages would be too high. So let's get contractors in."
To be fair, it did take a decade or 2 for private companies to realise that having contractors in the building for 10 years at a time was a sign. A giant fucking sign saying "Hire some staff".
It just seems the current lot are so blinded by their anti union ideology that they have forgotten all about the free market and supply and demand. If we have 100k+ vacancies in the NHS offering big real terms pay cuts is simply bizarre.
The big problem with NHS staff is that the whole concept of national pay rates, government controlled pay etc is from the 1950s.
The stuff about working conditions is insane.
Many of those vacancies are for specialisms - but because of the pay structures, it becomes impossible to increase pay *just* for the jobs that are in demand.
If you have 1950s pay, work and management structures... then the result will look awfully 1950s in terms of industrial relations.
Under normal circumstances I am absolutely opposed to strikes and believe that anyone striking should be prepared to quit instead. I also believe the employer should have an absolute right to sack people who strike immediately and replace them with others who want to work, if there's others available.
However I still believe that people should have a right to strike, even if I'd normally oppose it, and to be honest these seem like the most appropriate circumstances to do so.
The Government thinks it has enough money to maintain the Triple Lock and give those who are not working an increase in their income to match inflation, yet expects those who are working for a living to be taking a hammering with a large real terms cut in wages. How is that reasonable?
If we were "all in it together" then that would be one thing, but we are not. Client groups are getting inflation-matching pay increases while others aren't, that is not acceptable and why should those in work not strike in those circumstances?
Those who are working should see their wages increase at least by as much as those who are not in work. Don't like that? Get a job.
If an employer can sack people for striking there isn't a right to strike - unless it's defined in the most absurdly reductive way, ie you're not physically compelled to work so not literally a slave. Low bar. Meaningless really.
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Completely untrue. If I don't do my job, I get fired. If I try to do it in the office, I get very little actual work done. Some useful networking, yes, but don't need to do that 5 days a week. If I want to do any real work, I stay at home.
I think the key bit there is that you have a metric - "If I don't do my job, I get fired."
In many jobs that have been turned into WFH (in the worst way possible), the only check on what people were doing was the manager nosing around on occasion.
I find it hard to imagine there are many people doing jobs that have no measurable output at all. I suspect the real reason we are seeing opposition to WFH is that it revealed how some layers of management - the kind of people who measure their usefulness by how many hours of pointless meetings they can generate - were utterly superfluous. Those same layers of management are now desperately trying to force people back into the office to justify their own existence.
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Some humans. Some of us have worked from home since long before covid and get far more done than we do in the office.
Of course WFH can work, and it some circumstances and with some employees it is a much more effective way of working, but as a policy for all workers it has failed, which is why I think the vast majority of those who did not WFH prior to Covid will be back in the office this year.
The average working week for most office workers now is Tuesday to Thursday with Monday and Friday wfh. That is likely here to stay with the office used more for team meetings, presentations and networking etc
This week is an example of where the flexibility of WFH is too useful to reverse.
My wife is abroad all week so I am dropping off and picking up from school every day. WFH on four days this week means that takes me a total of about half an hour including furnishing home time snacks. Working at office means an hour and a half of the peak working day lost to travel and then WFH from 3.30 onwards anyway.
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Some humans. Some of us have worked from home since long before covid and get far more done than we do in the office.
Of course WFH can work, and it some circumstances and with some employees it is a much more effective way of working, but as a policy for all workers it has failed, which is why I think the vast majority of those who did not WFH prior to Covid will be back in the office this year.
The problem you have is that this is a genie you can't put back in the bottle. All things being equal those who are working from home well are very likely to be your best, most motivated workers, capable of independent action and the biggest asset to your company (accepting that there will be those whose circumstances make working from home more difficult). If you follow a policy of making them come back into the office they will quit and go work somewhere where they are allowed to still work from home. This is not theoretical. It is happening right now in companies up and down the country. The world has changed and those companies who fail to recognise that are going to find themselves struggling to recruit high quality staff as long as an alternative exists for them.
Under normal circumstances I am absolutely opposed to strikes and believe that anyone striking should be prepared to quit instead. I also believe the employer should have an absolute right to sack people who strike immediately and replace them with others who want to work, if there's others available.
However I still believe that people should have a right to strike, even if I'd normally oppose it, and to be honest these seem like the most appropriate circumstances to do so.
The Government thinks it has enough money to maintain the Triple Lock and give those who are not working an increase in their income to match inflation, yet expects those who are working for a living to be taking a hammering with a large real terms cut in wages. How is that reasonable?
If we were "all in it together" then that would be one thing, but we are not. Client groups are getting inflation-matching pay increases while others aren't, that is not acceptable and why should those in work not strike in those circumstances?
Those who are working should see their wages increase at least by as much as those who are not in work. Don't like that? Get a job.
If an employer can sack people for striking there isn't a right to strike - unless it's defined in the most absurdly reductive way, ie you're not physically compelled to work so not literally a slave. Low bar. Meaningless really.
Of course there's still a right to strike.
If you temporarily withhold your labour by striking but the employer values your labour, then they won't sack you even if they can. In which case your strike works, and you get your demands met.
If the employer doesn't value your labour, then withhold it all you like, but someone else ought to be able step into the gap.
Sacking everyone who strikes, like Reagan famously did with the air traffic controllers, should be an option but an option rarely used. As indeed should be striking.
If all teachers go on strike, then sacking them all isn't an option, because there's nobody waiting to fill the gap. So no, its not at all like slavery.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Food price inflation is forecast to peak early 2023 and start to come down this year.
Read the article. Average food price inflation peaking at 17-19%. With most inflationary pressure - in other words increases much higher than the average - coming from "meat, fruit and vegetables, dairy and bread".
And after that the inflationary surge slows. Which means still getting more expensive but at a slower rate. Its not as if the IGD can accurately forecast this - as their own Chief Economist always adds on every presentation this is a media forecast based on a slew of variables. Can also show you previous presentations where he revises his own forecasts as the variables change.
Lets put it like this. I know senior people working across a slew of sectors supplying food and drink into the UK. Nobody is cheerful that their own prices are going to start dropping. The best case scenario is that this year has less cost price increases to push through than last year.
And as I said, the harshest spikes hit the poorest hardest.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Food price inflation is forecast to peak early 2023 and start to come down this year.
Read the article. Average food price inflation peaking at 17-19%. With most inflationary pressure - in other words increases much higher than the average - coming from "meat, fruit and vegetables, dairy and bread".
And after that the inflationary surge slows. Which means still getting more expensive but at a slower rate. Its not as if the IGD can accurately forecast this - as their own Chief Economist always adds on every presentation this is a media forecast based on a slew of variables. Can also show you previous presentations where he revises his own forecasts as the variables change.
Lets put it like this. I know senior people working across a slew of sectors supplying food and drink into the UK. Nobody is cheerful that their own prices are going to start dropping. The best case scenario is that this year has less cost price increases to push through than last year.
And as I said, the harshest spikes hit the poorest hardest.
Ha ha, all a bit ‘do you know who I am’ . You’re not the only one who works with the food industry. Your arguing against points I haven’t made. I don’t think prices will come down and no forecast I have seen says that. Merely they just rise less quickly.
not disputing that price increases affect the poorest the most either.
I’m just disputing your claim inflation in food wasn’t peaking this year. It most likely will.
Please read what I posted again. "prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down".
A food price peak is when they reach the top and then start to drop. What even the IGD are forecasting is that whilst the rate of inflation will slow from its peak, there will continue to be price rises in food. So as I said, food prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down."
Inflation will reduce. But will continue to inflate food prices. We have had inverted spells where there is active food price deflation. That isn't about to happen any time soon, as all the input prices across a basket of anything continue to rise.
Yes I’m aware of that. My company supplies, among other things, manufacturing consumables to the food and beverage industry. Predominantly dairy and bakery. We have increased our prices three times in 12 months. We are not alone. I’m well aware of input prices increasing. And not just the raw materials they use to produce product.
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Completely untrue. If I don't do my job, I get fired. If I try to do it in the office, I get very little actual work done. Some useful networking, yes, but don't need to do that 5 days a week. If I want to do any real work, I stay at home.
I think the key bit there is that you have a metric - "If I don't do my job, I get fired."
In many jobs that have been turned into WFH (in the worst way possible), the only check on what people were doing was the manager nosing around on occasion.
I find it hard to imagine there are many people doing jobs that have no measurable output at all. I suspect the real reason we are seeing opposition to WFH is that it revealed how some layers of management - the kind of people who measure their usefulness by how many hours of pointless meetings they can generate - were utterly superfluous. Those same layers of management are now desperately trying to force people back into the office to justify their own existence.
The biggest downside has been for youngsters I think. Much less opportunity to learn by watching, to chat and bitch about management with contemporaries, and to get to know colleagues socially.
Like it if not that’s leading to a Tues-Wed-Thurs office working pattern and Thursday night drinks even more crowded than before Covid. It’s clearly not very efficient in real estate or public transport terms but it seems to be the new world.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
I agree with you G, the amounts they are asking for is just stupid. Will be precious few in private sector getting bumper pay rises , inflation or not. No way can the public purse afford stupid numbers but Government should make a reasonable offer and say that is it take it or go get another job.
Gooooood. So your nurse or teacher takes your advice and quits. We can't just go down the jobcentre and pull someone in off the streets. These are professional highly trained roles and we already have a huge shortage of them.
So how does "if you don't like it go get a job" help the situation?
It is worse than that. They quit their £600 a week job, and end up getting paid £600 a shift as agency staff from time to time as we are short of nurses. Brilliant management!
This is what the Tories are dying on an ideological hill for, to lose permanent staff and turn them into agency workers at a huge multiple of the price instead of paying them in real terms what we have been doing previously.
That's exactly the problem in IT, the government won't pay the extra 25% or so for salaries to be competitive, so the majority of posts remain permanently unfilled and instead they end up paying £500-1000 a day for contractors. From what I can see of other functions (Commercial, Finance) the same applies there too.
Instead of maybe an extra £25k per year per head allowing for employment costs it costs them an extra £100k+ per year instead. But presumably much of that goes to Tory supporters/donors, so that's OK.
I fear for my mental capacity - I really don't get that pun. Could someone please put me out of my misery and explain?
Not a pun but MacNeil is in the 'disagrees with the SNP leadership but is too fond of his career as an MP to join Alba' section of the party. He'd love to see Sturgeon do a Jacinda and be replaced by a fruit rather than fish based nomenclature at the helm.
Does the SNP have other fishy-sounding candidates, after Salmon(d) and Sturgeon, to take the helm?
There's a Gougeon but not a likely leadership candidate.
Edit: and Salmond is now persona non grata with the SNP. Never say never, but Eck coming back to the SNP is something I would put in the Never folder.
Where are you on a 1 to 10 scale of 'pissed off' about this UKG block on the gender bill?
I aim for sardonic weariness in most things nowadays which probably covers this; very unworthily I tend to see HMG behaving like rsoles as a net benefit for the Indy cause which I accept ignores real issues affecting real people. I’m interested to see how it goes down with your average not-too-political Scottish voter though, Tories interfering with our democracy v. negativity towards trans issues whipped up by various parties.
The spectacle of the Tories posturing as guardians of women’s safety is entertaining, similar vibe to them discovering that they were doughty fighters against antisemitism. Been on a bit of a journey from May’s 2016 progressiveness on the issue (very similar to the SNP’s at that point) to whatever confected outrage possesses them now.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Food price inflation is forecast to peak early 2023 and start to come down this year.
Read the article. Average food price inflation peaking at 17-19%. With most inflationary pressure - in other words increases much higher than the average - coming from "meat, fruit and vegetables, dairy and bread".
And after that the inflationary surge slows. Which means still getting more expensive but at a slower rate. Its not as if the IGD can accurately forecast this - as their own Chief Economist always adds on every presentation this is a media forecast based on a slew of variables. Can also show you previous presentations where he revises his own forecasts as the variables change.
Lets put it like this. I know senior people working across a slew of sectors supplying food and drink into the UK. Nobody is cheerful that their own prices are going to start dropping. The best case scenario is that this year has less cost price increases to push through than last year.
And as I said, the harshest spikes hit the poorest hardest.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Food price inflation is forecast to peak early 2023 and start to come down this year.
Read the article. Average food price inflation peaking at 17-19%. With most inflationary pressure - in other words increases much higher than the average - coming from "meat, fruit and vegetables, dairy and bread".
And after that the inflationary surge slows. Which means still getting more expensive but at a slower rate. Its not as if the IGD can accurately forecast this - as their own Chief Economist always adds on every presentation this is a media forecast based on a slew of variables. Can also show you previous presentations where he revises his own forecasts as the variables change.
Lets put it like this. I know senior people working across a slew of sectors supplying food and drink into the UK. Nobody is cheerful that their own prices are going to start dropping. The best case scenario is that this year has less cost price increases to push through than last year.
And as I said, the harshest spikes hit the poorest hardest.
Ha ha, all a bit ‘do you know who I am’ . You’re not the only one who works with the food industry. Your arguing against points I haven’t made. I don’t think prices will come down and no forecast I have seen says that. Merely they just rise less quickly.
not disputing that price increases affect the poorest the most either.
I’m just disputing your claim inflation in food wasn’t peaking this year. It most likely will.
Please read what I posted again. "prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down".
A food price peak is when they reach the top and then start to drop. What even the IGD are forecasting is that whilst the rate of inflation will slow from its peak, there will continue to be price rises in food. So as I said, food prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down."
Inflation will reduce. But will continue to inflate food prices. We have had inverted spells where there is active food price deflation. That isn't about to happen any time soon, as all the input prices across a basket of anything continue to rise.
Yes I’m aware of that. My company supplies, among other things, manufacturing consumables to the food and beverage industry. Predominantly dairy and bakery. We have increased our prices three times in 12 months. We are not alone. I’m well aware of input prices increasing. And not just the raw materials they use to produce product.
Exactly. Pricing will continue to go up and up. Sadly. So how come we ended up on opposite sides of this discussion? Food price inflation isn't going into deflation any time soon. A slowing of the price increases is still price increases, baking in the much higher costs. Which is what I said is it not?
Sad to see Jacinda go, she was a great leader who showed how a modern left-wing party could win and win big in this day and age. Much for UK Labour to learn.
It's refreshing to see power relinquished in this fashion. It's normally clasped tight till the bitter end. She's the dead opposite of the Donald Trumps of this world - the actual, the wannabees, the admirers, the apologists - and that's a good way to be.
We make the same point and you get 5 likes and I get 1. Obviously the way you tell 'em. Actually you were better.
It is why dictators always fail and why some leadership roles have time limits on them.
Better? Thanks but I don't think so. The correlation between merit and reward is as weak on PB as it is everywhere else.
Angus tweeting with his customary subtlety of a flying peat shovel.
She has only been there 6 years, she could easily have stood again. Just the likely Nationals victory in the New Zealand election later this year put her off I assume.
At least there will be one centre right government in the Anglosphere then if the Conservatives lose the next UK general election in 2024 then
By any normal definition Biden is centre right.
In this country he'd actually be right of the centre right, surely? I mean, not in a Mogg or Truss sense but you'd reasonably compare him to Gove or Osborne politically.
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Completely untrue. If I don't do my job, I get fired. If I try to do it in the office, I get very little actual work done. Some useful networking, yes, but don't need to do that 5 days a week. If I want to do any real work, I stay at home.
I think the key bit there is that you have a metric - "If I don't do my job, I get fired."
In many jobs that have been turned into WFH (in the worst way possible), the only check on what people were doing was the manager nosing around on occasion.
I find it hard to imagine there are many people doing jobs that have no measurable output at all. I suspect the real reason we are seeing opposition to WFH is that it revealed how some layers of management - the kind of people who measure their usefulness by how many hours of pointless meetings they can generate - were utterly superfluous. Those same layers of management are now desperately trying to force people back into the office to justify their own existence.
You are assuming a competent, modern workplace in the first place.
For example, I discovered the following about the local council office handling recycling - there are no metrics about much of its work. As long as the bin collections occur, that's it. They are all WFH.
One neighbour has been waiting 3 months for a replacement recycling bin. Without the correct bin, the bin guys are forbidden to take the recycling.....
The phone number goes to answer phone. Emails are not answered. There is no mechanism to report complaints - apart from filling in an online form. Which sends an email, according to the Javascript.....
I think the key bit there is that you have a metric - "If I don't do my job, I get fired."
In many jobs that have been turned into WFH (in the worst way possible), the only check on what people were doing was the manager nosing around on occasion.
Such businesses were and are badly run regardless of whether or not people are working in the office. Not that anyone would be surprised to discover that large swathes of UK business operate essentially unmanaged.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
I agree with you G, the amounts they are asking for is just stupid. Will be precious few in private sector getting bumper pay rises , inflation or not. No way can the public purse afford stupid numbers but Government should make a reasonable offer and say that is it take it or go get another job.
Gooooood. So your nurse or teacher takes your advice and quits. We can't just go down the jobcentre and pull someone in off the streets. These are professional highly trained roles and we already have a huge shortage of them.
So how does "if you don't like it go get a job" help the situation?
It is worse than that. They quit their £600 a week job, and end up getting paid £600 a shift as agency staff from time to time as we are short of nurses. Brilliant management!
This is what the Tories are dying on an ideological hill for, to lose permanent staff and turn them into agency workers at a huge multiple of the price instead of paying them in real terms what we have been doing previously.
That's exactly the problem in IT, the government won't pay the extra 25% or so for salaries to be competitive, so the majority of posts remain permanently unfilled and instead they end up paying £500-1000 a day for contractors. From what I can see of other functions (Commercial, Finance) the same applies there too.
Instead of maybe an extra £25k per year per head allowing for employment costs it costs them an extra £100k+ per year instead. But presumably much of that goes to Tory supporters/donors, so that's OK.
Again this is frequently a problem with pay scales. Pay scales ought to be abolished and far more supply and demand used instead, if a particular role needs filling then increase pay for that role, if a different role has many people applying for each vacancy then maybe freeze that pay and cut it in real terms.
If IT roles are hard to fill, then increase the pay for them, but if you can't without increasing everyone's pay then more expensive contractors may perversely be cheaper.
To use teaching as an example, there's reported a permanent shortage of teachers in maths and sciences, while no such shortage in certain other subjects. Supply and demand would suggest that pay should go up for teaching maths and sciences etc until the shortage is resolved, but pay scales means that's not possible.
The idea of universal pay scales needs to be obliterated from the public sector. Until it is, these problems will persist.
I think the key bit there is that you have a metric - "If I don't do my job, I get fired."
In many jobs that have been turned into WFH (in the worst way possible), the only check on what people were doing was the manager nosing around on occasion.
Such businesses were and are badly run regardless of whether or not people are working in the office. Not that anyone would be surprised to discover that large swathes of UK business operate essentially unmanaged.
Last 48 hrs show “culture wars” not just political tactic of right but “progressive” nationalists. Nothing more culture wars than ignoring lawyers who told you your reforms conflicted with UK law & picking constitutional clash on one of most contested identity issues of our time.
It’s so breathtakingly cynical, and it shows how little regard Sturgeon has for the group whose rights she claims to care about.
The number of political analysts who apparently cannot see this really speaks to the strength of their priors: they are blind to nationalists aping the tactics of the populist right.
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Completely untrue. If I don't do my job, I get fired. If I try to do it in the office, I get very little actual work done. Some useful networking, yes, but don't need to do that 5 days a week. If I want to do any real work, I stay at home.
Over the past 30 months I have dealt with LA's and HA's whose engineers & Accounts department work from home. The change has been dramatic to the extent that they have gone from blue chip clients to ones that we no longer do business with. It can take weeks to get an answer regarding a project and payment times have gone from 2 weeks to 6 months.
I am actually friends with a number of these engineers, they have spent WFH doing their house up, playing golf every day etc etc. Work became a side issue to them and their employer did not care. It was madness.
So to say it is completely untrue is not my experience.
I recently did a friend of friend's IMS on his 996 (not worth it, that thing was clapped, more haggard than Shirley Carter's pussy) and we spent all day in my workshop generally having a great time. As he was leaving at about 4:30pm he mentioned, with a chortle, that he was 'working from home' that day. Fucking LOL.
He's some sort of civil engineer in the office building game. Everybody should take the piss as much as possible as they are stealing back their surplus value from the capital owning class.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
I agree with you G, the amounts they are asking for is just stupid. Will be precious few in private sector getting bumper pay rises , inflation or not. No way can the public purse afford stupid numbers but Government should make a reasonable offer and say that is it take it or go get another job.
Gooooood. So your nurse or teacher takes your advice and quits. We can't just go down the jobcentre and pull someone in off the streets. These are professional highly trained roles and we already have a huge shortage of them.
So how does "if you don't like it go get a job" help the situation?
It is worse than that. They quit their £600 a week job, and end up getting paid £600 a shift as agency staff from time to time as we are short of nurses. Brilliant management!
This is what the Tories are dying on an ideological hill for, to lose permanent staff and turn them into agency workers at a huge multiple of the price instead of paying them in real terms what we have been doing previously.
Once again the public sector is about 20 years late to the party.
In this case, it's - "We can't afford head count and the wages would be too high. So let's get contractors in."
To be fair, it did take a decade or 2 for private companies to realise that having contractors in the building for 10 years at a time was a sign. A giant fucking sign saying "Hire some staff".
It does show how well-meaning employment legislation can easily create perverse incentives and dysfunctional outcomes.
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Completely untrue. If I don't do my job, I get fired. If I try to do it in the office, I get very little actual work done. Some useful networking, yes, but don't need to do that 5 days a week. If I want to do any real work, I stay at home.
Over the past 30 months I have dealt with LA's and HA's whose engineers & Accounts department work from home. The change has been dramatic to the extent that they have gone from blue chip clients to ones that we no longer do business with. It can take weeks to get an answer regarding a project and payment times have gone from 2 weeks to 6 months.
I am actually friends with a number of these engineers, they have spent WFH doing their house up, playing golf every day etc etc. Work became a side issue to them and their employer did not care. It was madness.
So to say it is completely untrue is not my experience.
I also remember your anecdotes about Covid-19 in the autumn and winter of 2020, they turned out to be completely at variance with reality.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
I agree with you G, the amounts they are asking for is just stupid. Will be precious few in private sector getting bumper pay rises , inflation or not. No way can the public purse afford stupid numbers but Government should make a reasonable offer and say that is it take it or go get another job.
Gooooood. So your nurse or teacher takes your advice and quits. We can't just go down the jobcentre and pull someone in off the streets. These are professional highly trained roles and we already have a huge shortage of them.
So how does "if you don't like it go get a job" help the situation?
It is worse than that. They quit their £600 a week job, and end up getting paid £600 a shift as agency staff from time to time as we are short of nurses. Brilliant management!
This is what the Tories are dying on an ideological hill for, to lose permanent staff and turn them into agency workers at a huge multiple of the price instead of paying them in real terms what we have been doing previously.
That's exactly the problem in IT, the government won't pay the extra 25% or so for salaries to be competitive, so the majority of posts remain permanently unfilled and instead they end up paying £500-1000 a day for contractors. From what I can see of other functions (Commercial, Finance) the same applies there too.
Instead of maybe an extra £25k per year per head allowing for employment costs it costs them an extra £100k+ per year instead. But presumably much of that goes to Tory supporters/donors, so that's OK.
The problem there is that to
1) Pay people more than their salary band is impossible 2) To promote people to a salary band that has appropriate pay is impossible - they haven't done enough years etc. 3) Paying people more than their manager is impossible
It's has taken the private sector a long time to catch up on this, to be fair.
Under normal circumstances I am absolutely opposed to strikes and believe that anyone striking should be prepared to quit instead. I also believe the employer should have an absolute right to sack people who strike immediately and replace them with others who want to work, if there's others available.
However I still believe that people should have a right to strike, even if I'd normally oppose it, and to be honest these seem like the most appropriate circumstances to do so.
The Government thinks it has enough money to maintain the Triple Lock and give those who are not working an increase in their income to match inflation, yet expects those who are working for a living to be taking a hammering with a large real terms cut in wages. How is that reasonable?
If we were "all in it together" then that would be one thing, but we are not. Client groups are getting inflation-matching pay increases while others aren't, that is not acceptable and why should those in work not strike in those circumstances?
Those who are working should see their wages increase at least by as much as those who are not in work. Don't like that? Get a job.
Keeping the triple lock has defined this era of inflation, everyone now not getting an 11% rise at the taxpayer's expense is, rightly IMO, incensed. If they can give 12.5m retirees an extra 11% then what's 0.4m nurses asking for 10%, or 0.05m ambulance drivers asking for 8%, or 0.2m junior doctors asking for 9% etc...
It was the single biggest error that the government made and they are now reaping the reward from that with endless strikes in the public sector from workers who have seen the 11% benchmark given to old people.
Those on just state pension without a private pension are on less than minimum wage (also going up with inflation) and on about a third of the average salary whether in the public or private sector
So deal with that through pension credit and don't bung all your rich voters cash that could have been shared more equally with public sector workers?
Rich or at least home owning pensioners are the Tory core vote just as the public sector are the Labour core vote.
Neither party will abandon their core vote obviously
Trump trounces DeSantis in potential GOP primary match-up, new poll finds https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3817804-trump-trounces-desantis-in-potential-gop-primary-matchup-new-poll-finds/ ...A Morning Consult poll released Wednesday showed Trump with 48 percent support among potential Republican primary voters, followed by DeSantis with 31 percent. Trump’s front-runner position differs from some polls since the November midterm elections, which have shown DeSantis closing the gap with Trump or taking a lead in some cases. Former Vice President Mike Pence came in third with 8 percent, followed by former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) with 3 percent. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) both received 2 percent. Trump’s support in Morning Consult polls over the past month has stayed between 45 and 50 percent, while DeSantis has hovered around 30 percent. Among Trump voters in the most recent poll, DeSantis is comfortably the second choice, with 44 percent backing the Florida governor. About 20 percent would support Pence, and 7 percent would back Cruz...
Note that's not really an improvement in Trump's numbers, as previous polls by the pollster showed much the same.
The real question is how might the numbers change once others actually declare their candidacies. There's an obvious appetite in the party for a not Trump candidate - but does DeSantis have the national appeal to make a run of it ?
Under normal circumstances I am absolutely opposed to strikes and believe that anyone striking should be prepared to quit instead. I also believe the employer should have an absolute right to sack people who strike immediately and replace them with others who want to work, if there's others available.
However I still believe that people should have a right to strike, even if I'd normally oppose it, and to be honest these seem like the most appropriate circumstances to do so.
The Government thinks it has enough money to maintain the Triple Lock and give those who are not working an increase in their income to match inflation, yet expects those who are working for a living to be taking a hammering with a large real terms cut in wages. How is that reasonable?
If we were "all in it together" then that would be one thing, but we are not. Client groups are getting inflation-matching pay increases while others aren't, that is not acceptable and why should those in work not strike in those circumstances?
Those who are working should see their wages increase at least by as much as those who are not in work. Don't like that? Get a job.
Keeping the triple lock has defined this era of inflation, everyone now not getting an 11% rise at the taxpayer's expense is, rightly IMO, incensed. If they can give 12.5m retirees an extra 11% then what's 0.4m nurses asking for 10%, or 0.05m ambulance drivers asking for 8%, or 0.2m junior doctors asking for 9% etc...
It was the single biggest error that the government made and they are now reaping the reward from that with endless strikes in the public sector from workers who have seen the 11% benchmark given to old people.
Those on just state pension without a private pension are on less than minimum wage (also going up with inflation) and on about a third of the average salary whether in the public or private sector
So deal with that through pension credit and don't bung all your rich voters cash that could have been shared more equally with public sector workers?
Rich or at least home owning pensioners are the Tory core vote just as the public sector are the Labour core vote.
Neither party will abandon their core vote obviously
Offering them the same percentage increase as nurses and doctors would in no sense be abandoning them. Indeed, given they are big consumers of the NHS it would be helping them far more than giving them more cash. But hey ho, will all be resolved at the ballot box and this stupidity shall get its rightful reward soon enough.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
I agree with you G, the amounts they are asking for is just stupid. Will be precious few in private sector getting bumper pay rises , inflation or not. No way can the public purse afford stupid numbers but Government should make a reasonable offer and say that is it take it or go get another job.
Gooooood. So your nurse or teacher takes your advice and quits. We can't just go down the jobcentre and pull someone in off the streets. These are professional highly trained roles and we already have a huge shortage of them.
So how does "if you don't like it go get a job" help the situation?
It is worse than that. They quit their £600 a week job, and end up getting paid £600 a shift as agency staff from time to time as we are short of nurses. Brilliant management!
This is what the Tories are dying on an ideological hill for, to lose permanent staff and turn them into agency workers at a huge multiple of the price instead of paying them in real terms what we have been doing previously.
Once again the public sector is about 20 years late to the party.
In this case, it's - "We can't afford head count and the wages would be too high. So let's get contractors in."
To be fair, it did take a decade or 2 for private companies to realise that having contractors in the building for 10 years at a time was a sign. A giant fucking sign saying "Hire some staff".
It does show how well-meaning employment legislation can easily create perverse incentives and dysfunctional outcomes.
Also perverse accounting metrics - from the point of view of the manger, not having headcount and employing contractors meets targets!
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Completely untrue. If I don't do my job, I get fired. If I try to do it in the office, I get very little actual work done. Some useful networking, yes, but don't need to do that 5 days a week. If I want to do any real work, I stay at home.
Over the past 30 months I have dealt with LA's and HA's whose engineers & Accounts department work from home. The change has been dramatic to the extent that they have gone from blue chip clients to ones that we no longer do business with. It can take weeks to get an answer regarding a project and payment times have gone from 2 weeks to 6 months.
I am actually friends with a number of these engineers, they have spent WFH doing their house up, playing golf every day etc etc. Work became a side issue to them and their employer did not care. It was madness.
So to say it is completely untrue is not my experience.
I also remember your anecdotes about Covid-19 in the autumn and winter of 2020, they turned out to be completely at variance with reality.
Really, which ones? I got Omicron spot on, one of the very few on here who did.
If WFH is that good for productivity why are so many companies now ending it?
'Reviewing' is something of a misnomer. They have already reviewed and reassigned the investment to other regions. Nor are they alone sadly.
Thanks for your earlier response. The licensing round was in October, but my understanding is that awards for licenses won't be made till next year.
The whole process should have been fast tracked, and yes, without the disincentives introduced by Hunt and Sunak.
Not quite sure you understand the complexity of the licencing system. Some licences - near field exploration etc - will be fast tracked. But there will be competing bids for licences (or would have been before the tax changes) and they have to be properly assessed. There are loads of small start up companies - usually run by ex senior managers from bigger oil companies - that put in bids for the licences. We know from bitter experience that their plans ned to be assessed in great detail.
Besides, even if the licences were awarded today it will be 5-7 years before you see any hydrocarbons from them.
Angus tweeting with his customary subtlety of a flying peat shovel.
She has only been there 6 years, she could easily have stood again. Just the likely Nationals victory in the New Zealand election later this year put her off I assume.
At least there will be one centre right government in the Anglosphere then if the Conservatives lose the next UK general election in 2024 then
By any normal definition Biden is centre right.
In this country he'd actually be right of the centre right, surely? I mean, not in a Mogg or Truss sense but you'd reasonably compare him to Gove or Osborne politically.
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Completely untrue. If I don't do my job, I get fired. If I try to do it in the office, I get very little actual work done. Some useful networking, yes, but don't need to do that 5 days a week. If I want to do any real work, I stay at home.
I think the key bit there is that you have a metric - "If I don't do my job, I get fired."
In many jobs that have been turned into WFH (in the worst way possible), the only check on what people were doing was the manager nosing around on occasion.
I find it hard to imagine there are many people doing jobs that have no measurable output at all. I suspect the real reason we are seeing opposition to WFH is that it revealed how some layers of management - the kind of people who measure their usefulness by how many hours of pointless meetings they can generate - were utterly superfluous. Those same layers of management are now desperately trying to force people back into the office to justify their own existence.
You are assuming a competent, modern workplace in the first place.
For example, I discovered the following about the local council office handling recycling - there are no metrics about much of its work. As long as the bin collections occur, that's it. They are all WFH.
One neighbour has been waiting 3 months for a replacement recycling bin. Without the correct bin, the bin guys are forbidden to take the recycling.....
The phone number goes to answer phone. Emails are not answered. There is no mechanism to report complaints - apart from filling in an online form. Which sends an email, according to the Javascript.....
If only there was someone with oversight over that council that had publicly available contact details, whose whole job was to respond to residents and work on their behalf, who you could boot out of office if they didn't get action. If only.
Ungrateful wretches. The North East has got a few electric buses and charge points and a cycle path in Tynedale. Real drivers of economic growth and true levelling up.
I fear for my mental capacity - I really don't get that pun. Could someone please put me out of my misery and explain?
Not a pun but MacNeil is in the 'disagrees with the SNP leadership but is too fond of his career as an MP to join Alba' section of the party. He'd love to see Sturgeon do a Jacinda and be replaced by a fruit rather than fish based nomenclature at the helm.
Does the SNP have other fishy-sounding candidates, after Salmon(d) and Sturgeon, to take the helm?
There's a Gougeon but not a likely leadership candidate.
Edit: and Salmond is now persona non grata with the SNP. Never say never, but Eck coming back to the SNP is something I would put in the Never folder.
Where are you on a 1 to 10 scale of 'pissed off' about this UKG block on the gender bill?
I aim for sardonic weariness in most things nowadays which probably covers this; very unworthily I tend to see HMG behaving like rsoles as a net benefit for the Indy cause which I accept ignores real issues affecting real people. I’m interested to see how it goes down with your average not-too-political Scottish voter though, Tories interfering with our democracy v. negativity towards trans issues whipped up by various parties.
The spectacle of the Tories posturing as guardians of women’s safety is entertaining, similar vibe to them discovering that they were doughty fighters against antisemitism. Been on a bit of a journey from May’s 2016 progressiveness on the issue (very similar to the SNP’s at that point) to whatever confected outrage possesses them now.
Sardonic weariness is better for the blood pressure and I really should be able to manage that given I'm not in Scotland and I'm not trans - indeed I couldn't be less in Scotland or trans - but, no, I can't quite manage it here. Total outrage imo. I support the reform but even if I didn't I'd find the s35 intervention cynical and almost ludicrously disproportionate. Let's see what the Judges make of it.
Trump trounces DeSantis in potential GOP primary match-up, new poll finds https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3817804-trump-trounces-desantis-in-potential-gop-primary-matchup-new-poll-finds/ ...A Morning Consult poll released Wednesday showed Trump with 48 percent support among potential Republican primary voters, followed by DeSantis with 31 percent. Trump’s front-runner position differs from some polls since the November midterm elections, which have shown DeSantis closing the gap with Trump or taking a lead in some cases. Former Vice President Mike Pence came in third with 8 percent, followed by former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) with 3 percent. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) both received 2 percent. Trump’s support in Morning Consult polls over the past month has stayed between 45 and 50 percent, while DeSantis has hovered around 30 percent. Among Trump voters in the most recent poll, DeSantis is comfortably the second choice, with 44 percent backing the Florida governor. About 20 percent would support Pence, and 7 percent would back Cruz...
Note that's not really an improvement in Trump's numbers, as previous polls by the pollster showed much the same.
The real question is how might the numbers change once others actually declare their candidacies. There's an obvious appetite in the party for a not Trump candidate - but does DeSantis have the national appeal to make a run of it ?
Generally the only national polls with DeSantis ahead are the head-to-head polls (including one by Morning Consult last month). As you say, this is not out of line with all the other polls by Morning Consult which list other candidates, at least since the midterms (before that Trump was much further ahead).
Whichever candidate becomes the main alternative to Trump, they probably more or less have to clear the rest of the field in order to win.
Ungrateful wretches. The North East has got a few electric buses and charge points and a cycle path in Tynedale. Real drivers of economic growth and true levelling up.
Rishi is so useless. Weak and weird, he is Ed Miliband.
Comments
It was, in most cases, send people home with a work laptop.
Many of the people sent home 5 days a week had no experience of WFH. Nor did their managers. There were no tool or techniques.
In short, it worked about as well as attaching parachutes to people and kicking them out of planes with no training.
In this case, it's - "We can't afford head count and the wages would be too high. So let's get contractors in."
To be fair, it did take a decade or 2 for private companies to realise that having contractors in the building for 10 years at a time was a sign. A giant fucking sign saying "Hire some staff".
inflation) and on about a third of the average salary whether in the public or private sector
In many jobs that have been turned into WFH (in the worst way possible), the only check on what people were doing was the manager nosing around on occasion.
It is why dictators always fail and why some leadership roles have time limits on them.
I am actually friends with a number of these engineers, they have spent WFH doing their house up, playing golf every day etc etc. Work became a side issue to them and their employer did not care. It was madness.
So to say it is completely untrue is not my experience.
Unfortunately, not all systems are smart like that.
Normally in a negotiation if the other side is low-balling you, then you go high, with an intention to then meet in the middle. The unions are starting with demands below the Triple Lock threshold, that is to be honest pretty generous of them.
If the offer is 3%, and the reasonable benchmark is 11%, then the counter-demand should typically be 19%. The offer is 8% below benchmark, so start demands 8% above instead, then meet in the middle. That the idea of 19% might sound outrageous only speaks to how outrageous offering 3% when the benchmark is 11% is.
The stuff about working conditions is insane.
Many of those vacancies are for specialisms - but because of the pay structures, it becomes impossible to increase pay *just* for the jobs that are in demand.
If you have 1950s pay, work and management structures... then the result will look awfully 1950s in terms of industrial relations.
My wife is abroad all week so I am dropping off and picking up from school every day. WFH on four days this week means that takes me a total of about half an hour including furnishing home time snacks. Working at office means an hour and a half of the peak working day lost to travel and then WFH from 3.30 onwards anyway.
If you temporarily withhold your labour by striking but the employer values your labour, then they won't sack you even if they can. In which case your strike works, and you get your demands met.
If the employer doesn't value your labour, then withhold it all you like, but someone else ought to be able step into the gap.
Sacking everyone who strikes, like Reagan famously did with the air traffic controllers, should be an option but an option rarely used. As indeed should be striking.
If all teachers go on strike, then sacking them all isn't an option, because there's nobody waiting to fill the gap. So no, its not at all like slavery.
Like it if not that’s leading to a Tues-Wed-Thurs office working pattern and Thursday night drinks even more crowded than before Covid. It’s clearly not very efficient in real estate or public transport terms but it seems to
be the new world.
Instead of maybe an extra £25k per year per head allowing for employment costs it costs them an extra £100k+ per year instead. But presumably much of that goes to Tory supporters/donors, so that's OK.
The spectacle of the Tories posturing as guardians of women’s safety is entertaining, similar vibe to them discovering that they were doughty fighters against antisemitism. Been on a bit of a journey from May’s 2016 progressiveness on the issue (very similar to the SNP’s at that point) to whatever confected outrage possesses them now.
For example, I discovered the following about the local council office handling recycling - there are no metrics about much of its work. As long as the bin collections occur, that's it. They are all WFH.
One neighbour has been waiting 3 months for a replacement recycling bin. Without the correct bin, the bin guys are forbidden to take the recycling.....
The phone number goes to answer phone. Emails are not answered. There is no mechanism to report complaints - apart from filling in an online form. Which sends an email, according to the Javascript.....
It has boosted our productivity and allowed us to recruit from a wider talent pool.
If IT roles are hard to fill, then increase the pay for them, but if you can't without increasing everyone's pay then more expensive contractors may perversely be cheaper.
To use teaching as an example, there's reported a permanent shortage of teachers in maths and sciences, while no such shortage in certain other subjects. Supply and demand would suggest that pay should go up for teaching maths and sciences etc until the shortage is resolved, but pay scales means that's not possible.
The idea of universal pay scales needs to be obliterated from the public sector. Until it is, these problems will persist.
The question is what to do next.
It’s so breathtakingly cynical, and it shows how little regard Sturgeon has for the group whose rights she claims to care about.
The number of political analysts who apparently cannot see this really speaks to the strength of their priors: they are blind to nationalists aping the tactics of the populist right.
https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1615988663615213568
He's some sort of civil engineer in the office building game. Everybody should take the piss as much as possible as they are stealing back their surplus value from the capital owning class.
1) Pay people more than their salary band is impossible
2) To promote people to a salary band that has appropriate pay is impossible - they haven't done enough years etc.
3) Paying people more than their manager is impossible
It's has taken the private sector a long time to catch up on this, to be fair.
The whole process should have been fast tracked, and yes, without the disincentives introduced by Hunt and Sunak.
Neither party will abandon their core vote obviously
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3817804-trump-trounces-desantis-in-potential-gop-primary-matchup-new-poll-finds/
...A Morning Consult poll released Wednesday showed Trump with 48 percent support among potential Republican primary voters, followed by DeSantis with 31 percent. Trump’s front-runner position differs from some polls since the November midterm elections, which have shown DeSantis closing the gap with Trump or taking a lead in some cases.
Former Vice President Mike Pence came in third with 8 percent, followed by former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) with 3 percent. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) both received 2 percent.
Trump’s support in Morning Consult polls over the past month has stayed between 45 and 50 percent, while DeSantis has hovered around 30 percent.
Among Trump voters in the most recent poll, DeSantis is comfortably the second choice, with 44 percent backing the Florida governor. About 20 percent would support Pence, and 7 percent would back Cruz...
Note that's not really an improvement in Trump's numbers, as previous polls by the pollster showed much the same.
The real question is how might the numbers change once others actually declare their candidacies. There's an obvious appetite in the party for a not Trump candidate - but does DeSantis have the national appeal to make a run of it ?
Two Marines defeated the AI detection system of a military robot by... hiding in a cardboard box and walking right up to it.
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1615716748073869312
I got Omicron spot on, one of the very few on here who did.
If WFH is that good for productivity why are so many companies now ending it?
Besides, even if the licences were awarded today it will be 5-7 years before you see any hydrocarbons from them.
Whichever candidate becomes the main alternative to Trump, they probably more or less have to clear the rest of the field in order to win.