All that Labour needs to do on the probationary period / unfair dismissal nonsense that we have at the moment is to ensure that notice periods apply from day one in new jobs, not after a year or six months etc. The current system, where many employees have to concede all their severance rights to move jobs, militates against labour-market liquidity, as it creates a huge disincentive to move. If the new employer wants you, he can offer you notice from day one – that is a reasonable bargain.
It’s not a completely one-way street - logically low notice / no notice periods reduce the risk an employer takes in taking on a new employee - if it doesn’t work out they can let them go without going through a legally complex dismissal procedure. Which in turn can make it easier for someone to find a job if potential employers are more likely to take them on.
But this does push risk onto the employee, who is least able to bear it. IIRC the Germans (or is it the Danes?) solve this by allowing low/no-notice dismissal but also offering very generous unemployment benefits for the first year of post-dismissal unemployment, hence reducing the risks for both sides of the employer/employee relationship.
Yes, I agree with that. But the idea that you go from one/three months notice in your current job to zero / a week's notice in your new job is bonkers. Stops people taking jobs.
Last job I took, I was faced with losing three months' Pilon plus two months' redundancy to move – effectively more than half a year's salary in severance package as redundancy is mostly tax free. My offer was to move from a big company to a smaller one.
In the end, because the new firm was a small company, they were flexible enough to give me three months' notice from day one, so I said: "that's grand, thank you", and took the job. I've been there, happy, for a number of years now so it no longer matters, but it was a sticking point at the time – not least with my family who thought it a very high risk (I am the main breadwinner).
I have heard many accounts the other way – big companies 'unable' to change the contracts as it somehow becomes a massive HR grind –– and losing out on making great new hires because of it.
Yes, I suspect that those who argued for this change originally expected that employees in demand would be able to negotiate notice periods, thus the impact on the mobility of higher quality employees would be minimal.
Unfortunately, this requires flexibility from company HR / legal which, as you point out, is often in extremely short supply. Often in larger companies where HR has been centralised the management doing the recruiting has little or no power to make any changes at all to employment contracts. The net result has been a transfer of risk to the employee & a consequent reduction in economic output due to reduced employee movement between companies.
Spot on. I have actually (in my line of work, not because I was seeking a job myself) spoken to several recruitment consultants who have told me exactly that – and how frustrating it is. One of them said: "What exactly do HR departments do? Because it's not helping resource humans."
It's one line in a contract giving someone Day One notice. It really is that simple. But, for the most part, they refuse to change the form.
Or he could face up to the charges levied against him, rather than hiding.
You think he will get a fair trial in the USA, which will - inter alia - take into account the time he has already done in "voluntary" incarceration? I do not
I think US justice will do its thing with plea bargaining and that will be that.
No they won't, they will bury him alive in a Supermax
I for one don't give a shit about the self-obsessed attention-seeker.
Me neither. His actions put people in mortal jeopardy - he should face a court for that.
The DM has a paywalled article on the growth of Islam among the native working class: "Why white British children as young as eight are pledging their lives to Allah"
Other films seen by the Mail reveal English teenage males turning to Islam. Lancashire’s Masjid as-Sunnah establishment in Accrington has posted one of Mitch, 17, solemnly saying the Shahada as he sits on the floor next to an imam last year. He stands up afterwards and, smiling, is hugged by members of the congregation.
In nearby Nelson, teenager Dylan, in a grey hoodie, is filmed accepting the Shahada in a local mosque in 2022.
A message posted under the online film written by him and signed in his full name a year later says: ‘It’s me on this video . . . It is still the best decision of my life and all the blessings that come with Islam.’
Why does the Daily Mail think is it not OK for white British people to take up Islam, but it is fine for back Africans (for example) to take up Christianity?
Take a wild guess.
Perhaps you could give us a rundown of
Christian converts who have attempted mass murder on British streets
and
Islamic converts who have done the same?
Hint: you're not allowed to include Muslims pretending to convert to Christianity so as to claim asylum
What about natural born Christians, because the list is quite extensive.
Indeed, lots of terrorism in the UK carried out by Christians, although I feel we are neglecting other religions here. The worst terrorist attack in the British Isles was committed by a Sikh.
For the purposes of clarity, I believe the west was entitled to rein him in judicially, and serve punishment - but that is now surely done. The fake rape accusations were a disgrace, and at this point - with him apparently ill and mad - justice is now shading into persecution
All that Labour needs to do on the probationary period / unfair dismissal nonsense that we have at the moment is to ensure that notice periods apply from day one in new jobs, not after a year or six months etc. The current system, where many employees have to concede all their severance rights to move jobs, militates against labour-market liquidity, as it creates a huge disincentive to move. If the new employer wants you, he can offer you notice from day one – that is a reasonable bargain.
It’s not a completely one-way street - logically low notice / no notice periods reduce the risk an employer takes in taking on a new employee - if it doesn’t work out they can let them go without going through a legally complex dismissal procedure. Which in turn can make it easier for someone to find a job if potential employers are more likely to take them on.
But this does push risk onto the employee, who is least able to bear it. IIRC the Germans (or is it the Danes?) solve this by allowing low/no-notice dismissal but also offering very generous unemployment benefits for the first year of post-dismissal unemployment, hence reducing the risks for both sides of the employer/employee relationship.
Yes, I agree with that. But the idea that you go from one/three months notice in your current job to zero / a week's notice in your new job is bonkers. Stops people taking jobs.
Last job I took, I was faced with losing three months' Pilon plus two months' redundancy to move – effectively more than half a year's salary in severance package as redundancy is mostly tax free. My offer was to move from a big company to a smaller one.
In the end, because the new firm was a small company, they were flexible enough to give me three months' notice from day one, so I said: "that's grand, thank you", and took the job. I've been there, happy, for a number of years now so it no longer matters, but it was a sticking point at the time – not least with my family who thought it a very high risk (I am the main breadwinner).
I have heard many accounts the other way – big companies 'unable' to change the contracts as it somehow becomes a massive HR grind –– and losing out on making great new hires because of it.
Yes, I suspect that those who argued for this change originally expected that employees in demand would be able to negotiate notice periods, thus the impact on the mobility of higher quality employees would be minimal.
Unfortunately, this requires flexibility from company HR / legal which, as you point out, is often in extremely short supply. Often in larger companies where HR has been centralised the management doing the recruiting has little or no power to make any changes at all to employment contracts. The net result has been a transfer of risk to the employee & a consequent reduction in economic output due to reduced employee movement between companies.
Spot on. I have actually (in my line of work, not because I was seeking a job myself) spoken to several recruitment consultants who have told me exactly that – and how frustrating it is. One of them said: "What exactly do HR departments do? Because it's not helping resource humans."
It's one line in a contract giving someone Day One notice. It really is that simple. But, for the most part, they refuse to change the form.
HR exists to protect the company from legal liability resulting from their interactions with & between their own employees.
Actually helping the company make money is no-where to be found on the list of targets the median HR department is focused on.
The Speccie world view seems tediously homogeneous. Great though that Tucker is curious about the exciting, undiscovered country of The Truth.
If it’s so tediously homogenous why the fuck are you following the Spectator Twitter account?
You’re a bit like @carnyx complaining that the daily mail, which he never reads, now has a frustrating paywall
It was quote tweeted by someone I do follow you numpty. Dunno why you, a humble freelance for Igneous Butt Plugs monthly, is so protective of The Spectator.
I see Birmingham are closing 25 out of its 36 libraries to reduce costs
Penny-wise and pound-foolish.
If every there was a public good that was an investment in our future it was a public library.
One of the richest countries in the world cannot afford public libraries.
What a pitiful low this generation of tories has brought us to.
The election can't come soon enough.
The issue isn’t “can’t afford”
The issue is that councils have legally mandated spending on social care and other matters and are legally limited in how they can raise taxes
That leaves a very fine margin and when they screw up as badly as Birmingham has then all “discretionary” spending - like libraries - gets cut
I blame Osborne
Social care needs to be given over to the NHS so that we can have an integrated care system, but that shifts the £ from council budgets to the Treasury, which means national tax rises even if you get to cut council taxes as a result.
Would take a brave government to push through the necessary changes.
For the purposes of clarity, I believe the west was entitled to rein him in judicially, and serve punishment - but that is now surely done. The fake rape accusations were a disgrace, and at this point - with him apparently ill and mad - justice is now shading into persecution
Assange has been consistent through his career - aggressively anti-western and pro anyone violently anti-western. He was covering up Putin (and friends) activities from the start. The "commentaries" on leaked material he created were skewed to the point of misinformation - see the Falklands stuff as a classic.
He made it clear, to a number of collaborators, that he wanted people who worked with the West to be attacked or killed. This was one reason the Guardian parted ways with him.
All that Labour needs to do on the probationary period / unfair dismissal nonsense that we have at the moment is to ensure that notice periods apply from day one in new jobs, not after a year or six months etc. The current system, where many employees have to concede all their severance rights to move jobs, militates against labour-market liquidity, as it creates a huge disincentive to move. If the new employer wants you, he can offer you notice from day one – that is a reasonable bargain.
It’s not a completely one-way street - logically low notice / no notice periods reduce the risk an employer takes in taking on a new employee - if it doesn’t work out they can let them go without going through a legally complex dismissal procedure. Which in turn can make it easier for someone to find a job if potential employers are more likely to take them on.
But this does push risk onto the employee, who is least able to bear it. IIRC the Germans (or is it the Danes?) solve this by allowing low/no-notice dismissal but also offering very generous unemployment benefits for the first year of post-dismissal unemployment, hence reducing the risks for both sides of the employer/employee relationship.
Yes, I agree with that. But the idea that you go from one/three months notice in your current job to zero / a week's notice in your new job is bonkers. Stops people taking jobs.
Last job I took, I was faced with losing three months' Pilon plus two months' redundancy to move – effectively more than half a year's salary in severance package as redundancy is mostly tax free. My offer was to move from a big company to a smaller one.
In the end, because the new firm was a small company, they were flexible enough to give me three months' notice from day one, so I said: "that's grand, thank you", and took the job. I've been there, happy, for a number of years now so it no longer matters, but it was a sticking point at the time – not least with my family who thought it a very high risk (I am the main breadwinner).
I have heard many accounts the other way – big companies 'unable' to change the contracts as it somehow becomes a massive HR grind –– and losing out on making great new hires because of it.
Yes, I suspect that those who argued for this change originally expected that employees in demand would be able to negotiate notice periods, thus the impact on the mobility of higher quality employees would be minimal.
Unfortunately, this requires flexibility from company HR / legal which, as you point out, is often in extremely short supply. Often in larger companies where HR has been centralised the management doing the recruiting has little or no power to make any changes at all to employment contracts. The net result has been a transfer of risk to the employee & a consequent reduction in economic output due to reduced employee movement between companies.
Spot on. I have actually (in my line of work, not because I was seeking a job myself) spoken to several recruitment consultants who have told me exactly that – and how frustrating it is. One of them said: "What exactly do HR departments do? Because it's not helping resource humans."
It's one line in a contract giving someone Day One notice. It really is that simple. But, for the most part, they refuse to change the form.
HR is about treating humans like other resources - paperclips for instance.
For the purposes of clarity, I believe the west was entitled to rein him in judicially, and serve punishment - but that is now surely done. The fake rape accusations were a disgrace, and at this point - with him apparently ill and mad - justice is now shading into persecution
Assange has been consistent through his career - aggressively anti-western and pro anyone violently anti-western. He was covering up Putin (and friends) activities from the start. The "commentaries" on leaked material he created were skewed to the point of misinformation - see the Falklands stuff as a classic.
He made it clear, to a number of collaborators, that he wanted people who worked with the West to be attacked or killed. This was one reason the Guardian parted ways with him.
As I said
"For the purposes of clarity, I believe the west was entitled to rein him in judicially, and serve punishment - but that is now surely done. The fake rape accusations were a disgrace, and at this point - with him apparently ill and mad - justice is now shading into persecution"
There is something very odd with PB.com not allowing you to search in page (Ctrl-F or Cmd-F) - it appears to work but doesn't actually take you to the searched for text.
Or am I the only one having that irritating issue?
It's working for me. Using Opera on Macbook.
Thanks, I'm using Safari on a Macbook, I'll try another browser.
Edit, yeah works on Chrome, so seems just to be a Safari issue.
Paging @TSE: PB.com is failing to support the Appleverse fully!
I find that it partly doesn't work if (I think) I have clicked back onto the page and taken the cursor from the search box.
If I leave it in the search box I can move through result locations in the page either by using the next/last arrows on the search box or the return key / shift return key.
If I have clicked back into the page, I lose the ability to do it with the return key / shift return key.
I see Birmingham are closing 25 out of its 36 libraries to reduce costs
Penny-wise and pound-foolish.
If every there was a public good that was an investment in our future it was a public library.
One of the richest countries in the world cannot afford public libraries.
What a pitiful low this generation of tories has brought us to.
The election can't come soon enough.
The issue isn’t “can’t afford”
The issue is that councils have legally mandated spending on social care and other matters and are legally limited in how they can raise taxes
That leaves a very fine margin and when they screw up as badly as Birmingham has then all “discretionary” spending - like libraries - gets cut
I blame Osborne
Social care needs to be given over to the NHS so that we can have an integrated care system, but that shifts the £ from council budgets to the Treasury, which means national tax rises even if you get to cut council taxes as a result.
Would take a brave government to push through the necessary changes.
The other problem is that the NHS is chronically unable to organise anything. Adding more responsibilities will not improve the situation.
I'd never realised it was a dead lion. Not that I'd ever looked closely, but I'd probably have assumed it was sleeping after enjoying a tasty snack of partially inverted refiner's syrup and was about to be bothered by some bees/flies.
"out of the strong came forth sweetness"
Samson killed a lion. Some bees built a hive in the corpse. Samson noticed and posed a riddle to the Philistines ("Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness."). Like every tale with a riddle, it did not end well.
Millennia later Tate & Lyle used the biblical quote as a motto for their product, and (rather sadly IMHO) now see fit to abandon it.
I see they got a rentaquote about religious exclusion. But a simpler explanation offers itself. If you haven't been taught the Biblical story (or were ill the day it was taught), you're sure going to be worried about your Lyle's Golden Syrup. Flies?! Rottinb meat!? WTF??
Even if very few of us are Christians, so much of the language and images we use have their roots in the Bible. Yet that is yet another thing that has been largely excluded from the curriculum in the past forty years. Politicians have focussed on the idea that education should be "relevant". That education should be enriching and life affirming, seems to have been forgotten. As a result we are losing contact with our past and with our historic culture. People know more about Spiderman than they do about the roots of our society. I think our grandparents, believers or not, would shake their heads at our growing ignorance about so much of our history and culture.
I see Birmingham are closing 25 out of its 36 libraries to reduce costs
Penny-wise and pound-foolish.
If every there was a public good that was an investment in our future it was a public library.
One of the richest countries in the world cannot afford public libraries.
What a pitiful low this generation of tories has brought us to.
The election can't come soon enough.
The issue isn’t “can’t afford”
The issue is that councils have legally mandated spending on social care and other matters and are legally limited in how they can raise taxes
That leaves a very fine margin and when they screw up as badly as Birmingham has then all “discretionary” spending - like libraries - gets cut
I blame Osborne
Social care needs to be given over to the NHS so that we can have an integrated care system, but that shifts the £ from council budgets to the Treasury, which means national tax rises even if you get to cut council taxes as a result.
Would take a brave government to push through the necessary changes.
The other problem is that the NHS is chronically unable to organise anything. Adding more responsibilities will not improve the situation.
Time for another header.
True. It remains the case that the split of expense between social care & health care makes no sense & is not working though.
For the purposes of clarity, I believe the west was entitled to rein him in judicially, and serve punishment - but that is now surely done. The fake rape accusations were a disgrace, and at this point - with him apparently ill and mad - justice is now shading into persecution
Wikileaks was a bit like the expenses scandal - there were a few fairly important items in it, and a heck of a lot of information that was utterly irrelevant. Since it places a family member of mine in jail, I hope Assange, and the Guardian writers who 'accidentally' leaked the info, rot in Hell.
For the purposes of clarity, I believe the west was entitled to rein him in judicially, and serve punishment - but that is now surely done. The fake rape accusations were a disgrace, and at this point - with him apparently ill and mad - justice is now shading into persecution
Wikileaks was a bit like the expenses scandal - there were a few fairly important items in it, and a heck of a lot of information that was utterly irrelevant. Since it places a family member of mine in jail, I hope Assange, and the Guardian writers who 'accidentally' leaked the info, rot in Hell.
That should be: "Since it placed a family member of mine in risk of jail,"
I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.
Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.
Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
The problem is that "the rich" are now considered to be anyone earning more than 100k, which, post-inflation, is probably only equivalent to 70k a few years ago.
I've just been put on a K-code for FY24-25 which is a negative personal allowance- I.e. they artificially raise my income so I get to pay extra tax.
It's why I'm seriously eyeing up Canada, the US and Oz now, even though I don't want to.
Earning more than £100k, or the equivalent of £70k, sure sounds like "rich" to me. £70k in 2021 would put you in the top 7% by income. If the top 7% in this country aren't rich, who are?
No, it places you as a higher-earner at the present moment in time. It doesn't make you "rich".
"Rich" is when you have lots of assets, equity and cash so you don't need to work. My 'assets' are very modest indeed and I'd run out of cash inside 3 months if I stopped working.
Lots of people on 100k+ are simply professionals in their late 30s/early 40s who've spend 15-20 years working hard to get there and still have student loans, big mortgages and childcare costs to pay.
I'm in my 50s, have spent 30 years working hard to get there, and I'm getting closer, but am still some way off a £100k income. But I'm not moaning about that. I recognise that I'm easily in the top decile of the population. I pay lots of tax: that's appropriate.
Most people "in their late 30s/early 40s who've spend 15-20 years working hard to get there and still have student loans, big mortgages and childcare costs to pay" aren't earning anywhere near £100k and have to make it work. It's difficult, but they manage. If you are finding it tough, what do you think the 93% or so of people earning less than you experience? Do you have any empathy for them?
Only rich people work hard. The cleaner on minimum wage is just too lazy to better themselves.
But that cleaner on minimum wage is also getting clobbered by the tax system, paying effective marginal rates of, what, up to ~70% on much of that income compared to having a job with fewer hours and being eligible for more benefits.
You just nailed et hissue, benefits ar etoo generous and so people choose not to work
Comments
It's one line in a contract giving someone Day One notice. It really is that simple. But, for the most part, they refuse to change the form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182
He exposed a lot of western wrong-doing (something they normally applaud) as well as some crap which was likely made up
Is it simply because he also damaged the Democrats? I honestly don't get it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks
For the purposes of clarity, I believe the west was entitled to rein him in judicially, and serve punishment - but that is now surely done. The fake rape accusations were a disgrace, and at this point - with him apparently ill and mad - justice is now shading into persecution
Actually helping the company make money is no-where to be found on the list of targets the median HR department is focused on.
The issue is that councils have legally mandated spending on social care and other matters and are legally limited in how they can raise taxes
That leaves a very fine margin and when they screw up as badly as Birmingham has then all “discretionary” spending - like libraries - gets cut
I blame Osborne
Dunno why you, a humble freelance for Igneous Butt Plugs monthly, is so protective of The Spectator.
Would take a brave government to push through the necessary changes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juvfEZsZqUY
The Rest is Politics. An hour of Rory and Al talking to someone who worked for Trump for a bit.
He made it clear, to a number of collaborators, that he wanted people who worked with the West to be attacked or killed. This was one reason the Guardian parted ways with him.
"For the purposes of clarity, I believe the west was entitled to rein him in judicially, and serve punishment - but that is now surely done. The fake rape accusations were a disgrace, and at this point - with him apparently ill and mad - justice is now shading into persecution"
If I leave it in the search box I can move through result locations in the page either by using the next/last arrows on the search box or the return key / shift return key.
If I have clicked back into the page, I lose the ability to do it with the return key / shift return key.
Chrome under Windows 10.
Time for another header.
NEW THREAD