This is a bit like the argument we heard before the minimum wage that employers would close down rather than pay it. In reality, most employers will check their business models to see that they're still valid and then carry on - the saving that they make by NOT providing fringe benefits to gig workers will be a marginal effect for most. Do you know anyone who actually says things like "I can only afford to run my business because I don't need to cover maternity leave"?
Naturally they don't if they don't have to - I concluded long ago that it was a waste of time to blame anyone for trying to make money in whatever the current system is. But if they do have to, not many are going to close down on that account.
Sorry, but that is a classic Labour viewpoint and absolutely wrong. In Australia unfortunately we have a IR system run by the Unions and as a business operator I can tell you that every single day we withdraw hours from staff because of the high costs of labour. We have to pay penalty rates on weekend - so we close. We run with as few full time staff as possible because full time staff entitlements are ridiculous. The effects are marginal for big business, because most of them have such market power they can just pass on additional costs. But for SMEs, which are where the growth in the economy actually occurs, higher wage costs are deadly....
Is it really true that businesses which struggle to pay wages are the ones which provide significant growth in the economy ? Colour me sceptical.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SMEs as a group contribute the majority of growth - but this also involves some firms flourishing and others falling back
It’s also the case that big firms prefer high regulations (and non-wage entitlements can be seen as a form of that) and preferably on a multinational basis. My brother’s firm, which operates in a highly regulated sector, for example, competes very effectively with some of the largest firms in the country. He finds they lobby very hard to increase regulatory complexity - partly because an extra £1m of costs is meaningless to them but painful to him, and partly because it is a barrier to entry for new competitors
But @archer101au assertion that business should not pay for “lifestyle choices” such as maternity leave is, shall we say, on one extreme of the spectrum. Personally I prefer to invest in high quality staff as I don’t want to have to rehire and then train replacements.
Quite. The EU is a very good source of such regulations, and Brussels is full of lobbyists from large companies making sure that there’s a constant stream of new EU law acting as barriers to entry.
At a time when employment is at record highs and has had subdued pay growth for years Britain could safely experiment a bit with measures to raise the earnings of workers.
This is a bit like the argument we heard before the minimum wage that employers would close down rather than pay it. In reality, most employers will check their business models to see that they're still valid and then carry on - the saving that they make by NOT providing fringe benefits to gig workers will be a marginal effect for most. Do you know anyone who actually says things like "I can only afford to run my business because I don't need to cover maternity leave"?
Naturally they don't if they don't have to - I concluded long ago that it was a waste of time to blame anyone for trying to make money in whatever the current system is. But if they do have to, not many are going to close down on that account.
Sorry, but that is a classic Labour viewpoint and absolutely wrong. In Australia unfortunately we have a IR system run by the Unions and as a business operator I can tell you that every single day we withdraw hours from staff because of the high costs of labour. We have to pay penalty rates on weekend - so we close. We run with as few full time staff as possible because full time staff entitlements are ridiculous. The effects are marginal for big business, because most of them have such market power they can just pass on additional costs. But for SMEs, which are where the growth in the economy actually occurs, higher wage costs are deadly....
Is it really true that businesses which struggle to pay wages are the ones which provide significant growth in the economy ? Colour me sceptical.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SMEs as a group contribute the majority of growth - but this also involves some firms flourishing and others falling back
But @archer101au assertion that business should not pay for “lifestyle choices” such as maternity leave is, shall we say, on one extreme of the spectrum. Personally I prefer to invest in high quality staff as I don’t want to have to rehire and then train replacements.
Quite. The EU is a very good source of such regulations, and Brussels is full of lobbyists from large companies making sure that there’s a constant stream of new EU law acting as barriers to entry.
Though it is the larger employers that are particularly keen on the gig economy. Amazon, Sports Direct, Uber, Deliveroo, Interserve etc are not small local SME's, they are large companies that drive down costs via exploitative labour practices. This and not paying taxes is the basis of their business model.
Insecure employment, without labour rights or prospects is perhaps an inevitable tendency of capitalism, but don't expect people to like it or to vote for it.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SMEs as a group contribute the majority of growth - but this also involves some firms flourishing and others falling back
It’s also the case that big firms prefer high regulations (and non-wage entitlements can be seen as a form of that) and preferably on a multinational basis. My brother’s firm, which operates in a highly regulated sector, for example, competes very effectively with some of the largest firms in the country. He finds they lobby very hard to increase regulatory complexity - partly because an extra £1m of costs is meaningless to them but painful to him, and partly because it is a barrier to entry for new competitors
But @archer101au assertion that business should not pay for “lifestyle choices” such as maternity leave is, shall we say, on one extreme of the spectrum. Personally I prefer to invest in high quality staff as I don’t want to have to rehire and then train replacements.
Interesting discussion over breakfast. As we found with the minimum wage, there's a spectrum. There are some businesses which are so marginally profitable that the slightest increase in staff costs make them fold. They aren't numerous and a free-marketeer might say that frankly the capital and effort would probably be better deployed elsewhere than in such a barely viable business. More common is @archer101au's example that if casual labour becomes more expensive then they use it a bit less. Also common are businesses which are doing so well that they just shrug it off.
Conservative Britain is demonstrably rather successful at maintaining a high level of employment coupled with high levels of stress and insecurity. McDonnell's proposals would act to rebalance that and I'm sceptical that it would significantly impact employment. I don't think that as a society we are in such a critical situation that we have to tolerate bad conditions for part of the workforce.
I do agree with @archer101au's separate point that a sensible debate should include the possibility of tax increases. If income tax is a ratchet which only goes downwards then we cut ourselves off from part of a reasonable political dialogue.
Is it really true that businesses which struggle to pay wages are the ones which provide significant growth in the economy ? Colour me sceptical.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SMEs as a group contribute the majority of growth - but this also involves some firms flourishing and others falling back
It’s also the case that big firms prefer high regulations (and non-wage entitlements can be seen as a form of that) and preferably on a multinational basis. My brother’s firm, which operates in a highly regulated sector, for example, competes very effectively with some of the largest firms in the country. He finds they lobby very hard to increase regulatory complexity - partly because an extra £1m of costs is meaningless to them but painful to him, and partly because it is a barrier to entry for new competitors
But @archer101au assertion that business should not pay for “lifestyle choices” such as maternity leave is, shall we say, on one extreme of the spectrum. Personally I prefer to invest in high quality staff as I don’t want to have to rehire and then train replacements.
Quite. The EU is a very good source of such regulations, and Brussels is full of lobbyists from large companies making sure that there’s a constant stream of new EU law acting as barriers to entry.
But if we sign up to the Common rule book, as per Chequers, we do not escape that. Indeed there is even a risk that such regulation might increase without the somewhat sceptical British contribution. In this was the EU as a whole is making itself less and less comercially competitive. These highly regulated sectors can exploit their oligopoly status within Europe but they cannot compete with those outwith it who do not carry such burdens. GDPR is a good recent example of this.
My concern with Chequers is exactly this. We risk not getting the benefits of non EU membership without the protection of our own markets that being in the protectionist EU brings. We certainly need transitional provisions and we need to avoid a cliff edge but in the longer term we want to escape from this over regulation and eliminate these barriers to entry.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SMEs as a group contribute the majority of growth - but this also involves some firms flourishing and others falling back
It’s also the case that big firms prefer high regulations (and non-wage entitlements can be seen as a form of that) and preferably on a multinational basis. My brother’s firm, which operates in a highly regulated sector, for example, competes very effectively with some of the largest firms in the country. He finds they lobby very hard to increase regulatory complexity - partly because an extra £1m of costs is meaningless to them but painful to him, and partly because it is a barrier to entry for new competitors
But @archer101au assertion that business should not pay for “lifestyle choices” such as maternity leave is, shall we say, on one extreme of the spectrum. Personally I prefer to invest in high quality staff as I don’t want to have to rehire and then train replacements.
Interesting discussion over breakfast. As we found with the minimum wage, there's a spectrum. There are some businesses which are so marginally profitable that the slightest increase in staff costs make them fold. They aren't numerous and a free-marketeer might say that frankly the capital and effort would probably be better deployed elsewhere than in such a barely viable business. More common is @archer101au's example that if casual labour becomes more expensive then they use it a bit less. Also common are businesses which are doing so well that they just shrug it off.
Conservative Britain is demonstrably rather successful at maintaining a high level of employment coupled with high levels of stress and insecurity. McDonnell's proposals would act to rebalance that and I'm sceptical that it would significantly impact employment. I don't think that as a society we are in such a critical situation that we have to tolerate bad conditions for part of the workforce.
I do agree with @archer101au's separate point that a sensible debate should include the possibility of tax increases. If income tax is a ratchet which only goes downwards then we cut ourselves off from part of a reasonable political dialogue.
It is also worth noting that some countries with considerable social protections such as Germany, Scandanavia and the low countries combine this with low unemployment.
Lots of people have argued for decades that we have too much 'red tape' strangling business. Every so often, a government declares war on it, promising to banish burdensome regulations.
Yet the amount of 'red tape' seems to always increase. Has any government actually successfully tackled 'red tape', and might the increasing amount of 'red tape' actually be because most of it, aside from some egregious examples, be required?
Is it really true that businesses which struggle to pay wages are the ones which provide significant growth in the economy ? Colour me sceptical.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SMEs as a group contribute the majority of growth - but this also involves some firms flourishing and others falling back
But @archer101au assertion that business should not pay for “lifestyle choices” such as maternity leave is, shall we say, on one extreme of the spectrum. Personally I prefer to invest in high quality staff as I don’t want to have to rehire and then train replacements.
Quite. The EU is a very good source of such regulations, and Brussels is full of lobbyists from large companies making sure that there’s a constant stream of new EU law acting as barriers to entry.
But if we sign up to the Common rule book, as per Chequers, we do not escape that. Indeed there is even a risk that such regulation might increase without the somewhat sceptical British contribution. In this was the EU as a whole is making itself less and less comercially competitive. These highly regulated sectors can exploit their oligopoly status within Europe but they cannot compete with those outwith it who do not carry such burdens. GDPR is a good recent example of this.
My concern with Chequers is exactly this. We risk not getting the benefits of non EU membership without the protection of our own markets that being in the protectionist EU brings. We certainly need transitional provisions and we need to avoid a cliff edge but in the longer term we want to escape from this over regulation and eliminate these barriers to entry.
My view on Chequers is that it protects our pan-European supply chains in cars and aerospace, where we need it, in the short-medium term. In the longer term, we could either negotiate voting rights on the common rulebook as an associate member, in exchange for some contributions, or decide to withdraw from that common rulebook entirely if it turned out not to be in our interest.
So I’m pretty relaxed about it. For now. It basically returns our arrangement with the EU to the common market bit we like but without the political union, and effectively with independence in services and more control over migration.
I think it’s a fair enough deal. I know I’m in a minority.
This is a bit like the argument we heard before the minimum wage that employers would close down rather than pay it. In reality, most employers will check their business models to see that they're still valid and then carry on - the saving that they make by NOT providing fringe benefits to gig workers will be a marginal effect for most. Do you know anyone who actually says things like "I can only afford to run my business because I don't need to cover maternity leave"?
Naturally they don't if they don't have to - I concluded long ago that it was a waste of time to blame anyone for trying to make money in whatever the current system is. But if they do have to, not many are going to close down on that account.
Sorry, but that is a classic Labour viewpoint and absolutely wrong. In Australia unfortunately we have a IR system run by the Unions and as a business operator I can tell you that every single day we withdraw hours from staff because of the high costs of labour. We have to pay penalty rates on weekend - so we close. We run with as few full time staff as possible because full time staff entitlements are ridiculous. The effects are marginal for big business, because most of them have such market power they can just pass on additional costs. But for SMEs, which are where the growth in the economy actually occurs, higher wage costs are deadly....
Is it really true that businesses which struggle to pay wages are the ones which provide significant growth in the economy ? Colour me sceptical.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SMEs as a group contribute the majority of growth - but this also involves some firms flourishing and others falling back
But @archer101au assertion that business should not pay for “lifestyle choices” such as maternity leave is, shall we say, on one extreme of the spectrum. Personally I prefer to invest in high quality staff as I don’t want to have to rehire and then train replacements.
Quite. The EU is a very good source of such regulations, and Brussels is full of lobbyists from large companies making sure that there’s a constant stream of new EU law acting as barriers to entry.
Though it is the larger employers that are particularly keen on the gig economy. Amazon, Sports Direct, Uber, Deliveroo, Interserve etc are not small local SME's, they are large companies that drive down costs via exploitative labour practices. This and not paying taxes is the basis of their business model...
But to what extent is that a necessary part of their business model ?
Is it really true that businesses which struggle to pay wages are the ones which provide significant growth in the economy ? Colour me sceptical.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SMEs as a group contribute the majority of growth - but this also involves some firms flourishing and others falling back
It’s also the case that big firms prefer high regulations (and non-wage entitlements can be seen as a form of that) and preferably on a multinational basis. My brother’s firm, which operates in a highly regulated sector, for example, competes very effectively with some of the largest firms in the country. He finds they lobby very hard to increase regulatory complexity - partly because an extra £1m of costs is meaningless to them but painful to him, and partly because it is a barrier to entry for new competitors
But @archer101au assertion that business should not pay for “lifestyle choices” such as maternity leave is, shall we say, on one extreme of the spectrum. Personally I prefer to invest in high quality staff as I don’t want to have to rehire and then train replacements.
Quite. The EU is a very good source of such regulations, and Brussels is full of lobbyists from large companies making sure that there’s a constant stream of new EU law acting as barriers to entry.
But if we sign up to the Common rule book, as per Chequers, we do not escape that. Indeed there is even a risk that such regulation might increase without the somewhat sceptical British contribution. In this was the EU as a whole is making itself less and less comercially competitive. These highly regulated sectors can exploit their oligopoly status within Europe but they cannot compete with those outwith it who do not carry such burdens. GDPR is a good recent example of this.
My concern with Chequers is exactly this. We risk not getting the benefits of non EU membership without the protection of our own markets that being in the protectionist EU brings. We certainly need transitional provisions and we need to avoid a cliff edge but in the longer term we want to escape from this over regulation and eliminate these barriers to entry.
Agreed. As M. Barrier has made clear in recent days, the EU’s first aim is to make sure we don’t leave their regulatory environment. It should be our first aim to make sure we do.
Made my first ever railway foray into Cornwall on Tuesday, despite the drizzly, dull, grey weather. Decided to do the Gunnislake and Falmouth branches, also doing the main line as far as Truro. Slumming it in Plymouth for the next couple of days
Lots of people have argued for decades that we have too much 'red tape' strangling business. Every so often, a government declares war on it, promising to banish burdensome regulations.
Yet the amount of 'red tape' seems to always increase. Has any government actually successfully tackled 'red tape', and might the increasing amount of 'red tape' actually be because most of it, aside from some egregious examples, be required?
I am not a big fan of McDonnell's economic plans, but if I was in the gig economy he would have my interest and attention after his speech today.
And if McDonnell then implemented his economic plans if you are working in the gig economy you would likely soon find yourself on the dole as companies will not hire with the number of regulations and rights and benefits McDonnell is proposing for non permanent workers.
Southern European migrants are here because the jobs in the gig economy are better than the unemployment they have as the alternative back home
This is a bit like the argument we heard before the minimum wage that employers would close down rather than pay it. In reality, most employers will check their business models to see that they're still valid and then carry on - the saving that they make by NOT providing fringe benefits to gig workers will be a marginal effect for most. Do you know anyone who actually says things like "I can only afford to run my business because I don't need to cover maternity leave"?
Naturally they don't if they don't have to - I concluded long ago that it was a waste of time to blame anyone for trying to make money in whatever the current system is. But if they do have to, not many are going to close down on that account.
At the level the minimum wage was set, already some businesses have complained about the new living wage pushing up their costs eg Jamie Oliver's business which has closed restaurants as a result. A minimum wage is fine provided not too high.
Gig jobs are often a route into work as employers can call on them at any time with no costs and flexibly for the job needed, adding masses of rights reduces that and their viability so less would be hired. Plus using them as a route as a means to permanent employment which does have all the rights would be gone as there would be fewer such jobs available
It seems impossible to escape Jamie Oliver regardless of whether you frequent his restaurants or not.
This is a bit like the argument we heard before the minimum wage that employers would close down rather than pay it. In reality, most employers will check their business models to see that they're still valid and then carry on - the saving that they make by NOT providing fringe benefits to gig workers will be a marginal effect for most. Do you know anyone who actually says things like "I can only afford to run my business because I don't need to cover maternity leave"?
Naturally they don't if they don't have to - I concluded long ago that it was a waste of time to blame anyone for trying to make money in whatever the current system is. But if they do have to, not many are going to close down on that account.
Sorry, but that is a classic Labour viewpoint and absolutely wrong. In Australia unfortunately we have a IR system run by the Unions and as a business operator I can tell you that every single day we withdraw hours from staff because of the high costs of labour. We have to pay penalty rates on weekend - so we close. We run with as few full time staff as possible because full time staff entitlements are ridiculous. The effects are marginal for big business, because most of them have such market power they can just pass on additional costs. But for SMEs, which are where the growth in the economy actually occurs, higher wage costs are deadly....
Is it really true that businesses which struggle to pay wages are the ones which provide significant growth in the economy ? Colour me sceptical.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SMEs as a group contribute the majority of growth - but this also involves some firms flourishing and others falling back
It’s also the case that big firms prefer high regulations (and non-wage entitlements can be seen as a form of that) and preferably on a multinational basis. My brother’s firm, which operates in a highly regulated sector, for example, competes very effectively with some of the largest firms in the country. He finds they lobby very hard to increase regulatory complexity - partly because an extra £1m of costs is meaningless to them but painful to him, and partly because it is a barrier to entry for new competitors...
One might also make the point that it depends upon the economy being discussed. It is probably true, for example, that South Korea's early postwar growth was enabled by an environment of low wages and very few employment protections (indeed there is still a tendency to discard employees in middle age who then find it extremely difficult to re-enter meaningful employment). I would hope that our post Brexit future does not approximate to 1960s Korea...
At a time when employment is at record highs and has had subdued pay growth for years Britain could safely experiment a bit with measures to raise the earnings of workers.
Which is exactly what we have done with significant increases in the NMW/Living wage without any adverse effects. I think we can go further on zero hour contracts/gig economy self employment but these steps are market sensitive and should be introduced gradually monitoring their effects.
What that excellent piece linked to yesterday, Brexit and the British growth model, showed was that restrictions in labour are already resulting in increased investment in capital as an alternative. If that trend continues then more better paid, higher skilled jobs will be created at the cost of even more poorly paid jobs disappearing.
What I have noted in the employment figures is that the same shortage of labour in many parts of the country is incentivising employers to offer better terms resulting in reductions in the number of people on zero hours contracts and "self employment" with increases in full employment. By gradually increasing the rights of those who are open to exploitation at the moment we can encourage that welcome trend by reducing the differential cost to prospective employers.
Lots of people have argued for decades that we have too much 'red tape' strangling business. Every so often, a government declares war on it, promising to banish burdensome regulations.
Yet the amount of 'red tape' seems to always increase. Has any government actually successfully tackled 'red tape', and might the increasing amount of 'red tape' actually be because most of it, aside from some egregious examples, be required?
Trump is in the US I believe
Has he actually done so, and if so, what harm has he caused in the process?
It depends on Boris. If Boris runs, then I think Leavers would group around him. Other Leavers would try and if maybe one of them will get more momentum. Either he gets on the ballot (eg wins) or he falls and another Leaver takes his place (and wins).
But if Boris does not run (because he thinks he does not have enough support) then I think the Leavers might press DD into service. In this scenario, I can see them all agreeing to back him to ensure he is on the ballot. The other Leavers can bide their time knowing that DD is not going to stay long.
And if Boris turns his coat? He seems to be saying that we are better off being "in"
I suppose that would be one way to emulate Churchill, albeit on support for Brexit rather than party allegiance.
It would sway no-one in Parliament, I'd suggest - and just reinforce his reputation for being a tool.
But I would love to see those same Remainers who have spent two years with Boris as Public Enemy Number One, a rogue and a charlatan devoid of principles, now clutching this principled man to their bosoms.....
I would love to see the reaction of Leavers to this "rogue and a charlatan devoid of principles" whom they have clutched to their bosums for the last two years if he switches sides
That wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest. I wouldn’t trust Boris as far as I could throw him.
Dr. Foxy, just on the gig economy: BBC segment last night presented it as exploited workers versus business, whereas the majority of those on zero hours contracts (as I recall from past polling) are entirely happy with them.
I am not a big fan of McDonnell's economic plans, but if I was in the gig economy he would have my interest and attention after his speech today.
And if McDonnell then implemented his economic plans if you are working in the gig economy you would likely soon find yourself on the dole as companies will not hire with the number of regulations and rights and benefits McDonnell is proposing for non permanent workers.
Southern European migrants are here because the jobs in the gig economy are better than the unemployment they have as the alternative back home
This is a bit like the argument we heard before the minimum wage that employers would close down rather than pay it. In reality, most employers will check their business models to see that they're still valid and then carry on - the saving that they make by NOT providing fringe benefits to gig workers will be a marginal effect for most. Do you know anyone who actually says things like "I can only afford to run my business because I don't need to cover maternity leave"?
Naturally they don't if they don't have to - I concluded long ago that it was a waste of time to blame anyone for trying to make money in whatever the current system is. But if they do have to, not many are going to close down on that account.
At the level the minimum wage was set, already some businesses have complained about the new living wage pushing up their costs eg Jamie Oliver's business which has closed restaurants as a result. A minimum wage is fine provided not too high.
Gig jobs are often a route into work as employers can call on them at any time with no costs and flexibly for the job needed, adding masses of rights reduces that and their viability so less would be hired. Plus using them as a route as a means to permanent employment which does have all the rights would be gone as there would be fewer such jobs available
It seems impossible to escape Jamie Oliver regardless of whether you frequent his restaurants or not.
We've been to Oliver's restaurant in Cambridge a couple of time, and it's a distinctly underwhelming experience. There's f'all aside from the *name* to differentiate itself from cheaper chains - the food just wasn't good, or special, enough, especially to justify the cost. We didn't feel we got value, so we don't go back.
On the other hand, some of his recipes are staples of ours.
Is it really true that businesses which struggle to pay wages are the ones which provide significant growth in the economy ? Colour me sceptical.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SMEs as a group contribute the majority of growth - but this also involves some firms flourishing and others falling back
It’s also the case that big firms prefer high regulations (and non-wage entitlements can be seen as a form of that) and preferably on a multinational basis. My brother’s firm, which operates in a highly regulated sector, for example, competes very effectively with some of the largest firms in the country. He finds they lobby very hard to increase regulatory complexity - partly because an extra £1m of costs is meaningless to them but painful to him, and partly because it is a barrier to entry for new competitors
But @archer101au assertion that business should not pay for “lifestyle choices” such as maternity leave is, shall we say, on one extreme of the spectrum. Personally I prefer to invest in high quality staff as I don’t want to have to rehire and then train replacements.
Quite. The EU is a very good source of such regulations, and Brussels is full of lobbyists from large companies making sure that there’s a constant stream of new EU law acting as barriers to entry.
But if we sign up to the Common rule book, as per Chequers, we do not escape that. Indeed there is even a risk that such regulation might increase without the somewhat sceptical British contribution. In this was the EU as a whole is making itself less and less comercially competitive. These highly regulated sectors can exploit their oligopoly status within Europe but they cannot compete with those outwith it who do not carry such burdens. GDPR is a good recent example of this.
My concern with Chequers is exactly this. We risk not getting the benefits of non EU membership without the protection of our own markets that being in the protectionist EU brings. We certainly need transitional provisions and we need to avoid a cliff edge but in the longer term we want to escape from this over regulation and eliminate these barriers to entry.
Brexit will lead to a large increase in bureaucracy. A common rule book, ie following rules set by the EU, will mitigate that extra bureaucracy somewhat. As non members we no longer have any say over those rules, which will no longer be drafted to include our interest.
He was having a very difficult tv interview when he admitted his plans would not allow frictionless trade, but the delays would not be too bad
The average time it takes customs to clear a non EU shipment at the current time is less than an hour.
JRM is right.
You agree then frictionless trade is gone under the ERG plan
And if so, our car and aerospace industry goes with it
Madness
There is certainly a (credible) argument that the UK should become an offshore global services hub, largely social/employment deregulated and highly dynamic, with little else. As Patrick Minford and others have (openly) said that would result in us losing most of our remaining manufacturing industry, which they say we should be relaxed about.
We could certainly do well under such a scenario and even end up quite well off, but I doubt there’s much political appetite for such a UK outside of a small minority.
I am not a big fan of McDonnell's economic plans, but if I was in the gig economy he would have my interest and attention after his speech today.
And if McDonnell then implemented his economic plans if you are working in the gig economy you would likely soon find yourself on the dole as companies will not hire with the number of regulations and rights and benefits McDonnell is proposing for non permanent workers.
Southern European migrants are here because the jobs in the gig economy are better than the unemployment they have as the alternative back home
This is a bit like the argument we heard before the minimum wage that employers would close down rather than pay it. In reality, most employers will check their business models to see that they're still valid and then carry on - the saving that they make by NOT providing fringe benefits to gig workers will be a marginal effect for most. Do you know anyone who actually says things like "I can only afford to run my business because I don't need to cover maternity leave"?
Naturally they don't if they don't have to - I concluded long ago that it was a waste of time to blame anyone for trying to make money in whatever the current system is. But if they do have to, not many are going to close down on that account.
At the level the minimum wage was set, already some businesses have complained about the new living wage pushing up their costs eg Jamie Oliver's business which has closed restaurants as a result. A minimum wage is fine provided not too high.
Gig jobs are often a route into work as employers can call on them at any time with no costs and flexibly for the job needed, adding masses of rights reduces that and their viability so less would be hired. Plus using them as a route as a means to permanent employment which does have all the rights would be gone as there would be fewer such jobs available
It seems impossible to escape Jamie Oliver regardless of whether you frequent his restaurants or not.
We've been to Oliver's restaurant in Cambridge a couple of time, and it's a distinctly underwhelming experience. There's f'all aside from the *name* to differentiate itself from cheaper chains - the food just wasn't good, or special, enough, especially to justify the cost. We didn't feel we got value, so we don't go back.
On the other hand, some of his recipes are staples of ours.
Went to one of his restaurants about a decade ago, and vowed never to repeat the experiment.
Is it really true that businesses which struggle to pay wages are the ones which provide significant growth in the economy ? Colour me sceptical.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SMEs as a group contribute the majority of growth - but this also involves some firms flourishing and others falling back
It’s also the case that big firms prefer high regulations (and non-wage entitlements can be seen as a form of that) and preferably on a multinational basis. My brother’s firm, which operates in a highly regulated sector, for example, competes very effectively with some of the largest firms in the country. He finds they lobby very hard to increase regulatory complexity - partly because an extra £1m of costs is meaningless to them but painful to him, and partly because it is a barrier to entry for new competitors
But @archer101au assertion that business should not pay for “lifestyle choices” such as maternity leave is, shall we say, on one extreme of the spectrum. Personally I prefer to invest in high quality staff as I don’t want to have to rehire and then train replacements.
Quite. The EU is a very good source of such regulations, and Brussels is full of lobbyists from large companies making sure that there’s a constant stream of new EU law acting as barriers to entry.
But if we sign up to the Common rule book, as per Chequers, we do not escape that. Indeed there is even a risk that such regulation might increase without the somewhat sceptical British contribution. In this was the EU as a whole is making itself less and less comercially competitive. These highly regulated sectors can exploit their oligopoly status within Europe but they cannot compete with those outwith it who do not carry such burdens. GDPR is a good recent example of this.
My concern with Chequers is exactly this. We risk not getting the benefits of non EU membership without the protection of our own markets that being in the protectionist EU brings. We certainly need transitional provisions and we need to avoid a cliff edge but in the longer term we want to escape from this over regulation and eliminate these barriers to entry.
Brexit will lead to a large increase in bureaucracy. A common rule book, ie following rules set by the EU, will mitigate that extra bureaucracy somewhat. As non members we no longer have any say over those rules, which will no longer be drafted to include our interest.
Not so. The common rule book is the bureaucracy for the reasons @Sandpit and @Charles have pointed out this morning.
Lots of people have argued for decades that we have too much 'red tape' strangling business. Every so often, a government declares war on it, promising to banish burdensome regulations.
Yet the amount of 'red tape' seems to always increase. Has any government actually successfully tackled 'red tape', and might the increasing amount of 'red tape' actually be because most of it, aside from some egregious examples, be required?
This is a better question than it looks.
Businesses claim to dislike red-tape. But big businesses know that plenty of red-tape is considerably to their advantage. It raises the barrier to entry, and is much less burdensome to them than to market-disrupting upstarts.
So if in his early enthusiasm, a minister starts actually to threaten to remove business regulations (red-tape), he is gently advised by 'industry experts' that they are 'needed to protect the public'. It all becomes too difficult for a new minister, and he goes off and does something else. Sad, really.
I am not a big fan of McDonnell's economic plans, but if I was in the gig economy he would have my interest and attention after his speech today.
And if McDonnell then implemented his economic plans if you are working in the gig economy you would likely soon find yourself on the dole as companies will not hire with the number of regulations and rights and benefits McDonnell is proposing for non permanent workers.
Southern European migrants are here because the jobs in the gig economy are better than the unemployment they have as the alternative back home
This is a bit like the argument we heard before the minimum wage that employers would close down rather than pay it. In reality, most employers will check their business models to see that they're still valid and then carry on - the saving that they make by NOT providing fringe benefits to gig workers will be a marginal effect for most. Do you know anyone who actually says things like "I can only afford to run my business because I don't need to cover maternity leave"?
Naturally they don't if they don't have to - I concluded long ago that it was a waste of time to blame anyone for trying to make money in whatever the current system is. But if they do have to, not many are going to close down on that account.
At the level the minimum wage was set, already some businesses have complained about the new living wage pushing up their costs eg Jamie Oliver's business which has closed restaurants as a result. A minimum wage is fine provided not too high.
Gig jobs are often a route into work as employers can call on them at any time with no costs and flexibly for the job needed, adding masses of rights reduces that and their viability so less would be hired. Plus using them as a route as a means to permanent employment which does have all the rights would be gone as there would be fewer such jobs available
It seems impossible to escape Jamie Oliver regardless of whether you frequent his restaurants or not.
We've been to Oliver's restaurant in Cambridge a couple of time, and it's a distinctly underwhelming experience. There's f'all aside from the *name* to differentiate itself from cheaper chains - the food just wasn't good, or special, enough, especially to justify the cost. We didn't feel we got value, so we don't go back.
On the other hand, some of his recipes are staples of ours.
That been my experience too.
I’m not sure if this is me being unreasonable or not but I just find his face and voice far too ubiquitous for my liking.
Is it really true that businesses which struggle to pay wages are the ones which provide significant growth in the economy ? Colour me sceptical.
It’s poorly phrased and ......... complexity - partly because an extra £1m of costs is meaningless to them but painful to him, and partly because it is a barrier to entry for new competitors
But @archer101au assertion that business should not pay for “lifestyle choices” such as maternity leave is, shall we say, on one extreme of the spectrum. Personally I prefer to invest in high quality staff as I don’t want to have to rehire and then train replacements.
Quite. The EU is a very good source of such regulations, and Brussels is full of lobbyists from large companies making sure that there’s a constant stream of new EU law acting as barriers to entry.
But if we sign up to the Common rule book, as per Chequers, we do not escape that. Indeed there is even a risk that such regulation might increase without the somewhat sceptical British contribution. In this was the EU as a whole is making itself less and less comercially competitive. These highly regulated sectors can exploit their oligopoly status within Europe but they cannot compete with those outwith it who do not carry such burdens. GDPR is a good recent example of this.
My concern with Chequers is exactly this. We risk not getting the benefits of non EU membership without the protection of our own markets that being in the protectionist EU brings. We certainly need transitional provisions and we need to avoid a cliff edge but in the longer term we want to escape from this over regulation and eliminate these barriers to entry.
Brexit will lead to a large increase in bureaucracy. A common rule book, ie following rules set by the EU, will mitigate that extra bureaucracy somewhat. As non members we no longer have any say over those rules, which will no longer be drafted to include our interest.
Incidentally the CEO of JLR yesterday put a base case number on the cost of that extra bureaucracy for his firm : £1.2 billion a year. That's why the mitigation is important.
Southern European migrants are here because the jobs in the gig economy are better than the unemployment they have as the alternative back home
This is a bit like the argument we heard before the minimum wage that employers would close down rather than pay it. In reality, most employers will check their business models to see that they're still valid and then carry on - the saving that they make by NOT providing fringe benefits to gig workers will be a marginal effect for most. Do you know anyone who actually says things like "I can only afford to run my business because I don't need to cover maternity leave"?
Naturally they don't if they don't have to - I concluded long ago that it was a waste of time to blame anyone for trying to make money in whatever the current system is. But if they do have to, not many are going to close down on that account.
At the level the minimum wage was set, already some businesses have complained about the new living wage pushing up their costs eg Jamie Oliver's business which has closed restaurants as a result. A minimum wage is fine provided not too high.
Gig jobs are often a route into work as employers can call on them at any time with no costs and flexibly for the job needed, adding masses of rights reduces that and their viability so less would be hired. Plus using them as a route as a means to permanent employment which does have all the rights would be gone as there would be fewer such jobs available
It seems impossible to escape Jamie Oliver regardless of whether you frequent his restaurants or not.
We've been to Oliver's restaurant in Cambridge a couple of time, and it's a distinctly underwhelming experience. There's f'all aside from the *name* to differentiate itself from cheaper chains - the food just wasn't good, or special, enough, especially to justify the cost. We didn't feel we got value, so we don't go back.
On the other hand, some of his recipes are staples of ours.
Yes, he’s trying to pitch a premium product in a very competitive market, but the only thing ‘premium’ are the prices - the product itself is no better than a Strada or Zizzi, and Jamie Oliver, despite what he might think of himself, isn’t a Gordon Ramsay or a Heston Blumenthal.
Dr. Foxy, just on the gig economy: BBC segment last night presented it as exploited workers versus business, whereas the majority of those on zero hours contracts (as I recall from past polling) are entirely happy with them.
What doesn’t get said, and is the elephant in the room, is that a large number of those working in places like Amazon and Sports Direct warehouses are Eastern European immigrants. Minimum wage for an unskillled or semi-skilled job is amazing when you’re living five to a room and your family are Romanian.
He was having a very difficult tv interview when he admitted his plans would not allow frictionless trade, but the delays would not be too bad
The average time it takes customs to clear a non EU shipment at the current time is less than an hour.
JRM is right.
You agree then frictionless trade is gone under the ERG plan
And if so, our car and aerospace industry goes with it
Madness
There is certainly a (credible) argument that the UK should become an offshore global services hub, largely social/employment deregulated and highly dynamic, with little else. As Patrick Minford and others have (openly) said that would result in us losing most of our remaining manufacturing industry, which they say we should be relaxed about.
We could certainly do well under such a scenario and even end up quite well off, but I doubt there’s much political appetite for such a UK outside of a small minority.
I don't recall that being among the prominent arguments in favour of Brexit.
As for 'ending up' quite well off, how long might that take - and who precisely would end up well off (very probably not the majority of those who voted leave) ?
The pain of economic dislocations is rarely spread evenly. It was a notable feature of yesterday's IFS report on the crash that the (current) 30-39 year old group have average wages/salaries around £2000 less than their equivalent cohort a decade ago. No other group has seen anything anywhere even approaching that (though of course it's not possible to make a similar comparison for the current 20-30 year olds).
Lots of people have argued for decades that we have too much 'red tape' strangling business. Every so often, a government declares war on it, promising to banish burdensome regulations.
Yet the amount of 'red tape' seems to always increase. Has any government actually successfully tackled 'red tape', and might the increasing amount of 'red tape' actually be because most of it, aside from some egregious examples, be required?
The Efficiency and Reform Group under Francis Maude in the Cabinet Office had some successes.
The problem is as much cultural as procedural. There are some who simply love following or policing process for its own sake, and discussing and debating the contents of the form, rather than focusing on outcomes, because they don’t see that as their job.
Some specials too, which shockingly mean odds on Leclerc on almost all of them (2.1 on an Oz podium is perhaps the least bad). He's 2.2 to be top 3 in next year's Drivers' title race. For comparison, Bottas, going into 2018, was 16.
Edited extra bit: ahem, Bottas was 16 for the title with a fifth the odds top 3 (so, 5/1, effectively 4/1 if you assume he won't actually win the title).
Dr. Foxy, just on the gig economy: BBC segment last night presented it as exploited workers versus business, whereas the majority of those on zero hours contracts (as I recall from past polling) are entirely happy with them.
The problem comes, as I recall, when ‘employees’ on such contracts are told they MUST be available and can work for no-one else.
Is it really true that businesses which struggle to pay wages are the ones which provide significant growth in the economy ? Colour me sceptical.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SME
Quite. The EU is a very good source of such regulations, and Brussels is full of lobbyists from large companies making sure that there’s a constant stream of new EU law acting as barriers to entry.
But if we sign up to the Common rule book, as per Chequers, we do not escape that. Indeed there is even a risk that such regulation might increase without the somewhat sceptical British contribution. In this was the EU as a whole is making itself less and less comercially competitive. These highly regulated sectors can exploit their oligopoly status within Europe but they cannot compete with those outwith it who do not carry such burdens. GDPR is a good recent example of this.
My concern with Chequers is exactly this. We risk not getting the benefits of non EU membership without the protection of our own markets that being in the protectionist EU brings. We certainly need transitional provisions and we need to avoid a cliff edge but in the longer term we want to escape from this over regulation and eliminate these barriers to entry.
Brexit will lead to a large increase in bureaucracy. A common rule book, ie following rules set by the EU, will mitigate that extra bureaucracy somewhat. As non members we no longer have any say over those rules, which will no longer be drafted to include our interest.
I don’t think that’s true actually. The UK will certainly continue to have an informal role in drafting rules, even if we won’t have “official” voting rights. Just as EEA member states do at present. And probably even more so than they do.
Firstly, it’s in the backroom drafting that most of the brokering is done, the voting is usually just the icing on the cake, and secondly the UK’s size and economic weight are such that the EU would be reluctant to risk passing a rule obviously not in our interests lest our Parliament refuse to pass it and we break away.
Dr. Foxy, just on the gig economy: BBC segment last night presented it as exploited workers versus business, whereas the majority of those on zero hours contracts (as I recall from past polling) are entirely happy with them.
The problem comes, as I recall, when ‘employees’ on such contracts are told they MUST be available and can work for no-one else.
That is certainly one of the problems but for me the bigger problem is that the market is quite segmented. There are many who have other commitments, such as students or carers, and who need the flexibility that no fixed hours bring. Many of the working "retired" also fall into that category. Then there are others who have not found full employment and are totally reliant on this source of employment and perhaps stuck there for a long time due to a lack of skills etc. It is this latter group that need protection and help but we must find ways of doing so without causing problems for the former.
He was having a very difficult tv interview when he admitted his plans would not allow frictionless trade, but the delays would not be too bad
The average time it takes customs to clear a non EU shipment at the current time is less than an hour.
JRM is right.
You agree then frictionless trade is gone under the ERG plan
And if so, our car and aerospace industry goes with it
Madness
There is certainly a (credible) argument that the UK should become an offshore global services hub, largely social/employment deregulated and highly dynamic, with little else. As Patrick Minford and others have (openly) said that would result in us losing most of our remaining manufacturing industry, which they say we should be relaxed about.
We could certainly do well under such a scenario and even end up quite well off, but I doubt there’s much political appetite for such a UK outside of a small minority.
I don't recall that being among the prominent arguments in favour of Brexit.
As for 'ending up' quite well off, how long might that take - and who precisely would end up well off (very probably not the majority of those who voted leave) ?
The pain of economic dislocations is rarely spread evenly. It was a notable feature of yesterday's IFS report on the crash that the (current) 30-39 year old group have average wages/salaries around £2000 less than their equivalent cohort a decade ago. No other group has seen anything anywhere even approaching that (though of course it's not possible to make a similar comparison for the current 20-30 year olds).
Probably 15-20 years. Doing well under such a scenario would depend upon being well educated and highly trained.
It’s hard to escape any other conclusion than the North and regions are relatively starved of public and private investment.
I don’t think tax and redistribution is the right answer to that. I’d far rather see big infrastructure improvements, tax breaks and Government encouraging private sector start-ups and relocation in such places.
At a time when employment is at record highs and has had subdued pay growth for years Britain could safely experiment a bit with measures to raise the earnings of workers.
Which is exactly what we have done with significant increases in the NMW/Living wage without any adverse effects. I think we can go further on zero hour contracts/gig economy self employment but these steps are market sensitive and should be introduced gradually monitoring their effects.
What that excellent piece linked to yesterday, Brexit and the British growth model, showed was that restrictions in labour are already resulting in increased investment in capital as an alternative. If that trend continues then more better paid, higher skilled jobs will be created at the cost of even more poorly paid jobs disappearing.
What I have noted in the employment figures is that the same shortage of labour in many parts of the country is incentivising employers to offer better terms resulting in reductions in the number of people on zero hours contracts and "self employment" with increases in full employment. By gradually increasing the rights of those who are open to exploitation at the moment we can encourage that welcome trend by reducing the differential cost to prospective employers.
Yes, that's a good point - suddernly flinging a bunch of changes at the market could have a disproportionately disruptive effect. But in the long term we need to move away from the low-investment model in which it's cheaper to employ someone on rotten terms (because he's desperate or an immigrant from countries with even worse conditions) than to invest in automation.
On zero hours contracts, careful wording of the legislation is important, but we all know what's meant. I take translation jobs from a list offered by agencies when I have time and I refrain when I don't. It'd be daft to make that illegal. But agencies don't hold it against me when I don't bid for a job, or expect me to hang about waiting in case they've got one. It's the compulsory element of formal zero-hours contracts (requiring one to refuse other work in case something comes up) which is pernicious.
Dr. Foxy, just on the gig economy: BBC segment last night presented it as exploited workers versus business, whereas the majority of those on zero hours contracts (as I recall from past polling) are entirely happy with them.
The problem comes, as I recall, when ‘employees’ on such contracts are told they MUST be available and can work for no-one else.
Didn't the Government pledge to ensure that such "exclusivity" would be prevented?
Lots of people have argued for decades that we have too much 'red tape' strangling business. Every so often, a government declares war on it, promising to banish burdensome regulations.
Yet the amount of 'red tape' seems to always increase. Has any government actually successfully tackled 'red tape', and might the increasing amount of 'red tape' actually be because most of it, aside from some egregious examples, be required?
Didn't Pol Pot try? Don't think it went too well though
At a time when employment is at record highs and has had subdued pay growth for years Britain could safely experiment a bit with measures to raise the earnings of workers.
Which is exactly what we have done with significant increases in the NMW/Living wage without any adverse effects. I think we can go further on zero hour contracts/gig economy self employment but these steps are market sensitive and should be introduced gradually monitoring their effects.
What that excellent piece linked to yesterday, Brexit and the British growth model, showed was that restrictions in labour are already resulting in increased investment in capital as an alternative. If that trend continues then more better paid, higher skilled jobs will be created at the cost of even more poorly paid jobs disappearing.
What I have noted in the employment figures is that the same shortage of labour in many parts of the country is incentivising employers to offer better terms resulting in reductions in the number of people on zero hours contracts and "self employment" with increases in full employment. By gradually increasing the rights of those who are open to exploitation at the moment we can encourage that welcome trend by reducing the differential cost to prospective employers.
Yes, that's a good point - suddernly flinging a bunch of changes at the market could have a disproportionately disruptive effect. But in the long term we need to move away from the low-investment model in which it's cheaper to employ someone on rotten terms (because he's desperate or an immigrant from countries with even worse conditions) than to invest in automation.
On zero hours contracts, careful wording of the legislation is important, but we all know what's meant. I take translation jobs from a list offered by agencies when I have time and I refrain when I don't. It'd be daft to make that illegal. But agencies don't hold it against me when I don't bid for a job, or expect me to hang about waiting in case they've got one. It's the compulsory element of formal zero-hours contracts (requiring one to refuse other work in case something comes up) which is pernicious.
I certainly agree with you and @OldKingCole that that has to stop. I think other rights would have to be contingent on the number of hours actually worked and the time the worker had been there. The beefing up of workers rights, as opposed to employees rights, is probably the way to go.
At a time when employment is at record highs and has had subdued pay growth for years Britain could safely experiment a bit with measures to raise the earnings of workers.
Which is exactly what we have done with significant increases in the NMW/Living wage without any adverse effects. I think we can go further on zero hour contracts/gig economy self employment but these steps are market sensitive and should be introduced gradually monitoring their effects.
What that excellent piece linked to yesterday, Brexit and the British growth model, showed was that restrictions in labour are already resulting in increased investment in capital as an alternative. If that trend continues then more better paid, higher skilled jobs will be created at the cost of even more poorly paid jobs disappearing.
What I have noted in the employment figures is that the same shortage of labour in many parts of the country is incentivising employers to offer better terms resulting in reductions in the number of people on zero hours contracts and "self employment" with increases in full employment. By gradually increasing the rights of those who are open to exploitation at the moment we can encourage that welcome trend by reducing the differential cost to prospective employers.
Yes, that's a good point - suddernly flinging a bunch of changes at the market could have a disproportionately disruptive effect. But in the long term we need to move away from the low-investment model in which it's cheaper to employ someone on rotten terms (because he's desperate or an immigrant from countries with even worse conditions) than to invest in automation.
On zero hours contracts, careful wording of the legislation is important, but we all know what's meant. I take translation jobs from a list offered by agencies when I have time and I refrain when I don't. It'd be daft to make that illegal. But agencies don't hold it against me when I don't bid for a job, or expect me to hang about waiting in case they've got one. It's the compulsory element of formal zero-hours contracts (requiring one to refuse other work in case something comes up) which is pernicious.
Too much automation will reduce the jobs available for those who are not highly creative or with the highest skills leading To more periods of unemployment and a higher welfare bill (or universal basic income perhaps ultimately)
He was having a very difficult tv interview when he admitted his plans would not allow frictionless trade, but the delays would not be too bad
The average time it takes customs to clear a non EU shipment at the current time is less than an hour.
JRM is right.
You agree then frictionless trade is gone under the ERG plan
And if so, our car and aerospace industry goes with it
Madness
There is certainly a (credible) argument that the UK should become an offshore global services hub, largely social/employment deregulated and highly dynamic, with little else. As Patrick Minford and others have (openly) said that would result in us losing most of our remaining manufacturing industry, which they say we should be relaxed about.
We could certainly do well under such a scenario and even end up quite well off, but I doubt there’s much political appetite for such a UK outside of a small minority.
The Singapore model is largely confined to Hannanites not most Leave voters
This is a bit like the argument we heard before the minimum wage that employers would close down rather than pay it. In reality, most employers will check their business models to see that they're still valid and then carry on - the saving that they make by NOT providing fringe benefits to gig workers will be a marginal effect for most. Do you know anyone who actually says things like "I can only afford to run my business because I don't need to cover maternity leave"?
Naturally they don't if they don't have to - I concluded long ago that it was a waste of time to blame anyone for trying to make money in whatever the current system is. But if they do have to, not many are going to close down on that account.
Sorry, but that is a classic Labour viewpoint and absolutely wrong. In Australia unfortunately we have a IR system run by the Unions and as a business operator I ditional costs. But for SMEs, which are where the growth in the economy actually occurs, higher wage costs are deadly....
Is it really true that businesses which struggle to pay wages are the ones which provide significant growth in the economy ? Colour me sceptical.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SMEs as a group contribute the majority of growth - but this also involves some firms flourishing and others falling back
But @archer101au assertion that business should not pay for “lifestyle choices” such as maternity leave is, shall we say, on one extreme of the spectrum. Personally I prefer to invest in high quality staff as I don’t want to have to rehire and then train replacements.
Quite. The EU is a very good source of such regulations, and Brussels is full of lobbyists from large companies making sure that there’s a constant stream of new EU law acting as barriers to entry.
Though it is the larger employers that are particularly keen on the gig economy. Amazon, Sports Direct, Uber, Deliveroo, Interserve etc are not small local SME's, they are large companies that drive down costs via exploitative labour practices. This and not paying taxes is the basis of their business model.
Insecure employment, without labour rights or prospects is perhaps an inevitable tendency of capitalism, but don't expect people to like it or to vote for it.
Don't expect them to vote for the rising unemployment and inflation inevitable under Corbynomics either
On zero hours contracts, careful wording of the legislation is important, but we all know what's meant. I take translation jobs from a list offered by agencies when I have time and I refrain when I don't. It'd be daft to make that illegal. But agencies don't hold it against me when I don't bid for a job, or expect me to hang about waiting in case they've got one. It's the compulsory element of formal zero-hours contracts (requiring one to refuse other work in case something comes up) which is pernicious.
Ultimately I think it comes down to power. For some sections of society, employees are just too weak against employers.
Govt needs to step in to help them, whether it be through minimum wages, health and safety regulation or whatever. And the gig economy has in some cases subverted certain employer protections, whilst also offering others more opportunities.
For things like say Amazon, I suspect the consumer just has to pay fractionally more for things so that the workers aren't treated in the way reports suggest they are. But for other companies like Uber, I'm sceptical whether their business model is compatible with what the law ought to be.
Is it really true that businesses which struggle to pay wages are the ones which provide significant growth in the economy ? Colour me sceptical.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SMEs as a group contribute the majority of growth - but this also involves some firms flourishing and others falling back
It’s also the case that big firms prefer high regulations (and non-wage entitlements can be seen as a form of that) and preferably on a multinational basis. My brother’s firm, which operates in a highly regulated sector, for example, competes very effectively with some of the largest firms in the country. He finds they lobby very hard to increase regulatory complexity - partly because an extra £1m of costs is meaningless to them but painful to him, and partly because it is a barrier to entry for new competitors
But @archer101au assertion that business should not pay for “lifestyle choices” such as maternity leave is, shall we say, on one extreme of the spectrum. Personally I prefer to invest in high quality staff as I don’t want to have to rehire and then train replacements.
Quite. The EU is a very good source of such regulations, and Brussels is full of lobbyists from large companies making sure that there’s a constant stream of new EU law acting as barriers to entry.
But if we sign up to the Common rule book, as per Chequers, we do not escape that. Indeed there is even a risk that such regulation might increase without the somewhat sceptical British contribution. In this was the EU as a whole is making itself less and less comercially competitive. These highly regulated sectors can exploit their oligopoly status within Europe but they cannot compete with those outwith it who do not carry such burdens. GDPR is a good recent example of this.
My concern with Chequers is exactly this. We risk not getting the benefits of non EU membership without the protection of our own markets that being in the protectionist EU brings. We certainly need transitional provisions and we need to avoid a cliff edge but in the longer term we want to escape from this over regulation and eliminate these barriers to entry.
GDPR actually offers guarantees for or the data of citizens in the EU from organisations in the EU or outside which deal with EU data. That offers security for companies who want to do contracts with EU companies, there is a reason the government has mirrored and implemented GDPR almost in full in DPA 2018
At a time when employment is at record highs and has had subdued pay growth for years Britain could safely experiment a bit with measures to raise the earnings of workers.
Which is exactly what we have done with significant increases in the NMW/Living wage without any adverse effects. I think we can go further on zero hour contracts/gig economy self employment but these steps are market sensitive and should be introduced gradually monitoring their effects.
What that excellent piece linked to yesterday, Brexit and the British growth model, showed was that restrictions in labour are already resulting in increased investment in capital as an alternative. If that trend continues then more better paid, higher skilled jobs will be created at the cost of even more poorly paid jobs disappearing.
What I have noted in the employment figures is that the same shortage of labour in many parts of the country is incentivising employers to offer better terms resulting in reductions in the number of people on zero hours contracts and "self employment" with increases in full employment. By gradually increasing the rights of those who are open to exploitation at the moment we can encourage that welcome trend by reducing the differential cost to prospective employers.
Yes, that's a good point - suddernly flinging a bunch of changes at the market could have a disproportionately disruptive effect. But in the long term we need to move away from the low-investment model in which it's cheaper to employ someone on rotten terms (because he's desperate or an immigrant from countries with even worse conditions) than to invest in automation.
On zero hours contracts, careful wording of the legislation is important, but we all know what's meant. I take translation jobs from a list offered by agencies when I have time and I refrain when I don't. It'd be daft to make that illegal. But agencies don't hold it against me when I don't bid for a job, or expect me to hang about waiting in case they've got one. It's the compulsory element of formal zero-hours contracts (requiring one to refuse other work in case something comes up) which is pernicious.
Mrs Foxy has a ZHC, and it works well for her as she can take time off quickly and easily for carer responsibilities, and has my income as back up.
Dr. Foxy, just on the gig economy: BBC segment last night presented it as exploited workers versus business, whereas the majority of those on zero hours contracts (as I recall from past polling) are entirely happy with them.
The problem comes, as I recall, when ‘employees’ on such contracts are told they MUST be available and can work for no-one else.
Didn't the Government pledge to ensure that such "exclusivity" would be prevented?
I think the calls to ban all zero-hours contracts are a bit daft, given that it seems the people who work under such contracts are generally happy with them. Though that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a little more tightening up. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984
It might be the anger some show over non-exclusive ZHC's are people feeling angry on other people's behalf, without actually asking those people their views.
At a time when employment is at record highs and has had subdued pay growth for years Britain could safely experiment a bit with measures to raise the earnings of workers.
Which is exactly what we have done with significant increases in the NMW/Living wage without any adverse effects. I think we can go further on zero hour contracts/gig economy self employment but these steps are market sensitive and should be introduced gradually monitoring their effects.
What that excellent piece linked to yesterday, Brexit and the British growth model, showed was that restrictions in labour are already resulting in increased investment in capital as an alternative. If that trend continues then more better paid, higher skilled jobs will be created at the cost of even more poorly paid jobs disappearing.
What I have noted in the employment figures is that the same shortage of labour in many parts of the country is incentivising employers to offer better terms resulting in reductions in the number of people on zero hours contracts and "self employment" with increases in full employment. By gradually increasing the rights of those who are open to exploitation at the moment we can encourage that welcome trend by reducing the differential cost to prospective employers.
Yes, that's a good point - suddernly flinging a bunch of changes at the market could have a disproportionately disruptive effect. But in the long term we need to move away from the low-investment model in which it's cheaper to employ someone on rotten terms (because he's desperate or an immigrant from countries with even worse conditions) than to invest in automation.
On zero hours contracts, careful wording of the legislation is important, but we all know what's meant. I take translation jobs from a list offered by agencies when I have time and I refrain when I don't. It'd be daft to make that illegal. But agencies don't hold it against me when I don't bid for a job, or expect me to hang about waiting in case they've got one. It's the compulsory element of formal zero-hours contracts (requiring one to refuse other work in case something comes up) which is pernicious.
I certainly agree with you and @OldKingCole that that has to stop. I think other rights would have to be contingent on the number of hours actually worked and the time the worker had been there. The beefing up of workers rights, as opposed to employees rights, is probably the way to go.
As I understand it too, there are allegedly self-employed or ZHC situations where the ‘employee’, if unable to attend, has to either find a suitable replacement or pay the ‘employers’ costs in doing so.
He was having a very difficult tv interview when he admitted his plans would not allow frictionless trade, but the delays would not be too bad
The average time it takes customs to clear a non EU shipment at the current time is less than an hour.
JRM is right.
You agree then frictionless trade is gone under the ERG plan
And if so, our car and aerospace industry goes with it
Madness
There is certainly a (credible) argument that the UK should become an offshore global services hub, largely social/employment deregulated and highly dynamic, with little else. As Patrick Minford and others have (openly) said that would result in us losing most of our remaining manufacturing industry, which they say we should be relaxed about.
We could certainly do well under such a scenario and even end up quite well off, but I doubt there’s much political appetite for such a UK outside of a small minority.
The Singapore model is largely confined to Hannanites not most Leave voters
To be fair, I think Hannan is more practical than, say, John Redwood.
Hannan has argued for EFTA and said he could reluctantly tolerate Chequers, although of course that isn’t his ideal world.
Dr. Foxy, just on the gig economy: BBC segment last night presented it as exploited workers versus business, whereas the majority of those on zero hours contracts (as I recall from past polling) are entirely happy with them.
The problem comes, as I recall, when ‘employees’ on such contracts are told they MUST be available and can work for no-one else.
Isn't that already illegal? I thought that was outlawed years ago.
At a time when employment is at record highs and has had subdued pay growth for years Britain could safely experiment a bit with measures to raise the earnings of workers.
Which is exactly what we have done with significant increases in the NMW/Living wage without any adverse effects. I think we can go further on zero hour contracts/gig economy self employment but these steps are market sensitive and should be introduced gradually monitoring their effects.
What that excellent piece linked to yesterday, Brexit and the British growth model, showed was that restrictions in labour are already resulting in increased investment in capital as an alternative. If that trend continues then more better paid, higher skilled jobs will be created at the cost of even more poorly paid jobs disappearing.
What I have noted in the employment figures is that the same shortage of labour in many parts of the country is incentivising employers to offer better terms resulting in reductions in the number of people on zero hours contracts and "self employment" with increases in full employment. By gradually increasing the rights of those who are open to exploitation at the moment we can encourage that welcome trend by reducing the differential cost to prospective employers.
Yes, that's a good point - suddernly flinging a bunch of changes at the market could have a disproportionately disruptive effect. But in the long term we need to move away from the low-investment model in which it's cheaper to employ someone on rotten terms (because he's desperate or an immigrant from countries with even worse conditions) than to invest in automation.
On zero hours contracts, careful wording of the legislation is important, but we all know what's meant. I take translation jobs from a list offered by agencies when I have time and I refrain when I don't. It'd be daft to make that illegal. But agencies don't hold it against me when I don't bid for a job, or expect me to hang about waiting in case they've got one. It's the compulsory element of formal zero-hours contracts (requiring one to refuse other work in case something comes up) which is pernicious.
I certainly agree with you and @OldKingCole that that has to stop. I think other rights would have to be contingent on the number of hours actually worked and the time the worker had been there. The beefing up of workers rights, as opposed to employees rights, is probably the way to go.
As I understand it too, there are allegedly self-employed or ZHC situations where the ‘employee’, if unable to attend, has to either find a suitable replacement or pay the ‘employers’ costs in doing so.
I note a repeat of the favourite PB spectacle of armchair brexitists pontificating on their deranged plans, from their safe house in Australia.
+10
I just moved to Australia so that Brexiteers could pontificate on PB for 24 hours a day. It is a conspiracy.
You do not have anything to lose with your Little Englander plans.
My family has their jobs and prosperity at stake and I do not want my large Scottish family to vote to leave the UK
Then you will be delighted to hear that Barnier believes that if the UK was not subject to EU regulation the country would have a huge competitive advantage over the EU. So you will be richer and your Scottish family will not want to leave the UK.
Believe me I know my Scottish family and Scotland and your nonsense would see a huge boost for Independence.
It's interesting, there seems to be a great deal of wylie coyote over the edge of a cliff about Scottish politics and Brexit at the moment.
I have a number of friends who were adamant "stop talking to me avout fucking Indy" No voters who have switched to yes since the Brexit vote but the polling shows that is not a huge number amongst the population at large.
Yet I feel there is still a kind of "it won't really happen" thought process going on in the population at large, the belief that we are going to Soft Brexit really, and that a Hard Brexit may trigger the Scott P's of this world to do a searching re-examination of their Unionism.
Dr. Foxy, just on the gig economy: BBC segment last night presented it as exploited workers versus business, whereas the majority of those on zero hours contracts (as I recall from past polling) are entirely happy with them.
The problem comes, as I recall, when ‘employees’ on such contracts are told they MUST be available and can work for no-one else.
Didn't the Government pledge to ensure that such "exclusivity" would be prevented?
I think the calls to ban all zero-hours contracts are a bit daft, given that it seems the people who work under such contracts are generally happy with them. Though that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a little more tightening up. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984
It might be the anger some show over non-exclusive ZHC's are people feeling angry on other people's behalf, without actually asking those people their views.
While such contracts are ‘banned’ your first link makes it clear that if an ‘employer’ offers one, there is no penalty. And, as Mr P points out there are situations where all sides recognise what is ‘fair and reasonable’ and abide by that. Many years ago I worked under such arrangements and was quite happy.
On zero hours contracts, careful wording of the legislation is important, but we all know what's meant. I take translation jobs from a list offered by agencies when I have time and I refrain when I don't. It'd be daft to make that illegal. But agencies don't hold it against me when I don't bid for a job, or expect me to hang about waiting in case they've got one. It's the compulsory element of formal zero-hours contracts (requiring one to refuse other work in case something comes up) which is pernicious.
Ultimately I think it comes down to power. For some sections of society, employees are just too weak against employers.
Govt needs to step in to help them, whether it be through minimum wages, health and safety regulation or whatever. And the gig economy has in some cases subverted certain employer protections, whilst also offering others more opportunities.
For things like say Amazon, I suspect the consumer just has to pay fractionally more for things so that the workers aren't treated in the way reports suggest they are. But for other companies like Uber, I'm sceptical whether their business model is compatible with what the law ought to be.
Government regulation has by and large replaced Trade Unions in the private sector. The gig economy needs one or other, or both.
Meritocracy is not a pleasant place for the large mass of Britons with below average skills and intelligence, even if it works well for the majority of us intellectual elite on PB. A society that fails to make a decent life for such people is setting itself up for a lot of social unrest. Don't expect them to respect a system that doesnt respect them back.
Dr. Foxy, just on the gig economy: BBC segment last night presented it as exploited workers versus business, whereas the majority of those on zero hours contracts (as I recall from past polling) are entirely happy with them.
The problem comes, as I recall, when ‘employees’ on such contracts are told they MUST be available and can work for no-one else.
Didn't the Government pledge to ensure that such "exclusivity" would be prevented?
I think the calls to ban all zero-hours contracts are a bit daft, given that it seems the people who work under such contracts are generally happy with them. Though that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a little more tightening up. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984
It might be the anger some show over non-exclusive ZHC's are people feeling angry on other people's behalf, without actually asking those people their views.
That's exactly what it is.
People use ZHC's as professional offence taking and political point scoring. The fact we're still debating an issue that has been illegal for years demonstrates that - those who complain loudest aren't actually on ZHC's so they don't realise what is complained about is already illegal.
Is it really true that businesses which struggle to pay wages are the ones which provide significant growth in the economy ? Colour me sceptical.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SMEs as a group contribute the majority of growth - but this also involves some firms flourishing and others falling back
It’s also the case that big firms prefer high regulations (and non-wage entitlements can be seen as a form of that) and preferably on a multinational basis.
But @archer101au assertion that business should not pay for “lifestyle choices” such as maternity leave is, shall we say, on one extreme of the spectrum. Personally I prefer to invest in high quality staff as I don’t want to have to rehire and then train replacements.
Quite. The EU is a very good source of such regulations, and Brussels is full of lobbyists from large companies making sure that there’s a constant stream of new EU law acting as barriers to entry.
But if we sign up to the Common rule book, as per Chequers, we do not escape that. Indeed there is even a risk that such regulation might increase without the somewhat sceptical British contribution. In this was the EU as a whole is making itself less and less comercially competitive. These highly regulated sectors can exploit their oligopoly status within Europe but they cannot compete with those outwith it who do not carry such burdens. GDPR is a good recent example of this.
My concern with Chequers is exactly this. We risk not getting the benefits of non EU membership without the protection of our own markets that being in the protectionist EU brings. We certainly need transitional provisions and we need to avoid a cliff edge but in the longer term we want to escape from this over regulation and eliminate these barriers to entry.
GDPR actually offers guarantees for or the data of citizens in the EU from organisations in the EU or outside which deal with EU data. That offers security for companies who want to do contracts with EU companies, there is a reason the government has mirrored and implemented GDPR almost in full in DPA 2018
On the other hand, the ‘do you accept cookies?’ regulation on every website is pointless and highly annoying.
In practice, no web user ever has a choice to say ‘no’ unless they don’t want to use the internet, which is nigh-on impossible today.
Is it really true that businesses which struggle to pay wages are the ones which provide significant growth in the economy ? Colour me sceptical.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SMEs as a group contribute the majority of growth - but this also involves some firms flourishing and others falling back
It’s also the case that big firms prefer high regulations (and non-wage entitlements can be seen as a form of that) and preferably on a multinational basis.
But @archer101au assertion that business should not pay for “lifestyle choices” such as maternity leave is, shall we say, on one extreme of the spectrum. Personally I prefer to invest in high quality staff as I don’t want to have to rehire and then train replacements.
Quite. The EU is a very good source of such regulations, and Brussels is full of lobbyists from large companies making sure that there’s a constant stream of new EU law acting as barriers to entry.
But if we sign up to the Common rule book, as per Chequers, we do not escape that. Indeed there is even a risk that such regulation might increase without the somewhat sceptical British contribution. In this was the EU as a whole is making itself less and less comercially competitive. These highly regulated sectors can exploit their oligopoly status within Europe but they cannot compete with those outwith it who do not carry such burdens. GDPR is a good recent example of this.
My concern with Chequers is exactly this. We risk not getting the benefits of non EU membership without the protection of our own markets that being in the protectionist EU brings. We certainly need transitional provisions and we need to avoid a cliff edge but in the longer term we want to escape from this over regulation and eliminate these barriers to entry.
GDPR actually offers guarantees for or the data of citizens in the EU from organisations in the EU or outside which deal with EU data. That offers security for companies who want to do contracts with EU companies, there is a reason the government has mirrored and implemented GDPR almost in full in DPA 2018
On the other hand, the ‘do you accept cookies?’ regulation on every website is pointless and highly annoying.
In practice, no web user ever has a choice to say ‘no’ unless they don’t want to use the internet, which is nigh-on impossible today.
It at least reduces spam and endless marketing ads without consent
Is it really true that businesses which struggle to pay wages are the ones which provide significant growth in the economy ? Colour me sceptical.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SMEs as a group contribute the majority of growth - but this also involves some firms flourishing and others falling back
It’s also the case that big firms prefer high regulations (and non-wage entitlements can be seen as a form of that) and preferably on a multinational basis.
But @archer101au assertion that business should not pay for “lifestyle choices” such as maternity leave is, shall we say, on one extreme of the spectrum. Personally I prefer to invest in high quality staff as I don’t want to have to rehire and then train replacements.
Quite. The EU is a very good source of such regulations, and Brussels is full of lobbyists from large companies making sure that there’s a constant stream of new EU law acting as barriers to entry.
But if we sign up to the Common rule book, as per Chequers, we do not escape that. Indeed there is even a risk that such regulation might increase without the somewhat sceptical British contribution. In this was the EU as a whole is making itself less and less comercially competitive. These highly regulated sectors can exploit their oligopoly status within Europe but they cannot compete with those outwith it who do not carry such burdens. GDPR is a good recent example of this.
My concern with Chequers is exactly this. We risk not getting the benefits of non EU membership without the protection of our own markets that being in the protectionist EU brings. We certainly need transitional provisions and we need to avoid a cliff edge but in the longer term we want to escape from this over regulation and eliminate these barriers to entry.
GDPR actually offers guarantees for or the data of citizens in the EU from organisations in the EU or outside which deal with EU data. That offers security for companies who want to do contracts with EU companies, there is a reason the government has mirrored and implemented GDPR almost in full in DPA 2018
On the other hand, the ‘do you accept cookies?’ regulation on every website is pointless and highly annoying.
In practice, no web user ever has a choice to say ‘no’ unless they don’t want to use the internet, which is nigh-on impossible today.
It at least reduces spam and endless marketing ads without consent
Is it really true that businesses which struggle to pay wages are the ones which provide significant growth in the economy ? Colour me sceptical.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SMEs as a group contribute the majority of growth - but this also involves some firms flourishing and others falling back
It’s also the case that big firms prefer high regulations (and non-wage entitlements can be seen as a form of that) and preferably on a multinational basis.
But @archer101au assertion that business should not pay for “lifestyle choices” such as maternity leave is, shall we say, on one extreme of the spectrum. Personally I prefer to invest in high quality staff as I don’t want to have to rehire and then train replacements.
Quite. The EU is a very good source of such regulations, and Brussels is full of lobbyists from large companies making sure that there’s a constant stream of new EU law acting as barriers to entry.
But if we sign up to the Common rule book, as per Chequers, we do not escape that. Indeed there is even a risk that such regulation might increase without the somewhat sceptical British contribution. In this was the EU as a whole is making itself less and less comercially competitive. These highly regulated sectors can exploit their oligopoly status within Europe but they cannot compete with those outwith it who do not carry such burdens. GDPR is a good recent example of this.
My concern with Chequers is exactly this. We risk not getting the benefits of non EU membership without the protection of our own markets that being in the protectionist EU brings. We certainly need transitional provisions and we need to avoid a cliff edge but in the longer term we want to escape from this over regulation and eliminate these barriers to entry.
GDPR actually offers guarantees for or the data of citizens in the EU from organisations in the EU or outside which deal with EU data. That offers security for companies who want to do contracts with EU companies, there is a reason the government has mirrored and implemented GDPR almost in full in DPA 2018
On the other hand, the ‘do you accept cookies?’ regulation on every website is pointless and highly annoying.
In practice, no web user ever has a choice to say ‘no’ unless they don’t want to use the internet, which is nigh-on impossible today.
Or you're not allowed on the site at all. The Chicago Tribune now blocks IP's for the EU.
Dr. Foxy, just on the gig economy: BBC segment last night presented it as exploited workers versus business, whereas the majority of those on zero hours contracts (as I recall from past polling) are entirely happy with them.
The problem comes, as I recall, when ‘employees’ on such contracts are told they MUST be available and can work for no-one else.
Didn't the Government pledge to ensure that such "exclusivity" would be prevented?
I think the calls to ban all zero-hours contracts are a bit daft, given that it seems the people who work under such contracts are generally happy with them. Though that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a little more tightening up. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984
It might be the anger some show over non-exclusive ZHC's are people feeling angry on other people's behalf, without actually asking those people their views.
While such contracts are ‘banned’ your first link makes it clear that if an ‘employer’ offers one, there is no penalty. And, as Mr P points out there are situations where all sides recognise what is ‘fair and reasonable’ and abide by that. Many years ago I worked under such arrangements and was quite happy.
On zero hours contracts, careful wording of the legislation is important, but we all know what's meant. I take translation jobs from a list offered by agencies when I have time and I refrain when I don't. It'd be daft to make that illegal. But agencies don't hold it against me when I don't bid for a job, or expect me to hang about waiting in case they've got one. It's the compulsory element of formal zero-hours contracts (requiring one to refuse other work in case something comes up) which is pernicious.
Ultimately I think it comes down to power. For some sections of society, employees are just too weak against employers.
Govt needs to step in to help them, whether it be through minimum wages, health and safety regulation or whatever. And the gig economy has in some cases subverted certain employer protections, whilst also offering others more opportunities.
For things like say Amazon, I suspect the consumer just has to pay fractionally more for things so that the workers aren't treated in the way reports suggest they are. But for other companies like Uber, I'm sceptical whether their business model is compatible with what the law ought to be.
I’m not worried about Uber. In 10 years’ time, they won’t need to pay drivers because the cars will drive themselves.
But let’s keep importing unskilled labour, because it’s good for the economy...
On zero hours contracts, careful wording of the legislation is important, but we all know what's meant. I take translation jobs from a list offered by agencies when I have time and I refrain when I don't. It'd be daft to make that illegal. But agencies don't hold it against me when I don't bid for a job, or expect me to hang about waiting in case they've got one. It's the compulsory element of formal zero-hours contracts (requiring one to refuse other work in case something comes up) which is pernicious.
Ultimately I think it comes down to power. For some sections of society, employees are just too weak against employers.
Govt needs to step in to help them, whether it be through minimum wages, health and safety regulation or whatever. And the gig economy has in some cases subverted certain employer protections, whilst also offering others more opportunities.
For things like say Amazon, I suspect the consumer just has to pay fractionally more for things so that the workers aren't treated in the way reports suggest they are. But for other companies like Uber, I'm sceptical whether their business model is compatible with what the law ought to be.
Government regulation has by and large replaced Trade Unions in the private sector. The gig economy needs one or other, or both.
Meritocracy is not a pleasant place for the large mass of Britons with below average skills and intelligence, even if it works well for the majority of us intellectual elite on PB. A society that fails to make a decent life for such people is setting itself up for a lot of social unrest. Don't expect them to respect a system that doesnt respect them back.
Agree entirely, although seems slightly presumptuous to call pb the intellectual elite!
3 GDPR actually offers guarantees for or the data of citizens in the EU from organisations in the EU or outside which deal with EU data. That offers security for companies who want to do contracts with EU companies, there is a reason the government has mirrored and implemented GDPR almost in full in DPA 2018
On the other hand, the ‘do you accept cookies?’ regulation on every website is pointless and highly annoying.
In practice, no web user ever has a choice to say ‘no’ unless they don’t want to use the internet, which is nigh-on impossible today.
You should be able to control which cookies (or rather, which classes of cookie) you accept but IRL most users, including this one, just hit accept rather than spend two minutes to say that I will take these but not those cookies. But take time to read the next pop-up you encounter to see if the choice is there.
On zero hours contracts, careful wording of the legislation is important, but we all know what's meant. I take translation jobs from a list offered by agencies when I have time and I refrain when I don't. It'd be daft to make that illegal. But agencies don't hold it against me when I don't bid for a job, or expect me to hang about waiting in case they've got one. It's the compulsory element of formal zero-hours contracts (requiring one to refuse other work in case something comes up) which is pernicious.
Ultimately I think it comes down to power. For some sections of society, employees are just too weak against employers.
Govt needs to step in to help them, whether it be through minimum wages, health and safety regulation or whatever. And the gig economy has in some cases subverted certain employer protections, whilst also offering others more opportunities.
For things like say Amazon, I suspect the consumer just has to pay fractionally more for things so that the workers aren't treated in the way reports suggest they are. But for other companies like Uber, I'm sceptical whether their business model is compatible with what the law ought to be.
I’m not worried about Uber. In 10 years’ time, they won’t need to pay drivers because the cars will drive themselves.
But let’s keep importing unskilled labour, because it’s good for the economy...
Well if we're doing predictions, I think: 1) Driverless cars will not be common in the UK in 10 years' time. 2) Uber will go bankrupt in the next 10 years.
He was having a very difficult tv interview when he admitted his plans would not allow frictionless trade, but the delays would not be too bad
The average time it takes customs to clear a non EU shipment at the current time is less than an hour.
JRM is right.
You agree then frictionless trade is gone under the ERG plan
And if so, our car and aerospace industry goes with it
Madness
There is certainly a (credible) argument that the UK should become an offshore global services hub, largely social/employment deregulated and highly dynamic, with little else. As Patrick Minford and others have (openly) said that would result in us losing most of our remaining manufacturing industry, which they say we should be relaxed about.
We could certainly do well under such a scenario and even end up quite well off, but I doubt there’s much political appetite for such a UK outside of a small minority.
I don't recall that being among the prominent arguments in favour of Brexit.
As for 'ending up' quite well off, how long might that take - and who precisely would end up well off (very probably not the majority of those who voted leave) ?
The pain of economic dislocations is rarely spread evenly. It was a notable feature of yesterday's IFS report on the crash that the (current) 30-39 year old group have average wages/salaries around £2000 less than their equivalent cohort a decade ago. No other group has seen anything anywhere even approaching that (though of course it's not possible to make a similar comparison for the current 20-30 year olds).
Presumably that’s a gross figure?
You need to take into account the increase in the personal allowance which will offset a good chunk of that
On zero hours contracts, careful wording of the legislation is important, but we all know what's meant. I take translation jobs from a list offered by agencies when I have time and I refrain when I don't. It'd be daft to make that illegal. But agencies don't hold it against me when I don't bid for a job, or expect me to hang about waiting in case they've got one. It's the compulsory element of formal zero-hours contracts (requiring one to refuse other work in case something comes up) which is pernicious.
Ultimately I think it comes down to power. For some sections of society, employees are just too weak against employers.
Govt needs to step in to help them, whether it be through minimum wages, health and safety regulation or whatever. And the gig economy has in some cases subverted certain employer protections, whilst also offering others more opportunities.
For things like say Amazon, I suspect the consumer just has to pay fractionally more for things so that the workers aren't treated in the way reports suggest they are. But for other companies like Uber, I'm sceptical whether their business model is compatible with what the law ought to be.
I’m not worried about Uber. In 10 years’ time, they won’t need to pay drivers because the cars will drive themselves.
But let’s keep importing unskilled labour, because it’s good for the economy...
"In 10 years’ time, they won’t need to pay drivers because the cars will drive themselves."
As I've argued passim, it'll take much longer. The systems they have at the moment are either poor, massively geofenced or both. Journalists are being deceived by smoke and mirrors.
In fact, 'self-driving cars in ten years' is going a little like 'productive nuclear fusion within thirty years': it seems to permanently remain that far away ...
Dr. Foxy, just on the gig economy: BBC segment last night presented it as exploited workers versus business, whereas the majority of those on zero hours contracts (as I recall from past polling) are entirely happy with them.
The problem comes, as I recall, when ‘employees’ on such contracts are told they MUST be available and can work for no-one else.
Isn't that already illegal? I thought that was outlawed years ago.
Not effectively - it's pure window-dressing. To quote from the detail of Josias's link:
"There are concerns that employers could still include clauses in contracts, stating that employees have to be available to work if required by the employer.
What happens if there is a breach? Nothing. The ban is not backed by any form of enforcement measure, workers have no form of redress against their employers who breach it. Furthermore, employers remain able to operate policies which reduce or cut completely, the hours of those who seek additional employment."
Dr. Foxy, just on the gig economy: BBC segment last night presented it as exploited workers versus business, whereas the majority of those on zero hours contracts (as I recall from past polling) are entirely happy with them.
The problem comes, as I recall, when ‘employees’ on such contracts are told they MUST be available and can work for no-one else.
Didn't the Government pledge to ensure that such "exclusivity" would be prevented?
I think the calls to ban all zero-hours contracts are a bit daft, given that it seems the people who work under such contracts are generally happy with them. Though that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a little more tightening up. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984
It might be the anger some show over non-exclusive ZHC's are people feeling angry on other people's behalf, without actually asking those people their views.
Thanks, that was my understanding.
Exclusivity was a real issue. Take that away - rightly - and you have a flexibility that suits those who want to juggle various things in life. I have a friend who does wildlife walks, as and when the numbers/weather allow and works on a ZHC the rest of the time.
Dr. Foxy, just on the gig economy: BBC segment last night presented it as exploited workers versus business, whereas the majority of those on zero hours contracts (as I recall from past polling) are entirely happy with them.
The problem comes, as I recall, when ‘employees’ on such contracts are told they MUST be available and can work for no-one else.
I thought the Coalition had tightened up on that abuse?
As always, zero hour contracts are useful for some (it’s just a fancy name for an age old practice). My sister, for example, is an “overspill” solicitor for a couple of her former colleagues which she can fit around being a Mum and earn some useful extra cash.
But certain unethical companies - in this case I don’t think Amazon is the worst but instead firms like Uber - saw it as an opportunity to take advantage of their staff.
The issue is actually with the culture of the firm and the management more than the precise form the abuse takes, but in the absence of being able to fix that (although licence negotiations may help) you have to address the symptom
On zero hours contracts, careful wording of the legislation is important, but we all know what's meant. I take translation jobs from a list offered by agencies when I have time and I refrain when I don't. It'd be daft to make that illegal. But agencies don't hold it against me when I don't bid for a job, or expect me to hang about waiting in case they've got one. It's the compulsory element of formal zero-hours contracts (requiring one to refuse other work in case something comes up) which is pernicious.
Ultimately I think it comes down to power. For some sections of society, employees are just too weak against employers.
Govt needs to step in to help them, whether it be through minimum wages, health and safety regulation or whatever. And the gig economy has in some cases subverted certain employer protections, whilst also offering others more opportunities.
For things like say Amazon, I suspect the consumer just has to pay fractionally more for things so that the workers aren't treated in the way reports suggest they are. But for other companies like Uber, I'm sceptical whether their business model is compatible with what the law ought to be.
Government regulation has by and large replaced Trade Unions in the private sector. The gig economy needs one or other, or both.
Meritocracy is not a pleasant place for the large mass of Britons with below average skills and intelligence, even if it works well for the majority of us intellectual elite on PB. A society that fails to make a decent life for such people is setting itself up for a lot of social unrest. Don't expect them to respect a system that doesnt respect them back.
Nor is the 10 to 20% unemployment in the likes of Italy and Greece which have less of a gig economy and where politics is increasingly dominated by populist parties of left and right
Dr. Foxy, just on the gig economy: BBC segment last night presented it as exploited workers versus business, whereas the majority of those on zero hours contracts (as I recall from past polling) are entirely happy with them.
The problem comes, as I recall, when ‘employees’ on such contracts are told they MUST be available and can work for no-one else.
Didn't the Government pledge to ensure that such "exclusivity" would be prevented?
I think the calls to ban all zero-hours contracts are a bit daft, given that it seems the people who work under such contracts are generally happy with them. Though that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a little more tightening up. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984
It might be the anger some show over non-exclusive ZHC's are people feeling angry on other people's behalf, without actually asking those people their views.
While such contracts are ‘banned’ your first link makes it clear that if an ‘employer’ offers one, there is no penalty. And, as Mr P points out there are situations where all sides recognise what is ‘fair and reasonable’ and abide by that. Many years ago I worked under such arrangements and was quite happy.
The bigger issue is that employers control who they give the hours to and when. If you are not particularly accommodating they will give most hours to someone else and keep you on just for situations where they can't find another body. There's no cost to them and it's difficult to legislate for that.
He was having a very difficult tv interview when he admitted his plans would not allow frictionless trade, but the delays would not be too bad
The average time it takes customs to clear a non EU shipment at the current time is less than an hour.
JRM is right.
You agree then frictionless trade is gone under the ERG plan
And if so, our car and aerospace industry goes with it
Madness
There is certainly a (credible) argument that the UK should become an offshore global services hub, largely social/employment deregulated and highly dynamic, with little else. As Patrick Minford and others have (openly) said that would result in us losing most of our remaining manufacturing industry, which they say we should be relaxed about.
We could certainly do well under such a scenario and even end up quite well off, but I doubt there’s much political appetite for such a UK outside of a small minority.
I don't recall that being among the prominent arguments in favour of Brexit.
As for 'ending up' quite well off, how long might that take - and who precisely would end up well off (very probably not the majority of those who voted leave) ?
The pain of economic dislocations is rarely spread evenly. It was a notable feature of yesterday's IFS report on the crash that the (current) 30-39 year old group have average wages/salaries around £2000 less than their equivalent cohort a decade ago. No other group has seen anything anywhere even approaching that (though of course it's not possible to make a similar comparison for the current 20-30 year olds).
Probably 15-20 years. Doing well under such a scenario would depend upon being well educated and highly trained.
It’s hard to escape any other conclusion than the North and regions are relatively starved of public and private investment.
I don’t think tax and redistribution is the right answer to that. I’d far rather see big infrastructure improvements, tax breaks and Government encouraging private sector start-ups and relocation in such places.
I remember seeing an article a few years back about the problem of crowding out in parts of the North - when you add the public sector to welfare and firms that are dependent on the public sector you were approaching 80-90% of the economy in some cases
Is it really true that businesses which struggle to pay wages are the ones which provide significant growth in the economy ? Colour me sceptical.
It’s poorly phrased and elides the specific with the general
SMEs as a group contribute the majority of growth - but this also involves some firms flourishing and others falling back
It’s also the case that big firms prefer high regulations (and non-wage entitlements can be seen as a form of that) and preferably on a multinational basis.
But @archer101au assertion that business should not pay for “lifestyle choices” such as maternity leave is, shall we say, on one extreme of the spectrum. Personally I prefer to invest in high quality staff as I don’t want to have to rehire and then train replacements.
Quite. The EU is a very good source of such regulations, and Brussels is full of lobbyists from large companies making sure that there’s a constant stream of new EU law acting as barriers to entry.
But if we sign up to the Common rule book, as per Chequers, we do not escape that. Indeed there is even a risk that such regulation might increase without burdens. GDPR is a good recent example of this.
My concern with Chequers is exactly this. We risk not getting the benefits of non EU membership without the protection of our own markets that being in the protectionist EU brings. We certainly need transitional provisions and we need to avoid a cliff edge but in the longer term we want to escape from this over regulation and eliminate these barriers to entry.
GDPR actually offers guarantees for or the data of citizens in the EU from organisations in the EU or outside which deal with EU data. That offers security for companies who want to do contracts with EU companies, there is a reason the government has mirrored and implemented GDPR almost in full in DPA 2018
On the other hand, the ‘do you accept cookies?’ regulation on every website is pointless and highly annoying.
In practice, no web user ever has a choice to say ‘no’ unless they don’t want to use the internet, which is nigh-on impossible today.
It at least reduces spam and endless marketing ads without consent
No.
Your endless desire to argue with anything I say just for the sake of it gets tedious
He was having a very difficult tv interview when he admitted his plans would not allow frictionless trade, but the delays would not be too bad
The average time it takes customs to clear a non EU shipment at the current time is less than an hour.
JRM is right.
You agree then frictionless trade is gone under the ERG plan
And if so, our car and aerospace industry goes with it
Madness
There is certainly a (credible) argument that the UK should become an offshore global services hub, largely social/employment deregulated and highly dynamic, with little else. As Patrick Minford and others have (openly) said that would result in us losing most of our remaining manufacturing industry, which they say we should be relaxed about.
We could certainly do well under such a scenario and even end up quite well off, but I doubt there’s much political appetite for such a UK outside of a small minority.
I don't recall that being among the prominent arguments in favour of Brexit.
As for 'ending up' quite well off, how long might that take - and who precisely would end up well off (very probably not the majority of those who voted leave) ?
The pain of economic dislocations is rarely spread evenly. It was a notable feature of yesterday's IFS report on the crash that the (current) 30-39 year old group have average wages/salaries around £2000 less than their equivalent cohort a decade ago. No other group has seen anything anywhere even approaching that (though of course it's not possible to make a similar comparison for the current 20-30 year olds).
Probably 15-20 years. Doing well under such a scenario would depend upon being well educated and highly trained.
It’s hard to escape any other conclusion than the North and regions are relatively starved of public and private investment.
I don’t think tax and redistribution is the right answer to that. I’d far rather see big infrastructure improvements, tax breaks and Government encouraging private sector start-ups and relocation in such places.
I remember seeing an article a few years back about the problem of crowding out in parts of the North - when you add the public sector to welfare and firms that are dependent on the public sector you were approaching 80-90% of the economy in some cases
3 GDPR actually offers guarantees for or the data of citizens in the EU from organisations in the EU or outside which deal with EU data. That offers security for companies who want to do contracts with EU companies, there is a reason the government has mirrored and implemented GDPR almost in full in DPA 2018
On the other hand, the ‘do you accept cookies?’ regulation on every website is pointless and highly annoying.
In practice, no web user ever has a choice to say ‘no’ unless they don’t want to use the internet, which is nigh-on impossible today.
You should be able to control which cookies (or rather, which classes of cookie) you accept but IRL most users, including this one, just hit accept rather than spend two minutes to say that I will take these but not those cookies. But take time to read the next pop-up you encounter to see if the choice is there.
Thanks. I didn’t know such level of choice existed.
It appears to be all or nothing on the face of it.
On zero hours contracts, careful wording of the legislation is important, but we all know what's meant. I take translation jobs from a list offered by agencies when I have time and I refrain when I don't. It'd be daft to make that illegal. But agencies don't hold it against me when I don't bid for a job, or expect me to hang about waiting in case they've got one. It's the compulsory element of formal zero-hours contracts (requiring one to refuse other work in case something comes up) which is pernicious.
Ultimately I think it comes down to power. For some sections of society, employees are just too weak against employers.
Govt needs to step in to help them, whether it be through minimum wages, health and safety regulation or whatever. And the gig economy has in some cases subverted certain employer protections, whilst also offering others more opportunities.
For things like say Amazon, I suspect the consumer just has to pay fractionally more for things so that the workers aren't treated in the way reports suggest they are. But for other companies like Uber, I'm sceptical whether their business model is compatible with what the law ought to be.
I’m not worried about Uber. In 10 years’ time, they won’t need to pay drivers because the cars will drive themselves.
But let’s keep importing unskilled labour, because it’s good for the economy...
"In 10 years’ time, they won’t need to pay drivers because the cars will drive themselves."
As I've argued passim, it'll take much longer. The systems they have at the moment are either poor, massively geofenced or both. Journalists are being deceived by smoke and mirrors.
In fact, 'self-driving cars in ten years' is going a little like 'productive nuclear fusion within thirty years': it seems to permanently remain that far away ...
Dr. Foxy, just on the gig economy: BBC segment last night presented it as exploited workers versus business, whereas the majority of those on zero hours contracts (as I recall from past polling) are entirely happy with them.
The problem comes, as I recall, when ‘employees’ on such contracts are told they MUST be available and can work for no-one else.
Isn't that already illegal? I thought that was outlawed years ago.
Not effectively - it's pure window-dressing. To quote from the detail of Josias's link:
"There are concerns that employers could still include clauses in contracts, stating that employees have to be available to work if required by the employer.
What happens if there is a breach? Nothing. The ban is not backed by any form of enforcement measure, workers have no form of redress against their employers who breach it. Furthermore, employers remain able to operate policies which reduce or cut completely, the hours of those who seek additional employment."
Wrong. Employees can go to a tribunal if the employer penalises then for ignoring that clause
He was having a very difficult tv interview when he admitted his plans would not allow frictionless trade, but the delays would not be too bad
The average time it takes customs to clear a non EU shipment at the current time is less than an hour.
JRM is right.
You agree then frictionless trade is gone under the ERG plan
And if so, our car and aerospace industry goes with it
Madness
There is certainly a (credible) argument that the UK should become an offshore global services hub, largely social/employment deregulated and highly dynamic, with little else. As Patrick Minford and others have (openly) said that would result in us losing most of our remaining manufacturing industry, which they say we should be relaxed about.
We could certainly do well under such a scenario and even end up quite well off, but I doubt there’s much political appetite for such a UK outside of a small minority.
I don't recall that being among the prominent arguments in favour of Brexit.
As for 'ending up' quite well off, how long might that take - and who precisely would end up well off (very probably not the majority of those who voted leave) ?
The pain of economic dislocations is rarely spread evenly. It was a notable feature of yesterday's IFS report on the crash that the (current) 30-39 year old group have average wages/salaries around £2000 less than their equivalent cohort a decade ago. No other group has seen anything anywhere even approaching that (though of course it's not possible to make a similar comparison for the current 20-30 year olds).
Presumably that’s a gross figure?
You need to take into account the increase in the personal allowance which will offset a good chunk of that
Dr. Foxy, just on the gig economy: BBC segment last night presented it as exploited workers versus business, whereas the majority of those on zero hours contracts (as I recall from past polling) are entirely happy with them.
The problem comes, as I recall, when ‘employees’ on such contracts are told they MUST be available and can work for no-one else.
Didn't the Government pledge to ensure that such "exclusivity" would be prevented?
I think the calls to ban all zero-hours contracts are a bit daft, given that it seems the people who work under such contracts are generally happy with them. Though that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a little more tightening up. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984
It might be the anger some show over non-exclusive ZHC's are people feeling angry on other people's behalf, without actually asking those people their views.
While such contracts are ‘banned’ your first link makes it clear that if an ‘employer’ offers one, there is no penalty. And, as Mr P points out there are situations where all sides recognise what is ‘fair and reasonable’ and abide by that. Many years ago I worked under such arrangements and was quite happy.
The bigger issue is that employers control who they give the hours to and when. If you are not particularly accommodating they will give most hours to someone else and keep you on just for situations where they can't find another body. There's no cost to them and it's difficult to legislate for that.
A long time ago I used to run a bar and function room. Priority on shifts would be always given to those who would work Saturday night, because that was when we needed people and when all the staff would take the night off if they could.
On zero hours contracts, careful wording of the legislation is important, but we all know what's meant. I take translation jobs from a list offered by agencies when I have time and I refrain when I don't. It'd be daft to make that illegal. But agencies don't hold it against me when I don't bid for a job, or expect me to hang about waiting in case they've got one. It's the compulsory element of formal zero-hours contracts (requiring one to refuse other work in case something comes up) which is pernicious.
Ultimately I think it comes down to power. For some sections of society, employees are just too weak against employers.
Govt needs to step in to help them, whether it be through minimum wages, health and safety regulation or whatever. And the gig economy has in some cases subverted certain employer protections, whilst also offering others more opportunities.
For things like say Amazon, I suspect the consumer just has to pay fractionally more for things so that the workers aren't treated in the way reports suggest they are. But for other companies like Uber, I'm sceptical whether their business model is compatible with what the law ought to be.
I’m not worried about Uber. In 10 years’ time, they won’t need to pay drivers because the cars will drive themselves.
But let’s keep importing unskilled labour, because it’s good for the economy...
"In 10 years’ time, they won’t need to pay drivers because the cars will drive themselves."
As I've argued passim, it'll take much longer. The systems they have at the moment are either poor, massively geofenced or both. Journalists are being deceived by smoke and mirrors.
In fact, 'self-driving cars in ten years' is going a little like 'productive nuclear fusion within thirty years': it seems to permanently remain that far away ...
See you in 10 years
I should add that I hope I'm wrong about this: driverless cars would be a real boon to me, as I don't particularly enjoy driving, but find it a vital skill. It's just that I think practical driverless cars are much further away than the hype suggests.
Comments
Very timely subject. I don't have much time this morning but the shorter length will make it easier to swallow. Ahem.
Insecure employment, without labour rights or prospects is perhaps an inevitable tendency of capitalism, but don't expect people to like it or to vote for it.
Conservative Britain is demonstrably rather successful at maintaining a high level of employment coupled with high levels of stress and insecurity. McDonnell's proposals would act to rebalance that and I'm sceptical that it would significantly impact employment. I don't think that as a society we are in such a critical situation that we have to tolerate bad conditions for part of the workforce.
I do agree with @archer101au's separate point that a sensible debate should include the possibility of tax increases. If income tax is a ratchet which only goes downwards then we cut ourselves off from part of a reasonable political dialogue.
My concern with Chequers is exactly this. We risk not getting the benefits of non EU membership without the protection of our own markets that being in the protectionist EU brings. We certainly need transitional provisions and we need to avoid a cliff edge but in the longer term we want to escape from this over regulation and eliminate these barriers to entry.
Yet the amount of 'red tape' seems to always increase. Has any government actually successfully tackled 'red tape', and might the increasing amount of 'red tape' actually be because most of it, aside from some egregious examples, be required?
So I’m pretty relaxed about it. For now. It basically returns our arrangement with the EU to the common market bit we like but without the political union, and effectively with independence in services and more control over migration.
I think it’s a fair enough deal. I know I’m in a minority.
I would hope that our post Brexit future does not approximate to 1960s Korea...
What that excellent piece linked to yesterday, Brexit and the British growth model, showed was that restrictions in labour are already resulting in increased investment in capital as an alternative. If that trend continues then more better paid, higher skilled jobs will be created at the cost of even more poorly paid jobs disappearing.
What I have noted in the employment figures is that the same shortage of labour in many parts of the country is incentivising employers to offer better terms resulting in reductions in the number of people on zero hours contracts and "self employment" with increases in full employment. By gradually increasing the rights of those who are open to exploitation at the moment we can encourage that welcome trend by reducing the differential cost to prospective employers.
But, I’ve been pretty consistent in saying that.
RE Jimmy Anderson
Brilliant new record but no commentator(that I have read) so far has mentioned that Jimmy did exactly the same thing when he took his 500th wicket
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHUIFTRix3c
On the other hand, some of his recipes are staples of ours.
We could certainly do well under such a scenario and even end up quite well off, but I doubt there’s much political appetite for such a UK outside of a small minority.
Businesses claim to dislike red-tape. But big businesses know that plenty of red-tape is considerably to their advantage. It raises the barrier to entry, and is much less burdensome to them than to market-disrupting upstarts.
So if in his early enthusiasm, a minister starts actually to threaten to remove business regulations (red-tape), he is gently advised by 'industry experts' that they are 'needed to protect the public'. It all becomes too difficult for a new minister, and he goes off and does something else. Sad, really.
I’m not sure if this is me being unreasonable or not but I just find his face and voice far too ubiquitous for my liking.
I wish he’d dial it back a bit.
As for 'ending up' quite well off, how long might that take - and who precisely would end up well off (very probably not the majority of those who voted leave) ?
The pain of economic dislocations is rarely spread evenly. It was a notable feature of yesterday's IFS report on the crash that the (current) 30-39 year old group have average wages/salaries around £2000 less than their equivalent cohort a decade ago.
No other group has seen anything anywhere even approaching that (though of course it's not possible to make a similar comparison for the current 20-30 year olds).
The problem is as much cultural as procedural. There are some who simply love following or policing process for its own sake, and discussing and debating the contents of the form, rather than focusing on outcomes, because they don’t see that as their job.
Some specials too, which shockingly mean odds on Leclerc on almost all of them (2.1 on an Oz podium is perhaps the least bad). He's 2.2 to be top 3 in next year's Drivers' title race. For comparison, Bottas, going into 2018, was 16.
Edited extra bit: ahem, Bottas was 16 for the title with a fifth the odds top 3 (so, 5/1, effectively 4/1 if you assume he won't actually win the title).
Firstly, it’s in the backroom drafting that most of the brokering is done, the voting is usually just the icing on the cake, and secondly the UK’s size and economic weight are such that the EU would be reluctant to risk passing a rule obviously not in our interests lest our Parliament refuse to pass it and we break away.
F1: nothing really tempts me at this stage (either for Singapore or the specials for next year).
It’s hard to escape any other conclusion than the North and regions are relatively starved of public and private investment.
I don’t think tax and redistribution is the right answer to that. I’d far rather see big infrastructure improvements, tax breaks and Government encouraging private sector start-ups and relocation in such places.
On zero hours contracts, careful wording of the legislation is important, but we all know what's meant. I take translation jobs from a list offered by agencies when I have time and I refrain when I don't. It'd be daft to make that illegal. But agencies don't hold it against me when I don't bid for a job, or expect me to hang about waiting in case they've got one. It's the compulsory element of formal zero-hours contracts (requiring one to refuse other work in case something comes up) which is pernicious.
For some sections of society, employees are just too weak against employers.
Govt needs to step in to help them, whether it be through minimum wages, health and safety regulation or whatever. And the gig economy has in some cases subverted certain employer protections, whilst also offering others more opportunities.
For things like say Amazon, I suspect the consumer just has to pay fractionally more for things so that the workers aren't treated in the way reports suggest they are. But for other companies like Uber, I'm sceptical whether their business model is compatible with what the law ought to be.
The key issue is who is in control.
http://www.pumpcourtchambers.com/blog/exclusive-zero-hours-contracts-banned
I think the calls to ban all zero-hours contracts are a bit daft, given that it seems the people who work under such contracts are generally happy with them. Though that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a little more tightening up.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984
It might be the anger some show over non-exclusive ZHC's are people feeling angry on other people's behalf, without actually asking those people their views.
Hannan has argued for EFTA and said he could reluctantly tolerate Chequers, although of course that isn’t his ideal world.
I have a number of friends who were adamant "stop talking to me avout fucking Indy" No voters who have switched to yes since the Brexit vote but the polling shows that is not a huge number amongst the population at large.
Yet I feel there is still a kind of "it won't really happen" thought process going on in the population at large, the belief that we are going to Soft Brexit really, and that a Hard Brexit may trigger the Scott P's of this world to do a searching re-examination of their Unionism.
And, as Mr P points out there are situations where all sides recognise what is ‘fair and reasonable’ and abide by that. Many years ago I worked under such arrangements and was quite happy.
Meritocracy is not a pleasant place for the large mass of Britons with below average skills and intelligence, even if it works well for the majority of us intellectual elite on PB. A society that fails to make a decent life for such people is setting itself up for a lot of social unrest. Don't expect them to respect a system that doesnt respect them back.
People use ZHC's as professional offence taking and political point scoring. The fact we're still debating an issue that has been illegal for years demonstrates that - those who complain loudest aren't actually on ZHC's so they don't realise what is complained about is already illegal.
In practice, no web user ever has a choice to say ‘no’ unless they don’t want to use the internet, which is nigh-on impossible today.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1039777554574524416
The Chicago Tribune now blocks IP's for the EU.
But let’s keep importing unskilled labour, because it’s good for the economy...
1) Driverless cars will not be common in the UK in 10 years' time.
2) Uber will go bankrupt in the next 10 years.
You need to take into account the increase in the personal allowance which will offset a good chunk of that
As I've argued passim, it'll take much longer. The systems they have at the moment are either poor, massively geofenced or both. Journalists are being deceived by smoke and mirrors.
In fact, 'self-driving cars in ten years' is going a little like 'productive nuclear fusion within thirty years': it seems to permanently remain that far away ...
"There are concerns that employers could still include clauses in contracts, stating that employees have to be available to work if required by the employer.
What happens if there is a breach? Nothing. The ban is not backed by any form of enforcement measure, workers have no form of redress against their employers who breach it. Furthermore, employers remain able to operate policies which reduce or cut completely, the hours of those who seek additional employment."
Exclusivity was a real issue. Take that away - rightly - and you have a flexibility that suits those who want to juggle various things in life. I have a friend who does wildlife walks, as and when the numbers/weather allow and works on a ZHC the rest of the time.
As always, zero hour contracts are useful for some (it’s just a fancy name for an age old practice). My sister, for example, is an “overspill” solicitor for a couple of her former colleagues which she can fit around being a Mum and earn some useful extra cash.
But certain unethical companies - in this case I don’t think Amazon is the worst but instead firms like Uber - saw it as an opportunity to take advantage of their staff.
The issue is actually with the culture of the firm and the management more than the precise form the abuse takes, but in the absence of being able to fix that (although licence negotiations may help) you have to address the symptom
https://twitter.com/MrKennethClarke/status/1039631496909402113
It appears to be all or nothing on the face of it.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1039773803600138240
NEW THREAD