Keith Houchen Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Re the minimum wages re Maccies for example. Then it would have to be discussed after the job offer afaik and not before hand. Because of all the discriminatory schtick that is in place as mentioned before. Yes it can implied and inferred but wont be set in stone It would be. Must like the Working Time Directive, you will be told at the interview stage what the position entails and asked it would be a problem, if it would then don't expect a second interview. I know this first hand, in regards to the WTD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Well it didn't go through, this is pleasing. I can see where pat's coming from to a degree, in that I can understand his reasoning in some cases, he's wrong of course, and it comes from not really understanding the issues he's discussing. But as the token believer in conservative policies he's a hell of alot better than happ, so we should probably be thankful for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share Posted June 17, 2011 But as the token believer in conservative policies he's a hell of alot better than happ, so we should probably be thankful for that. Happ's suspension is over, isn't it? Yet he hasn't returned. Maybe he's gotten back onto the Guardian forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I said months ago that these people were neo-cons and nobody fucking listened because they're thrown off by, to bastardise Stewart Lee's turn of phrase, weather-cock politics. Let's not be fooled, if this came out of the Bush administration, everybody would have been up in arms. Â EDIT: And the opt-out of the 48 hour working week means that your company does not have to record the times you work. If you opt-in, they have to exactly log and make available the data of when you start and finish work, when you take a break and such like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vito Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Ayes - 5 Noes - 33 Â It won't get a second reading, thank fuck. They'll be back, and in greater numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrasslin Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Ayes - 5 Noes - 33 Â It won't get a second reading, thank fuck. They'll be back, and in greater numbers. Â I'm not ashamed to say i giggled at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted June 17, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 17, 2011 But as the token believer in conservative policies he's a hell of alot better than happ, so we should probably be thankful for that. Happ's suspension is over, isn't it? Yet he hasn't returned. Maybe he's gotten back onto the Guardian forum! Â Happ's on the F4W forum throwing out "facts" about the conditions of ex-soldiers, no-selling when he's corrected, then explaining why man-for-man British soldiers are better than American ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philo_Vance Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 This is a bit related. Don't have enough energy or vitriol left in me to write much about it, but as a friend just put it to me, why isn't this fucker hanging from a lamppost somewhere? Â Tory MP suggests disabled people offer to work for below minimum wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Getting a job IS doing something for yourself - I don't think it's unreasonable to say that protecting people from exploitation is spoon feeding them.  What explotation? Who is being exploited in this theoretical discussion? What I see here is alot of implied exploitation justfication based on what MIGHT COULD POSSIBLE MAY POTENTIALLY happen should this at Some possibly go ahead on the off chance its raining and its a month ending in Q.  Put out a different discussion and its just a case of not 'getting it' because its 'oh so serious' and you couldnt possibly understand the thematics of what a grave and dire situation this is.. rather isnt cos at present it isnt happening is it? Keffuffling over nothing. Its like fucking oldwives nattering over garden fences in days gone by getting worked up over assumed badness and worry warts rather than say sack it deal with if and when it happens.   Funnily enough I thought I covered the getting the job thing with regards to my own situation. Yes I would love to work, and yes it is doing something for yourself, but just because you have one doesnt mean you have to stay there if you think its shit or put up with things. Yes it is more complicated than that with dependents and bills and what not, it can be done though and that is my point.   Its like the point goes right over your head.  You have to work more hours to earn the same money as before. The ammount you need to live on. F*ck comforts, just to afford to eat and pay your bills. Wages are disclosed during an interview BTW, so it would be sorted then before an offer of eomplyment is made.  The benefits thing... again you miss the point. If a job is so low paid that they cant live on it then why will they come off of benefits? Whats the encouragement for them? What kind of idiot puts their 'self respect' above feeding their family?  No, its like you missed my point completely, in this discussion people have said money to live and get by and whatever and assumed it is always more than what you have got. This ties in with afaik a capitalist view point that the more money you have the better things are? May be it isnt but thats what im getting, more money equals better less money equals worse and is bad.  Ive tried to say that maybe it isnt bad and maybe people could learn to manage the money they do get better. Yes we are talking primarily about the poverty stricken and the poor and whatnot and yes its a fucking struggle day to day. Doesnt mean that people have suddenly become incapable  Regarding wages. Ive never had an interview yet where salary is discussed and I dont know (m)any cases where it is mentioned specifically.. Its usually mentioned in the advert and then again in the acceptance letter. Again Im lead to believe other than some sales interviews asking how much you are going to get or whatever or negotiations are not really the done thing and are frowned upon. Youve applied for a position, doesnt take two seconds to see how much the money will be before the interview takes place and shows poor skills in terms of taking an interest in the company you supposedly want to work for.  Did you not read the bit about the whole market forces and the 'supposed' back up to going to employment? You know that promise of whatever job you are in you will be better off than when on benefits. It may well be bollocks and never happen either but there are already cases where it does happen and can happen. So the encouragement is already there. The self respect thing is more common than you think or at least was. Perhaps its an old fashioned attitude I dont know, but plenty of cases of I dont need or want this shit so fuck it or finding something better and moving on. Its not always as black and white as ooh i must work in a shit job and shit wages so I can put food on the fucking table. Sure it happens, but there is always a different way or view point and not a case of just stereotyping people because they are poor and stuck in the poverty trap.   David, Your a real pal. Love you too schnookums You bring it on yourself Pat. Get a grip.  Ive got one thanks.. Waiting for the next tablets pub girl quip cos its soooooo exciting, you dullard   Re the minimum wages re Maccies for example. Then it would have to be discussed after the job offer afaik and not before hand. Because of all the discriminatory schtick that is in place as mentioned before. Yes it can implied and inferred but wont be set in stone It would be. Must like the Working Time Directive, you will be told at the interview stage what the position entails and asked it would be a problem, if it would then don't expect a second interview. I know this first hand, in regards to the WTD.  See the second sentence.. its not overt is it. You know the reason why you didnt get it, but it wasnt explicitly said. This already exists now, So what would actually be changing should something like that happens.   Well it didn't go through, this is pleasing. I can see where pat's coming from to a degree, in that I can understand his reasoning in some cases, he's wrong of course, and it comes from not really understanding the issues he's discussing. But as the token believer in conservative policies he's a hell of alot better than happ, so we should probably be thankful for that.  Well at least Im trying to come up with a different view point. Im not a conservative as it happens ( was all the supposed and sly digs and what is meant to be occurring and what actually is happening not indicative of that?) I just fancied engaging in a debate and throwing something else out there this afternoon.  For all this 'not understanding the issues Im discussing' and so on there is a surprising amount of silence to what it actually is ( aits for its been pointed out what it is retorts,) 'Oi Thicko you dont know what you are talking about, we've said what we believe is right and shared a commonality about what it is that should be the right way. Something else comes along and its wrong because its different or ' not understanding'. I understand. Im just not blind panicking over it like some seem to be doing because its such a complete asshole thing to do. Get rid of the minimum wage, its all going tits up and people will have to work longer to make what they do now. Seeing as we are in an era of effective pay cuts, anyway its simply a larger scale version of that. People will be worse off and the system/companies/government or whatever are going to win and its the people that should win. So in that case whats actually fucking new? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 But as the token believer in conservative policies he's a hell of alot better than happ, so we should probably be thankful for that. Happ's suspension is over, isn't it? Yet he hasn't returned. Maybe he's gotten back onto the Guardian forum! Â Â Hee, maybe so. Either way, his absence does help the place quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Re the minimum wages re Maccies for example. Then it would have to be discussed after the job offer afaik and not before hand. Because of all the discriminatory schtick that is in place as mentioned before. Yes it can implied and inferred but wont be set in stone It would be. Must like the Working Time Directive, you will be told at the interview stage what the position entails and asked it would be a problem, if it would then don't expect a second interview. I know this first hand, in regards to the WTD. Â Me too. Had I not accepted it, I wouldn't have got the job at where I work. It was actually written into the employment contract! Â So it effectively nullifies the legistlation; just as this bill would have nullified the minimum wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Re the minimum wages re Maccies for example. Then it would have to be discussed after the job offer afaik and not before hand. Because of all the discriminatory schtick that is in place as mentioned before. Yes it can implied and inferred but wont be set in stone It would be. Must like the Working Time Directive, you will be told at the interview stage what the position entails and asked it would be a problem, if it would then don't expect a second interview. I know this first hand, in regards to the WTD. Â See the second sentence.. its not overt is it. You know the reason why you didnt get it, but it wasnt explicitly said. This already exists now, So what would actually be changing should something like that happens. Â I was countering your notion that it would be discussed after the job offer, that isn't the case. Also it was very overt, it was "You will have to opt out of the WTD if you want this job" and that isn't discrimatory as you put it. Â Also, for the record, I was offered the job. And if you can't see the difference between working longer hours with a set minimum wage, thus getting more pay and working the same job for less money then God help you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Must like the Working Time Directive, you will be told at the interview stage what the position entails and asked it would be a problem, if it would then don't expect a second interview. I know this first hand, in regards to the WTD. Â I was countering your notion that it would be discussed after the job offer, that isn't the case. Also it was very overt, it was "You will have to opt out of the WTD if you want this job" and that isn't discrimatory as you put it. Â Also, for the record, I was offered the job. And if you can't see the difference between working longer hours with a set minimum wage, thus getting more pay and working the same job for less money then God help you. Â Fair does, not come across it so will stand corrected. As for the offered the job it read to me that you didnt get it, because of the wont get a second interview comment. Â As for the difference, yes, I do get it. I was trivialising in my own head that it would be tantamount to signing a form ala the WTD saying you waiver the right to the minimum wage to opt out as it were, and not mentioning the difference between the two explicitly and I guess that came across as not knowing the difference. This is due to me not always putting down eloquently what is going on in my head on the page in a coherent manner and forgetting what I was thiking about halfway through writing something so when reading back it makes sense but Ive not put down what I was thinking at the time as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.