Companies getting fat contracts and cutting costs by using "volunteers".
It was more in relation to the stewarding duties.
Pretty sure I saw adverts years ago for volunteers.
And are you sure they are cutting costs?
One of the things I heard years ago, in relation to something. Was that it sometimes was more expensive to use volunteers than employ people because of the unreliability, lack of being able to ask for references, qualifications and organisation involved.
Is this a joke? Because I'm missing the punchline.
The vast majority - royalist or republican - have seen what the individuals have gone through and been disgusted at how these individuals have been treated. Without the need to bring the Queen or patriotism into it.
If it is considered patriotic to be exploited, messed about and stripped of dignity, think I'll launch a raft to a civilised society that gives a damn to people doing work.
I'd say it's a very American tactic. We all know the Republicans try to paint the Democratics as 'un-American' in an effort to try to dupe and confuse the electrorate!
Maybe it's our future? Doubt it though. We tend not to fall for stuff like this.
I think the point about being a volunteer is that volunteers are quite happy to put up with what's being offered.
Why the hell should it be up to anyone else to take issue on their behalf?
Mind your own business and let people mind theirs.
Well you are wrong there, people need to be protected from exploitation. Why. Because that is what a moral society does. People can be manipulated because of their beliefs, their patrioitism, etc. that is why we have laws. The fact that you want to defend the exploitation of people and wish to stop people acting on behalf of the exploited shows you for what you are. A parasite who believes that other people ( heaven forfend that it would happen to you) are there to be exploited. You do realise that you have a personality disorder , don't you
Average house pricing at 8 times the CURRENT average salary.
We cant have a race to the bottom , because our infrastructures base cost of living precludes it. You see, if a company pays someone £2 an hour, that isnt enough to live on, so guess who picks up the tab. Tax payers, in working tax credits.
Superwomble is basically asking for less cost to business at the expense of drastic raises in taxation to cover the benefits required to make up for the wages defecit.
In other words, the largest corporate benefit scheme in history.
Its odd that people being subsidised by tax is 'scroungers' and bad, but businesses being subsidised by massive benefit expenditure is some panacea.
That, or the poster in question hasnt a clue of the economics of the lowest wages possible.
Actually, I think you are somewhat misreading me. If anything, I would like to see a fall in taxation of as much as possible. Not through any idealistic notion, but sheer competitive common sense.
I believe in small government and high efficiency, which will deliver a far greater level of national wealth creation. I cannot see how that equates to businesses being subsidised.
I absolutely agree in principle, but it isnt actually what has been happening. Far east countries like China have been waging an economic war against us - they have not only been producing cheap goods, they have been completely eliminating all competition by pricing it utterly out of the market.
To defend ourselves against such tactics we needed to level the playing field at the country level, not at the domestic wages level, which is basically artificial, and absolutely playing to the strengths of the importers. Now that they have the upper hand, and the debts are with us - we are being very limited in our room to maneouvre, and are being forced to play them at their own game instead.
The important thing was not to put ourselves at debt disadvantage in the first place. It weakens our hand.
Unfortunately , the corporations sold our future for short term gain ( most probably spent on unneeded luxury goods and vast quantities of cocaine). Now they want us to pay for their greed
But it IS the end point of not having decent conditions for our workers. You say that our pay and conditions stop us competing, which logically suggests that not having decent pay and conditions would allow us to be more competitive. If we don't defend these pay and conditions, then we will indeed see exploitative conditions emerging in the UK.
Well you are wrong there, people need to be protected from exploitation. Why. Because that is what a moral society does. People can be manipulated because of their beliefs, their patrioitism, etc. that is why we have laws. The fact that you want to defend the exploitation of people and wish to stop people acting on behalf of the exploited shows you for what you are. A parasite who believes that other people ( heaven forfend that it would happen to you) are there to be exploited. You do realise that you have a personality disorder , don't you
Unfortunately , the corporations sold our future for short term gain ( most probably spent on unneeded luxury goods and vast quantities of cocaine). Now they want us to pay for their greed
Its funny, I actually know some of the corporate managers you speak of, and I really dont recognise any of that, except maybe in very small stupid areas of undermanagement.
Surely you realise that if they were that stupid, apart from very likely being exposed in the media and going to jail, they actually would be exposing their own corporations to destruction, ruin and takeover?
Also, I doubt many shareholders would want a manager controlling their investments who is a cokehead.
I have known it in upper tiers of public service though. They dont seem to think it matters, after all, they get paid regardless.
But it IS the end point of not having decent conditions for our workers. You say that our pay and conditions stop us competing, which logically suggests that not having decent pay and conditions would allow us to be more competitive. If we don't defend these pay and conditions, then we will indeed see exploitative conditions emerging in the UK.
Therefore, the lowest common denominator wins.
My point is HOW you protect your workers. The minimum wage doesnt.
Its funny, I actually know some of the corporate managers you speak of, and I really dont recognise any of that, except maybe in very small stupid areas of undermanagement.
Surely you realise that if they were that stupid, apart from very likely being exposed in the media and going to jail, they actually would be exposing their own corporations to destruction, ruin and takeover?
Also, I doubt many shareholders would want a manager controlling their investments who is a cokehead.
I have known it in upper tiers of public service though. They dont seem to think it matters, after all, they get paid regardless.
Trouble is if you have no humanity, you do take those risks. Enron anyone, news international anyone, the big banks etc. do you not think that the demise of big corporations( except when corporate welfare saves them) proves my point?
Its funny, I actually know some of the corporate managers you speak of, and I really dont recognise any of that, except maybe in very small stupid areas of undermanagement.
Surely you realise that if they were that stupid, apart from very likely being exposed in the media and going to jail, they actually would be exposing their own corporations to destruction, ruin and takeover?
Also, I doubt many shareholders would want a manager controlling their investments who is a cokehead.
I have known it in upper tiers of public service though. They dont seem to think it matters, after all, they get paid regardless.
Ps there was a study that showed the consumption ( in Wall Street ) of cocaine coincided with the market's unbridled gains.
I think someone has no moral compass, if you think the general populace should pay the costs of one section of society's unbridled greed.
Maybe it's just that I don't share your moral compass? And believe people should chose for themselves what they volunteer to do.
I'll let you into a little secret, there's no written tablets of stone that makes your opinion more right than others. If you can't cope with that knowledge I'd suggest you don't comment on discussion forums.
Oh dear, another shameful attempt to try and turn anger against Tom Watson MP by declaring him to be anti-Monarchy which is quite blatantly false.
I warned today the Tories and their commentators would turn to desperate measures to smear opponents of exploitation and workfare as "republican" and "anti-Royalist". They have not disappointed.
Maybe it's just that I don't share your moral compass? And believe people should chose for themselves what they volunteer to do.
I'll let you into a little secret, there's no written tablets of stone that makes your opinion more right than others. If you can't cope with that knowledge I'd suggest you don't comment on discussion forums.
Me think you protesteth too much. You have every right to disagree and put up your point of view, just don't blame people for seeing you for what you are, after all it is your own words that have shown you, to other people, what you are.
Me think you protestesteth too much. You have every right to disagree and put up your point of view, just don't blame people for seeing you for what you are, after all it is your own words that have shown you, to other people, what you are.
Then why the need for you to point it out?
It does break the T's and C's.
Luckily for you I'm feeling mellow as I am in a good mood after enjoying the Jubilee.:)
Your attack was complete hyperbole, you need to get out more, perhaps you should think about voluntering somewhere?
Actually, I think you are somewhat misreading me. If anything, I would like to see a fall in taxation of as much as possible. Not through any idealistic notion, but sheer competitive common sense..
Then why are you clamouring for lower wages, because that is guaranteed to do one thing.
Increase benefit dependence, which means increasing taxation to pay for it.
The only thing low wages does is transfer the cost of living for employees from the employers to the tax payer.
We are already using tax payers money to subsidise the likes of tescos , by paying working tax credits to people working for them rather than those companies paying a living wage.
You want to expand that, put MORE burden on the benefit system to subsidise companies paying even less AND you want less taxation .
Everything you suggest can only lead to larger benefit bills and higher tax to pay for it.
Because you cannot defend your opinions?:rolleyes:
Already have, post 243.
"And believe people should chose for themselves what they volunteer to do".
Your turn.
Perhaps you'd like to defend calling a FM a "parasite" and accusing them of "having a personality disorder".
BTW are you a doctor/psychiatrist? If you are you must be very, very good to make such a diognosis over a couple of posts on a forum.
Your talents are obviously being wasted here.
"And believe people should chose for themselves what they volunteer to do".
Your turn.
Perhaps you'd like to defend calling a FM a "parasite" and accusing them of "having a personality disorder".
BTW are you a doctor/psychiatrist? If you are you must be very, very good to make such a diognosis over a couple of posts on a forum.
Your talents are obviously being wasted here.
Nope just something anyone could see.
Why do you think we have laws. They are there to protect people from other people and also to protect people from themselves. that is one of the cornerstones of our society. Why you feel that it should all be ignored , to enrich some company , is up to you but do expect people to draw inferences from that.
Nope just something anyone could see.
Why do you think we have laws. They are there to protect people from other people and also to protect people from themselves. that is one of the cornerstones of our society. Why you feel that it should all be ignored , to enrich some company , is up to you but do expect people to draw inferences from that.
Since when do we have laws to protect people from themselves without there being some kind of process of seeing whether people need that protection?
Hell, there's an extremely long thread discussing the overweight teenager that discusses that very thing. Without an order showing she needs protection from herself, she can't be compelled to lose weight by commital to a psych ward.
The thing is I think it's you who wants to govern what people can and can't volunteer for without there being any need to show whether it's detrimental to them.
You have, in your wisdom, decided that you know best. As well as having a morality that everybody should follow and if they don't you can call them names and make snap judgements about them.
Comments
It was more in relation to the stewarding duties.
Pretty sure I saw adverts years ago for volunteers.
And are you sure they are cutting costs?
One of the things I heard years ago, in relation to something. Was that it sometimes was more expensive to use volunteers than employ people because of the unreliability, lack of being able to ask for references, qualifications and organisation involved.
More trouble than it was worth basically.
I'd say it's a very American tactic. We all know the Republicans try to paint the Democratics as 'un-American' in an effort to try to dupe and confuse the electrorate!
Maybe it's our future? Doubt it though. We tend not to fall for stuff like this.
Well you are wrong there, people need to be protected from exploitation. Why. Because that is what a moral society does. People can be manipulated because of their beliefs, their patrioitism, etc. that is why we have laws. The fact that you want to defend the exploitation of people and wish to stop people acting on behalf of the exploited shows you for what you are. A parasite who believes that other people ( heaven forfend that it would happen to you) are there to be exploited. You do realise that you have a personality disorder , don't you
Actually, I think you are somewhat misreading me. If anything, I would like to see a fall in taxation of as much as possible. Not through any idealistic notion, but sheer competitive common sense.
I believe in small government and high efficiency, which will deliver a far greater level of national wealth creation. I cannot see how that equates to businesses being subsidised.
But it IS the end point of not having decent conditions for our workers. You say that our pay and conditions stop us competing, which logically suggests that not having decent pay and conditions would allow us to be more competitive. If we don't defend these pay and conditions, then we will indeed see exploitative conditions emerging in the UK.
Therefore, the lowest common denominator wins.
lol.
I think somebody has jumped the shark.:D
Its funny, I actually know some of the corporate managers you speak of, and I really dont recognise any of that, except maybe in very small stupid areas of undermanagement.
Surely you realise that if they were that stupid, apart from very likely being exposed in the media and going to jail, they actually would be exposing their own corporations to destruction, ruin and takeover?
Also, I doubt many shareholders would want a manager controlling their investments who is a cokehead.
I have known it in upper tiers of public service though. They dont seem to think it matters, after all, they get paid regardless.
My point is HOW you protect your workers. The minimum wage doesnt.
I think someone has no moral compass, if you think the general populace should pay the costs of one section of society's unbridled greed.
I think it does, but we need to do more on a national level - things like making export cheaper, etc.
That MW isn't the whole solution doesn't mean it's not a protection.
Trouble is if you have no humanity, you do take those risks. Enron anyone, news international anyone, the big banks etc. do you not think that the demise of big corporations( except when corporate welfare saves them) proves my point?
You compete on quality, not cost.
Ps there was a study that showed the consumption ( in Wall Street ) of cocaine coincided with the market's unbridled gains.
Maybe it's just that I don't share your moral compass? And believe people should chose for themselves what they volunteer to do.
I'll let you into a little secret, there's no written tablets of stone that makes your opinion more right than others. If you can't cope with that knowledge I'd suggest you don't comment on discussion forums.
I warned today the Tories and their commentators would turn to desperate measures to smear opponents of exploitation and workfare as "republican" and "anti-Royalist". They have not disappointed.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/rowena-mason/9314929/Diamond-Jubilee-celebrations-were-a-show-of-opulence-says-Labour-deputy-chairman-Tom-Watson.html
Me think you protesteth too much. You have every right to disagree and put up your point of view, just don't blame people for seeing you for what you are, after all it is your own words that have shown you, to other people, what you are.
Then why the need for you to point it out?
It does break the T's and C's.
Luckily for you I'm feeling mellow as I am in a good mood after enjoying the Jubilee.:)
Your attack was complete hyperbole, you need to get out more, perhaps you should think about voluntering somewhere?
Then why are you clamouring for lower wages, because that is guaranteed to do one thing.
Increase benefit dependence, which means increasing taxation to pay for it.
The only thing low wages does is transfer the cost of living for employees from the employers to the tax payer.
We are already using tax payers money to subsidise the likes of tescos , by paying working tax credits to people working for them rather than those companies paying a living wage.
You want to expand that, put MORE burden on the benefit system to subsidise companies paying even less AND you want less taxation .
Everything you suggest can only lead to larger benefit bills and higher tax to pay for it.
Nice to see you back tracking, did you have a good look at your opinions?
How is that backtracking?
Because you cannot defend your opinions?:rolleyes:
Already have, post 243.
"And believe people should chose for themselves what they volunteer to do".
Your turn.
Perhaps you'd like to defend calling a FM a "parasite" and accusing them of "having a personality disorder".
BTW are you a doctor/psychiatrist? If you are you must be very, very good to make such a diognosis over a couple of posts on a forum.
Your talents are obviously being wasted here.
Why do you think we have laws. They are there to protect people from other people and also to protect people from themselves. that is one of the cornerstones of our society. Why you feel that it should all be ignored , to enrich some company , is up to you but do expect people to draw inferences from that.
Since when do we have laws to protect people from themselves without there being some kind of process of seeing whether people need that protection?
Hell, there's an extremely long thread discussing the overweight teenager that discusses that very thing. Without an order showing she needs protection from herself, she can't be compelled to lose weight by commital to a psych ward.
The thing is I think it's you who wants to govern what people can and can't volunteer for without there being any need to show whether it's detrimental to them.
You have, in your wisdom, decided that you know best. As well as having a morality that everybody should follow and if they don't you can call them names and make snap judgements about them.