Sal Paradise wrote:
Or you could simply take money off your members give it to the labour party and get your influence that way!!
Venture capitalists/private equity are parasites - but even you don't believe the child labour stuff!!
How much trades union legislation did the last Labour governments rescind? It is also worth remembering that trades union members have to opt
in to any party political levy. That is just one of the laws that was not changed.
There we three proposals from Beecroft in his original 'draft' that we're subsequently removed by the government. One was to remove regulation on child employment.
Now, given that the entire doe service was supposed to be about boosting the economy, what has that got to do with it?
How many employers are out there wanting to employ children (in roles that, presumably, an unemployed adult cannot take on), but who are not doing so because of laws regulating child employment?
It must be a fair few if it's going to have any discernible impact on the economy - otherwise, why make the proposal?
Oh, I doubt we're going to see children up chimneys any day soon, but in that case, why the proposal? What aspect of the economŷ is affected negatively by the regulation of child employment?
Or would there be some other reason behind such a suggestion?
And more generally: just how do countries with far greater levels of trade union and employment rights manage if these are the things stopping the economy?
