Re: Zero hours contracts : Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:02 pm  

Murdoch wrote:

No, what you want is what you class as fair.

Still, you want to pay people to look after their own children? There's a Chris Rock sketch in there somewhere.

Show me where I said I want parents paid to look after their own child?

Re: Zero hours contracts : Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:03 pm  

Murdoch wrote:

Ah, there you go again, he doesn't agree with whatever I say, TROOOOLLLL!

Pay attention, darling, and do so with a modicum of care.

Your previous identity is still banned. I am entirely happy to ban this one too, since I know who you are.

It's up to you.

If you want to contribute genuine debating points to this forum, then do so. Let's see if you can learn from experience.

At present, you're not suggesting that you can.

By the way, it's really rather cute that you were so desperate to be back on this forum; that you missed it/us. So if you were that desperate, try to make an effort. There's a good chap.

Re: Zero hours contracts : Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:07 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Pay attention, darling, and do so with a modicum of care.

Your previous identity is still banned. I am entirely happy to ban this one too, since I know who you are.

It's up to you.

If you want to contribute genuine debating points to this forum, then do so. Let's see if you can learn from experience.

At present, you're not suggesting that you can.

By the way, it's really rather cute that you were so desperate to be back on this forum; that you missed it/us. So if you were that desperate, try to make an effort. There's a good chap.

You show me any post I've made that's trolling?

Over to you.

Re: Zero hours contracts : Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:08 pm  

Hull White Star wrote:

Show me where I said I want parents paid to look after their own child?

*sigh*

So you don't mind then that your income tax is going to be used to give childcare vouchers to parents with an income upto £300,000 pa but not to stay at home mothers who will receive nothing? I'd be hopping mad.

Re: Zero hours contracts : Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:09 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Pay attention, darling, and do so with a modicum of care.

Your previous identity is still banned. I am entirely happy to ban this one too, since I know who you are.

It's up to you.

If you want to contribute genuine debating points to this forum, then do so. Let's see if you can learn from experience.

At present, you're not suggesting that you can.

By the way, it's really rather cute that you were so desperate to be back on this forum; that you missed it/us. So if you were that desperate, try to make an effort. There's a good chap.

Come on Minty, spill the beans, who was he?

Re: Zero hours contracts : Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:13 pm  

Ovavoo wrote:

Come on Minty, spill the beans, who was he?

No.

That would be in breech of data protection etc.

However, this ID is no more.

Re: Zero hours contracts : Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:13 pm  

Murdoch wrote:

*sigh*

I didn't say they should get money too, did I? I asked why should any household that has an income of £300,00 get something and a household that a parent stays at home get nothing. {{Sigh}}

Re: Zero hours contracts : Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:15 pm  

An endorsement of the benefits of zero hours contracts from Katie Hopkins is sufficient reason to outlaw them totally

An endorsement of the benefits of zero hours contracts from Katie Hopkins is sufficient reason to outlaw them totally

Re: Zero hours contracts : Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:16 pm  

Murdoch wrote:

... What I don't do is bleat about how hard up the average worker is and the exploitations that befall them, while tippy tappying on a keyboard built by exploited workers...

The vacuous Louise Mensch argument.

What you actually don't do is care about anyone but yourself.
You're "fine with that" as long as you don't pay more tax.

The ultimate Tory, happy as long as it doesn't affect you personally.

Re: Zero hours contracts : Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:51 pm  

cod'ead wrote: An endorsement of the benefits of zero hours contracts from Katie Hopkins is sufficient reason to outlaw them totally To quote from the deluded womans article ... A zero hours contract reduces a number of employment provisions; notice periods and unfair dismissal can be avoided. Wages are driven down, pension and sickness benefits are limited. Meanwhile the company can maintain an on call workforce that take nothing for granted and understand their next shift is dependent on their performance at their last. I am always amazed by the resilience of my self employed colleagues: recognising they cannot take a holiday without paying the price, forever on call, always saying yes to work, working weekends, anti social hours, always charming, polite, gracious. A couple of points - I had my own business for 23 years, I employed staff, and after the business ceased trading I always said, and still say, that I would not employ another person in another venture, so some of this may seem hypocritical - so be it. The attitude of the woman in the quote is simply rubbish and despite her self written Wiki article I cannot find any mention of what sort of business she is involved in, judging by the Wiki article she is a mouthpiece who seeks attention from morning TV chat shows by finding controversial subjects and being controversial on them - that isn't really a business, its earning money through being a tw*t on TV, but its not really a business and the fact that she then goes on to describe one of her "staff" as a self employed make-up artist who prepares her for TV interviews makes me think that actually, I don't think she she is anything like the "business woman" in the intro title block of her Guardian article - there is no business dear, its you trolling the media. Given that, its pretty pointless reacting to her words, they were only generated for publicity and repeated by a media desperate for characters like her.

cod'ead wrote: An endorsement of the benefits of zero hours contracts from Katie Hopkins is sufficient reason to outlaw them totally To quote from the deluded womans article ... A zero hours contract reduces a number of employment provisions; notice periods and unfair dismissal can be avoided. Wages are driven down, pension and sickness benefits are limited. Meanwhile the company can maintain an on call workforce that take nothing for granted and understand their next shift is dependent on their performance at their last. I am always amazed by the resilience of my self employed colleagues: recognising they cannot take a holiday without paying the price, forever on call, always saying yes to work, working weekends, anti social hours, always charming, polite, gracious. A couple of points - I had my own business for 23 years, I employed staff, and after the business ceased trading I always said, and still say, that I would not employ another person in another venture, so some of this may seem hypocritical - so be it. The attitude of the woman in the quote is simply rubbish and despite her self written Wiki article I cannot find any mention of what sort of business she is involved in, judging by the Wiki article she is a mouthpiece who seeks attention from morning TV chat shows by finding controversial subjects and being controversial on them - that isn't really a business, its earning money through being a tw*t on TV, but its not really a business and the fact that she then goes on to describe one of her "staff" as a self employed make-up artist who prepares her for TV interviews makes me think that actually, I don't think she she is anything like the "business woman" in the intro title block of her Guardian article - there is no business dear, its you trolling the media. Given that, its pretty pointless reacting to her words, they were only generated for publicity and repeated by a media desperate for characters like her.