Re: State Funeral for Thatcher : Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:11 am  

Mintball wrote:

A while ago, on here, I asked someone (sal paradise, IIRC) to provide just one actual example of how legislation on unfair dismissal had stopped an employer form taking on a new members of staff. Unless I missed it, there was no response from him – or anyone else.

can't speak for the uk but my own personal case is this - that is to say,a true story

I was effectively sacked by my company last year - this was 6th april (I found another job in may fortunately) the local employment service deemed the dismissal as 'unfair' and I received 15 years worth of settlement for my time served which also opened the door to three years dole money because I am over 50 at 65% of the previous salary.In addition I immediately filed for 'unfair dismissal' with the Workers Tribunal (Les Prudhommes) through my union and the case which I am guaranteed to at least partly win cos' the previous empoyers solicitors have told me means that the company is not allowed by french law to employ someone to take my place until the 7th april 2012,ie twelve months after my dismissal.

Sarko is a neo-liberal t**t, who is apparently too thick to see what has happened as a result of nei-liberal policies elsewhere or simply doesn't give one about the people he is supposed to represent.

Why is becoming self-employed supposed to be so good? And what are all the jobs that did not allow for self-employment but do now? I've been self-employed for a decade now – because I had pretty much no option. It's not some bed of roses and can be an absolute financial nightmare. Why promote something that will lead to less security for many? How is this beneficial to society?


i'm not saying self-employment is good or bad just pointing out that the legislation by that t**t Sarko has attempted to make it easier to allow people the opportunity if they wish

I know many of french as well as other european immigrants who have taken advantage of the law changes who have been successful in their enterprises,even taking on staff etc as well as others who haven't been able to survive.


it's easy for posters to make sily little spelling mistakes when typing isn't it ?

Re: State Funeral for Thatcher : Sun Dec 18, 2011 9:25 am  

sanjunien wrote:

it's easy for posters to make sily little spelling mistakes when typing isn't it ?

It is, but considering that you can add a spellchecker to your browser, it is more difficult to see just why so many people do post errors.

Re: State Funeral for Thatcher : Sun Dec 18, 2011 9:50 am  

maybe people dont know how to add a spellchecker!!!!!!

Re: State Funeral for Thatcher : Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:45 am  

CORNISH wrote:

maybe people dont know how to add a spellchecker!!!!!!

I do have a Spellchecker but it's configured to french and it's too much hassle to change to english every five minutes
plus,a very feeble excuse is that some of my keys stick and sometimes don't register and again,I can't be bothered to check &

I suppose being a bit of a thicko doesn't exactly help..................

Re: State Funeral for Thatcher : Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:12 am  

sanjunien wrote:

can't speak for the uk but my own personal case is this - that is to say,a true story

I was effectively sacked by my company last year - this was 6th april (I found another job in may fortunately) the local employment service deemed the dismissal as 'unfair' and I received 15 years worth of settlement for my time served which also opened the door to three years dole money because I am over 50 at 65% of the previous salary.In addition I immediately filed for 'unfair dismissal' with the Workers Tribunal (Les Prudhommes) through my union and the case which I am guaranteed to at least partly win cos' the previous empoyers solicitors have told me means that the company is not allowed by french law to employ someone to take my place until the 7th april 2012,ie twelve months after my dismissal...

I'm slightly confused here. This seems to be a case of the situation (in France, at least) working. I assume you're not complaining that it was found that you'd been treated unfairly?

The current stuff in the UK is that it should be easier to sack people who have only been working for a company for (IIRC) under two years. And that this will encourage people to employ more people.

This is errant nonsense: either they need to employ staff or they don't. And there is plenty of perfectly legal scope to get rid of workers for all sorts of reasons.

Do you think that your employer should have been allowed to get rid of you – unfairly – without any ramifications and that to face ramifications for an unfair dismissal is bad because it therefore might stop the employer employer others?

sanjunien wrote:

i'm not saying self-employment is good or bad just pointing out that the legislation by that t**t Sarko has attempted to make it easier to allow people the opportunity if they wish...

Fair enough.

I've heard of cases over here, though, where employees are effectively forced into becoming 'self-employed' as a ruse to cut costs for the employer, even though they're patently not self-employed.

Re: State Funeral for Thatcher : Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:40 am  

Him wrote:

Mintball wrote:

A while ago, on here, I asked someone (sal paradise, IIRC) to provide just one actual example of how legislation on unfair dismissal had stopped an employer form taking on a new members of staff. Unless I missed it, there was no response from him – or anyone else.

Ah but did you ask him about unfair dismissal in the real world or in this fake world the rest of us apparently inhabit?

Must have been a figment of your imagination

I don't think I have ever defended the law on unfair dismissal - I think it is wrong to elongate the time frames. I have said on other threads 99.9% of all employers don't consider whether there might be a claim for unfair dismissal when deciding who to employ.

Re: State Funeral for Thatcher : Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:02 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Must have been a figment of your imagination...

So, like you and your belief that carers get loads of expenses, eh?

Re: State Funeral for Thatcher : Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:14 pm  

Mintball wrote: A while ago, on here, I asked someone (sal paradise, IIRC) to provide just one actual example of how legislation on unfair dismissal had stopped an employer form taking on a new members of staff. Unless I missed it, there was no response from him – or anyone else. I made a statement on that during a discussion with BG. Discussion from here onwards arriving at a decision that there are cases both for and against, neither of which can really be proved.

Mintball wrote: A while ago, on here, I asked someone (sal paradise, IIRC) to provide just one actual example of how legislation on unfair dismissal had stopped an employer form taking on a new members of staff. Unless I missed it, there was no response from him – or anyone else. I made a statement on that during a discussion with BG. Discussion from here onwards arriving at a decision that there are cases both for and against, neither of which can really be proved.

Re: State Funeral for Thatcher : Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:33 pm  

sanjunien wrote:

I suppose being a bit of a thicko doesn't exactly help..................

That might also explain your inability to use the 'quote' feature correctly.

Re: State Funeral for Thatcher : Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:17 pm  

McClennan wrote: I made a statement on that during a discussion with BG. Discussion from here onwards arriving at a decision that there are cases both for and against, neither of which can really be proved. I think, looking back at that, it was pretty clear.

McClennan wrote: I made a statement on that during a discussion with BG. Discussion from here onwards arriving at a decision that there are cases both for and against, neither of which can really be proved. I think, looking back at that, it was pretty clear.