The Shock Doctrine - Channel 4

[david_carnell]

As a manager, of course you would think them frivoulous.

[Huguenot]

Well the courts found that 45,700 out of 50,900 (89.7%) of cases were not justified.

So unless you believe the courts have a secret agenda to persecute victims of bad workplace practices, that's a pretty good independent view on how prevalent frivolous cases are.

I came across one of my employees who took me to an employment tribunal a decade ago (he lost). It was through a friend who was extremely stressed at being taken to court by the same guy.

It transpired that this was his fourth attempt in as many years all aginst different employers, so he could have accounted for that 89% figure all on his own - the tosser.

[Chippy Minton]

Legislation protecting people's rights in the workplace is greater now than at any time in history

This is not true. The Tory government in the 80s made numerous legislative changes that reduced people's rights in the workplace and the following Labour government didn't repeal any of these.

[Huguenot]

Yeah right, and it wasn't as if they brought in the minimum wage - the single biggest contribution to workers rights since the end of indentured labour?

Or does that not really count?

*shakes head*

[Chippy Minton]

Yes, they brought in the minimum wage (and unfair dismissal protection measures for that matter!) but they didn't repeal any of the six Acts of Parliament made between 1980 and 1993 which reduced workplace rights.

[Huguenot]

What like secondary picketing? That wasn't a right so much as a license for organised piracy.

What about guaranteed 28 days holiday, what about the Working Time regulations 1998, what about the right to flexible working under the Employment Rights Act 1996? All those and the minimum wage.

The problem with your gripes is that they have a completely warped sense of perspective. Workers rights now blow out of the water those of 50 years ago.

My comments are a response to UDT's ridiculous assertion that modern workers are slaves who have less rights now than they did in the past.

It's simply not true. I don't believe that people should get away with spouting rubbish like that. It should be exposed for the nonsense it is.

[Chippy Minton]

Whether you think the Acts were "good" or not is irrelevant - they still reduced workplace rights.

The fact of the matter is 1980, 1982, 1988, 1989, 1990 Employment Acts, the 1984 Trade Union Act and the 1993 Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act all reduced workplace rights in some form.

I don't have a warped sense of perspective - I agree workers rights now are far better than they were 50 years ago. I just think it's factually incorrect to state "workplace rights now are greater than they've ever been."

[Loz]

I don't have a warped sense of perspective - I agree workers rights now are far better than they were 50 years ago. I just think it's factually incorrect to state "workplace rights now are greater than they've ever been."

But Chippy, surely you are just looking at those acts being repealed and saying that were bad, without then looking at the good stuff that Hugo mentioned (to which I'd add the DDA).

Taking the pluses and minuses into account, surely you can see that, on balance, the right of the worker are much, much better now than any time in the last 50 years?

[Undisputedtruth]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well the courts found that 45,700 out of 50,900

> (89.7%) of cases were not justified.

>

It's a case whether the claim is robust enough to stand the legal loops. The 'not justified' bit only reflects your ignorance on this matter Hugo.

The system is very much against the employee when it comes to taking a claim to an Employment Tribunal.

[Marmora Man]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As a manager, of course you would think them frivoulous.

What a strange and archaic view you have of industrial relations.

[Chippy Minton]

Loz, I not so blinkered that I'd deny that the things Hugo mentioned aren't "good stuff," of course they are.

However, on balance taking into account the pluses and minuses, I'd argue that workplace rights are not as strong now as they were pre-Thatcher.

This is because the Tories introduced legislation that:

- restricted picketing both at your own place of work and secondary action (which is now completely illegal)

- restricted closed shops

- removed statutory recognition procedure

- restricted unfair dismissal and maternity rights

- reduced unfair dismissal rights in smaller companies

- introduced a tribunal pre-hearing review and deposit

- made small employers exempt from providing details of disciplinary procedures

- restricted TU facility time

- Abolished redundancy rebates

- made a written reason for dismissal only required if an employee had two years service

- abolished the Training Commission

- allowed the dismissal of strikers taking unofficial action

- allowed employers to obtain injunctions against unions and sue unions for damages

- removed union only labour clauses in commercial contracts

- made TU elections every 5 years by secret ballot

- introduced political fund ballots every 10 years

- introduced secret ballots for industrial action

- forced unions to make their finances open to inspection

- prevented workers from having fines paid by their union

- made post entry closed shop unlawful

Now, some might say that many, if not all, of these measures are a good thing. Indeed, the Tories that introduced them obviously did ;-) However, that is not my point - my point is that regardless of whether it was a good thing or not workplace rights are not greater now than they've ever been.

[Marmora Man]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As a manager, of course you would think them frivoulous.

You do have a strange and archaic view of management and industrial relations. "Them and us" confrontation is not what happens these days.

[Marmora Man]

Chippy, most (but not quite all) the "rights" you list were either a licence for old fashioned trades unions to disrupt and impede business.

The majority of enlightened people view businesses as partnerships between the workforce and the management to ensure efficient and cost effective production. It is not a battlefield where Dickensian capitalists exploit the poor and oppressed slum dwelling workers.

Come into the 21st century and lose your prejudices.

[LadyDeliah]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The majority of enlightened people view businesses

> as partnerships between the workforce and the

> management to ensure efficient and cost effective

> production. It is not a battlefield where

> Dickensian capitalists exploit the poor and

> oppressed slum dwelling workers.

So why has the pay of UK CEO'S in big corporations risen to 100 times the average salary of their workers post Thatcher from 40 times the average which it was pre-Thatcher?

In the US, the home of unrestrained greed, it's 400 times the average.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So why has the pay of UK CEO'S in big corporations

> risen to 100 times the average salary of their

> workers post Thatcher from 40 times the average

> which it was pre-Thatcher?

See I don't care what some CEO earns - I just care about what I earn and what it buys me. Anything else is the politics of envy.

I still maintain that the standard of living across the board has improved since the 70's. Better to be a poor person today than a poor person back then.

[Undisputedtruth]

The poor person today have too much debts to pay for their current lifestyle, Loz.

Politics of envy? More like politics of greed. And that greed stems from robbing the poorer people.

[El Pibe]

I unhid that message in the forlorn hope that you might be contributing something useful, sensible or interesting UDT.

Whoops.

So people get themselves into too much debt because of irresponsible borrowing and that's robbery?

They're poor because they can no longer maintain a lifestyule that's beyond them?

Are you suggesting that they should still have access to more more money that isn't theirs and not be charged interest, sorry robbed, in order to facilitate that?

Have you been hanging out with the occupylsx folk?

At some point people have to stop saying 'help help I'm being opressed by badly regulated banking practices who gave me what I asked of them the rotters' and take a bit of bloody responsibility for their own actions.

With Loz 100% of the way here. Life is tough and a constant stress when you're poor, but standards of living compared to any time in the past (well, maybe not three years ago) and just about anywhere else (minus about five or six other countries) is way better.

[Chippy Minton]

http://eddiedeguzman.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/cartoon-bang-head-jpg.gif?w=200&h=200

MM - Please reread what I have written - I have never said the Acts weren't "good."

For the third time on this thread, I will state again: whether you agree or disagree with the measures introduced by the Tories in the 80s/90s is not my point. I am simply stating IT IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT TO SAY WORKPLACE RIGHTS ARE GREATER NOW THAN EVER BEFORE because the Tories made numerous changes to the law that have never been repealed!!!!

Perhaps you should lose your prejudices and actually read what I've written before reaching for the keyboard to disagree just because you see my username.

[BrandNewGuy]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

> The system is very much against the employee when

> it comes to taking a claim to an Employment

> Tribunal.

In what way? Tribunals were deliberately set up to avoid the full formality of the courts and make it unnecessary for applicants to have expensive legal representation etc. Employment law relating to unfair dismissal, sex and race discrimination etc, is not complex and the average person can grasp it with half a day's reading. Tribunals do weed out most frivolous claims at a pre-hearing review, but the full hearing is informal and is predominantly concerned with deciding matters of fact rather than arguing over obscure points of law.

Compared with the rest of legal system, employment tribunals are very accessible IMHO.

[Undisputedtruth]

@El Pibe

I think you better go back to sleep. You appeared to be somewhat confused since you haven't folowd the thread properly.

The poor are getting poorer because:

1) tax laws favours the rich

2) workers are paid less while CEOs are paid a lot more.

Under the free market the banks have exploited the poor by offering them loans they could't really afford to pay back. The sub-prime mortgage scandal in the USA as part of the banking crisis is a really good example.

@BrandNewGuy,

I'd be surprised if anyone can understand employment law in half a day. Why employ lawyers if it was so true?

The problem with the law is that they don't involved on who is right/wrong but whether the process of dismissal was fair. Therefore the case sometimes depends on the contract of employment. Guess who writes the contract? This is just one example but there are plenty of other reasons.

[taper]

This thread has moved from a discussion of the big themes Klein discusses to ephemera, pedantry and spite.

Good show in my view.

I've got a lot richer since the 70s if that helps. Although my football team was far better in that decade. As was music. And the Summers were hotter. food was rubbish though. Apart from Curly Wurlys which seemed bigger.

[BrandNewGuy]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @BrandNewGuy,

>

> I'd be surprised if anyone can understand

> employment law in half a day. Why employ lawyers

> if it was so true?

Lawyers, like all professionals and "experts", often pretend that what they do is horrendously obscure and difficult. Don't always believe them.

> The problem with the law is that they don't

> involved on who is right/wrong but whether the

> process of dismissal was fair. Therefore the case

> sometimes depends on the contract of employment.

> Guess who writes the contract? This is just one

> example but there are plenty of other reasons.

I'm quite prepared to accept the possibility that society / the system / capitalism is "against" humble employees, but tribunals are not responsible for that - what's more, "unfair" contracts might not be binding. I was merely suggesting that tribunals are a valuable resource for employees who have been hard done by. My father was a Tribunal Chairman (now called an Employment Judge) and spent most of his time trying to discover matters of fact and very little time listening to arcane arguments over obscure matters of law.

[El Pibe]

I was just attempting to deconstruct your rather nonsensical (or at least very poorly expressed) post in all fairness.

which leads me to...

Oh deary me.

The poor are getting poorer because CEOs are getting richer. Brilliant deductive reasoning.

You're confusing increasing absolute poverty with widening inequality, something, if you'd followed this thread, people have been trying to explain to you for quite some time.

Remind me not to press unhide on any of your posts again...oh of course there'd be no point.

[Undisputedtruth]

It seems you're intent in misconstruing my words, El Pibe.

Please read the thread properly then everything fits in context.

@brandnewguy

I'm not doubting the impartiality of the Tribunal panel. Far from it. They have a union rep, a personnel rep and a chairman. But it's the process they have to follow in reaching a conclusion that's against the employee. Also, the employers would have better legal representation to fight their cases.

[Loz]

Nope, UDT - I think El Pibe has summed your argument up perfectly. If you meant something else, you've expressed it poorly.