Ed Milliband has stated he would condem any Union striking on the day of the Royal Wedding.
Milliband is in a very powerful position.
He has managed to control his own election through Union sycophancy, putting him in charge of the new face of Labour.
To the common observer, it would seem foolish, therefore, for the wannabe Prime Minister to criticise the actions and public relations of Unite and Bob Crow.
However, Unite are rendered helpless to Labour, like a new baby dependant on their mother.
They cannot criticise Labour, because to do so would sever the political party link that gives them the power in the Left Wing field.
The Press would relish the break between Union and Party, using it to villify and crucify any union action. The Unions would lack authentication, their proposals of actions lacking any merit and they would die a sad death.
This would be a Conservative dream come true. The death of Unions? What larks, now everything can be privatised and no one can do anything about it. The Unions would be rendered nothing more than Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.
The ideal position for the Unions now would be another centre-left party to offer the Unions amnesty.
The transfer of power to a different political party would have significant repercussions on Labour and their mixed-message at the moment. Instead, Labour would be the ragged trouser philanthropists, with bankruptcy looming and no clear direction, they would flounder and drown in the new politics.
But there is no political party that can offer that amnesty. No bridge can be brokered with the Liberal Democrats, who, in coalition, are in a stranglehold and unable to consider such a position.
The Greens are too weak and not regarded as "serious politician".
The only opportunity that may arise would be that of UKIP, but such a partnership of extreme right wing politics would be unpalatable to the Unions.
In truth, if such a partnership was formed, the right outflanking the coalition, with the power of the Unions, Britain would be changed beyond recognition.
So Ed Milliband can say what he likes about Bob Crowe et al. He weilds a massive axe over the Union's heads, and one could suggest the Unions are reaping what they sow.
But for the common man who works in the public sector, or the manufacturer, these proposals are very frightening indeed. Unions represent our employment rights, the plebian's battle to stay employed and protected.
And the more Milliband jumps on the bandwagon and attacks the Unions, the more unhappy the people will become.
Showing posts with label employment law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label employment law. Show all posts
16 Jan 2011
7 Jan 2010
A Few Thoughts
The continuous political bickering and devastating snowstorms make for very little opinion when blogging.
The BBC is currently running as their top story Cameron's opinion on the alleged leadership coup.
Cameron must be delighted that something is taking the attention off his appalling display within Prime Minister's questions yesterday.
The BBC must be delighted that they can put something in a headline slot other than their most highly paid and infamous presenter resigning.
And Now for Something Completely Different
It is a delight to see that the United States of America are finally entertaining fair and just policies in relation to gender discrimination and employment legislation.
However, they should learn from the current legislation in Britain that you have to catch someone first.
In spite of legislation in the UK to combat discrimination in the last 10 years, gender discrimination in employment is still rife. I could launch into a diatribe about people that are persuaded to "have a sense of humour" all representations of gender stereotyping by the media and the damage it does to people's perceptions of how they should behave and how they should be treated, but I'm sure if you've read this far you know all this.
And, it appears that Murdoch may have to revise his ideas on charging people to view news content on the Internet followinga suggestion that the Independent may also become free newspaper
The BBC is currently running as their top story Cameron's opinion on the alleged leadership coup.
Cameron must be delighted that something is taking the attention off his appalling display within Prime Minister's questions yesterday.
The BBC must be delighted that they can put something in a headline slot other than their most highly paid and infamous presenter resigning.
And Now for Something Completely Different
It is a delight to see that the United States of America are finally entertaining fair and just policies in relation to gender discrimination and employment legislation.
However, they should learn from the current legislation in Britain that you have to catch someone first.
In spite of legislation in the UK to combat discrimination in the last 10 years, gender discrimination in employment is still rife. I could launch into a diatribe about people that are persuaded to "have a sense of humour" all representations of gender stereotyping by the media and the damage it does to people's perceptions of how they should behave and how they should be treated, but I'm sure if you've read this far you know all this.
And, it appears that Murdoch may have to revise his ideas on charging people to view news content on the Internet followinga suggestion that the Independent may also become free newspaper
12 Apr 2009
Guess what, a journaist scoop.
The Mail online, becoming even more of a tabloid. They have obviously got a student in on work experience. The article screams "archive files", poor literary content and no knowledge of the legal profession whatsoever.
In particular, partly because it is bank holiday and I'm idle, and partly because poor newspaper writing irritates me;
She was writing to congratulate the women on their promotion to Queen’s Counsel – one of the most senior positions in the judiciary.
Being appointed QC is NOT to be appointed to the Judiciary. Wiki will tell you that for @*!&@#'s sake.
While one woman QC was ‘very surprised’ Mrs Blair did not pay for a stamp, another questioned the choice of notepaper.
Was she really? Or did her secretary/PA/clerk/skivvy point this out and when it emerged the letter was from the "honorable" Mrs Blair the elite decided to get a few more pennies for the estate by calling the paper?
One woman lawyer,
And lastly... how foolish of me to consider that the UK has two separate types of legal professional, plus a miscellany of impressionists such as paralegals, executives and moonlighting law students. All collectively referred to as "lawyers".
Is the journalist actually an ignorant child? Or is the role of the unidentified caller so dodgy that no one knows quite who it is? Perhaps I am being too harsh, but even I credit the public with more intelligence than this. Given that CB wrote to female barristers appointed to the Queen's Council, I would assume the woman referred to is a BARRISTER. But the article is sloppy and the writer appears to have used MS Thesaurus.
What is worth noting is;
however, took umbrage over the notes. She said: ‘Why has Cherie Blair appointed herself as a feminist guru and leader of female lawyers?’
I do concur. I have always felt Cherie's legal career was under played when she may have made a reasonable female model for the public. Instead she embraced the smug and supercilious attitude we tend to see in all female professionals in a male dominated atmosphere, as well as an arrogant and regally patronising nature taken by all "wives" in the public eye.
(On a personal note, having moved from the commendable area of employment law, she transferred into the more dubious and pro euro Human Rights carrion hunters and lost much respect I had for her) Bring on Helena Kennedy for Prime Minister, at least she
I still think it is abominable that women still have to congratulate each other on achieving something in a male dominated field.
In particular, partly because it is bank holiday and I'm idle, and partly because poor newspaper writing irritates me;
She was writing to congratulate the women on their promotion to Queen’s Counsel – one of the most senior positions in the judiciary.
Being appointed QC is NOT to be appointed to the Judiciary. Wiki will tell you that for @*!&@#'s sake.
While one woman QC was ‘very surprised’ Mrs Blair did not pay for a stamp, another questioned the choice of notepaper.
Was she really? Or did her secretary/PA/clerk/skivvy point this out and when it emerged the letter was from the "honorable" Mrs Blair the elite decided to get a few more pennies for the estate by calling the paper?
One woman lawyer,
And lastly... how foolish of me to consider that the UK has two separate types of legal professional, plus a miscellany of impressionists such as paralegals, executives and moonlighting law students. All collectively referred to as "lawyers".
Is the journalist actually an ignorant child? Or is the role of the unidentified caller so dodgy that no one knows quite who it is? Perhaps I am being too harsh, but even I credit the public with more intelligence than this. Given that CB wrote to female barristers appointed to the Queen's Council, I would assume the woman referred to is a BARRISTER. But the article is sloppy and the writer appears to have used MS Thesaurus.
What is worth noting is;
however, took umbrage over the notes. She said: ‘Why has Cherie Blair appointed herself as a feminist guru and leader of female lawyers?’
I do concur. I have always felt Cherie's legal career was under played when she may have made a reasonable female model for the public. Instead she embraced the smug and supercilious attitude we tend to see in all female professionals in a male dominated atmosphere, as well as an arrogant and regally patronising nature taken by all "wives" in the public eye.
(On a personal note, having moved from the commendable area of employment law, she transferred into the more dubious and pro euro Human Rights carrion hunters and lost much respect I had for her) Bring on Helena Kennedy for Prime Minister, at least she
I still think it is abominable that women still have to congratulate each other on achieving something in a male dominated field.
6 Mar 2009
Bored Sexagenarians And Social Policy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4942351/Retirement-age-backed-by-European-Court.html
I was really disappointed in this verdict today, as I think a mandatory retirement age fundamentally compromises age discrimination laws in this country and under European legislation.
Given that we are only three years away from having more people over 65 in the country in the workforce, it seems completely illogical that people should be forced to retire at the instigation of their employers. Legislation currently states if people wish to continue working after the age of 60 or 65 (depending on their gender) they must apply to their employers at least three months before their birth date. There are certain occupations the have a mandatory retirement age due to medical, health or active service reasons (such as the police). However, the legislation permits people to maintain employment post retirement age in the event their employer agrees. The reason that Age Concern brought this case to the European Council is because they are receiving numerous complaints people are being denied the opportunity to continue working.
(On a digression,given that one major highlight in the news today was concerned over alcoholism and alcoholic related illnesses in the over 65s, you'd think this was reason alone to maintain people in employment!)
it makes logical political and social policy sense to remove mandatory retirement age (unless enforceable for reasons that aforementioned) to ensure that by 2012 there are enough people in this country to sufficiently fill the workforce. Perhaps the European Court wants to maintain free economic movement of citizens and hopes by preventing people from working through choice post retirement age British citizens will eventually accept migrant workers?
In relation to this, it has been noted recently that Britain is experiencing something of a baby boom. Sadly this is presented in a racially, religiously and immigration tainted light, most news programmes highlight the fact that one third of the 1.8 million children being born in the UK in the last year are not born to British nationality parents. The implications are that Muslims don't use protection, and that immigrants/asylum seekers are hoping to "steal" the British nationality for their children. It's important to point out that in immigration legislation the rights of jaw nationality for children born to non-native British people in the UK was removed in the 1990s.
The rate of children being born in the UK in the last year is nearly 300% up on the beginning of 2000s (I really loathe that expression and wish there was an easy way to say it!). this does tend to indicate that although we may encounter employment crisis in the next 10 years, within two generations we may need to send all of our British workforce out to the rest of Europe!
Within the civil service and related authorities the 2012 crisis is commonly known, hence they are removing every personnel and human resources Department across the board and forcing line managers to take training in this area. This has is a negative implications, given that usurping your line manager to to speak to their line manager is it difficult enough issue without needing to deal with what are essentially human resources issues such as conflicts of interest, emotional problems or bullying and harassment. I appreciate this is a digression (again!) That identifies further employment law problems in the next decade.
Where there Age Concern will appeal the decision in the European courts remains to be seen. Personally I appreciate that my 78-year-old grandfather still works (through choice)and my 70-year-old grandmother fills her time after forcibly being retired by spending all of her husband's money (and interestingly indulging in alcohol-related issues!). While the mature members of our society moan that we lack respect etc, perhaps we can begin to demonstrate a better understanding of the issues they face, and the essence of these appears to be boredom!
I was really disappointed in this verdict today, as I think a mandatory retirement age fundamentally compromises age discrimination laws in this country and under European legislation.
Given that we are only three years away from having more people over 65 in the country in the workforce, it seems completely illogical that people should be forced to retire at the instigation of their employers. Legislation currently states if people wish to continue working after the age of 60 or 65 (depending on their gender) they must apply to their employers at least three months before their birth date. There are certain occupations the have a mandatory retirement age due to medical, health or active service reasons (such as the police). However, the legislation permits people to maintain employment post retirement age in the event their employer agrees. The reason that Age Concern brought this case to the European Council is because they are receiving numerous complaints people are being denied the opportunity to continue working.
(On a digression,given that one major highlight in the news today was concerned over alcoholism and alcoholic related illnesses in the over 65s, you'd think this was reason alone to maintain people in employment!)
it makes logical political and social policy sense to remove mandatory retirement age (unless enforceable for reasons that aforementioned) to ensure that by 2012 there are enough people in this country to sufficiently fill the workforce. Perhaps the European Court wants to maintain free economic movement of citizens and hopes by preventing people from working through choice post retirement age British citizens will eventually accept migrant workers?
In relation to this, it has been noted recently that Britain is experiencing something of a baby boom. Sadly this is presented in a racially, religiously and immigration tainted light, most news programmes highlight the fact that one third of the 1.8 million children being born in the UK in the last year are not born to British nationality parents. The implications are that Muslims don't use protection, and that immigrants/asylum seekers are hoping to "steal" the British nationality for their children. It's important to point out that in immigration legislation the rights of jaw nationality for children born to non-native British people in the UK was removed in the 1990s.
The rate of children being born in the UK in the last year is nearly 300% up on the beginning of 2000s (I really loathe that expression and wish there was an easy way to say it!). this does tend to indicate that although we may encounter employment crisis in the next 10 years, within two generations we may need to send all of our British workforce out to the rest of Europe!
Within the civil service and related authorities the 2012 crisis is commonly known, hence they are removing every personnel and human resources Department across the board and forcing line managers to take training in this area. This has is a negative implications, given that usurping your line manager to to speak to their line manager is it difficult enough issue without needing to deal with what are essentially human resources issues such as conflicts of interest, emotional problems or bullying and harassment. I appreciate this is a digression (again!) That identifies further employment law problems in the next decade.
Where there Age Concern will appeal the decision in the European courts remains to be seen. Personally I appreciate that my 78-year-old grandfather still works (through choice)and my 70-year-old grandmother fills her time after forcibly being retired by spending all of her husband's money (and interestingly indulging in alcohol-related issues!). While the mature members of our society moan that we lack respect etc, perhaps we can begin to demonstrate a better understanding of the issues they face, and the essence of these appears to be boredom!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
