Capitalists solution : Work for Free!

[FridgeMagnet]

can we please get beyond the sad caricature of the greedy capitalist and start realising that this shit is systematic to capitalism. Talk of greedy capitalist implies that they could be anything else and that the problem lies with the moral weakness of these bad men.

I think in this case that it is more to do with unusual incompetence and delusion combined with greed, the latter as you say being something we expect. Of course, incompetence and delusion are all on a sliding scale too.

 

[Rod Sleeves]

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/employment/pay/index.html

Admittedly it's difficult to find - but only if you have an intelligence level that would render you unfit to work as a BA photocopier operator or lavvy cleaner.........

Hopefully someone will gut you like a fish at some point.

 

[Cobbles]

Where in the legislation does it state that?

Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 13(1)(b)

"Right not to suffer unauthorised deductions
(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from wages of a worker employed by him unless—

(b) the worker has previously signified in writing his agreement or consent to the making of the deduction."


Carte Blanche....................


NB Legislation lovingly crafted by NuLaboor

 

[cesare]

49 Restrictions on contracting out

(1) Any provision in any agreement (whether a worker’s contract or not) is void in so far as it purports—

(a) to exclude or limit the operation of any provision of this Act; or

(b) to preclude a person from bringing proceedings under this Act before an employment tribunal.

National Minimum Wage Act 1998

Specific provision that the National Minimum Wage Act (where it applies) cannot be contracted out of.

 

[Cobbles]

Hopefully someone will gut you like a fish at some point.

Is that the penalty these days for the appalling crime of "speaking the truth"?

Jeez, if that's the case, we were better off under that "evil" Mrs. Thatcher.

 

[cesare]

Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 13(1)(b)

"Right not to suffer unauthorised deductions
(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from wages of a worker employed by him unless—

(b) the worker has previously signified in writing his agreement or consent to the making of the deduction."


Carte Blanche....................


NB Legislation lovingly crafted by NuLaboor

Wrong legislation. Certain Acts cannot be contracted out of. The National Minimum Wage is one of them.

 

[the button]

Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 13(1)(b)

"Right not to suffer unauthorised deductions
(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from wages of a worker employed by him unless—

(b) the worker has previously signified in writing his agreement or consent to the making of the deduction."


Carte Blanche....................


NB Legislation lovingly crafted by NuLaboor

I'm no defender of the Labour government, but the election was on 1 May 1997, surely?

 

[butchersapron]

Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 13(1)(b)

"Right not to suffer unauthorised deductions
(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from wages of a worker employed by him unless—

(b) the worker has previously signified in writing his agreement or consent to the making of the deduction."


Carte Blanche....................


NB Legislation lovingly crafted by NuLaboor

1996?

So, one post, two points. Wrong on them both. Well done.

 

[the button]

1996?

 

[Cobbles]

National Minimum Wage Act 199

Specific provision that the National Minimum Wage Act (where it applies) cannot be contracted out of.

Over to the House of Lords then as there appears to be a fundamental mismatch (that's what you get when you ram Legislation through in a hurry).

I'm sure that BA's management have taken full advice regarding which section takes precedence.

 

[butchersapron]

eh?

Oh, balls

 

[the button]

Over to the House of Lords then as there appears to be a fundamental mismatch (that's what you get when you ram Legislation through in a hurry).

I'm sure that BA's management have taken full advice regarding which section takes precedence.

So it would take a judgement from the House of Lords, then? Hardly "carte blanche."

 

[butchersapron]

Over to the House of Lords then as there appears to be a fundamental mismatch (that's what you get when you ram Legislation through in a hurry).

I'm sure that BA's management have taken full advice regarding which section takes precedence.

No, it's simple really

 

[cesare]

Over to the House of Lords then as there appears to be a fundamental mismatch (that's what you get when you ram Legislation through in a hurry).

I'm sure that BA's management have taken full advice regarding which section takes precedence.

Over to the House Of Lords? Maybe. After class action claims going through ETs, EATs then the Courts Of Appeal?

BA can afford that?

Further, look at the dates of the legislation.

 

[Cobbles]

I'm no defender of the Labour government, but the election was on 1 May 1997, surely?

Ooh sorry, I forgot, it just seems like they've been dragging the Uk towards an abyss for 20 years.

Of course, Tone immediately dismantled all of the horrific anti-Union Legislation that his predecessors had inflicted on the nation as it ran against all of the deprivation based ideals that he learned during his years of hardship at Fettes.

Or not,

*sniggers*

No, curbing the excesses of the Unions was something that had helped him to power (power = gravy train).

 

[Cobbles]

So it would take a judgement from the House of Lords, then? Hardly "carte blanche."

A union would actually have to have decent cojones (and funds not already allocated to Labour's next election defeat) to fund an action that far.

 

[cesare]

A union would actually have to have decent cojones (and funds not already allocated to Labour's next election defeat) to fund an action that far.

In-house lawyers.

 

[moon23]

Toiling? - we're talking about trolley dollies and suchlike sweetie!

Nobody from BA's actually sent down a salt mine as far as I can tell.

Being called a trolley dollie is toiling!

 

[the button]

A union would actually have to have decent cojones (and funds not already allocated to Labour's next election defeat) to fund an action that far.

The question of unions having in-house lawyers aside, the spectre of costly legal action is somewhat different to

In terms of the Legislation, an employer may make deductions lawfully where it is permitted by a written agreement from the worker.

There you go.

isn't it?

I'm guessing any House of Lords judgement might be a bit longer than that.

 

[8ball]

<puts 'business' hat on>

The article doesn't say anything about temporary cashflow difficulties or something going a bit wobbly with a supplier or anything like that, so that just seems to imply that they are unable to fly their planes about for a profit.

The solution to this might be to, you know, stop.



</'business' hat>

 

[moon23]

what stop economic activity?! Are you mad

 

[8ball]

what stop economic activity?! Are you mad

They could take up pig farming or basket weaving or something.

Plus the gap in supply of flights would likely mean that some of them would find gainful employment with airlines capable of turning a profit.

 

[belboid]

Even under the previous legislation there was, iirr, a maximum percentage hat could be lawfully deducted. In the case of anyone deemed a cash handler (which would include 'trolley dollies' as they flog the duty free inflight) that maximum was 10%

 

[Cobbles]

In-house lawyers.

No, competent specialist lawyers........

£200-300/hour.

 

[belboid]

I think you'll find the inhouse union lawyers are kinda competent and specialist in employment law. It's how they got their job.

 

[cesare]

No, competent specialist lawyers........

£200-300/hour.

I think your understanding of the hourly rates of council/lawyers operating at HoL level falls as far short as your understanding of the relevent legislation.

 

[Cobbles]

I think your understanding of the hourly rates of council/lawyers operating at HoL level falls as far short as your understanding of the relevent legislation.

"Council" - what has local government got to do with this?

 

[Cobbles]

I think you'll find the inhouse union lawyers are kinda competent and specialist in employment law. It's how they got their job.

Super - so why do they outsource the vast majority of "their" work?

 

[belboid]

why are you ignoring the actual points of law cobbles? is it because you've realised you're talkng out of your arse?

 

[cesare]

"Council" - what has local government got to do with this?

Typo, sorry, counsel