Ukip - Employment Policies

[Paddy31]

[And Its Smith]

They have as much chance of winning any sort of meaningful power as we have of getting promoted this season.

[Paddy31]

They have as much chance of winning any sort of meaningful power as we have of getting promoted this season.

You're probably right. 

 

However, they are currently second in opinion polls for the Euro elections and came second in the Wythenshawe by-election. 

[Portland Bill]

You're probably right.

However, they are currently second in opinion polls for the Euro elections and came second in the Wythenshawe by-election.

Fear not, once the full policy document does finally get produced people will realise just what a joke the Frenchman's party is!

[screech]

[And Its Smith]

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Fear not, once the full policy document does finally get produced people will realise just what a joke the Frenchman's party is!

 

That's the problem 4 joke parties, perhaps during the next general erection, instead of party political broadcasts they could reprise ITV's the comedians.

 

 

[chipdawg]

[Barrs Court Red]

I can't see anything attractive apart from maintaining statue quo at this point.

Jimmy Savile is more electable than Ed Miliband, and the Lib Dems have already started whoring themselves out for a coalition with either of the big two.

UKIP? A protest vote with ideas above its station. Ironically if the Lib Dem dream of proportional representation came true, UKIP might actually stand a chance of being the 3rd largest party.

[Robin1988]

You're probably right. 

 

However, they are currently second in opinion polls for the Euro elections and came second in the Wythenshawe by-election. 

Even in Europe they don't pose a threat. That's when they actually turn up, I remember seeing on the news recently a UKIP MEP from down here who just turns up for his cash and goes home?

 

 

Who is blaming them for the current standard of living?

Absolutely no one.

[Mr Mosquito]

[Mr Mosquito]

[Portland Bill]

Jimmy Savile is more electable than Ed Miliband,

Is this the same Jimmy Savile who used to spend his Christmas's with the Thatchers?

But I do agree with what you say about Miliband.

[Portland Bill]

Britain's EU membership means that 'employment rights' are now the preserve of the rich who can afford legal representation. If your employer decided to sack you for no reason (usually so they can then employ cheap Eastern EU labour) you'd have to put up the money to take them to an employment tribunal - if you lose you pay your ex employer compensation !!!!!! So much for employment rights under the various Lib-Lab-Con EU loving traitor regimes !!!!!

This is actually true,but it's this Coalition who have done this,nothing to do with Labour.

[chipdawg]

Britain's EU membership means that 'employment rights' are now the preserve of the rich who can afford legal representation. If your employer decided to sack you for no reason (usually so they can then employ cheap Eastern EU labour) you'd have to put up the money to take them to an employment tribunal - if you lose you pay your ex employer compensation !!!!!! So much for employment rights under the various Lib-Lab-Con EU loving traitor regimes !!!!!

Pretty sure that's a coalition policy and nothing to do with the EU

[Paddy31]

Britain's EU membership means that 'employment rights' are now the preserve of the rich who can afford legal representation. If your employer decided to sack you for no reason (usually so they can then employ cheap Eastern EU labour) you'd have to put up the money to take them to an employment tribunal - if you lose you pay your ex employer compensation !!!!!! So much for employment rights under the various Lib-Lab-Con EU loving traitor regimes !!!!!

The change in the employment tribunal rules is a Coalition policy, and in no way a European directive. Furthermore, UKIP intend to abolish employment tribunals as they stand and radically reduce their scope.

 

"UKIP would legislate to ensure the scope of claims which can be heard by tribunals will be greatly reduced.  In particular, limits on unfair dismissal and discrimination claims will be re-instated and no unfair dismissals or discrimination claims would be admitted by the Tribunals in respect of employees with less than two years continuous employment."

 

The final sentence states that the employer will be free to sack any employee, without reason and with no right of redress, within the first 2 years of working for them.

[Eco]

Is this the same Jimmy Savile who used to spend his Christmas's with the Thatchers?

But I do agree with what you say about Miliband.

For those of a lefty disposition think it's got to be a vote for Labour next time, am hoping that with the removal of 'New' they might forget about courting Mail readers but won't be holding my breath.

[chipdawg]

The change in the employment tribunal rules is a Coalition policy, and in no way a European directive. Furthermore, UKIP intend to abolish employment tribunals as they stand and radically reduce their scope.

"UKIP would legislate to ensure the scope of claims which can be heard by tribunals will be greatly reduced. In particular, limits on unfair dismissal and discrimination claims will be re-instated and no unfair dismissals or discrimination claims would be admitted by the Tribunals in respect of employees with less than two years continuous employment."

The final sentence states that the employer will be free to sack any employee, without reason and with no right of redress, within the first 2 years of working for them.

But I thought UKIP had the interests of the common man at heart?!?!

[Mr Mosquito]

For those of a lefty disposition think it's got to be a vote for Labour next time, am hoping that with the removal of 'New' they might forget about courting Mail readers but won't be holding my breath.

 

Labour were a better and far more honest and pro worker political party under Michael Foot and Tony Benn partly because these two Labour Grandees were staunch anti EEC.

[Mr Mosquito]

The change in the employment tribunal rules is a Coalition policy, and in no way a European directive.

 

The coalition is made up from Liberals - known to tongue EU jackboot at every opportunity and off treasonous EU loving Tories that signed us up to the EEC in 1973 and the EU project in 1992.

[Paddy31]

The coalition is made up from Liberals - known to tongue EU jackboot at every opportunity and off treasonous EU loving Tories that signed us up to the EEC in 1973 and the EU project in 1992.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your argument.

 

You said, "Britain's EU membership means that 'employment rights' are now the preserve of the rich who can afford legal representation". Several people have noted that it is not an EU policy but a Coalition one. It seems that your response is - but they like the EU, so it's the EU's fault.

 

As I said, I'm sure I've misunderstood.

 

Anyway, I would really like to know what you think of the UKIP employment policies. 

[Paddy31]

One sentence from one paragraph of a massive, massive statement. It only applies to smaller businesses - something the OP forgot to mention. Cherry Picked to suit the OP's agenda - my, my, people are sure running scared of little 'ol UKIP!

 

Follow the OP's link to see the WHOLE very very long article, which has been condensed. It's also noting it's 15 months old, and as with all things political, will no doubt change over time.

 

It is a massive document. Would you like me to have posted the whole thing? If you read the whole statement, I think you'd agree that I haven't quoted out of context.

 

The document is titled "Small Business", but the policies contained within would apply to all business. Even if they were to apply only to SME's, that would be over 24 million people affected (nearly 60% of all employed people in the UK).

 

"little ol' UKIP" have come second in the last 2 by-elections and have more MEPs than all the nationalist parties and Greens combined. They will have a bearing on the next general election. 

 

As for "running scared of UKIP", I think there is a lot to worry about, especially based on this policy document. 

 

Are these policies you support?

[Mr Mosquito]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your argument.

 

You said, "Britain's EU membership means that 'employment rights' are now the preserve of the rich who can afford legal representation". Several people have noted that it is not an EU policy but a Coalition one. It seems that your response is - but they like the EU, so it's the EU's fault.

 

As I said, I'm sure I've misunderstood.

 

Anyway, I would really like to know what you think of the UKIP employment policies. 

 

The EU is a rich man's club with a rich man's agenda. What better for a rich UK employer than to have indigenous British workers and hordes of Eastern European Unionists scrapping for shit paid jobs. Obviously, a UKIP government would take us out of the EU and thus end this tyrannical advantage given to UK employers who are currently able to fully exploit the EU's free movement of Labour.

[Aizoon]

Fear not, once the full policy document does finally get produced people will realise just what a joke the Frenchman's party is!

 

Is it a farrago, perhaps?

[Mr Mosquito]

[chipdawg]

I don't know much about employment law and taxation, though it does seem to me to be a significant erosion of workers rights (especially at the bottom of the scale) which ever way you look at their policy. That kind if market-led employment rights policy would probably work very well in 100% employment conditions, but if there are more employment candidates than jobs and your business employees unskilled workers, there is no incentive on the employer to pay good wages or to keep working hours reasonable. If you don't like it, they'll be able to get someone else in. I suppose it all depends on whether you feel the power should rest with the workforce or the employer. Or indeed, whether you feel there should just be a fair balance

Having skimmed the paper though, I would like to point out that their Appendix 1 on Asbestos is utter fantasy. 'White' or Chrysotile asbestos is still a Class 1 carcinogen, still kills and maims thousands of people every year and should be treated as such. Their statement that Chrysotile asbestos is "chemically unrelated" to Amosite or Crocidolite (brown and blue asbestos) is also false; they are in different 'groups' (serpentine and amphibole) which is merely a description of the crystalline construction of the mineral. While there are chemical differences, the health effects of asbestos are actually related to the LACK of a chemical reaction; the inert fibres can't be broken down by the body and cause 'fibrosis' of the lung tissue. All the major removal firms in the UK are independent, British-owned SMEs (or they certainly were until recently) so they're the companies UKIP seek to protect through these policies. Also, deregulation of chrysotile wouldn't really remove much of a burden from industry as they'd still have to pay for the surveys to determine what is present (which is considerably more expensive than just looking for the presence of any form of asbestos, as is done under current regulations) and would still have manage what was there. I hope meat on their taxation and employment rights policies bones are better thought-out than their policy on the control of asbestos in the work place

[chipdawg]

TBH Chip, I think EVERY party has stuff they wrote down "when it seemed like a good idea", and in the cold light of day, not so much.

Heck, I was one who took Norman Tebbit on his word - got on my bike to Exmouth and spent the whole summer in a B+B at Her majesty's expense.

I'm pretty sure that things written 14 months ago didn't take into the fact that due to the current administrations inability to listen on the populace dismay at the EU project, would actually put UKIP into the situation where 5-6 MP's are now a serious consideration.

Did anyone?

You asked me once what I did - this chap was a colleague of mine, we worked together probably 2 or 3 times a month. Very sad.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/neurosurgeon-dr-michael-wong-stabbed-in-foyer-of-western-hospital-in-footscray/story-fni0fee2-1226830200603

Indeed; there's no point in pointing out that HIPs had been withdrawn nearly 3 years before the article because presumably that would be edited out when the policy is revised. I would imagine if we looked on any political party's website there'd be something that wasn't up to date or contradicted stated policy. However, I would imagine that in the run up to a Euro election that is probably the most important in UKIPs history, it would probably be in their best interests to ensure that info on their website is current, up to date and factually correct

Sounds like a dreadful business, fingers crossed that your colleague makes a full recovery

[Paddy31]

To give workers a choice?

 

I read it as lower base wage, but higher sick and holiday pay. OR Higher base pay, lower sick and holidays.

If neither parties agree "the terms of employment revert to the statutory default."

Says it in Black and White.

I read your post as scare-mongering tbh

I think that the policy is aimed at reducing expenses for SMEs at the expense of workers. The balance of power will be entirely with the employer, certainly under current conditions.

 

The statutory default mentioned in the UKIP site is their new statutory contract. There are no details available for what may be in this, and since they promise to "end to most legislation regarding matters such as weekly working hours, holidays and holiday, overtime, redundancy or sick pay etc." we can only guess what it would contain.

 

 

Will you vote for a party that decides who is worthy or not to receive medication?

 

No.

[Aizoon]

As I said elsewhere, UKIP is simply the Tory-but-more-so Party. Pity.

We need an intelligent Eurosceptic movement in British politics. UKIP isn't it

[Paddy31]