xenia Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 By Golly, you really do have stamina, running a successful business and still finding time to spend hours on here every day. BTW are you sure you aren't confusing 'stamina' with 'obsession' ? I do not run a successfull business, I am a Security Guard. Also I do not spend hours on here every day, I find I am able to enlighten, correct, teach and philosophise in a realatively short period. Thank you for your interest. Toodle Pip Vote for Dave PS When did I mention stamina, have you confused me with another great mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Jay Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I do not run a successfull business, I am a Security Guard. What do you think your pay and conditions would be like as a security guard if your beloved Tories had it all their own way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 What do you think your pay and conditions would be like as a security guard if your beloved Tories had it all their own way? The LABOUR party introduced licensing into our industry, we have to pay a fee to get our license. In effect therefore the LABOUR party by making it obligatory to have a license, introduced an employment tax. The Tories, at the time the legislation was introduced, proposed that instead of individuals companies should be licensed. The LABOUR government therefore did not act in the interests of individual workers, the Tories sought to but were defeated. The Unions, despite representations from members within our industry did nothing. Also, the Private Security Act was introduced to professionalise the industry and drive our criminality. It was largely successfull initially, however the LABOUR government saw the opportunity to fiddle their training figures and encouraged training providers to get unsuitable people licensed. There are now thousands of unemployed, unemployable people with Security Industry Authority Licenses. LABOUR betrayed this industry and the men and women who work conscientously within it. Now that the Tories are in power it appears that the licensing of companies will be introduced once their is parliamentary time. Question, I dont know what you do for a living, how would you feel about having to pay £250 to the government to do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Jay Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 The LABOUR party introduced licensing into our industry, we have to pay a fee to get our license. In effect therefore the LABOUR party by making it obligatory to have a license, introduced an employment tax. The Tories, at the time the legislation was introduced, proposed that instead of individuals companies should be licensed. The LABOUR government therefore did not act in the interests of individual workers, the Tories sought to but were defeated. The Unions, despite representations from members within our industry did nothing. Also, the Private Security Act was introduced to professionalise the industry and drive our criminality. It was largely successfull initially, however the LABOUR government saw the opportunity to fiddle their training figures and encouraged training providers to get unsuitable people licensed. There are now thousands of unemployed, unemployable people with Security Industry Authority Licenses. LABOUR betrayed this industry and the men and women who work conscientously within it. Now that the Tories are in power it appears that the licensing of companies will be introduced once their is parliamentary time. Question, I dont know what you do for a living, how would you feel about having to pay £250 to the government to do it? Admittedly I dont know about the security industry...does this license enable you to work for any security company? perhaps the reason that individuals have to license themselves rather than the companies having to do it is because individual security guards have freedom to change companies...so why should companies license employee's that are often inclined to change companies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Admittedly I dont know about the security industry...does this license enable you to work for any security company? perhaps the reason that individuals have to license themselves rather than the companies having to do it is because individual security guards have freedom to change companies...so why should companies license employee's that are often inclined to change companies? The big problem in our industry was, and to some extent still is, the management of the service providing companies. In a Panorama programme about 3 years ago (after the law was introduced) a Sheffield based company was exposed as being run by scottish gangsters. When the Private Industry Act was introduced reputable companies fought to get companies licensed. This advice was ignored by LABOUR in its usual arrogant way. We now have a situation that low paid workers have to pay £250 to get a license, yet the controls on who "actually" runs some of the companies is virtually non existent. (there is theoretically a requirement for directors, and managers to have "none front line" licenses but it is unenforceable,). If companies were required to be licensed they should be required to pay a licnse fee commensurate with the number of persons they employ. I believe it wrong, if not immoral, that individuals should be required to pay to work. You may correct me on this but I am not aware of any other industry that is so regulated. LABOUR legislation that allows employers a free rein and penalises low paid workers. Legislation that was challenged and opposed by Tories. I realise this does not sit easily with those of a left leaning persuasion but these are the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Jay Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 @ xenia Like I said It may just be because of the transiant nature of many in this particular industry, a bit like fork lift truck, and heavy goods vehicle drivers, who, theoretically can take there skill with them to any other company with their licence they paid for themselves. This is supposition from me btw, I'm not an expert in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 @ xenia Like I said It may just be because of the transiant nature of many in this particular industry, a bit like fork lift truck, and heavy goods vehicle drivers, who, theoretically can take there skill with them to any other company with their licence they paid for themselves. This is supposition from me btw, I'm not an expert in this. You may have the advantge of me regarding the professions you mention, I would have thought however that many HGV drivers are self employed. I may be wrong. I do understand your point re the transient nature of the industry, the way the Tories suggested this could be addressed was that individual companies would estimate the numbers of persons they would employ a year in advance with an adjustment at the year end. My overall point is that LABOUR saw an easy target and abused it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 There are now thousands of unemployed, unemployable people with Security Industry Authority Licenses. LABOUR betrayed this industry and the men and women who work conscientously within it. maybe they should just get rid of the sia licence anyway it was one of the biggest cons of all time putting people out of work because of something what happened years ago :hihi:. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 maybe they should just get rid of the sia licence anyway it was one of the biggest cons of all time putting people out of work because of something what happened years ago :hihi:. Would you expand on that a bit, I dont see how it was a con, and if you mean by "something that happened years ago" a criminal record, well, the act was brougt in the drive criminals out. It has been fairly successfull there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Would you expand on that a bit, I dont see how it was a con, and if you mean by "something that happened years ago" a criminal record, well, the act was brougt in the drive criminals out. It has been fairly successfull there. However as you pointed out, only in ops, not in management. Or rather it gave a clean bill of health to the patsies who nominally held directorships, gold benchmark accredition etc to firms that everyone with a brain knows are run by gangsters for the purposes of money laundering, protection rackets or both allowing them to scoop up mutliple local authority contracts. Who still runs security at the councils benefits enquiry centre at howden house? I rest my case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.