The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[alchresearch]

Can we take minimum wage and employment chat to another thread and bring this back on topic about Labour?

 

Lets start with this gem in the news today:

 

Momentum vice-chair Jackie Walker removed from position over Holocaust comments

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/momentum-vice-chair-jackie-walker-removed-after-holocaust-comments-a7343226.html

[unbeliever]

So that does that mean we are stuck with a business class that doesn't train its staff but depends on low paid, low skilled jobs? Because that's how it seems right now.

 

That's how it is in some jobs. I think it can be improved as it is already not like that in other jobs. I don't think that slapping in a very high minimum wage is wise. But tax breaks and subsidies for employers to train people are already working to an extent.

As I say, we agree that higher wages are better. We simply disagree as to whether simply banning lower wages is a good way to go about it.

 

---------- Post added 04-10-2016 at 11:15 ----------

 

Can we take minimum wage and employment chat to another thread and bring this back on topic about Labour?

 

Lets start with this gem in the news today:

 

Momentum vice-chair Jackie Walker removed from position over Holocaust comments

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/momentum-vice-chair-jackie-walker-removed-after-holocaust-comments-a7343226.html

 

Sorry, yes let's do that. Senior Momentum leader gets caught admitting that Momentum don't like Jewish people. She forgot that they're supposed to pretend they don't have a problem with Jewish people. That's certainly a sacking offence.

Edited October 4, 2016 by unbeliever

[tinfoilhat]

Employer A should look up "training contracts"

 

They were both councils!

[Obelix]

Employer A should look up "training contracts"

 

If it's required for employment there then I doubt you could enforce such a contract. If the training ins voluntary then they are fair game.

[L00b]

They were both councils!

And...?

 

That matters because...what?

[unbeliever]

If it's required for employment there then I doubt you could enforce such a contract. If the training ins voluntary then they are fair game.

 

That sounds like an easy fix legislatively.

[Obelix]

That sounds like an easy fix legislatively.

 

it's already in place it doesn't need fixing.

 

Requiring training as condition of employment isn't a problem. When used to require someone to take on a contract that they wouldn't normally do though makes it coercion and such contracts are simply null and void.

[unbeliever]

it's already in place it doesn't need fixing.

 

Requiring training as condition of employment isn't a problem. When used to require someone to take on a contract that they wouldn't normally do though makes it coercion and such contracts are simply null and void.

 

So if I understand you right, the employer can't require a minimum term of employment post-training to ensure they get their moneys worth?

[L00b]

If it's required for employment there then I doubt you could enforce such a contract.

We have contrary advice and suitably-contingencie'd contract wording.

 

That is not beyond the reach of any reasonable/'normal' employer, and certainly not beyond the reach of a large and HR-heavy / in-house HR-resourced employer like a Council (referenced by tfh), I'd have thought (we're only small...but, as legal firm, unsurprisingly big on legals)

 

It's not a new thing either. Though I'll admit that it may be so in many walks of professional life beyond those (legal, medical) in which they are 'traditional'.

 

As others have pointed out in-thread before, training isn't cheap. And ever less so in this day and age.

 

The name of the game isn't to make it impossible for trained employees to walk (that's perceived as coercion and breeds resentment and disgruntlement), but to make it more difficult than "here's my notice, see ya" whilst also remaining (perceivably-) reasonable.

 

In a nutshell: "we pay to train you for however many years it takes you to get the badge, you stay after getting the badge for X years, if you leave before X is up you pay the training fees back (pro-rata)".

[unbeliever]

We have contrary advice and suitably-contingencie'd contract wording.

 

That is not beyond the reach of any reasonable/'normal' employer, and certainly not beyond the reach of a large and HR-heavy / in-house HR-resourced employer like a Council (referenced by tfh), I'd have thought (we're only small...but, as legal firm, unsurprisingly big on legals)

 

It's not a new thing either. Though I'll admit that it may be so in many walks of professional life beyond those (legal, medical) in which they are 'traditional'.

 

As others have pointed out in-thread before, training isn't cheap. And ever less so in this day and age.

 

The name of the game isn't to make it impossible for trained employees to walk (that's perceived as coercion and breeds resentment and disgruntlement), but to make it more difficult than "here's my notice, see ya" whilst also remaining (perceivably-) reasonable.

 

In a nutshell: "we pay to train you for however many years it takes you to get the badge, you stay after getting the badge for X years, if you leave before X is up you pay the training fees back (pro-rata)".

 

 

That's all that's needed I would have thought. If the law is not clear on this then clarification would surely encourage training.