Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
saintlyhero said:
Bit of local politics.

Plans for a solent city metropolis with an elected mayor look to be taking a step forward and plans for a tram/light railway network are being touted again as a part of the reorganisation in local government.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/tra...tram_line_between_Southampton_and_Portsmouth/

Personally I think something has to be done about transport in Southampton and the surrounding areas. Seeing an empty rail track inches from St Marys is a particular frustration.

You must log in or register to see media
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Whiteley Saint said:
I am assuming (sorry if wrong) that you are talking about the NHS Trusts when talking about disciplinary/sacking within the NHS. My husband works in the NHS (not the trusts) in HR having worked for years in the private sector. Where he is, the managers don't have a clue how to manage their staff and the majority are too scared to deal with problem staff. Consequently some staff have been getting away with all sorts including bullying. This is now slowly being dealt with. He is amazed that apparently staff can't be suspended even if accusations of bullying are being looked into. This obviously leaves the accuser open to intimidation. This would never happen in the private sector where generally action is taken a lot more swiftly and I would add still within employment law. As I say this is not about the NHS trusts as I've no idea how well they are managed.
Click to expand...

Interesting observation. I've not worked for a health service union, but have worked in education. I would always have insisted that an alleged "bully" be placed on gardening leave during an investigation. This would not only protect the accuser, but allow others to speak up who might not have had the same level of courage as the original whistle-blower. My experience of Local Authority HR departments is that they were generally on the ball. I've encountered poor practice in both the public and private sector, and there's always a surprise or two. I encountered the giant multi-national where you had to draw pictures and use single syllable words with their HR people who tolerated trade unions as a necessary evil. I also met a 20 strong company where the jack of all trades boss know employment law inside out and positively encouraged trade union membership.

There may be a competency divide, but my experience is that isn't as simple as a private/public one. Not that I'm suggesting you are saying this, I'm just commenting on your experience.
 
Missing Lambo said:
Interesting observation. I've not worked for a health service union, but have worked in education. I would always have insisted that an alleged "bully" be placed on gardening leave during an investigation. This would not only protect the accuser, but allow others to speak up who might not have had the same level of courage as the original whistle-blower. My experience of Local Authority HR departments is that they were generally on the ball. I've encountered poor practice in both the public and private sector, and there's always a surprise or two. I encountered the giant multi-national where you had to draw pictures and use single syllable words with their HR people who tolerated trade unions as a necessary evil. I also met a 20 strong company where the jack of all trades boss know employment law inside out and positively encouraged trade union membership.

There may be a competency divide, but my experience is that isn't as simple as a private/public one. Not that I'm suggesting you are saying this, I'm just commenting on your experience.
Click to expand...

Indeed my point was that it was bad practice not to suspend pending an investigation of this sort and suspension is in accordance with employment law. Apparently they only suspend if there is a question of patient safety. As you say there is poor practice in public and private sector. Although, from my husbands experience, the bigger companies are usually more on the ball. He was surprised at the NHS stance and not very impressed it has to be said.
 
Davylad said:
According to The Times this morning, the following European citizens would no longer have automatic right to play for us. If we left the EU and wanted them to play for us we would have to appeal. This would affect

Clasie
Gardos
Fonte
Romeu
van Djik
Juanmi
Stekelenburg

Could lead to problems..
Click to expand...

What's your point, you appear to be posting this across the boards, a non reply will get you banned, I'm fair like that :)

Site admin
 
brb said:
What's your point, you appear to be posting this across the boards, a non reply will get you banned, I'm fair like that :)

Site admin
Click to expand...
I'll merge this to our Politics Thread, but please go ahead and ban him if you want brb!
 
Does anyone know why the Minimum Living Wage is only payable to those aged 25+?

When I started working, the "adult" rate of pay was payable from age 21, with all ages, before that, having it's own set hourly rate.
Then, as times changed, the adult rate dropped, to include 18 year olds.
So, other than the obvious reasons (saving money for employers), why will we now have a new, for want of a better word, "adult" age, starting at 25?

I know plenty of 25+ adults with no real financial worries, owing to still living at home, who will benefit, yet also know plenty, aged 21-24, that have full, family responsibilities, that won't.

Will/could this lead to age discrimination, when employing?
 
St Badger said:
Does anyone know why the Minimum Living Wage is only payable to those aged 25+?

When I started working, the "adult" rate of pay was payable from age 21, with all ages, before that, having it's own set hourly rate.
Then, as times changed, the adult rate dropped, to include 18 year olds.
So, other than the obvious reasons (saving money for employers), why will we now have a new, for want of a better word, "adult" age, starting at 25?

I know plenty of 25+ adults with no real financial worries, owing to still living at home, who will benefit, yet also know plenty, aged 21-24, that have full, family responsibilities, that won't.

Will/could this lead to age discrimination, when employing?
Click to expand...
According to the 'official' website.. www.livingwage.gov.uk it is that the low pay commission recommended this, as unemployment is higher in the under 25s. Make of that what you will..
 
tiggermaster said:
According to the 'official' website.. www.livingwage.gov.uk it is that the low pay commission recommended this, as unemployment is higher in the under 25s. Make of that what you will..
Click to expand...

So it is an encouragement to employ someone from the lower age group, presumably at the cost of someone from the higher age group.
I suppose we can expect two different living wages, at some stage. One for men and one for women, as if that isn't already happening, in some industries.
 
St Badger said:
So it is an encouragement to employ someone from the lower age group, presumably at the cost of someone from the higher age group.
I suppose we can expect two different living wages, at some stage. One for men and one for women, as if that isn't already happening, in some industries.
Click to expand...

Think government have always drawn up policies in this manner, dressed as positive discrimination.

We have an issue with youth unemployment, so this will make employers favour taking a chance on a younger person. Even if the motivations are not the most honourable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back