Ashley Accused.

[Darth Plagueis]

Seriously Tash get a f**ing grip, it is not easy keeping a business going as it is with the cost burdens, yes some employers do abuse their employees and treat them badly but these contracts have a place in business operation, you don't like them fair enough but wait until you have to run a business before you spew your uninformed gush on the issue. How many people starve to death in this country really, our poverty is relative, you should travel the world and see real poverty and how many other countries treat their people before you sound off. This issue is a political football and is represented in a certain way by the vested interests, as I pointed out earlier it pisses me off that a lot of the noise about these contracts is being made by left wing socialist which is ironic cause the friend of the working man the Labour party introduced these contracts during their time in power. Used by sensible employers they allow you to have much more flexible staffing arrangements to meet the peaks and troughs of demand that you have in particular business sectors, if they are banned then I among many will have to change the way in which I react to the peaks and troughs which will undoubtably exclude some people from being able to work anymore. We have a whole raft of employment legislation, health and safety, COSHH, manual handling of loads, fire precautions and so on that provide a framework that has to be worked within to ensure that our employees have a quality work environment, it is an insult to all the people who take the risk to run buisness's in this country to liken them to 3rd world sweatshops, you should actually learn about these things before making such emotive and frankly s**te comparrisons.

You've strawmanned me in your post by making the points you have about flexible staff arrangements. I'm not against negotiable/flexible hours to a certain degree, but not if that means zero hour contracts where you don't really know how many hours you're going to get at all, and they can call you in for as little or as much as it pretty much suits them. You should get a reasonable idea of what hours you should be getting, but I'm all for employers requiring employees that can be flexible to a certain degree.

We can have negotiable hour contracts that aren't as tight as zero hour contracts, and also allow for employees to have a reasonable idea of what they're going to be working, and get a decent opportunity to try and make a living.

You've basically made all the excuses that the likes of Mike Ashley would make with a bunch of business jargon to hide what is really going on with a lot of businesses, and in the case of Sports Direct and those like it, they are basically offering the bare minimum to maximize profit, without care for employees.

My comparisons weren't great, but don't have a go at me for backing my points with a bit of emotion while getting all worked up yourself. Or better yet, we should discuss this in a dark alleyway sometime. Jokes

 

[Darth Plagueis]

Blacker that knight, calm yourself down with your attitude. I've nothing against passion and a bit of swearing, but dismissing everyone's points as utter garbage and talking to people in the way you have is out of order.

 

[Blacker-than-Knight]

Blacker that knight, calm yourself down with your attitude. I've nothing against passion and a bit of swearing, but dismissing everyone's points as utter garbage and talking to people in the way you have is out of order.

No it isn't when you talk from a point of ignorance, as for me being out of order you can stick it in that dark alley.......

 

[Magnet]

Probably pertinent to the issue is why 90% (assuming that figure is correct) of SD's employees need to be on zero hour contracts. It's a shop for most employees or a warehouse and proper management should be able to work on a basis of set hours and number of hours contracts for most employees in that type of business.

I accept there will be some businesses where a lot of flexibility is required and hence zero hour contracts but not for a high street sports shop to the extent of 90% of it's workforce.

 

[Freddd]

I knew it was only a matter of time before a pretentious individual would think he's clever by making this point about us living in a capitalist country, and on top of that throwing some f**ing sarcasm in there.

Capitalism is the best system, in my opinion, but it isn't flawless, and we can have capitalists that make a lot of money, but legal rules which prevent capitalists from exploiting people to a certain degree.

Don't insult my intelligence like that again. You'll have to do a lot better than that to catch me out.

All of which goes as far as justifying your comment that the laws should, in your (not unreasonable) view be amended.

It doesn't really go anyway at all to justifying the rest of the rant about employers acting entirely in accord with the laws as they now are.

Seeing a criticism coming and being vitriolic with respect to it is different from answering it.

 

[Darth Plagueis]

All of which goes as far as justifying your comment that the laws should, in your (not unreasonable) view be amended.

It doesn't really go anyway at all to justifying the rest of the rant about employers acting entirely in accord with the laws as they now are.

Seeing a criticism coming and being vitriolic with respect to it is different from answering it.

Don't expect a fully reasonable response if you're going to post sarcastic responses like you did. No need for it.

My argument comes from an ethical point of view, and I concede that part of it is just bleeding heart stuff, however, it's not completely just emotive reasons.

I don't believe it's a very well functioning system if less than 1% of the population owns 99% of the wealth because they can cleverly get away with exploiting less fortunate people.

It's not just "oh that's immoral" if some people struggling to make a living because of the poor laws that are in place.

 

[key]

I say bring back slavery. At least then the workers won't have to worry about a roof over their head or where the next meal's going to come from.

 

[Freddd]

Don't expect a fully reasonable response if you're going to post sarcastic responses like you did. No need for it.

My argument comes from an ethical point of view, and I concede that part of it is just bleeding heart stuff, however, it's not completely just emotive reasons.

I don't believe it's a very well functioning system if less than 1% of the population owns 99% of the wealth because they can cleverly get away with exploiting less fortunate people.

It's not just "oh that's immoral" if some people struggling to make a living because of the poor laws that are in place.

Fair enough. Over the top ranting screeds do tend to attract sarcasm, however.

As far as the points you make go, there is a lot to be said for them.

The distribution of wealth is hard to defend, though I think the 1%/99% division is more myth than fact. Even if its 5%/95% or 10%/90%, though, the point retains validity.

The question is what do you do about it ? Do we require people to do more than the law requires of them ? If so, who do we require more of and what do we require of them ?

There are two entirely legal ways I can be paid. One way I pay about £5,000 more tax than the other. I've never been able to figure out why the way that I pay less tax exists but it does. I choose to be paid the cheaper way even though I have given up trying to find a decent moral argument for keeping the £5k. Am I a worse person than I should be ?

Ashley obeys the law and runs his business in a way that works best for him. What more do we say he should do ?

Do we require rich people to give away their money because they don't need it ? If so, how much ? Who to ? There are, after all, people a lot worse off in the world that Sports Direct employees.

Serious questions. I have no answers.

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

I say bring back slavery. At least then the workers won't have to worry about a roof over their head or where the next meal's going to come from.

Finally some common sense

 

[Freddd]

Finally some common sense

There is a fairly substantial body of opinion that holds that the real reason slavery was abolished is that it was becoming more costly than 'wage slavery'

 

[Maximin Effort]

There is a fairly substantial body of opinion that holds that the real reason slavery was abolished is that it was becoming more costly than 'wage slavery'

Well with property & rental prices as they are you can see why

 

[Albert's Chip Shop]

Lads can we please have a bit less of the personalisation.
I like to think I'm a bit laid back but feel the need to interject here.
Disagreements are all fine and dandy but this is getting a bit out of hand.
Group hug?

 

[key]

If Sports Direct were forced to pay a zero contract workers' rent, food and utility bills in order for them to live 'comfortably', they would make a massive loss. However Ashley would bypass this by working you 140 hours a week. Of course that's ok as long as he isn't breaking the law.

Freedom is overrated anyway right?

 

[Freddd]

Actually, slightly less extreme than I thought. Still not good of course.

"The richest 10% in Britain own 44% of total national wealth"

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

There is a fairly substantial body of opinion that holds that the real reason slavery was abolished is that it was becoming more costly than 'wage slavery'

Certainly in the British empire our economic interests had changed. A large portion of our slave interests were in the Americas obviously. Lots of factors contributed it to the abolishment including American independence leading to a decline in our sugar colonies in the West Indies due to trade being done direct with others, the industrial revolution leading to us no longer needing slave-based goods. Cotton, rather than sugar, became the main produce of the British economy. Places like Manchester became centre of our economic prosperity rather than ploating other nations.

Undoubtedly there was great resistance by enslaved people too. There always had been but large scale revolts were damaging profitability. Throw in a bit of parliamentary reform which saw many who supported slavery removed from power and you have a potent mix for change. There were abolition campaigns and strong opposition from religious groups too.

As ever it was a combination of many factors. Interesting stuff, studied it a bit way back. No doubt that body of opinion does hold some credence. Economic reasons always play a huge role in revolution. Often without financial factors, change will not take place. Had the slaves remained placid and we not discovered other methods of making money, we'd still be enslaving people now.

I can think of lots of people in this country who should be enslaved just to make some use of them .

 

[Albert's Chip Shop]

Actually, slightly less extreme than I thought. Still not good of course.

"The richest 10% in Britain own 44% of total national wealth"

Thats a surprising stat tbh.

 

[Blacker-than-Knight]

Actually, slightly less extreme than I thought. Still not good of course.

"The richest 10% in Britain own 44% of total national wealth"

Has it not been shown though that the richest also pay a larger burden of the tax, I discussed this with a member of my staff last year, someone on the national minimum wage earns £12304 based on a 37.5 hour week, they pay £460 in tax and £521 in NI, I as a manager earned £26000 and paid £3200 in tax and £2165 in NI, I pay 5 times the burden but don't get 5 times the salary, I also worked on average 60 hours a week as I was expected to put more time in as a manager.

 

[Albert's Chip Shop]

Has it not been shown though that the richest also pay a larger burden of the tax, I discussed this with a member of my staff last year, someone on the national minimum wage earns £12304 based on a 37.5 hour week, they pay £460 in tax and £521 in NI, I as a manager earned £26000 and paid £3200 in tax and £2165 in NI, I pay 5 times the burden but don't get 5 times the salary, I also worked on average 60 hours a week as I was expected to put more time in as a manager.

The government royally screw the 40% threshold too. Whilst I believe the upper limit earners at 50% get an easy ride.

 

[Blacker-than-Knight]

The government royally screw the 40% threshold too. Whilst I believe the upper limit earners at 50% get an easy ride.

40% at £31866 to £150000 45% over £150000, this means that you pay 40% on any money earnt over £31866 and 45% on any money earnt over 150k, still get 10k tax free first and only pay 20% upto the threshold of £31866, this is the funny bit that this has more impact on public sector workers in general as there are fewer private sector workers at the higher end of these salary scales, there are a significant number of public sector employees on salaries in excess of £50k and at the top end over £400k.

 

[Freddd]

The government royally screw the 40% threshold too. Whilst I believe the upper limit earners at 50% get an easy ride.

The tax system is in my view relatively fair in so far as it functions. Those who earn bugger all pay nowt. I have no trouble with anyone working person who earns less than £10k paying no income tax. They pay enough in VAT and NI.

The idea that the more you make, the greater share you contribute also strikes me as correct, though you can always argue the details.

The difficulty is that once you get into significant sums, the system ceases to work.

Take one example of which I have personal knowledge. An acquaintance is a multi millionare: lets say £150m total assets, £50m net equity. His kids drive Ferraris.

The family businesses in the UK all operate from land owned by a company in the Isle of Mann. The rents are quite high meaning that the UK companies make little profit.

The Isle of Mann company is very profitable and has large cash reserves.

When an offspring needs a new Ferrari, the company which is going to buy the Ferrari has to borrow the money from the Isle of Mann company. The Isle of Mann company, as it is making an unsecured loan, charges a significant rate of interest. Those interest costs are set off against the borrowing company's other income.

It is not correct that no UK income tax gets paid. The Ferrarri is a taxable employee benefit. It's just that its only a small fraction of the amount which would be paid if all of this happened in Britain.

It is hard to know what to do about this problem. You could perhaps pass laws outlawing this particular arrangement. Someone would think of a new one.

The UK could force the Isle of Mann (and Jersey and Gibraltar) to charge income tax. The money would move to the Antibes.