Paradise on Boris Island

Boris Johnson had a dream. His world was infested with evil red worms called Bendy-buses, which clogged up the roads and upset motorists. He yearned for the bygone days of the Routemaster, with its open platform which enabled people to hop on and fall off willy-nilly. So much was his longing that he arranged a competition, and a few years (and several million quid) later, we now have the New Bus for London.

Having rid the capital of his pet hate, he has a new dream: to build a new island in the Thames. It will provide a transport mega-hub, with four runways, rail-links from the centre of London and elsewhere, and enough capacity to permit transfers from short-haul flights from within the UK. A new Thames barrier would be provided, doubling up as a new road crossing. The cost? A mere £50bn. That’s right. Fifty Billion Pounds.

So why is this so wrong? For a start, the Thames estuary is known for being a haven for migrating birds. Although his plan apparently includes proposals to create a new nature reserve, it sounds like a recipe for disaster. Aircraft engines and birds don’t tend to play very well together. Then there’s the CO2 emissions and noise that would come from an airport with four runways.

Ah, but we need to the capacity to encourage foreign investment, don’t we? Perhaps, but there is a fairly easy way of doing that without  building additional airports.  We improve transport links between the major cities, including those with existing international airports. A decent high speed rail network would all but kill demand for domestic flights, with only those from the farthest-flung UK destinations being necessary. We could improve transport links between the existing London airports to make transfers from one to the other as easy as possible. Let’s face it, London has enough of them: Gatwick, Heathrow, London City, Luton and Stanstead.

£50bn could go a long way without having to spend it on another vanity project. Remember that this is Britain – by the time we get around to building the damn thing it’ll be well over-budget, and probably well out-of-date as well.

While I’m totally against this particular island, the concept of “A New Island for Boris” is one that I’m warming to. Somewhere far away, surrounded by shark-infested waters and with no hope of ever escaping. Stick Cameron, Osborne and the rest of the crew there for eternity and I’ll be happy. On reflection, £50bn might just seem like a bargain after all.

The Beecroft Report: The Bad Bosses’ Charter

So we’ve had the attacks on the unemployed, the sick and the disabled. Those who work in the public sector are about to have their pensions raided by the changes in how inflation is calculated. Workers have already been told that they will not only have to pay up front for an unfair dismissal claim, but they will have to have been employed for two years before they can do so. Now, if that wasn’t bad enough, a report commissioned by our dear PM, David Cameron, suggests further erosion of worker’s rights.

The draft Beecroft report, apparently leaked to the Telegraph, suggests certain changes to employment law that would allow businesses to improve efficiency and encourage growth. It talks about the “terrible impact” of the unfair dismissal process and how “lengthy and complex” it is. I would agree about the terrible impact of it; the impact on the employee who has to take their employer to a tribunal in the first place. Let’s face it, the employee has at this point already lost his or her job, so the employer already has the upper hand. There’s the impact on the self-esteem of the worker involved, and the possibility of a spell of unemployment and the pitfalls that entails.

It then goes on about those employees,

secure in the knowledge that their employer will be reluctant to dismiss them, work at a level well below their true capacity: they coast along.

Sure, we’ve all probably worked with someone who didn’t appear to pull their weight or work hard as everyone else, but in most places that I’ve worked there has been a standard disciplinary procedure. Having worked in a few call centres over the years, targets were very much the order of the day and those who fell below standard would soon be shown the door unless significant improvements were made. In one case a girl on my team was “at risk”, but a little bit of extra coaching helped her improve her confidence and completely turned the situation around. At the very least an effort should be made to find out why the employee falls short of the mark.  Perhaps there are problems at home. Could it be that a colleague or line manager is bullying them? Maybe it’s because they are really good at their job, but that life’s little brown-nosers get the recognition before anyone else.

Beecroft goes on to say:

To resolve the problem of unfair dismissal process one could simply say that if discrimination was not involved an employer could dismiss an employee at any time without giving a reason and paying the employee only for his or her contracted notice period. Unfair dismissal is a UK concept and not an EU one, so there are no legal barriers to doing this.

No legal ones maybe, but what about moral barriers? He adds:

However, this would probably neither be fair to employees nor politically acceptable.

No, it probably wouldn’t be fair to employees, and I think the unions would definitely have something to say about it. So, probably not politically acceptable either. Nice try, though. He then goes on to suggest that instead of just sacking someone for no reason and with nothing but a week’s notice, the employee would be given as much notice and pay as if they were being made redundant. So someone who had been with their employer for quite a while would probably come out of it with a few grand, but it’s not much better. He calls this scheme Compensated No Fault Dismissal and says that it would

give certainty to the employer that an employee can be dismissed within a relatively short period at a known cost and with no fear of a referral to a tribunal provided no discrimination is involved.

No Fault? If there is no fault there is no need to dismiss anyone, is there?

Beecroft then goes on to talk about Capability Based Dismissal, which employers could follow instead, but this is an option they can already follow. To quote from the page that I’ve just linked to:

If an employee is not doing their job in the way the employer requires the employer should investigate whether that is due to any lack of application on the part of the employee  (in which case disciplinary proceedings could be contemplated) or whether it is due to the employee’s lack of ability in one or more of the tasks required.

1. How their work does not measure up,
2. The standards expected of the employee
3. A timescale to improve at the end of which the employer will assess the employee
4. Any support, training or advice available to the employee

So they still have to provide a reason for sacking someone, they have to give an employee time to measure up, and they have to provide support or advice. In other words they have to show to a certain extent that they care. Of course, it’s bad enough that they have to pay this useless underperforming layabout without having to spend additional money.

The final paragraph in this (incomplete) document says:

The downside of this proposal is that some people would be dismissed simply because their employer did not like them. While this is sad I believe it is a price worth paying for all the benefits that would result from the change.

That says it all. I’ve been in charge of people whom I didn’t like. Not everyone will get on, but as long as someone gets on with the job and does it to the required standard, personal feelings shouldn’t ever come into it. You like your friends, you like your family (generally), and while it does help if you like your workmates, does it really matter as long as the work gets done?

The sad fact is that none of these changes really need to be implemented. If an employer wants to get rid of you, they will do so, and within the existing legislation. Particularly in the service industries, being rude to a customer is written into the contract as Gross Misconduct, and that means summary dismissal; it’s often your word against the customer, and we all know the customer is always right, don’t we? If your jobs is target-based and you fail to achieve those targets, disciplinary action can and will be taken and dismissal can result fairly swiftly. An employer simply has to make sure that his/her employees are in no doubt what the boundaries are. They can get you on the sick route; nitpicking at the little things, increasing your workload or reducing the available time to complete it (or both). Eventually the employee is signed off with stress and as the absence continues, the disciplinary wheels go into motion.

It is for these reasons that Unfair Dismissal legislation exists. Perhaps it might not prevent someone being dismissed in the first place, but it at least allows people to stand up to unscrupulous employers and send a message telling them that their behaviour is inexcusable.

If an employer treats their staff as human beings rather than human resources, they should have nothing to fear in the first place.

 

Ballots, beer and blogging #sp11

I’ve always enjoyed watching the aftermath of an election. My favourite one was probably in 1997 when the Conservative Party found out that Scotland was a Tory-free zone. The details are a bit hazy, but I’m sure that it was Michael Forsyth who was the last to fall. I cheered so much it prompted my parents to investigate the noise.

Much has changed since. Back then I was a Labour supporter; I am no longer. Tonight, rather than being angry with my reactions to seeing an unpopular party being wiped out, my father was sitting next to me, sipping his drams and exchanging banter.

Politically, we very much differ. He tends to lean towards the right, whereas I’m a fairly liberal lefty. But we both (first) voted in the same way. I don’t know how he cast his second vote, but mine went to the Greens. We both want Independence.

I’ve watched the first few results come in. Rutherglen was held by Labour, but only just. East Kilbride went to the SNP, and shortly afterwards Hamilton, Lanark & Stonehouse fell.

Tonight I expected a wipeout for the LibDems. We eliminated the Conservatives before, and their Westminster bedfellows should expect the same. No matter how much water flows under the bridge, the damage that Thatcher did remains clear in our memories. I expected Labour to get a slight kick up the arse, but not the thumping that it’s getting. So far only three results have been declared, but they’re in the Labour heartland. If ever Labour needed to wake up and smell the coffee, it is now.

I have enjoyed this evening. Despite my stepmother’s protests, it’s an opportunity for my father and I to show some common ground. It’s my first proper Twelection too – I’ve gained a few followers and engaged with the whole social media thing a lot more than I had done before. I just hope that I can enjoy watching the next government of Scotland make changes for the better and that we ensure those parties, who have done so much damage in the past, never see power again.

Election Fever

Perhaps the title of the post should be election sickness, because increasingly that is how I’m feeling about it all. As more junk comes through the letter box, I can’t help wishing that it would all go away.

So, come may 5th, where will I be putting those little X’s? I have three ballot papers to play with this time around. First of all there’s the AV referendum. According to the Beeb:

The full text of the question is: “Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the ‘alternative vote’ system instead of the current ‘first past the post’ system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?”

I’m assuming that it’s a simple yes or no answer. According to voterpower.org.uk, my “voter power” would go up by 31%, whatever that means, if we had AV instead of FPTP. It’s a safe seat, so the outcome would be the same: an SNP win. I’d far rather have a proportional system at Westminster, but I suppose a “dirty little compromise” is better than nothing.

Secondly, there’s the constituency seat. I will have five boxes to choose from.

1. Conservative – The words “hell” and “freezing” spring to mind. I grew up during the Thatcher years, and now we’ve got the bastards back in government. No, thank you.
2. Labour – Once upon a time I could have been considered a Labour voter. They had some good ideas to begin with, and the 10p tax rate was one of them, but they scrapped that. Oh, and the war issue, too.
3. LibDem – I may well have considered voting for them but the fact that the Conservatives usually take second place means that I have voted tactically against them in the past, to make sure. More recently, though, their alliance with the Cons has made sure that they will never get my vote.
4. SNP – I’m not a big supporter, but I do agree with many of their policies, and it’s the Independence issue which I feel most strongly about.
5. UKIP – should have saved your deposit.

The regional ballot paper will be rather more colourful:

• All Scotland Pensioners’ Party
• Ban Bankers Bonuses – I wonder how may votes they’ll get!
• BNP
• Christian Party “Proclaiming Christs Lordship”
• Liberal Party (The)
• Conservatives
• Greens
• Labour
• Liberal Democrats
• SNP
• Scottish Socialist Party
• Socialist Labour Party
• Solidarity
• UKIP

Out of that lot, my second vote will be going Green. I would really like to give my first vote to the Greens as well, and I hope that at some time in the future it will be possible. In the meantime, my first vote will be going to the SNP. Their track record is fairly good, they are in favour of independence and given the rest of the constituency ballot, the only other option would be to spoil it.

We had two terms of LabLib coalition, followed by one term of SNP minority government, but how will this election turn out?Labour have got Ian Gray as their leader, and I really don’t want him to be First Minister I doubt they’ll be able to get a majority anyway, which means they’d have to think about coalition. I think the LibDems will suffer and I hope the Conservatives are crucified.

I’d like to see the Greens do better this time. They had seven seats in 2003, reducing to two in 2007. Ideally I’d like to see a Green/SNP coalition, but I’m not holding my breath. Either way, I think the SNP will still end up with the largest number of seats.

The Employer’s Charter

I wanted to blog about this yesterday, but it got me in such a fit of rage I found myself unable to string two sentences together, at least without using numerous words beginning with “f” and “c”. This article in the Daily Mail outlines David Cameron’s proposals to increase the length of service an employee should give before being eligible to take an employer to an industrial tribunal to two years. This is part of his plan to get encourage employers “to take on thousands more staff”. Worse still, he wants to actually charge people a fee if they want to take their employer to task to prevent “vexatious claims”. The fee would be repaid if the employee won their case.

Employers can sack you whenever they see fit as it is. Absence, for example, is one area where they seem to be focussing. Whether genuine or of the “duvet day” variety, I think most employers these days keep track of the number of days an employee has been off sick. They use the disciplinary procedure in its varying stages to get rid of employees, all perfectly legally. They can change your hours. Most employers, especially within the retail sector, have clauses in their terms of employment that say they can change your hours “to suit the needs of the business”. An employee could find themselves in a position where they’ve been working the same regular hours for months and suddenly have them changed. They can give you hours that they know are unsuitable for you, and if you fail to turn up on time, or at all, it’s you that’s in the wrong.

They can simply bully you out of a job. It doesn’t take much. All it takes is for one supervisor to take a dislike to you, and you end up in the situation where work life is such a misery that you feel compelled to find another job. Or worse still, end up being signed off with stress-related illnesses. This in turn increases absence levels, and they’ve got you on the attendance again. I’ve seen it happen. I’ve experienced it first-hand. Yes, there are grievance procedures that can be followed, but fighting the “system” only makes life more stressful.

Being able to take your employer to a tribunal means that employers have to think twice about it. In some cases they see the compensation as a small price to pay to get rid of you. After all the hassle, you won’t want that job back. They win even though they lose. They’ve got rid of you. Result. They’ll make their money back eventually. You don’t even have to be a”bad employee” to begin with. It may simply be that your face doesn’t fit. In these days where trade unions seem to be more and more impotent (USDAW, I’m looking at you), a tribunal is one of the few protections that workers have left.

What makes me laugh is the fact that David Cameron will never know what it’s like to be at the sharp end. He won’t ever be late for a shift because his employer scheduled him to start at 8am, knowing that his first bus doesn’t leave until 9. He won’t ever be disciplined because his son or daughter fell ill and he couldn’t make it to work through lack of childcare. He won’t ever be left with the choice of having to choose between spending money on bus fares to get to work or food because his employer fucked up his wages the previous week.

This hair-brained Tory idea won’t make it easier for employers to take on more staff. It does mean that employers don’t have to pay as much redundancy money when they have to lay off workers. It does mean that those, particularly in the lowest paid jobs, have less job security. If they want to make it easier for employers to take on more staff, might I suggest an increase in the minimum wage? More money in the pockets of the lowest paid means more spent in the shops, bars and restaurants. Bingo, more jobs. Of course, this money would have to come from the profits of the companies concerned, and we wouldn’t want the shareholders to lose out on their precious dividends, would we?