A government elected to absolute power by 23% of those entitled to vote, legislates that just to go on strike will require the support of 40% of those entitled to vote.
Update
I find further explanation is necessary. The government proposal is that not only must a majority of those voting cast their ballot in favour of a strike (which is democracy), but in addition that the number voting for the strike must also amount to 40% of those who were eligible to vote. Yet we have no such provision in a general election, where not only did the government get only 37% of those who did vote, it received under a quarter of the votes of those who were eligible to vote. the government is asking for a high
The right to withdraw your labour is the difference between a free man and a slave. Anybody who believes that the British economy has a problem with too many workers’ rights is very far right indeed. The gap between rich and poor had expanded massively in both private and public sectors, as the gap between workers’ pay and bosses’ pay grows ever wider.
In fact the first focus of the Tory government is on removing rights that protect ordinary people from their betters, be they human rights or employment rights.
Giyane, that gave me a laugh! and I see that JimmyG doesn’t want to enlighten us on his self-proclaimed expertise on physics and chemistry (probably because he can’t easily look up my questions on the likes of Wiki).
“You seem to misunderstand the situation. You don’t have to join the union..”
________________
Not since Mrs Thatcher, that is.
Are you old enough to remember the closed shop, Craig?
Baal (to Jimmy Giro)
“With a double first in physics and chemistry, I’m as thick as they come.
Didn’t take much to get you to pull rank, did it? Though a 2.2 in PPE would actually be more relevant to this particular debate, wouldn’t it?”
___________________
I didn’t see Jimmy’s post as trying to pull rank.
But even if he was trying, he’s not the only one. Is there not another frequent poster on here who has told us of his Oxford degree in Greats , then went on to tell us that he had “higher degrees”, and ended up by slipping in the claim that he had a PhD?
No words of scorn from Komodo-Baal then, I seem to remember. 🙂
“I didn’t see Jimmy’s post as trying to pull rank.”
_____________________
Hmmm…Quite there’s a lot you don’t see,or choose not to.
CanSpeccy
13/05/2015 7:43pm
[CanSpeccy]: As for man versus person, this is a silly and pointless debate.
[JSD]: What debate? Anyway, I disagree. The elimination of discriminatory language has a great deal of point to it. Probably, if every single time you were referred to in a collective way you were referred to as “woman”, you would begin to see that the matter is not silly and pointless at all. You’re not a woman. Such a reference would not be factually accurate.
[CanSpeccy]: The Oxford English Dictionary defines “man” and “Man” as “A human being of either sex; a person…”
[JSD]: Exactly. That definition is a discriminatory one, and the day it is wholly eliminated from dictionaries and from human consciousness will be a good day for the language and for society. It’s inaccurate. Fifty per cent of the human race (virtually) is not comprised of men. It is remarkable that you cannot see this. Reverse it. Let’s take a look at Craig’s sentence:
“The right to withdraw your labour is the difference between a free man and a slave.”
Now look at this:
“The right to withdraw your labour is the difference between a free woman and a slave.”
Doesn’t that look a bit odd to you? It does to me, assuming it is applied generally, to everyone. Don’t you think the previous sentence would tend to look a bit odd to a woman?
How much longer would it have taken Craig to type this?
“The right to withdraw your labour is the difference between a free man or woman and a slave.”
Or this:
“The right to withdraw your labour is the difference between a free individual and a slave”.
When we get to the point where an individual, regardless of gender, unthinkingly types the third or the fourth sentence instead of the first one, then we will be getting somewhere.
One more very subtle point. Suppose Craig had typed this:
“The right to withdraw your labour is the difference between a free woman or man and a slave.”
That also looks slightly odd. That’s interesting, I think. The male gender is always referred to first, by convention. That is also discriminatory. If we can get to a point where that looks exactly the same to our minds, regardless of our gender, as suggestion three, then we will also be getting somewhere.
Kind regards,
John
By the way, I am aware that much of my posting above discriminates against transgender individuals, which is why suggestion four is the best of all the alternatives discussed.
Kind regards,
John
Lord Palmerston,
The discussion here is about the right to withdraw labour from an employer – the gay man or the black women arriving at a B&B is not an employer, they are a customer.
The refusal to serve a customer because of the colour of their skin, or their sexuality, ought to be regarded as abhorrent – and in the case of colour discrimination, reminiscent of apartheid, or the US before universal civil rights. Ultimately in the case of sexuality, I think even “reasonable” claims of violated religious rights are going to be trumped by discrimination claims.
The B&B owner therefore needs to be willing to accept all customers unless there is good reason for a refusal, run their business and risk reputational, financial and legal damage from a discrimination claim, or leave the business of serving customers.
Indeed, I am not sure in what sense someone’s religious rights are served by refusing to serve a gay customer. Is the “sinner” less likely to continue to be gay by virtue of being refused? Will the owner of the establishment risk becoming slightly gay by accepting the custom?
Amongst the troll-fest that is Craig’s blog, I’m still waiting for JimmyG to give us a lecture on physics and chemistry.
Has anyone noticed, across all media, since the tories have got in the trolls have gone into overdrive?
“Amongst the troll-fest that is Craig’s blog, I’m still waiting for JimmyG to give us a lecture on physics and chemistry.”
_______________________
Troll!
@Mary
Can Speccy Did you read my post about Mitie?È
Have now, but donèt quite see how it relates to the question of pay equity, etc.
Apparently Mitie are breaking the minimum wage law. If so, they should be prosecuted.
Did you note, incidentally, that in suggesting the abolition of the minimum wage I advocated a negative tax for below-minimum-wage workersÉ
@JSD
The Oxford English Dictionary defines “man” and “Man” as “A human being of either sex; a person…”
[JSD]: Exactly. That definition is a discriminatory one, and the day it is wholly eliminated from dictionaries and from human consciousness will be a good day for the language and for society. It’s inaccurate. Fifty per cent of the human race (virtually) is not comprised of men. It is remarkable that you cannot see this. Reverse it. Let’s take a look at Craig’s sentence:
Of course the definition is not discriminatory. Depending on context, “man” is inclusive: (man embraces woman), or it refers to an adult male. If you cannot distinguish between homonyms by context, you must find language very confusing.
Probably, if every single time you were referred to in a collective way you were referred to as “woman”, you would begin to see that the matter is not silly and pointless at all.
Obviously “woman” does not embrace man since a “woman” is a member of mankind with a womb.
@ Fedup
Canada used to belong Inuit
Not really. the Innu have always lived in the Arctic, whereas much of Canada is relatively temperate and has long been the home of what are commonly known as Indians.
And, in case you were not aware of it, large parts of the Canadian Arctic form the self-governing territory of Nunavut, where 84.1% of the population is Inuit.
As for the Indians, or First Nations, they have title to much of the land as recently acknowledged by a Supreme Court decision.
As for the destination of the deported criminals from Britain, I think you are confusing Canada with Australia.
@ Jon
“Indeed, I am not sure in what sense someone’s religious rights are served by refusing to serve a gay customer. Is the “sinner” less likely to continue to be gay by virtue of being refused? Will the owner of the establishment risk becoming slightly gay by accepting the custom?”
They would have aided and abetted an act they regard as repugnant; like a Kosher restaurant serving bacon sandwiches.
They will have less shit to clean off the sheets.
@ RobG
“I see that JimmyG doesn’t want to enlighten us on his self-proclaimed expertise on physics and chemistry (probably because he can’t easily look up my questions on the likes of Wiki).”
Indeed, if the answers to your questions are easy to look up, how will you know I didn’t merely look up the answers?
If you want to test me, you’ll have to have the ability to ask a testing question, which might require a bit of work from yourself.
My degree was awarded in 1992, so I’ll be a bit rusty on the facts; but then one doesn’t forget the ‘education’. My strong points were in Thermodynamics, Chemical kinetics, Spectra Analysis, Taking the piss out of Chemists, Liquid crystals, Physical optics [holography and zone plates], and general experimental physics techniques.
Happy thinking.
So you are fully aware you are an immigrant with an attitude.
Despite being an IMMIGRANT, you keep a constant torrent of anti-immigrant bile and rubbish any and all other cultures/people whilst banging on about “white race” and the rest of shite that that kind of crapfest entails.
They will have less shit to clean off the sheets.
Better ban the elderly incontinent too then. Turds in the linen are a daily feature of life for hotel workers where elderly guests are the norm. You’d be surprised.
On that particular issue, though, I do agree that a guesthouse owner living in the property should have the right to admit or reject guests on any basis at all. If there are particular quibbles, they should include them in the advertising. I personally have a religious objection to physics graduates who think they are the dog’s bits on the basis of their (first) degree, and would exclude them on that basis.
Repetition…too many bases. You have the subject.
I’m not surprised, since people who know their own habits are more likely to share their dirty ones, especially if they have an attitude of entitlement, as befits a socialist or a befuddled geriatric.
I’m told Israeli tour buses are particularly bad for that.
So you are fully aware you are an immigrant
Yes, naturally I am aware of the basic fact of my life history.
What you mean by “with an attitude” I have no idea.
Despite being an IMMIGRANT, you keep a constant torrent of anti-immigrant bile and rubbish…
Why is “immigrant” capitalized, I wonder. Is that some arcane way of expressing some meaning you are unable to put into words?
As for the “torrent of anti-immigrant bile, etc.”, that is simply a lie.
I have always acknowledged that legal immigrants to Britain or anywhere else have all the rights that the law allows.
But bile seems to be your problem, which may explain your lack of facts and logic and the libelous nature of your comments.
Well it is certainly clear to a blind man on a galloping horse that qualifications in entropy, the laws of thermodynamics, and the ability to distinguish between a wave and a particle gives one unique insights into being able to comment with authority on free collective bargaining, industrial relations, and human relations management.
Coming next from a Girobank near you; the role of Scrodinger’s cat in the demise the Whitley Wage Councils and how Boyle ‘ s law determines the dynamics of power relations in the workplace.
@ Dave Hansell
Why not; they use ideas from the physical sciences in economics, and predicting market trends.
Unless you’re a blind man galloping on a horse, with no real imagination.
Jon,
> The discussion here is about the right to withdraw labour from an
> employer – the gay man or the black women arriving at a B&B is not
> an employer, they are a customer.
Ah, so if it’s the landlord’s *employee* who turns away the
undesirable categories, you have no problem with that. Thanks for
clearing that up!
Craig, who do you think my betters might be?
JG
I rest my case your honour. Those limited reductionist models certainly worked a treat in creating the collapse of the banking system.
It is not just about content. Context is vital.
When it comes to any context involving real people and man made organised systems the scientific management approach of Taylor, who was also fixated on the delusion that human beings and their organisations were interchangeable with classical mechanics, was discredited a century ago.
The physical sciences give very useful insights into the behaviour of simple low level systems. Higher level complex systems involving the reality of interaction between multiple complex organisms like people and organisations ( what some people seem to dismiss as “socialism” perhaps because it goes beyond their comfort zone of dealing with the simple easily managable limited variables of a single automatous particle/element/organism/person) such as Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management requires a totally different set of intellectual tools and mindset to that of the reductionist approach of the physical sciences.
Consequently, unless you have any other expertise which is actually relevant to this subject area, in terms of utility and understanding, the qualifications you are hanging your hat on have next to nothing useful to contribute in this field.
@ Dave Hansell
Socialists believe in ‘equality’ and central control. Both are small minded anti-natural ideologies, which Igor Shafarevich spotted as a cause of death for all socialist societies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Shafarevich
Dave Hansell, 7:44 pm; what? Are you saying that maths is useless in this field?
backpedaling on the anti IMMIGRANT crock of shit that you constantly spew then go onto; Libelous! Oh I am frightened now!!
“genocide of the white race” is not classed as bile, for a dickhead like you then?
“Attitude” you go figure, if you can pull your head out of your arse for long enough.
Refusing rooms to a couple in a B&B because they are gay is waaay OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!!!!! Even bigots are entitled to their opinions, but when homophobic and biphobic hate steps over into refusing service in a hotel or shop even if you own the premises then this is blatant discrimination and is now 100 per cent against the law. Religious bigots are total hypocrites for they’d be the first to scream bloo murder if someone refused them a room on account of being Christian, Jewish, Muslim or whatever. Kind of ironic as far as the self-proclaimed Christians are concerned too when you consider the ‘no room at the inn’ baby Jesus story.
Ps. As I’m bi do you think these homophobic bigots would allow me to stay half-board? Not that I’d wanna set foot ins some minging hater Norman Bates psycho motel anyway! LOL:)