colhint Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 responsibility and accountability - why someone thinks a GP should have financial control's is beyond me unless of course a private company will do it for them?). I'm just wondering who you think should have financial control of a GP's surgery? Is a GP employed for their financial skills? He isn't employed for his HR skills either but he probably has to employ people. but I didn't ask that. I asked who you think should do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 but we are seeing an increase in patient treatment times, now why is that? The 18-week 'target' was bad for care because it forced hospitals to ignore cases in order to meet "targets" It's rather sad that a mechanism which treated people as numbers on a list rather than as people is so heavily championed Interesting you (now) take that view because I seem to remember you talking about patient waiting times under the last Gvmt but never having that view. What changed? I doubt I've ever even spoken about NHS waiting lists to be honest ... but feel free to prove me wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 We have a Gvmt who want to introduce slave labour schemes a new low in VT political discussion , take a bow son , take a bow Definition slave labor noun 1. persons, especially a large group, performing labor under duress or threats Gvmt Scheme - Work for free or lose benefits Take a bow Tony your defence of Tory policy is now worthy of a Blue medal misquoting tut tut the actual FULL definition is 1. persons, especially a large group, performing labour under duress or threats as prisoners in a concentration camp; a labour force of slaves or slavelike prisoners. nice try but computer says NO and for using American spelling of the word "labour" you get taken outside and shot by friendly fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyjsg Posted March 1, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 1, 2012 It amazes me how people can be against these work schemes and I'm disappointed the Gvmt has backed down a bit as in the end these people who were threatened are currently getting money for FREE and usually claim they cant get work because of no experience and then when offered experience complain or quit. The only reason these companies are pulling out is because they are frightened of a group of degenrates standing outside and moaning about having to work. Its the ultimate in procrastination, complain about working for longer than they have to actually work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 It amazes me how people can be against these work schemes must admit if I was young and been long term unemployed I'd rip someone's arm off for a job I quoted her in another thread but a couple of years ago a young girl came and knocked on our office door .. she was working on the tills in Tesco but wanted to get into an office job as she saw more of a career there .. and did we have anything available We sorta did ( needed somebody) and didn't (wasn't an area we had a budget for as such) .. but I admired her initiative and she worked as a sort of general office dogsbody , answering the phones ,helping out on projects and so forth We didn't pay her fortunes ... but it was mutually beneficial for both parties ... she did this for about a 18 months and then on the back of the fact her CV showed office experience rather than working on the tills in Tesco ... she left us in November for a new office job paying her £24k ..which isn't bad for a 22 year old So some may ( by lack of being able to read a dictionary :winkold: ) claim it as slave labour , but some will see it for what it is .. an opportunity to try and get on the ladder ... If a company can win out of it as well then good luck to them , we certainly won with Jo , but that she popped in last week for a chat on her day off and brought us all cakes suggests she doesn't feel exploited by us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 It's wrong to take advantage of the recession and pay awful wages, and no matter how it may be dressed up it's deeply immoral. If a company has work for someone, particularly one with huge profits, get em in and off the dole and pay them a decent wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 ...an opportunity to try and get on the ladder... I suppose that would depend on whether they were stacking the bottom or top shelf. Heart warming and great though the story you recount is, I'm not sure that it is particularly representative of the various schemes (not just the young persons scheme but the others that have happened, are happening and may well be happening in greater numbers in the future). Especially as We didn't pay her fortunes would suggest (I hope I'm not reading too much in to this ) that you did pay her and therefore you employed her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 1, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 1, 2012 One objection to them is that Taxpayers pay benefits to people, which is fine. But If they then perform labour/work for an employer, why should the Taxpayer pay for them to work for (for example) Tesco, who make humungous profits and Tesco not pay them instead. Additionally, if Tesco or whoever are getting labour paid for by the Taxpayer, then they might be minded to make a few people redundant, thus not have to pay their wages, and instead get the taxpayer to pay a succession of shelf stackers. Who wins out of this situation? Tesco - Yes. The people who stack shelves, no. The taxpayer - no. Gov't paying big business is not what this should be about. Of course it's not all big business, there's also small enterprises could be involved. Corner shops, garages and so on. But garages need skilled mechanics, accountants etc. And if they need skilled labour, then they need to pay these people. Corner shops, if there's really a vacancy, then interview someone, and try them out and pay them the minimum wage for a a few weeks. Give people a bit of dignity. edit like this ]...a couple of years ago a young girl came and knocked on our office door .. she was working on the tills in Tesco but wanted to get into an office job as she saw more of a career there .. and did we have anything available We sorta did ( needed somebody) and didn't (wasn't an area we had a budget for as such) .. but I admired her initiative and she worked as a sort of general office dogsbody , answering the phones ,helping out on projects and so forth We didn't pay her fortunes ... but it was mutually beneficial for both parties ... she did this for about a 18 months and then on the back of the fact her CV showed office experience rather than working on the tills in Tesco ... she left us in November for a new office job paying her £24k ..which isn't bad for a 22 year old So some may ( by lack of being able to read a dictionary :winkold: ) claim it as slave labour , but some will see it for what it is .. an opportunity to try and get on the ladder ... If a company can win out of it as well then good luck to them , we certainly won with Jo , but that she popped in last week for a chat on her day off and brought us all cakes suggests she doesn't feel exploited by us Good on You for doing that, tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 1, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 1, 2012 The work scheme controversy seems to me to largely stem from the idea that it is the tax payer effectively subsidising Tesco and co's bottom end labour force (something they certainly don't need), which of course also blocks entry to an actual job for somebody. I also would question how much use low level experience in a shop actually is on your CV in the current climate. Sure, any experience is going to make a CV look a bit better, but I don't think 8 weeks being forced to put out baked beans is going to set any employer's heart a flutter. In fact I'd almost say it could be a negative - it wouldn't look great to me, were I looking for prospective employees, that their experience was effectively forced on them by the Job Centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 ...an opportunity to try and get on the ladder... I suppose that would depend on whether they were stacking the bottom or top shelf. . is it only self stacker's that Tesco are giving jobs to ? (I've not read up on the story in detail) but how many people start at the bottom of a company and work their way up ? true not every self stacker is going to make it to MD of the company but some people do .. I should think most companies are good at spotting talent and keep (and promote) the good ones ? Especially as We didn't pay her fortunes would suggest (I hope I'm not reading too much in to this ) that you did pay her and therefore you employed her. we did indeed employ her , I guess my point was more about her drive and how she is being rewarded for it ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 is it only self stacker's that Tesco are giving jobs to ? (I've not read up on the story in detail) There is nowt wrong with stacking shelves. My mother does that part time at the moment and my brother and his girlfriend did it for a while on a nightshift a few years ago. My comment wasn't a suggestion that these are the only things on offer through these schemes. ;-) I saw one person on one news item who had been taken on in a small carpentry business, I think. Though on the other side of the coin, there were reports that some people were being sent by A4E to go and work for them in other offices. but how many people start at the bottom of a company and work their way up ? I'm not sure how many do. Possibly a few still do (even though Tesco were claiming it, I don't think Leahy really fits that bill) we did indeed employ her , I guess my point was more about her drive and how she is being rewarded for it ... As Blandy said above, that should be applauded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 That's the NHS that the coalition has increased spending on, yes? The government that is pushing through reforms on 'choice' that were championed for 13 years by Labour? :-) - I love how you follow Party spin AWOL. I love it even more when that is showed to be bollox So how many of the Health Worker Organisations that Cameron said were in favour of the plans are actually? How many of these who have raised concerns are now allowed to speak to Cameron? The Royal College of General Practitioners: opposed Royal College of Physicians: neither for or against British Geriatric Society: opposed Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health: opposed The Royal College of Nursing: opposed The Royal College of Midwives: opposed The Royal College of Radiologists: oppose the bill in its current form The Faculty of Public Health: opposed Royal College of Physiotherapy: opposed The Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association (part of Unite): opposed The Patients’ Association: opposes the bill in its current form National Association of Primary Care - For The Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisation - Cameron claimed they were for - Their web site says "they have not decided" NHS Alliance - Cameron claimed they were for - They have said "it is supporting the bill, with qualifications:" The Foundation Trust Network also supports it with qualifications So Cameron has (again) told lies about the NHS and support for this killing off of it. Of course the BMA is not mentioned there, guess what they are massively against it. Ooops 9% of NHS staff are for the bill. Seems tonight's question time may have countered your claim All these "againsts" are based on small numbers replying Ie royal college of general practitioners 44,000 members only 2600 answered the question , physiotherapists 1100 out of 50,000 members answered Now I'm not suggesting that means the 41400 practitioners that didn't reply are "for" the governments bill .. But if with your logic the opinion of 6% of people in that occupation counts as proof of being against then surely with the same logic the 94% who didn't feel that opposed to the bill to even reply must be for the government bill ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 How do you go further than invasion, nuclear war? No faked indignation here (and I'm not the Tory party btw), Labour's lies brought about the worst foreign policy disaster in living memory and the reprecussions are still rolling across the region today. Priceless - I must admit I am actually laughing now at your post. So this is all made up is it? - The vote on the Iraq war. 90% of Tory MP's voted Yes to it ( 139 - 15 ). Labour 78% ( 244 -69), LibDem 0% (0 - 63) link - IDS said in 2002 link - Cameron claimed in a Sky news interview "I look back over what I said to my constituents and the argument about weapons of mass destruction was just one of the points that I put," Cameron said in a recent Sky News interview, echoing Blair's line that there was a separate case for regime change. "I think the fact that Saddam Hussein was in breach of so many UN resolutions, and was such a menace to the region, were also relevant points." etc etc - - This is a good site for seeing the U turns that politicians from all parties made re Iraq Of course you're laughing, you don't care that the lies told by Blair, Campbell et al. have ultimately led to a situation that may spark WW3. Before you accuse me of hyperbole, it is the considered view of very many people with genuine knowledge of this region that the Iraq invasion let the genie out of the bottle. We all need to pray that sane minds can now hold it together - although the prognosis is doubtful. I don't dispute that the Tories backed the Government of the day over Iraq, after all, who would believe that a PM could possibly tell such a whopper and conceal the truth from all but his closest advisors? MP's mistakenly believed that the then Labour PM had an ounce of integrity and wouldn't abuse the sacred trust of his office over matters of war and peace. LOL @ that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 misquoting tut tut the actual FULL definition is 1. persons, especially a large group, performing labour under duress or threats as prisoners in a concentration camp; a labour force of slaves or slavelike prisoners. nice try but computer says NO and for using American spelling of the word "labour" you get taken outside and shot by friendly fire I agree. Well, on the point about American spelling, at least. On the main point, you will agree there is a difference between "slavery" and "slave labour". Slavery denotes the full monte, while slave labour is used to describe work which has more than a passing resemblance to what slaves do or how they do it. "Slave labour" is sometimes lazily used to describe when someone does overtime they don't really want to do, or when they think their pay rate isn't quite what it should be. This is stretching it a bit far, I think. Slave labour more accurately describes work which is unpaid and involuntary, where people are made to do it by means of threats or sanctions. Slavery includes additional benefits, like unpunished gratuitous violence, institutionalised rape and so on. I don't imagine anyone using the term "slave labour" intends to describe a state of actual slavery, though perhaps there are some out there who can prove me wrong. With regard to the government's scheme, "slave labour" seems a fairly accurate description, and attempts to rebut this charge by trying to confuse it with "slavery" are pretty weak, and not to be taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 With regard to the government's scheme, "slave labour" seems a fairly accurate description, and attempts to rebut this charge by trying to confuse it with "slavery" are pretty weak, and not to be taken seriously. I'd wouldn't take your description of it as "slave labour" any more seriously to be honest, it's just as weak as the 'slavery' comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Seems tonight's question time may have countered your claim All these "againsts" are based on small numbers replying Ie royal college of general practitioners 44,000 members only 2600 answered the question , physiotherapists 1100 out of 50,000 members answered Now I'm not suggesting that means the 41400 practitioners that didn't reply are "for" the governments bill .. But if with your logic the opinion of 6% of people in that occupation counts as proof of being against then surely with the same logic the 94% who didn't feel that opposed to the bill to even reply must be for the government bill ?? It is a fair point that people replying to surveys are self-selected and therefore unrepresentative, and that you can't deduce the views of the rest from this group. Perhaps it would be better to commission an independent survey of opinion using statistically verified techniques, conducted by a reputable firm and carried out in accordance with industry guidelines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 With regard to the government's scheme, "slave labour" seems a fairly accurate description, and attempts to rebut this charge by trying to confuse it with "slavery" are pretty weak, and not to be taken seriously. I'd wouldn't take your description of it as "slave labour" any more seriously to be honest, it's just as weak as the 'slavery' comparison. Could you try to develop your answers into explaining why you disagree, rather than just stating that you disagree? It would make for a much more useful discussion. (Hint - you haven't actually done that here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 On the main point, you will agree there is a difference between "slavery" and "slave labour". Slavery denotes the full monte, while slave labour is used to describe work which has more than a passing resemblance to what slaves do or how they do it. "Slave labour" is sometimes lazily used to describe when someone does overtime they don't really want to do, or when they think their pay rate isn't quite what it should be. This is stretching it a bit far, I think. Slave labour more accurately describes work which is unpaid and involuntary, where people are made to do it by means of threats or sanctions. Slavery includes additional benefits, like unpunished gratuitous violence, institutionalised rape and so on. I don't imagine anyone using the term "slave labour" intends to describe a state of actual slavery, though perhaps there are some out there who can prove me wrong. With regard to the government's scheme, "slave labour" seems a fairly accurate description, and attempts to rebut this charge by trying to confuse it with "slavery" are pretty weak, and not to be taken seriously. You are Jim Hacker and I claim my £5 :-) The definition given by Ian ( well half given) was for the dictionary entry for "slave labour" I don't see any rebuttal from me that even attempts to confuse it with slavery .. The initial poster however DID try and compare it with slavery by half quoting the dictionary defined definition of the word So on that basis it's the attack that is weak and confused and not the rebuttal surely ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 On the main point, you will agree there is a difference between "slavery" and "slave labour". Slavery denotes the full monte, while slave labour is used to describe work which has more than a passing resemblance to what slaves do or how they do it. "Slave labour" is sometimes lazily used to describe when someone does overtime they don't really want to do, or when they think their pay rate isn't quite what it should be. This is stretching it a bit far, I think. Slave labour more accurately describes work which is unpaid and involuntary, where people are made to do it by means of threats or sanctions. Slavery includes additional benefits, like unpunished gratuitous violence, institutionalised rape and so on. I don't imagine anyone using the term "slave labour" intends to describe a state of actual slavery, though perhaps there are some out there who can prove me wrong. With regard to the government's scheme, "slave labour" seems a fairly accurate description, and attempts to rebut this charge by trying to confuse it with "slavery" are pretty weak, and not to be taken seriously. Perhaps it would be better to commission an independent survey of opinion using statistically verified techniques, conducted by a reputable firm and carried out in accordance with industry guidelines? I doubt such a firm exists :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I doubt such a firm exists :-) Oh, there are many, but Bell Pottinger aren't among their ranks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts