Metropol

Chie wrote:No, your hours would be raised by overtime, which would allow you to work over the 35 hour limit and cover the ill person's work.

So what is the point in the 35 hour limit then? I thought it was law? Overtime would be lovely but I'm salaried, I don't *get* overtime.

If none of you felt like volunteering for overtime then the fact that your employer will save money by employing you for 35 hours instead of 39 hours...

...losing me about £250 a month, great...

...would mean they could afford to employ temporary staff.

It's not a role for which temporary staff are suitable.

I can't believe I've just had to literally spell that out for you. I thought it would've been obvious.

Well being as knowledgeable about business practice as you are, I thought you'd have been used to it.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make, Chie, is that such ideas are lovely on paper, but they just don't work when you try to apply them to the real world. Every single business does things in different ways and has different requirements, to put a blanket 35 hour maximum in place would cause chaos.

As nice as a 35 hour week would be, I doubt I'll see one again in my lifetime. 40 is nearer the mark, but that only accounts for work done inside the office.

In these crunchy, nutty times, all employers are expecting more done for less money. Its been said to me more than once at work, and although I can't expect more cash - my bosses will at least rewrite my job description to take into account the extra things taken on. That might help me when I come to find another place of work, but that's the most I can expect.

Its a decidedly non-tory view for you to take Chie. They didn't want the working time directive, and said it would damage business.

The actual cap on working is 48 hours - a world away from 35 - beyond 48 I think most people would end up in a hospital. Ironically those who approach those levels of hours are junior doctors in hospitals.

You're self employed Chie - doing what I know not. I'm not saying you know nothing about what it is to have a real job, but I will imply it heavily.

I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings - but I want to be totally honest, as you deserve that level of respect.

I'm taking the same approach that I do with the 14 year olds who bitch about the licence fee - because I think they have no business uttering their opinion in the same place as those who do pay it, and are qualified to judge it on its value.

Gavin Scott wrote:Its a decidedly non-tory view for you to take Chie. They didn't want the working time directive, and said it would damage business.

Well there is another benefit to reducing the working hours. If, for example, a small company employs 5 people for 40 hours each, and the hours are reduced to 35 then they'd have to employ an extra person in order to get the same amount of work done as before, which is good because plenty of people need a job. Scale this theory up to larger companies and employment would go up significantly. That was part of the thinking behind the French law anyway but unfortunately it hasn't really worked there. However, France has a different culture so there's nothing to say it wouldn't work over here. We could also look at the reasons why their system wasn't very successful and create an improved version on that basis.

Chie wrote:
Gavin Scott wrote:Its a decidedly non-tory view for you to take Chie. They didn't want the working time directive, and said it would damage business.
Well there is another benefit to reducing the working hours. If, for example, a small company employs 5 people for 40 hours each, and the hours are reduced to 35 then they'd have to employ an extra person in order to get the same amount of work done as before, which is good because plenty of people need a job. Scale this theory up to larger companies and employment would go up significantly. That was part of the thinking behind the French law anyway but unfortunately it hasn't really worked there. However, France has a different culture so there's nothing to say it wouldn't work over here. We could also look at the reasons why their system wasn't very successful and create an improved version on that basis.

The costs inherent in adding to your workforce to accommodate the scenario you gave would be disproportionate, and would make overheads for small to medium sized enterprises unworkable.

Far from just paying someone else for that 7 hours of work when the rest have "clocked off", there is the additional time spent sorting payroll, PAYE, appraisal, continuing professional development, and so on.

Besides that, only a tiny percentage of the available (unemployed) workforce would want to work for one day a week.

If there was ever an unworkable system - that would be it.

Perhaps that's why its failed so miserably over the channel.

Chie wrote:The government could also stipulate in the law that employers must agree shifts with their employees at least a fortnight in advance, meaning they wouldn't be able to shit all over your plans.

Weren't you, earlier in this topic, advocating less regulation by government?

Yeah, but the only thing Chie knows about consistency is how thick he is!

Nick Harvey wrote:Yeah, but the only thing Chie knows about consistency is how thick he is!

Ouch!

*grin*

I was born blond.

Chie wrote:I was born blond.

I claim my £5.

This is steering off-topic, but in terms of working hours I understand the average working week is 37.5 hours; is that more or less right?

I understand why people pay tax, and why it's necessary, but what really pisses me off is that I get taxed on my overtime.

The way I see it is that I work 37.5 hours in my normal job, this is 'full time' work, and I get taxed heavily on it. This tax goes towards the government, public services, etc. If I am struggling to make ends meet following this heavy taxation, or I have decided I want more money to spend on some nice clothes, then I could choose to get an additional part time job, so as well as working 37.5 hours Monday to Friday, I also work in a bar on a Saturday night for a bit of spending money. I believe any hours beyond my 37.5 shouldn't be taxed.

I work these extra hours for me, and for me alone. I work them because I'm so heavily taxed I don't have spending money left over. I do not as a consequence of working more than the average person use more public services than anybody else, I don't use the NHS more than everybody else, so why should I pay more tax into the kitty simply because I'm not a lazy cunt and choose to work my socks off for more money?!

If the average working week is 37.5 hours, this is all we should be taxed on. Anything beyond that should be mine to keep, having already made a massive contribution.

That's why I'm considering a bar job in the evenings to boost my income. I can do overtime here, but would be taxed - or I could do a couple of hours in a pub and stay below the threshold for tax as its a separate employer.

Trebles all round.

Gavin Scott wrote: That's why I'm considering a bar job in the evenings to boost my income. I can do overtime here, but would be taxed - or I could do a couple of hours in a pub and stay below the threshold for tax as its a separate employer.

Trebles all round.

That would not work, as you would have to declare the 2nd job on a P46 which would place you on a BR tax code - this is a flat 20% deduction without any freepay (ie fee of tax earnings)

Metropol

Why there is no such thing as a 24 Hour Tesco Store

Re: Why there is no such thing as a 24 Hour Tesco Store

Re: Why there is no such thing as a 24 Hour Tesco Store

Re: Why there is no such thing as a 24 Hour Tesco Store

Re: Why there is no such thing as a 24 Hour Tesco Store

Re: Why there is no such thing as a 24 Hour Tesco Store

Re: Why there is no such thing as a 24 Hour Tesco Store

Re: Why there is no such thing as a 24 Hour Tesco Store

Re: Why there is no such thing as a 24 Hour Tesco Store

Re: Why there is no such thing as a 24 Hour Tesco Store

Re: Why there is no such thing as a 24 Hour Tesco Store

Re: Why there is no such thing as a 24 Hour Tesco Store