The most dangerous man in Britain and it's not close.

[mackthefork]

Tony Woodley

[ QUOTE ]
"A priority for stronger unions in the workplace must be a repeal of the anti-union laws ... British employment laws make it easier and cheaper to sack workers than on the Continent. I will campaign to stop the scandal of British workers being the cannon fodder of Europe."


[/ QUOTE ]

If Brown takes over and deals with this scumbag we'll be back in the 70's and the poor man of Europe before you can say boo. Yuck.

Mack

[bobman0330]

Is this guy any more than a firebrand union leader?

Unions are evil.

[SheetWise]

In the US we just set up payroll corporations that take a small percentage to be the employer-on-record and handle all benefits -- but don't really produce anything. They simply act as a buffer for third party employers. We then "outsource" our labor requirements. This allows the consumer of labor to keep most employees "at will" -- and in extreme situations, the payroll corporation ("employer") can simply be collapsed.

[mackthefork]

The party in control of this country relys heavily on such lunatics for it's funding stream. If he chooses to stamp his feet, Blair can do little about it.

Mack

[ QUOTE ]
In the US we just set up payroll corporations that take a small percentage to be the employer-on-record and handle all benefits -- but don't really produce anything. They simply act as a buffer for third party employers. We then "outsource" our labor requirements. This allows the consumer of labor to keep most employees "at will" -- and in extreme situations, the payroll corporation ("employer") can simply be collapsed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another example of Corporate American ingenuity at it's finest - or worst.

Depends on whether you're tha' screw-er or tha' screw-ee.

[mackthefork]

That wouldn't work in the UK agency worker rights are fairly close to being as strong as regular employees.

Mack

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the US we just set up payroll corporations that take a small percentage to be the employer-on-record and handle all benefits -- but don't really produce anything. They simply act as a buffer for third party employers. We then "outsource" our labor requirements. This allows the consumer of labor to keep most employees "at will" -- and in extreme situations, the payroll corporation ("employer") can simply be collapsed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another example of Corporate American ingenuity at it's finest - or worst.

Depends on whether you're tha' screw-er or tha' screw-ee.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no screwing going on here. It's simply an attempt to work around roadblocks to free trade between labor buyers and sellers. The labor buyers are "unscrewing" themselves.

If someone buys an ice cream cone from you, is he obliged to buy more ice cream cones from you in the future until you want to stop selling them? Why should labor buyers be forced to continue to buy labor they have no use for?

Any law that prevents them from freely entering and exiting labor purchasing agreements is effectively a wealth redistribution program.

Once the employer is so restricted by such a law, it becomes the "natural" state in labor propaganda and any attempt to return to an unrestricted market is seen as a "handout" to "big corporations". Clever.

[nicky g]

"Why should labor buyers be forced to continue to buy labor they have no use for? "

Because if one customer stops buying ice cream, the seller isn't harmed too badly. Most employees only have one customer for their labour at any one time. If they lose it, they're often in the [censored]. That's not to say that none should ever lose their job, but the efffects of losing a job are a bit different from losing an ice cream customer and people collectively may well decide to put some constraints on it to minimise instablility in individuals' or communities' lives.

Mack,

In terms of danger to your country, how do you rate this guy?