Car crash

What? I can't speak for chips, but for myself, sometimes it's important to know oneself.

It's not always about principle or profit - it's just about reducing hassle in your life. I don't employ more people because, frankly, I can't be arsed. Profit be damned. So long as I can afford booze and keep my customers happy (priorities are in that order?) then I just want an easy life.

I passed work over on T&M (time and materials) to trusted contractors (different industry) without adding a margin. Not because I'm a socialist saint, just because I'm a grouchy middle aged *******.

I may be one of Thatcher's children, but she was a crappy Mom.

 

I never said the words Longboat attributed to me and yes I can't be arsed any more. I can pay my bills and log off at 4.30 and not give a ****.

 

Err, loads of people, I cant remember all their names, perhaps little Timmy Farron was one. It wasn't an implication that somebody on here said it, it was thrown in because zero hour contracts were mentioned, therefore it was relevant. OK?

 

Ummm. Which remainer[1] said that?

Some people erroneously think that if something happens after an event then the event caused the something (sounds more succinct in Latin - post hoc ergo propter hoc[2]). Zero hours became widespread after EU, therefore EU caused zero hours. It's not necessarily true.

I voted to remain, but I don't see how it has much to do with the current situation. Actually, I'm not totally against zero hours contracts either - it's just that they can be abused. But I guess there's no argument there.

[1] kudos for not saying remoaner. That "joke" is very old.
[2] spelling could be off

 

No, of course you didn't say any of that, not directly anyway. You did however imply in that post and a few others, that employer's should pay the absolute maximum wage that they can and still hold on to a miniscule profit from that employment.

If you could have employed the same people (good workers) for £100/day, and they'd accept that wage, would you have reduced the clients bill according?
Or, would you grasp the opportunity to make more money for yourself.....
Hmmm...?

 

I found that it if you take the **** then either:
1) the employee is a moron, and I don't want morons working for me.
2) they **** off and you've lost a grafter.

(Almost) Nobody begrudges an employer making a profit for the risk. Just don't be silly about it.

But, longs, you ain't a kid, you know this.

Be honest, have you been on the Friday night fightin' juice?

Fair play if you have. I understand the attraction of starting a pointless argument on the screwfix forums because you're bored.

 

I didn't say any of that.
I paid my workers what I thought they were worth and what I could still make a profit on.
I haven't implied anything.
I booked them in for X number of days and paid them for that number of days.

 

Fair do's, to ya.

 

Awful puctuation

 

God, it's the grammar nazi.

I'd say screw you, but then we'd be into discussing the screw's countersinking... and I don't want to follow HA down that rabbit hole.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...yment-rights-disaster-explained-a6921126.html

Loads more references if you look. But the fact is that most people I speak to who are in their fifties and sixties [1] feel that their employment was more secure thirty years ago, and they're not all uber taxi drivers or others engaged in the so called 'gig economy', the public sector which I'm guessing is around half the population are naturally excluded from all this.

[1] I really can't be a***d to speak to people under the age of 50, I find them irritating, they probably feel the same way about me.

 

Even people over 50 find you irritating.

 

You've met my wife then.

 

I don't know, what's her first name?

 

DA

 

I've had her.

 

I'm under 50 (45), but grouchy for my age if that helps. I trust that won't cause any problems.

Okay. Fair point. That's a pretty good reference. I concede. There are enough people for a newspaper to draw that connection. Solid reference.

I don't agree with the article's premise, so I can't defend it.

I don't believe the EU (in or out) currently defines the rights for the self employed in the grey "gig economy".

If someone wants to say that withdrawing from the EU makes the abuse of uber drivers[1] worse then I'm prepared to agree with your point. Which seems to be: WTF has this to do with brexit!?

[1] when did uber drivers become the poster child for this issue? I live in Shropshire. I have more chance of being abducted by a UFO than finding an uber driver. I get the outrage, but there's more to economics than London's taxi alternative. I guess tabloid journalists only meet "real people" when being ferried between business meetings. *******.

 

This exchange was the second funniest thing I've read today.

For reference this was the funniest https://i.imgur.com/L0Je5On_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=high

 

I don't have a problem with any of that, none whatsoever. That's your business.
But, this discussion did start with you saying that the minimum wage/living wage should be set at a certain level.
Now, what would you do if you were forced, by law, to not pay your worker's £150/day (yep, all good and reasonable of you to do so, and you have people willing to accept that kind of wage) but, the law stated that you must pay them £250/day.
Could you absorb that cost or would you charge the client more? Don't bother answering that.

Minimum wage levels are a fantastically concept on paper, whilst in the real world they don't make any difference.

 

Sorry.