The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1 - Page 22

Ravenheart · 12-04-2010, 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

At the moment I'd vote for satan himself if he was wearing a blue tie (sets up inevetible jokey comment)

Well so as not to disappoint

Satan in a blue tie

Osem · 12-04-2010, 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Which begs the point that if one can mitigate that person not being around with improved productivity why employ them in the first place?

Such is the lot of the socialist philanthropist....

Flyboy · 12-04-2010, 15:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Which begs the point that if one can mitigate that person not being around with improved productivity why employ them in the first place?

Because it is only for four weeks. There is little chance of maintained productivity (I didn't say improved), if they are no longer employed, is there.

---------- Post added at 15:10 ---------- Previous post was at 15:06 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angua

Family friendly companies also seem to get more productivity and support during hard times from their staff. Our boss has been sharing the care of his daughter whilst she is ill as both he and his wife have equally responsible jobs. We know he is available by e-mail should it be necessary.

Indeed. As I have experience of the extra needs for families I am always mindful of my employees' requirements. I have extensive "family friendly" policies in place, which include family sick leave, paternity leave and re-location leave. Yes, I do lose a few days of work from the workforce, but I do seem to have a lot fewer days lost to sickness, for example, than my contemporaries.

Ignitionnet · 12-04-2010, 15:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Because it is only for four weeks. There is little chance of maintained productivity (I didn't say improved), if they are no longer employed, is there.

I didn't say it would be improved either I said that if loss of a member of staff could be mitigated by improved productivity (your words) there would be no point in employing them in the first place.

What industry is your company in? I'd be quite interested to find out more about this company of yours.

Flyboy · 12-04-2010, 15:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I didn't say it would be improved either I said that if loss of a member of staff could be mitigated by improved productivity (your words) there would be no point in employing them in the first place.

No, you are right I did write "improved." But in reference to an earlier post, I should have written "maintained." But the answer still remains valid; there wouldn't be any productivity, if he was no longer employed.

Quote:

What industry is your company in? I'd be quite interested to find out more about this company of yours.

The industries I operate in in somewhat irrelevant. This whole exchange was based on the affects of business in general.

Peter_ · 12-04-2010, 15:23

Julian · 12-04-2010, 17:06

This is disgraceful.

Note how it is only the labour defendants (ab)using public money.

Ravenheart · 12-04-2010, 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

This is disgraceful.

Note how it is only the labour defendants (ab)using public money.

They really don't comprehend the public's feelings on this at all do they?

Sickening.

nomadking · 12-04-2010, 17:18

That's just it, they do and they just don't care.

12-04-2010, 18:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

That's just it, they do and they just don't care.

i agree ,they know exactly what they are doing ,they are being forced to repay the expenses ,now they are being prosecuted for fraud so they are determined to go out with a bang because they think they hard done by because they got caught

alferret · 12-04-2010, 19:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

This is disgraceful.

Note how it is only the labour defendants (ab)using public money.

How the bloody hell have they wrangled that. Oh right they are former Labour MP's who obviously still carry favour with those that call the shots where legal aid is concerned and some people want to vote their party in again. God (insert your choice) help us all if they get another 4 years.

Charlie_Bubble · 12-04-2010, 20:57

Nick Clegg just lost any chance that I might waver to the Lib Dems with his illegal immigrant amnesty pledge. Anyone in the UK for over 10 years and with no criminal record would be made legal. Nice one Nick, great way to encourage legal immigration there by rewarding illegal entry into the country.

12-04-2010, 21:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie_Bubble

Nick Clegg just lost any chance that I might waver to the Lib Dems with his illegal immigrant amnesty pledge. Anyone in the UK for over 10 years and with no criminal record would be made legal. Nice one Nick, great way to encourage legal immigration there by rewarding illegal entry into the country.

you should read post 285 i posted yesterday ,his immigration policy is laughable

Osem · 12-04-2010, 21:20

I wonder if any of the resident dyed in the wool, rose tinted brigade will want to comment on this use of legal aid.

12-04-2010, 21:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

I wonder if any of the resident dyed in the wool, rose tinted brigade will want to comment on this use of legal aid.

were's FB ?

noticed by his absence on this subject