UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What rights? This is just stupid speculation by remainers, and particularly the Labour opposition.

The Withdrawal Bill, if eventually enacted, will transfer all EU employment legislation into UK law. You seem to forget that the UK has been ahead of the game when it comes to employment rights. Particularly under a Conservative Government.

Did you write this with a straight face?

https://www.ier.org.uk/news/7-employ...-under-tory-pm

A Conservative Prime Minister has been in Number 10 since the Coalition government formed in 2010. Although Theresa May has described her party as "the party of workers", its track record on employment law has largely revolved around weakening protections at work. Here, we look at some of the rights workers have lost over the last seven years.

1. The right not to be unfairly dismissed after working for your employer for one year

The Unfair Dismissal and Statement of Reasons for Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 2012, which amended the Employment Rights Act 1996, increased the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from one year to two years for those employed after 5th April 2012. This change was supposed to encourage small businesses to recruit more staff by reducing hiring costs, but in fact businesses pocketed a trifling extra £4.7 million in the first year.

2. The right for your employment tribunal claim to be heard by a ‘full panel’

The Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (Tribunal Composition) Order 2012, overturned the presumption that Employment Tribunal proceedings should be heard by a legally qualified Chair supported by two lay members – representing both the trade union movement and business community. Now, employment judges are given the discretion to pick and choose whether to hear an unfair dismissal case alone, or with a 'full panel'. The right to have your employment dispute heard by a panel is one of the unique and crucial features of the original industrial tribunal system with "lay members" being part of what was known as the "industrial jury". These panel members apply their "employment" expertise and real-life experiences in the work place to the interpretation and application of legal principles. They also provide a reassurance to the parties that their views are taken into account. They give the Tribunal a different look and feel to that of an ordinary Court and in many ways judge only hearings are a regressive back.

3. The right to be awarded more than one year's pay if you are unfairly dismissed

Under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, the government set a maximum award for successful unfair dismissal claims at one year's gross pay for those earning less than £74,200 each year. This cap now allows bosses to easily calculate the cost of sacking their staff illegally and prevents an Employment Tribunal from punishing the worst-offending firms.

4. The right to bring a claim to the Employment Tribunal without paying fees

The introduction of tribunal fees under the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 has priced tens of thousands of people out of justice. To bring an unfair dismissal claim you now need to pay an issuing fee of £250 and a hearing fee of £950 – at a time you are least likely to have cash to spare: When you've just lost your job! Anti-discrimination, equal pay rights, and a range of other individual employment rights have been effectively withdrawn from the millions of British people who cannot afford to pay £1,200 to bring a claim against their employer. Recent research by academics at Oxford University has shown that across the board the impact of Employment Tribunal Fees has led to a two-thirds reduction in most claims. Sex discrimination cases have reduced by a staggering 80% from their pre-fees level. Withheld wage claims are now uneconomic for the lower paid. If you think your employer owes you £400, the gamble of paying a £130 issuing fee, and a £250 hearing fee for a claim which might fail, and, might well not even be paid if it is successful (a 2013 government report found that 35% of claimants had not received any of the compensation they were owed), is a risk many are not prepared to make.

5. The right to be properly consulted by your employer if they are planning to make you and at least 99 of your colleagues redundant

Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment) Order 2013, the minimum period for consultation with workers where an employer proposes to make 100 or more employees redundant within a 90-day period was cut from 90 days to 45 days before the first dismissals could be made. Workers coming to the end of a fixed-term contract are now completely excluded from the consultation regime, so if your time with a firm is coming to an end they can now get rid of you without you being consulted at all.

6. The right to strike if you work in an 'important public service' and a majority of your trade union colleagues vote to take legitimate industrial action

Under the draconian Trade Union Act 2016, millions of public sector workers have had their fundamental right to take part in industrial action taken away. Under the Act, a minimum of 50% of those entitled to vote on any strike must take part in the ballot, and in 'important public services' at least 40% of those entitled to vote must vote in support of the action.

This means that if you work in an 'important public service' such as a state school, fire station, A&E hospital or drive a London bus; and half of your trade union colleagues respond to a postal ballot, then it will require an 80% vote in favour to allow for legal industrial action to go ahead. If 79% of your colleagues vote in favour of striking, and the action goes ahead, then the employer will be almost certain to be granted an injunction to stop the action. If less than half respond then, even if 100% vote in favour, any industrial action will be similarly vulnerable. These ballot thresholds are undemocratic and breach the law: it is against international standards to effectively count abstentions as 'no' votes.

Moreover, the 40% threshold is discriminatory: 73% of those likely to be in these 'important public services' will be women and the Act's definition of what counts as an essential service is out of keeping with international legal norms. The International Labour Organisation defines "essential services" as services where "the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population". It is hard to see how the Central Line not running, or a child missing one day of schooling, would "endanger life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population".

7. The right for public sector employees to ask for their trade union subs to be paid through their pay check without their union being charged a fee by the government

Provisions in the Trade Union Act 2016 were initially going to ban the process of 'check off', where trade union subscriptions are deducted by the employer on pay day. This was a blatant attempt by the Tories to deprive public sector unions of funds. The Government's own assessment of the policy suggested unions would be hit by £11 million in one-off transition costs and they would end up having to pay at least £5 million a year in banking fees. Scaled back after Parliamentary opposition, the Act now requires that unions pay a 'reasonable sum' for the service, and that every public-sector trade union member is given the option of paying union subs by an alternative means.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Oh please! Nuclear Armageddon is a form of Leave but I doubt there are takers. Let's not replay 2016 all over again, we were all there and we all know what was promised.

I remember.

To leave the Single market, to Leave the Customs union, to leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

To leave with a deal, but if we don’t get a deal to leave on WTO terms.

That is exactly what the Prime Minister said.......exactly.

Funny how selective people’s memories are.

In any event, there is a deal on the table. So no deal can be avoided if they are sensible and vote for the deal.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Did you write this with a straight face?

https://www.ier.org.uk/news/7-employ...-under-tory-pm

People cannot claim Parliament is sovereign, and in the same breath complain about Parliament being allowed to change any laws or rules. If people vote for a particular policy, then democracy(dirty word it seems) dictates the right for that policy to be introduced, and not be held hostage by Trade unions.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Really, seen the text have we ?

Touché, I was referring to your posts

I’m not Making any claims about the WA, as you are correct I haven’t read it, and can’t be arsed to either. But neither have you read it but seem to be passing yourself off as some kind of expert on it.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Are you seriously advocating that we shouldn't pay hard working employees a minimum wage?

Wow

Where did I say that? I wanted to be super conservative in my numbers. In reality, your standard International Trade Compliance specialist would be paid a lot more than the minimum wage (around £30k pa or £12 per hour)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Did you write this with a straight face?

https://www.ier.org.uk/news/7-employ...-under-tory-pm

By reducing these burdens on employers, they have decreased unemployment to extremely low levels. Many of the protections listed were being abused and employers were having to fork out huge amounts of money.

Far better to concentrate on practical measures to help workers live more comfortable lives, such as the minimum wage and taking the lowest paid out of tax altogether. I say again, we have been quicker off the mark than the EU with a number of employment equality measures.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Well apart from you're wrong again.... because...

t's all to do with something called the "level playing field" - the idea that countries keep their rules and standards close, to stop one country giving their businesses a competitive advantage - for example by having lower standards and so lower costs.

EU regulations
The extent to which the UK might diverge from EU regulations in the future and become an economic competitor has been a big issue in the Brexit debate.

EU regulations cover things like:

The working time directive, which limits the number of hours people can work
Maximum amounts of particular pollutants there can be in the air
Requirements for workers doing the same jobs to be paid equally.
They set minimum standards below which government cannot go. After Brexit, UK governments would no longer have to abide by these minimum levels.

In the new Brexit deal finalised this week, references to a level playing field were removed from the legally-binding withdrawal agreement.

Instead, they appear in the non-binding political declaration on the future relationship - as an aspiration, but not a legal commitment.




There's just on reason why it's worse

The "level playing field" has always been in the political declaration. Whilst the political declaration is not legally binding, it is meant to be a basis for any future agreement.


The only references to "level playing field" in the old WA, are in relation to "ARTICLE 6 Single customs territory, movement of goods".


If this "level playing field" wasn't one-sided, then theoretically the UK could introduced a policy that helped businesses(well the EU won't), then theoretically the EU would have to follow. Unfortunately that won't be the way it works, especially if Labour get their way. Every further burden the EU places on businesses would also have to applied in the UK, and all without the UK having a say in matters.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Wrong... They do as they believe what is best for their country. Don't like it? elect others...

As this is going round and round, I'll not comment further on this one but politely withdraw and wish you a happy Monday

No I’m not wrong. You are.

They get elected on the premise of what they promise to do to gain votes. They got elected in 2017 to honour the referendum result. Their lies and deceitful behaviour now requires a GE, which I do believe was OB’s actual point.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by denphone

Manifestos are just two bob promises that ain't worth the paper they are written on...

Nobody said when, or on what terms either.

Given we were supposed to be better off, why are we choosing between three models that make us demonstrably worse off to varying degrees?

The Boris deal actually has an excellent proposal buried in it he has to hide from the Brexit at all costs brigade. A possible two year extension to the transition period - excellent for economic stability and within the control of our sovereign Parliament. What’s not to like? Essentially giving us three years to prepare and get it done properly.

[Pierre]

All the talk about Johnson and accusations against him and some yank.

This however, doesn’t seem to want to be picked up by the Remain media.

https://nyebevannews.co.uk/swinson-f...uropean-union/

[1andrew1]

Hearing that the penny is starting to drop with some leaver MPs. Having now read the details, they have belatedly woken up to fact that BoJo's deal contains some rather unsavoury ingredients. In particular, full EU law will apply to Northern Ireland, including the infamous European Court of Justice.
NI will, of course, cease to have MEPs if the UK leaves under BoJo's terms. Taxation without representation?

Originally Posted by Pierre

All the talk about Johnson and accusations against him and some yank.

This however, doesn’t seem to want to be picked up by the Remain media.

https://nyebevannews.co.uk/swinson-f...uropean-union/

Maybe because 'Nye Bevan News' is a bit of a dodgy source?

'Transparency International' is not a 'family company'. It's an independent NGO on which Jo Swindon's husband is a Director of Policy - he works for them. However he is not an owner (not even a senior Director) and the money didn't go to the family but to the organisation. In other words the EU gave money to a Non-Government Organisation

The amount was clearly fully declared: https://www.transparency.org/whowear..._supports_us/2

They also received funding from the UN, The U.K Government and the U.S Government.

Also Jo Swinson was not on any committee that donated this money. She was not a senior member of the EU. She wasn't even an MEP. She has no connection to the money given to the EU to a NGO that her husband works for.

It's a completely and utter lie that his money was donated to their 'family company'.

Boris Johnson was Mayor of London when money DID go to a personal company of a woman he is accused of having an affair from City Hall. She was paid to go on trips abroad with him as part of this business.

[jfman]

It’s all mud slinging because they know Boris is going to get brought down by the pole dancer.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

All the talk about Johnson and accusations against him and some yank.

This however, doesn’t seem to want to be picked up by the Remain media.

https://nyebevannews.co.uk/swinson-f...uropean-union/

That story is BS. And you know that most of the UK media is in favour of Leave so would jump at a chance to run such a story were it true. Hopefully, you're not trying to distract people from Johnson's Brexit failures?

[jfman]

It’s a total joke they’re trying to put this through in so little time and reduced scrutiny.