Election 2019 - Week 3

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Carth

Ever heard of 4 on 4 off shift patterns, Continental shift patterns and the like?

You're saying machines could run themselves, feed themselves materials needed, fix any breakdowns themselves etc etc during the hours no workers were there.

apologies in advance, but . . "Your ignorance on these matters is frankly startling."

I’m saying it’d be foolish to rota your 300 staff over 168 hours of the week with nobody around for 8 hours here and there.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

“Only the private sector”

What absolute nonsense. In the workplace very few actions take “fixed” amounts of time. There’s also fatigue, attention span and a wide range of other factors that give human beings variable productivity at different points throughout the working day. Your ignorance on these matters is frankly startling.

---------- Post added at 23:14 ---------- Previous post was at 23:11 ----------

If each was as productive in 32 hours, the starting premise of the post you quoted, as 40 there’d be no need for additional staff. Just the rota adjusted to give cover across the 168 hours of the week. With 300 staff that shouldn’t be too hard.

The public sector is not exactly known for a desire to work efficiently. The trade unions don't allow it.

Working one less hour a day isn't going dramatically change fatigue levels. It takes whatever time it takes to empty the bins with a set number of people and and set number of collection lorries. No getting around that. You would soon be complaining if they were expected to move faster in emptying the bins or delivering the post.

Love to see the rota where you could cover X hours a days with people working slightly less than X hours a day. Especially without Zero-hour contracts or a massive change to part-time working(ie paid a lot less than full time).

[Carth]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m saying it’d be foolish to rota your 300 staff over 168 hours of the week with nobody around for 8 hours here and there.

So you agree that cutting back the hours would necessitate employing more workers, with the added costs thereof . .

. . and the machines would still be producing exactly the same output.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Carth

So you agree that cutting back the hours would necessitate employing more workers, with the added costs thereof . .

. . and the machines would still be producing exactly the same output.

No.

---------- Post added at 23:44 ---------- Previous post was at 23:41 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

The public sector is not exactly known for a desire to work efficiently. The trade unions don't allow it.

Working one less hour a day isn't going dramatically change fatigue levels.

Yet the evidence doesn’t agree with you.

It takes whatever time it takes to empty the bins with a set number of people and and set number of collection lorries. No getting around that. You would soon be complaining if they were expected to move faster in emptying the bins or delivering the post.

Let’s hold back the entire economy on the basis of not wanting to employ a few extra binmen.

Love to see the rota where you could cover X hours a days with people working slightly less than X hours a day. Especially without Zero-hour contracts or a massive change to part-time working(ie paid a lot less than full time).

You don’t seem to grasp this rota concept do you?

[Carth]

Originally Posted by jfman

No.

oh ok

Originally Posted by jfman

You don’t seem to grasp this rota concept do you?

*goes for a lie down*

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I firmly believe that the calculations are wrong. Saying that the Tories are going to win.

Totally bonkers.

This country cannot have another Tory government. If voters believe what Joker Boris says he is going to do. Increase this and that. Increase police officers and police staff. They are living in dream land.
I work in law enforcement. And each year we have the same problem about who is going to be made redundant.

I am getting sick of all Boris' promises. He will NOT deliver the goods. He is a total lie. Like all MPs. They just think of themselves getting into power, that's it.

Even on the TV debate with another joker Corbyn. All he kept saying is about Brexit.

He would not give the full truth. Where is this money tree, that TM said that we didn't have. Where has Boris found it. It is the same story that MT made before becoming the most hated PM in history.

The Tories are for the rich, and famous. And if voters believe that Boris is going to do this. Are living in dreamland.

Its like when Boris said ' when we come out of Europe, the money we pay each week. Will go into the NHS. Dreamland again - l fell for it, and said leave. But, we need to the people.

This election is being called the Brexit Election. This is why Boris is going for it. And like a fool Corbyn agreed to it.

Remember The Peoples Vote. Well this is it.

I wont make up my mind until l go into the ballot room - BUT, it wont be a blue vote.

Just think that in a few weeks, we will have Xmas - just think of the homeless, and Foodbanks. I read today that these have now reach a record high. We are one of the richest countries in the world. WE should not be having this in this country.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

Business just “comes your way” spontaneously coming into existence all by itself. Wow.

Nonsense armchair analysis here with no empirical evidence whatsoever.

So businesses don't start off with zero business/income and then have to attract more business/income? In that example they are not manufacturing physical products that then have to be sold. In that example the perceived improved productivity came from the fact that they were obviously not working at 100% capacity before. If they kept the previous hours and business increased, the spare capacity would decrease and any new reduced hours wouldn't have led to a perceived increase in productivity.


Imagine a factory where there is only a demand for 6 hours/day of output, but they work 7 hours/day. A reduction in working time by an hour/day would have no effect, but there has been NO magical increase in productivity.

---------- Post added at 23:03 ---------- Previous post was at 22:55 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

No.

---------- Post added at 23:44 ---------- Previous post was at 23:41 ----------


Yet the evidence doesn’t agree with you.

Let’s hold back the entire economy on the basis of not wanting to employ a few extra binmen.

You don’t seem to grasp this rota concept do you?

The only evidence is where they are not working at anything near 100% capacity.



Corbyn's premise is that it is all self-funded by increases in productivity, NOT employing more people to do it.


What rota wouldn't give too many or too few people on duty at any one time? If you have a total operating day that is just an hour or two longer that the longest working day, how do you fill that with having X people always on duty/working? No rota can cope with that, without part-timers to fill the gaps.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The public sector is not exactly known for a desire to work efficiently. The trade unions don't allow it.

Working one less hour a day isn't going dramatically change fatigue levels. It takes whatever time it takes to empty the bins with a set number of people and and set number of collection lorries. No getting around that. You would soon be complaining if they were expected to move faster in emptying the bins or delivering the post.

Love to see the rota where you could cover X hours a days with people working slightly less than X hours a day. Especially without Zero-hour contracts or a massive change to part-time working(ie paid a lot less than full time).

You obviously don't work in the public sector and for your information, the public sector does quite a bit more than empty bins. Sometimes it's better to keep quiet when you don't understand what's going on so you don't make yourself look daft.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Theres tons of data out there that a 30-32 hour working week is almost as effective as a 37 hour week.

Increasing wage costs results in income tax and NI going up so your flawed notion that less profits = less tax doesn't hold up. An actual human being resident in the UK (99 per cent of the time) is going to spend that money, and pay VAT in the process. Benefits go down with employment up.

Companies profits on the other hand - dividends and tax havens.

Yeah, yeah. Remember that little gem next time you make an appointment with a doctor or you are still waiting in A&E for over 7 hours.

Labour's policies are highly inflationary and will lead to our being uncompetitive in global terms. Investors will desert us, the companies in line to be milked will leave these shores. Unemployment will soar. We've been here before...

---------- Post added at 07:52 ---------- Previous post was at 07:46 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

It doesn't get spent here in the same way I've just described wages. That was the clear and obvious point I was making.

The impact on shops would be an interesting one. Staggered shifts would be one approach. With the extra time people have would they spend more time/money in their High Streets?

Obviously from your armchair you couldn't comprehend such impacts.

You have both undermined your own argument and slipped into your own world of absurdity. Shops already operate on minimum staffing and it is often difficult to find someone to serve you. Staggering shifts would make the situation worse and this would send more people online and the High Streets would become ghost towns.

I don't think shop assistants have so much money in their pockets/purses that they can spend loads of time buying extra stuff on the High Streets! Get real, jfman!

---------- Post added at 08:04 ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

The only evidence is where they are not working at anything near 100% capacity.



Corbyn's premise is that it is all self-funded by increases in productivity, NOT employing more people to do it.


What rota wouldn't give too many or too few people on duty at any one time? If you have a total operating day that is just an hour or two longer that the longest working day, how do you fill that with having X people always on duty/working? No rota can cope with that, without part-timers to fill the gaps.

Absolutely! You have to question jfman's 'economist' credentials! Why can he not see this? It's pointless arguing with him - he rarely gets the point and if he finally grasps it, he makes a different point to cover himself.

I think most people can see Corbyn's manifesto for what it is. It will not help him get elected. Not at all.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I firmly believe that the calculations are wrong. Saying that the Tories are going to win.

Totally bonkers.

This country cannot have another Tory government. If voters believe what Joker Boris says he is going to do. Increase this and that. Increase police officers and police staff. They are living in dream land.
I work in law enforcement. And each year we have the same problem about who is going to be made redundant.

I am getting sick of all Boris' promises. He will NOT deliver the goods. He is a total lie. Like all MPs. They just think of themselves getting into power, that's it.

Even on the TV debate with another joker Corbyn. All he kept saying is about Brexit.

He would not give the full truth. Where is this money tree, that TM said that we didn't have. Where has Boris found it. It is the same story that MT made before becoming the most hated PM in history.

The Tories are for the rich, and famous. And if voters believe that Boris is going to do this. Are living in dreamland.

Its like when Boris said ' when we come out of Europe, the money we pay each week. Will go into the NHS. Dreamland again - l fell for it, and said leave. But, we need to the people.

This election is being called the Brexit Election. This is why Boris is going for it. And like a fool Corbyn agreed to it.

Remember The Peoples Vote. Well this is it.

I wont make up my mind until l go into the ballot room - BUT, it wont be a blue vote.

Just think that in a few weeks, we will have Xmas - just think of the homeless, and Foodbanks. I read today that these have now reach a record high. We are one of the richest countries in the world. WE should not be having this in this country.

Sounds like you've already made your mind up.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Sounds like you've already made your mind up.

Like yourself l would imagine...

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by denphone

Like yourself l would imagine...

Yes Den, i'll vote for Martin vickers,but i'm not claiming "I wont make up my mind until l go into the ballot room - BUT, it wont be a blue vote".
Mine will definately be a blue vote.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Then the term "Once here" wouldn't apply, unless it applies everybody once they've get off the train etc.
This is the whole passage.
No mention of having assessed them first.


Almost sounds like they're going to send cruise ships to Libya, Turkey etc to pick them up.

Wow, if your interpretation is correct, that suggests that every asylum seeker would automatically become a refugee as per the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 amendment. I'm frankly surprised the press aren't all over that..

[papa smurf]

Finally Labours Brexit plans explained.
Labour MP tries to explain Corbyn's Brexit https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12...t-Remain-Leave

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Finally Labours Brexit plans explained.
Labour MP tries to explain Corbyn's Brexit https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12...t-Remain-Leave

I think Labour have been very clear to a point. They would negotiate a 'new' deal then put it to the electorate in a binary vote versus remain.

That's great to a point but it does raise a couple of (obvious) points to me:

• Any vote should be leave or remain, with a secondary option under leave of leaving with Jezza's deal, Bozza's deal, Tezza's deal or no deal so if leave won then we've got an idea of what the public want.
• What happens if they can't negotiate a new deal?