Deal or no deal

[SirGalahad]

Europeans took a fair chunk of our housing stock, filled our schools and hospitals and bled our benefits system.

A fair chunk? You have a number on that?

Any sources for this?

So they took our jobs and also our benefits.

 

[Notch7]

I've told this story before, so you're not being accurate with this statement.

The EU ruled that overtime should be considered when calculating holiday pay. They made the ruling retrospective which allowed employees to claim for historic holiday pay.

Whether you agree with overtime being included in holiday pay, it wasn't the contractual arrangement that most companies had in the UK and nor was it custom and practice. Yet the ruling applied.

The UK government were able to limit the retrospective claims to 2 years. Still cost me personally around £10k for the two years retrospective claim.

That specific enough for you?

So EU rules benefitted your employees?

Whilst I would agree that some EU rules arent helpful and can be annoying, so can many UK rules.

on balance I would suggest that on average brexit red tape will outstrip any EU membership red tape for businesses.

the most irritating I found as an employer came from insurance assessors -who are scared of any kind of litigation and so insist the company covers themselves for every eventuality.

they forced me to give training on "safe lifting" to avoid employees getting a sports injury at the weekend then claming they got it during the day on monday



Annoying though safety regulations etc are, businesses would not voluntarily implement safety processes without legislation.

 

[SirGalahad]

no they didnt
stop repeating the same misinformation

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....s/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/

Government data shows that EEA nationals pay more in income taxes and national insurance contributions than they receive in tax credits and child benefit

You think that matters to Mottie or any of the others. We had all the powers within the EU to limit how many people come to the UK and require them to register after 3 months. We chose not to as the Government decided that they contribute more than they take out and also they like small Government - so why waste money on border checks?

 

[Notch7]

You think that matters to Mottie or any of the others. We had all the powers within the EU to limit how many people come to the UK and require them to register after 3 months. We chose not to as the Government decided that they contribute more than they take out and also they like small Government - so why waste money on border checks?

Immigration is another govt contradictory policy

tell the public "we are tough on immigration" whilst secretly being lax because immigration is beneficial to economy

The big housebuilders are Tory donors -who all benefited from Eastern European labour to throw up houses full of snags

 

[ellal]

I've told this story before, so you're not being accurate with this statement.

The EU ruled that overtime should be considered when calculating holiday pay. They made the ruling retrospective which allowed employees to claim for historic holiday pay.

Whether you agree with overtime being included in holiday pay, it wasn't the contractual arrangement that most companies had in the UK. Yet the ruling applied.

The UK government were able to limit the retrospective claims to 2 years. Still cost me personally around £10k for the two years retrospective claim.

That specific enough for you?

So you had to abide by rules that the UK helped write in the first place...

Of course your employees have gained, but not as much as employees in other EU countries...

Have you ever been an employee?

Sounds like the EU did a good thing to me

Plus the fact that the UK managed to limit it's commitment suggests that the EU isn't that monster that brexiteers made it out to be!

 

[Lower]

So EU rules benefited your employees?

.

It benefited some, not others. Half my workforce is salaried and therefore not entitled to overtime.

The financial hit to the company was much greater than the direct financial impact to me and meant that pay rises were smaller for the next 2 years. Consequently, some lost out as a direct result.

Whilst i disagreed with the ECJ ruling, i accept that rules change over time. What i specifically object to in this case was the ECJ failure to limit retrospective claims.

This wasn't a clarification of existing rules, this was a new interpretation that changed the contractual relationship between employer and employee with regards to pay and was imposed unilaterally by the EU in contravention of established custom and practice in the UK and for is a perfect example of how one size doesn't fit all.

 

[Lower]

So you had to abide by rules that the UK helped write in the first place...

Of course your employees have gained, but not as much as employees in other EU countries...

Have you ever been an employee?

Sounds like the EU did a good thing to me

Plus the fact that the UK managed to limit it's commitment suggests that the EU isn't that monster that brexiteers made it out to be!

Don't change the question. You asked for an example of how the EU has directly negatively affected a brexiteer. I gave you a very specific example.

Whether you believe it was the right choice or not is not the point. It directly affected me and a number of my salaried staff who received lower pay rises specifically due to the additional, retrospective costs effectively unilaterally imposed on the company by the ECJ decision for which we had no right of appeal.

I have been an employee. Have you ever been an employer?

 

[JohnD]

Don't change the question. You asked for an example of how the EU has directly negatively affected a brexiteer. I gave you a very specific example.

of course, the example you quote also positively affected larger numbers of brexers.

The balance will depend on your perspective.

 

[Tigercubrider]

where do you get the idea that "salaried staff CANNOT receive overtime"
They Can.

However it's not a legal obligation to pay them, but if you make an arrangement, it's fine.

"Salaried employees typically do not receive overtime pay. But a salaried employee can receive overtime pay if an agreement between him and the employer has been established; this rarely occurs. An employer is under no legal obligation to pay overtime to salaried employees."

https://www.pocketpence.co.uk/rules-paying-salary-5367027.html

 

[Mottie]

A fair chunk? You have a number on that?

Any sources for this?

No but go down to and A&E dept, doctors surgery, school, benefits office, building site and open your eyes.

 

[Mottie]

The big housebuilders are Tory donors -who all benefited from Eastern European labour to throw up houses full of snags

Oh, so they did take our jobs then? One minute they didn’t, next minute they did......depends on your argument then doesn’t it?

 

[JohnD]

No but go down to and A&E dept, doctors surgery, school, benefits office, building site and open your eyes.

yes indeed. full of foreigners helping UK by doing the jobs that need doing.

 

[SirGalahad]

No but go down to and A&E dept, doctors surgery, school, benefits office, building site and open your eyes.

lol. So your opinion masquerading as fact.

How often are you in the A&E? I thought all your kids are grown up - or are you that old shifty bloke outside school prying on kids? You visit the drs often? That means you must have an appointment or do you just wander in to do a headcount?

I thought you were in work? Why do you need to hang around the benefits office? Claiming on the side.

As to building sites - I will pop into one and do a survey.

 

[Notch7]

Oh, so they did take our jobs then? One minute they didn’t, next minute they did......depends on your argument then doesn’t it?

Where did I say they take our jobs?

Weak attempt at a strawman.

Note to Mottie, do try harder.

 

[Notch7]

Don't change the question. You asked for an example of how the EU has directly negatively affected a brexiteer. I gave you a very specific example.

Whether you believe it was the right choice or not is not the point. It directly affected me and a number of my salaried staff who received lower pay rises specifically due to the additional, retrospective costs effectively unilaterally imposed on the company by the ECJ decision for which we had no right of appeal.

I have been an employee. Have you ever been an employer?

I'm not sure the argument that you had to pay your staff more for work done meant you couldn't give them such a big pay rise is a great argument.

But I do kind of agree that onerous employment rights doesn't automatically mean employees benefit.

Like minimum wage for example - if a company can't afford the cost it means less employment.