Skip to main content
Topic: Here is the news (Read 98089 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2070
How did that ruin their holiday? That's a story for life, that just keeps giving.

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2071
£100 for waving your cock around and getting free chips? I've had worse and more expensive nights out.

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2072
That's Brexit doctor material right there.

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2073
He needs to be in charge of the myriad of large government IT projects that will be needed in the wake of the Brexsh!t apocalypse.  He knows how to wipe his knob across things, to fix them.

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2074
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45082801

In summary - Man who has just joined BA and signed employment contract stipulating a standard for appearance is, despite being warned during his training period,  sacked after just two weeks for purposefully flouting the rules relating to hairstyles, and has inexplicably managed to get a prime slot on the BBC News website and feels he has been discriminated against.

Poor sausage
The inside of a Halex Three-Star table-tennis ball smells much like you'd expect it to

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2075
He ought to be cutting his hair for no other reason than it looks a bit sh!t.

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2076
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45082801

In summary - Man who has just joined BA and signed employment contract stipulating a standard for appearance is, despite being warned during his training period,  sacked after just two weeks for purposefully flouting the rules relating to hairstyles, and has inexplicably managed to get a prime slot on the BBC News website and feels he has been discriminated against.

Poor sausage

It’s not against the rules that were cited in that article, is it?. Plus if it was it should have been mentioned in the interview. Plus it’s as sh!t a rule as it is a haircut. Appearance standards are fine for customer facing roles, but there should be as little difference as possible (ideally none) between men and women, and if the standards can’t accomodate long hair without turning it into dreadlocks or requiring a religious headset, they are sh!tty standards.

So I’m with the bun-tw@t.
this is an excellent rectangle

 

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2077
I'm not one to lecture people on appearance or dress code. I've seen worse things. It doesn't bother me, but equally I think it's okay for an employer to have standards of dress and behaviour to service the needs of their business. Even to the point of girls tits to be nice, and them out. Otherwise it would be a sh!t lap dancing club, and the last i looked it was legal to run those. If you don't want your tits out, don't apply to work in a titty bar..... And every level down to paid tramp. Both the employer and the potential employee should have the right to exercise their judgement.... But if you wish to disqualify yourself for a role for whatever reason, don't be surprised if you are not employed in it.

There are a balance of attributes that make an acceptable employee. I do not think we should make employers contract people that they deem unsuitable for any reason... And I'm aware of the can of worms that you might think that opens. The reality is... People are not equal. In a job market employers should be allowed to make cost decisions on their employees value to that market... It should be the job of the state to provide incentives and support to level the playing field for the disadvantaged. Not free market organisations 

In my view.

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2078
In a job market employers should be allowed to make cost decisions on their employees value to that market... It should be the job of the state to provide incentives and support to level the playing field for the disadvantaged. Not free market organisations

That's sounds like an argument for the broad abolition of employment protections (some of which, I feel sure, you have mourned the potential threatening off from brexit) but with a material improvement in state provision for those not in work and/or disadvantaged by their terrible taste in hair. As a UBI advocate, I'm ok with exploring that path... but we're far from it.

Calls for equality in employment practices do rather fall down somewhat when it comes to things like tit bars (see, also, the gender pay gap in professional football) but that's not reason to just give up and we can probably expect organisations, few of which.. particularly in aviation[1], are in any way free market, to have to come up with bloody good reasons to discriminate. They, at least, need to pass the pub test. The man in the pub does think that tit bars should not employ middle-aged men who won't take their tops off. I can't believe he gives much of a sh!t about men with buns.

I know your point extends beyond this story.. but BA really are about as far from a free market organisation as it's possible to get. They are a former state organ enjoying the legacy of state-granted privileges to enjoy state and communal assets.. probably with some implicit and explicit state guarantees and protections.
this is an excellent rectangle

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2079
I'm not one to lecture people on appearance or dress code. I've seen worse things. It doesn't bother me, but equally I think it's okay for an employer to have standards of dress and behaviour to service the needs of their business. Even to the point of girls tits to be nice, and them out. Otherwise it would be a sh!t lap dancing club, and the last i looked it was legal to run those. If you don't want your tits out, don't apply to work in a titty bar..... And every level down to paid tramp. Both the employer and the potential employee should have the right to exercise their judgement.... But if you wish to disqualify yourself for a role for whatever reason, don't be surprised if you are not employed in it.

There are a balance of attributes that make an acceptable employee. I do not think we should make employers contract people that they deem unsuitable for any reason... And I'm aware of the can of worms that you might think that opens. The reality is... People are not equal. In a job market employers should be allowed to make cost decisions on their employees value to that market... It should be the job of the state to provide incentives and support to level the playing field for the disadvantaged. Not free market organisations

In my view.

I agree to an extent, but I'm assuming that the foppish tw@t had his man bun at the interview. It seems a bit sh!t to give him the job, then tell him to turn his hair into dreadlocks or f*ck off. Just don't give him the job to start with.
I don't like workaholics. Don't f*cking trust them. Why are they working? I don't trust busy c*nts. That's how wars start: busy f*ckers.

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2080
I agree to an extent, but I'm assuming that the foppish tw@t had his man bun at the interview. It seems a bit sh!t to give him the job, then tell him to turn his hair into dreadlocks or f*ck off. Just don't give him the job to start with.
 
 
Correct, this is (in general) how business behave. Whatever rules there are regarding equality in pay and opportunity, a business chooses to employ people they think a good fit for their business, on the terms that they think is meritted by their likely skills and abilities to perform the role.

That's sounds like an argument for the broad abolition of employment protections (some of which, I feel sure, you have mourned the potential threatening off from brexit) but with a material improvement in state provision for those not in work and/or disadvantaged by their terrible taste in hair. As a UBI advocate, I'm ok with exploring that path... but we're far from it.

Calls for equality in employment practices do rather fall down somewhat when it comes to things like tit bars (see, also, the gender pay gap in professional football) but that's not reason to just give up and we can probably expect organisations, few of which.. particularly in aviation[1], are in any way free market, to have to come up with bloody good reasons to discriminate. They, at least, need to pass the pub test. The man in the pub does think that tit bars should not employ middle-aged men who won't take their tops off. I can't believe he gives much of a sh!t about men with buns.
 
 
It rather depends where a country wants to be.  If you mandate a load of regulations, and requirements, on businesses that make them less competetive than elsewehere, you risk losing loads of business.

Take the case of young women of sprogabble age. They are undoubtedly paid less, and considered less desireable, than similar qualified men of the same age. Why? Well, from an underwriting perspective they are more likely to have a career break, and cost businesses money, than the equivalent man (who will not be growing the countries future inside them at any point whatsoever). Is it (in a free market scenario) the responsibility of an employer to provide the infrastructure to pay for that process? you could mandate and enforce that aggressively, but it would cost the economy. My view is that it's an infrastructure issue that the government should step up to the plate with.  Nobody is equal, we all have our differences. Businesses have a right to reward their judgement on fitness for purpose in regard to that......if Government (society) was serious about equality they would tax effectively, and provide packages to known demographics (women, disability, lunatics, the congenitally thick) to support and incentivise employers to use those groups on an equal footing. That would be equality of opportunity.

The government (society) telling business that it's their f*cking problem, and withdrawing from the provision of services and infrastructure to provide a fertile environment in which companies can do business, while maintaining civilised modern western standards, is the problem here. There is a disconnect in promoting a modern high value intellectual economy, and dumbing every level of support and societal structure down to lowest cost, lowest regulation, high intervention with hands off control.

Our leaders are saying one thing, doing another, and trying to pump the responsibility off on to everyone else. We (as a society as a whole) are buying it.  We is stupid.
I know your point extends beyond this story.. but BA really are about as far from a free market organisation as it's possible to get. They are a former state organ enjoying the legacy of state-granted privileges to enjoy state and communal assets.. probably with some implicit and explicit state guarantees and protections.

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2081
So would you, for example, scrap the minimum wage and reform the welfare system so that anyone earning less than society deems appropriate is topped up sufficiently without jumping through 8000 hoops etc. I like the idea. I agree that if we demand that people are given dignity and security and not left to die in the streets then we should collectively pay for that, not expect businesses to pay more than people are worth to them.

Logically, that ought to lead to businesses being forced to pay fairer wages because people will have a choice about whether to work. Which is why UBI is a good thing.

Here in Aus the dole is pathetically low, and comes with endless strings which mean that people are forced to take sh!tty supermarket jobs where they are treated like crap because the supermarkets know those people don't have much of a choice. If people did have a choice then employers would have to treat them properly. In theory, anyhow. Is this what 'left libertarianism' is supposed to be? A free market that's genuinely underpinned by solid welfare?

I don't know if it's accurate, but I am informed that those Scandi systems that are much loved by the left tend to come with quite free-markety employment laws and business regs.. the rationale being that you can have tightly regulated businesses or generous welfare, but not both. That might all be bollocks, though. But the UK (and Oz) have neither.
this is an excellent rectangle

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2082
I think I could go along with that.  It's businesses job to take advantage of circumstances to turn a profit.  It's societies job to define it's values and provide infrastructure to support it.

Of course that would require effective taxation of profitable businesses taking advantage of the infrastructure.

Our country, society, and economy, survived and prospered without any minimum wage until relatively recently (historically). I would prefer we educate, inspire, and enable people to find high value work, and genuinely gear our society towards the aspirational high-tech modern global economy...rather than insist businesses pay a minimum wage to unskilled cannon fodder.

We've got to see a serious drop in standards of living for us to compete at the 'value' end of the spectrum, and we currently work the longest hours, for the lowest productivity (in equivalent western economies). We barely have functional roads, never mind world class IT connectivity. How the f*ck are people going to innovate and be entrepreneurial without education, infrastructure, or opportunity? If I could connect the servers here, I could run a serious business from home - as it is I have to buy capacity in a data centre in germany (because that's what works for my cost model - ie cheap). It's f*cking lunatic if you are serious about wanting a modern society and economy.  

We don't. We have no vision or strategic planning. We are cheap, narrow minded, and parsimonious. It's not just holding us back, it's sticking us clumsily in reverse and f*cking our Rolls Royce gearbox that has been built on privilege over the centuries. We badly need a rethink.