Guarantee the Minimum Wage for interns

Young people are now expected to work unpaid at the start of their careers as the very few opportunities that exist are "for "interns". These are, in the main, just unpaid work.

We have a minimum wage in this country, a guaranteed sum which must be paid to every worker, however this is being abused by employers who think that, by calling their jobs "internships", they can avoid paying the legal minimum. The Minimum Wage regulations should be amended to cover "internships" (they are not mentioned at all) and for employers to be required to pay all young people what they should be paying them.

Why is this idea important?

Young people are now expected to work unpaid at the start of their careers as the very few opportunities that exist are "for "interns". These are, in the main, just unpaid work.

We have a minimum wage in this country, a guaranteed sum which must be paid to every worker, however this is being abused by employers who think that, by calling their jobs "internships", they can avoid paying the legal minimum. The Minimum Wage regulations should be amended to cover "internships" (they are not mentioned at all) and for employers to be required to pay all young people what they should be paying them.

Exempt employers with less than 10 employees from all labour laws

Exempt employers who employ less than 10 employees from all labour laws including laws relating to contracts of employment, job security, equality, wages, hours, collective labour laws, maternity pay, paternity pay, statutory sick pay, etc.

Why is this idea important?

Exempt employers who employ less than 10 employees from all labour laws including laws relating to contracts of employment, job security, equality, wages, hours, collective labour laws, maternity pay, paternity pay, statutory sick pay, etc.

Reform the National Minimum Wage to allow profit-share enterprises

Simply that the burden of paying the National Minimum Wage should be lifted from enterprises where the Employee or Worker has a share in any profits or gross earnings of that enterprise.

Why is this idea important?

Simply that the burden of paying the National Minimum Wage should be lifted from enterprises where the Employee or Worker has a share in any profits or gross earnings of that enterprise.

Fossilised studentification

The HMO planning policy introduced by Labour as affects so called 'studentification' has already been reduced by this new government, but there are still Article 4 uses of the regulations that need to go.

This NIMBY policy creates 'fossilised studentifcation' in that once those who have a protected monopoly in an area for their own HMO, they are not going to let it go back to family usage. It discourages competition and investment and creates a false market.

The regulation lacks other mechanisms – e.g., council or housing association accommodation designed for families, or proper investment in purpose built student accommodation.  Note that neither of these solutions incur a long term cost as they bring in rents too.  Universities, councils and investment enterprises are quite capable of addressing this themselves without artificial social engineering as is attempted by these regulations.

It also disadvantages home owners who wish to let out their home on a periodic or medium term basis. This restriction can actually be a disincentive for families to move into an area.  It also affects house prices in a way that is unfair to families – lowering the price by restricting the sales possibilities in an area where adjacent properties are fossilised into being HMO lets by this regulation.

The term 'studentification' is a pejorative which is underserved.  The argument that the area goes quiet when student leave is not much of an argument.  It probably originates with a few shop owners who do quite nicely when the students are there, but want a bit more business when they are not. Anyway,  it's nice when it goes quiet!

This policy is ill-thought out and an undue interference.  Get rid of it please.  We don't need it.

Why is this idea important?

The HMO planning policy introduced by Labour as affects so called 'studentification' has already been reduced by this new government, but there are still Article 4 uses of the regulations that need to go.

This NIMBY policy creates 'fossilised studentifcation' in that once those who have a protected monopoly in an area for their own HMO, they are not going to let it go back to family usage. It discourages competition and investment and creates a false market.

The regulation lacks other mechanisms – e.g., council or housing association accommodation designed for families, or proper investment in purpose built student accommodation.  Note that neither of these solutions incur a long term cost as they bring in rents too.  Universities, councils and investment enterprises are quite capable of addressing this themselves without artificial social engineering as is attempted by these regulations.

It also disadvantages home owners who wish to let out their home on a periodic or medium term basis. This restriction can actually be a disincentive for families to move into an area.  It also affects house prices in a way that is unfair to families – lowering the price by restricting the sales possibilities in an area where adjacent properties are fossilised into being HMO lets by this regulation.

The term 'studentification' is a pejorative which is underserved.  The argument that the area goes quiet when student leave is not much of an argument.  It probably originates with a few shop owners who do quite nicely when the students are there, but want a bit more business when they are not. Anyway,  it's nice when it goes quiet!

This policy is ill-thought out and an undue interference.  Get rid of it please.  We don't need it.

Repeal Restrictive Laws on Our Trade Unions

Recent disputes (BA etc) have shown that it is almost impossible for a union to freely hold a strike ballot and have the results accepted. The employers will always mount a legal challenge; with good reason; the courts nearly always find in their favour.

I agree with ballots, I think it strengthens the union cause if there is a good, free vote in favour of strike action. The way the labour laws are constructed. they are tilted against the unions.

I would ask HMG to repeal these unjust laws. So now I have; there is not the slightest chance this will happen. The government want to make savage cuts; why would they free up trade unions?

I am an old fashioned trade unionist, I have been a branch secretary (shop steward). After a period out of the unions working for a virulently anti-union employer I'm now a member of Unite.

Britain likes to see itself as a free country. When it comes to unions it isn't. The coalition is likely to make striking more restrictive, if not virtually illegal.

Here is another vanishing freedom. Same reason; powerful lobby, state agrees.

Organised labour has no friends. West or East its the same.The old communist countries never allowed free trade unions. China. storming on, won't allow them either to the detriment of its workers (accident rates in China are a massacre of workers limbs and lives). America is anti union to the core! Yet we exist! All over the world trade unionists insist on the basics: a fair wage for labour; fair conditions; safe practices.

Hardly a revolutionary demand, but actually the most revolutionary of all, because the market , capitalist system exists on unfairness! Its not unusual that we face cuts, and bankers pay out big bonuses. Its simply the nature of the beast.

ranter

Why is this idea important?

Recent disputes (BA etc) have shown that it is almost impossible for a union to freely hold a strike ballot and have the results accepted. The employers will always mount a legal challenge; with good reason; the courts nearly always find in their favour.

I agree with ballots, I think it strengthens the union cause if there is a good, free vote in favour of strike action. The way the labour laws are constructed. they are tilted against the unions.

I would ask HMG to repeal these unjust laws. So now I have; there is not the slightest chance this will happen. The government want to make savage cuts; why would they free up trade unions?

I am an old fashioned trade unionist, I have been a branch secretary (shop steward). After a period out of the unions working for a virulently anti-union employer I'm now a member of Unite.

Britain likes to see itself as a free country. When it comes to unions it isn't. The coalition is likely to make striking more restrictive, if not virtually illegal.

Here is another vanishing freedom. Same reason; powerful lobby, state agrees.

Organised labour has no friends. West or East its the same.The old communist countries never allowed free trade unions. China. storming on, won't allow them either to the detriment of its workers (accident rates in China are a massacre of workers limbs and lives). America is anti union to the core! Yet we exist! All over the world trade unionists insist on the basics: a fair wage for labour; fair conditions; safe practices.

Hardly a revolutionary demand, but actually the most revolutionary of all, because the market , capitalist system exists on unfairness! Its not unusual that we face cuts, and bankers pay out big bonuses. Its simply the nature of the beast.

ranter

Increase in time of statutory rest breaks for employees

I suggest the government change working time regulations  that currently states employers have to alllow a 20 minutes after 6 hours of continous work, to a statutory rest break of 30 minutes within a 5/6 hour time for  a employee working more than 6 hours

If a employee were to work on a continental shift pattern of  10/12  hours would be entitled to 2 statutory 30 minute breaks.

Why is this idea important?

I suggest the government change working time regulations  that currently states employers have to alllow a 20 minutes after 6 hours of continous work, to a statutory rest break of 30 minutes within a 5/6 hour time for  a employee working more than 6 hours

If a employee were to work on a continental shift pattern of  10/12  hours would be entitled to 2 statutory 30 minute breaks.

Midwife qualifications.

As a mother of 5, iv had my share of midwives. Labour is a painful experience and each labour is different. Labour is also something you can never understand until you have given birth yourself. 

Why do you get some new young midwife telling YOU how to do things? its your body, you know whats going on. but most 'unqualified' midwives force you to do things 'by the book' and ruin your planned birthing experience.

A requirement for a midwife should simple be : to have given birth.

Why is this idea important?

As a mother of 5, iv had my share of midwives. Labour is a painful experience and each labour is different. Labour is also something you can never understand until you have given birth yourself. 

Why do you get some new young midwife telling YOU how to do things? its your body, you know whats going on. but most 'unqualified' midwives force you to do things 'by the book' and ruin your planned birthing experience.

A requirement for a midwife should simple be : to have given birth.

Home-Working Proposal For UK

The Pro­posal

This pro­posal is aimed at peo­ple who are house­bound with their dis­abil­ity and they can­not go into a bank to raise the money they need in order to become self employed and work from home.

How­ever, it could be aimed at any­one and big busi­nesses could take advan­tage of the home-working pro­posal to save money.

The excit­ing thing about this pro­posal is that it wouldn’t cost a for­tune to imple­ment, as we have the resources already at Britain’s dis­posal. The only thing would be the admin­is­tra­tion how­ever that can be sourced from other resources.  How­ever there are mil­lions of ways in which peo­ple could work from home, with a lit­tle bit of sup­port to make sure the home­work­ers will not be exploited.

There are 4 main groups of peo­ple to come on board that could make this venture work.

  1. The Gov­ern­ment
  2. The Banks
  3. The Depart­ment of Work and Pensions
  4. IT Com­pa­nies
  5. The Claimant

Now I know this scheme may not fit all sizes, but it goes along way. The best part of this scheme is that with Labour bail­ing out the banks and with the gov­ern­ment hav­ing a stake in the banks, this could actu­ally work. Not only that the sys­tem for this kind of thing has already been tested by uni­ver­si­ties all around the country.

The Process Of The Scheme

  1. The gov­ern­ment treats every­one by a one by one basis, in regards to either their dis­abil­ity or the rea­son why a per­son is house­bound for exam­ple chil­dren or car­ing activities.
  2. If some­one is dis­abled, the infor­ma­tion that the per­son has already pro­vided is already in the system.
  3. They get an appoint­ment with a doc­tor, maybe an exam­i­na­tion how­ever the doc­tor should take into account the person’s med­ical history too.
  4. They get a per­sonal career advi­sor and depend­ing on the person’s ill­ness and com­mit­ments, they are given the choices that are avail­able if they can go out to work. How­ever this pro­posal works if a per­son can’t through ill­ness or through commitments.
  5. Theresa May before she became Home Sec­re­tary  she was in charge of the equal oppor­tu­ni­tie brief  and that peo­ple who are unem­ployed would get low-cost per­sonal loans, in that can help peo­ple get back into work. It would be bril­liant if it could be extented to the hous­bound peo­ple too, so that they can becaome useful again.

You could go one step fur­ther and get the banks to offer ‘work related’ low-cost loans for the dis­abled house­bound and oth­ers like sin­gle moth­ers, or car­ers who are house­bound who want the oppor­tu­nity to work from home (like banks do for stu­dents for fees etc) These loans would be sub­ject to con­di­tions: That the money is to be spent on equip­ment needed to work from home and for train­ing costs only!

If there is train­ing that the train­ing would be looked over by the per­sonal careers advi­sor, who would want rec­om­men­da­tions that the cer­tifi­cates that the per­son gets at the end of the course are indus­try recog­nis­able and that they would be able to receive monthly reports on the work the dis­abled or house­bound per­son has done to the course.

  1. While the per­son is try­ing to set them­selves up they will still receive their ben­e­fit until they start to work for them­selves, plus they would get help to show them  how to become self employed should  they have to work for themselves.
  2. The loan would have a lit­tle inter­est on it, so it would pay the bank­ing costs and the admin costs, how­ever it would be paid back by an afford­able level, for exam­ple £10 per week. (Yes it may take a while longer to get the money back; how­ever it is bet­ter to get back slowly and with­out hurt­ing than this part to become a disincentive.
  3. Should a per­son not have any luck find­ing any­thing, then the advi­sor would step in and help, but the advi­sor would be with the per­son every step of the way, sort of being a men­tor.  Not only that while a per­son is train­ing they could do vol­un­tary work in their field of exper­tise to help the com­mu­nity as a whole.
  4. This could be a final solu­tion that the advi­sor can put for­ward for peo­ple who are house­bound and  if the scheme is run pos­i­tively then any­one not tak­ing up this offer that could do would have their ben­e­fits cut.  Only the very frail, the ter­mi­nally ill or pen­sion­ers would be exempt.
  5. How­ever, if pen­sion­ers wanted to be con­sid­ered for the scheme they would have to have a med­ical from their doc­tor how­ever, I can’t see any rea­son why the elderly couldn’t have the chance of join­ing the Inter­net Revolution.

Why is this idea important?

The Pro­posal

This pro­posal is aimed at peo­ple who are house­bound with their dis­abil­ity and they can­not go into a bank to raise the money they need in order to become self employed and work from home.

How­ever, it could be aimed at any­one and big busi­nesses could take advan­tage of the home-working pro­posal to save money.

The excit­ing thing about this pro­posal is that it wouldn’t cost a for­tune to imple­ment, as we have the resources already at Britain’s dis­posal. The only thing would be the admin­is­tra­tion how­ever that can be sourced from other resources.  How­ever there are mil­lions of ways in which peo­ple could work from home, with a lit­tle bit of sup­port to make sure the home­work­ers will not be exploited.

There are 4 main groups of peo­ple to come on board that could make this venture work.

  1. The Gov­ern­ment
  2. The Banks
  3. The Depart­ment of Work and Pensions
  4. IT Com­pa­nies
  5. The Claimant

Now I know this scheme may not fit all sizes, but it goes along way. The best part of this scheme is that with Labour bail­ing out the banks and with the gov­ern­ment hav­ing a stake in the banks, this could actu­ally work. Not only that the sys­tem for this kind of thing has already been tested by uni­ver­si­ties all around the country.

The Process Of The Scheme

  1. The gov­ern­ment treats every­one by a one by one basis, in regards to either their dis­abil­ity or the rea­son why a per­son is house­bound for exam­ple chil­dren or car­ing activities.
  2. If some­one is dis­abled, the infor­ma­tion that the per­son has already pro­vided is already in the system.
  3. They get an appoint­ment with a doc­tor, maybe an exam­i­na­tion how­ever the doc­tor should take into account the person’s med­ical history too.
  4. They get a per­sonal career advi­sor and depend­ing on the person’s ill­ness and com­mit­ments, they are given the choices that are avail­able if they can go out to work. How­ever this pro­posal works if a per­son can’t through ill­ness or through commitments.
  5. Theresa May before she became Home Sec­re­tary  she was in charge of the equal oppor­tu­ni­tie brief  and that peo­ple who are unem­ployed would get low-cost per­sonal loans, in that can help peo­ple get back into work. It would be bril­liant if it could be extented to the hous­bound peo­ple too, so that they can becaome useful again.

You could go one step fur­ther and get the banks to offer ‘work related’ low-cost loans for the dis­abled house­bound and oth­ers like sin­gle moth­ers, or car­ers who are house­bound who want the oppor­tu­nity to work from home (like banks do for stu­dents for fees etc) These loans would be sub­ject to con­di­tions: That the money is to be spent on equip­ment needed to work from home and for train­ing costs only!

If there is train­ing that the train­ing would be looked over by the per­sonal careers advi­sor, who would want rec­om­men­da­tions that the cer­tifi­cates that the per­son gets at the end of the course are indus­try recog­nis­able and that they would be able to receive monthly reports on the work the dis­abled or house­bound per­son has done to the course.

  1. While the per­son is try­ing to set them­selves up they will still receive their ben­e­fit until they start to work for them­selves, plus they would get help to show them  how to become self employed should  they have to work for themselves.
  2. The loan would have a lit­tle inter­est on it, so it would pay the bank­ing costs and the admin costs, how­ever it would be paid back by an afford­able level, for exam­ple £10 per week. (Yes it may take a while longer to get the money back; how­ever it is bet­ter to get back slowly and with­out hurt­ing than this part to become a disincentive.
  3. Should a per­son not have any luck find­ing any­thing, then the advi­sor would step in and help, but the advi­sor would be with the per­son every step of the way, sort of being a men­tor.  Not only that while a per­son is train­ing they could do vol­un­tary work in their field of exper­tise to help the com­mu­nity as a whole.
  4. This could be a final solu­tion that the advi­sor can put for­ward for peo­ple who are house­bound and  if the scheme is run pos­i­tively then any­one not tak­ing up this offer that could do would have their ben­e­fits cut.  Only the very frail, the ter­mi­nally ill or pen­sion­ers would be exempt.
  5. How­ever, if pen­sion­ers wanted to be con­sid­ered for the scheme they would have to have a med­ical from their doc­tor how­ever, I can’t see any rea­son why the elderly couldn’t have the chance of join­ing the Inter­net Revolution.

Employment & The Over 50′ & 60’s

There should be a law that covers people over 50 and 60 who still want to work and are fit and able to do so, this law should state that:-  

"All persons that submit a CV or qualifications for a vacant position that match what has to be listed as the full experience quoted on the advertisement for that said position are to be interviewed, regardless of their age".

"A potential employer cannot under any circumstances decide that a person because of their age cannot be considered ".

And YES, this is the difficult bit because it's common knowledge that they WILL lie –

"If after an interview a person is not accepted for the position, a reason must be given which is much more than – "sorry not suitable or not enough experience", especially as the advertisement for the position clearly has to state what experience is required.

Why is this idea important?

There should be a law that covers people over 50 and 60 who still want to work and are fit and able to do so, this law should state that:-  

"All persons that submit a CV or qualifications for a vacant position that match what has to be listed as the full experience quoted on the advertisement for that said position are to be interviewed, regardless of their age".

"A potential employer cannot under any circumstances decide that a person because of their age cannot be considered ".

And YES, this is the difficult bit because it's common knowledge that they WILL lie –

"If after an interview a person is not accepted for the position, a reason must be given which is much more than – "sorry not suitable or not enough experience", especially as the advertisement for the position clearly has to state what experience is required.