Tim Worstall

Flexitime For All

So we have Beverley Hughes mooting that all employees should be able to request part-time or shared jobs. This rather ignores the fact that everyone does already have that right ("Can I work part-time Boss?" "No", "OK", I’ll look for another job", "Well, maybe then") but that isn’t the great big fat steaming mess that is being missed here.

You see, no mention is made of the fact that part-time and job-share workers get paid less per hour than their full-time compatriots. I mean they do, that’s obvious, the Government’s own figures show that. Some say that this is because it is preponderantly women who have part-time jobs and that this is simply a reflection of the deep seated discrimination, the effects of the patriarchy upon our society.

That’s not quite what the Women and Work Commission thinks though:


19. DTI and HM Treasury should examine the case for fiscal incentives targeted at small firms to reduce the additional costs of employing part-time or flexible workers, for example, training costs, start-up IT costs.

Now, if she’s willing to state that you can indeed ask for such flexible working hours, but you also have to put up with the likely lower pay, well, fine by me, but I doubt very much that that is indeed what she is willing to say.

In

3 responses

  1. Peter Turner Avatar
    Peter Turner

    When will the ‘left’ understand that a job exists only when someone is prepared to pay for the product or service offered. Jobs do not exist for the benefit of the employee. Sometimes and in some industries, it may be necessary to operate or provide services on a continous basis and this may require unsocial hours working to meet customer requirements. Again, some tasks can only be undertaken by suitably qualified and registered people and these people may well be in short supply. In these circumstances who has the highest priority – the employee or the customer? The customer must come first or vey soon there will be no job.

    Reply
  2. Kay Tie Avatar
    Kay Tie

    If jobs are so precious, why does the Government charge an employer 12% tax to hire someone?

    Reply
  3. Eric Jacobson Avatar
    Eric Jacobson

    This has been an annoying week for me, in terms of business news.
    First we get this nonsense which apparently would mandate that companies ‘must’ offer part/flex-time to their workers, regardless of company workflow and staffing needs.
    I have no problem with flex-time, or part-time work, provided it’s the company and its employees who reach agreement on the matter. If a firm feels that it can offer such arrangements for some or all of its staff, great. More power to them.
    But, yet again, Government is preparing (I assume) to barge in with a one-size-fits-all policy dreamt up by some utopian who’s probably never put in an honest day’s work; and knowing this government, disobedience by the serfs is Streng Verboten and will be met by harsh penalties.
    Ever notice how very fond this Government is of ‘draconian sanctions’? One would think that Britain was run under Corpus Juris rather than common law, and…and…never mind. In any case, should this measure be passed, expect to see a further diminuition of British ability to compete in the global market.
    To make my week complete, Mr. Peter Hain, he of the ‘Northern Irish bog-trotters, you VILL do as I say, or else!’ imbroglio over ‘sexual orientation’, has now weighed in with his opinion that those wretched City fund managers and salespeople–the ones carting home multimillion pound performance bonuses–should pay two thirds of their windfall into ‘social benefit programs’ (run by Government, of course).
    What possessed Mr. Hain to think that Government has ANY remit whatsoever to dictate salaries, or to tell the recipient how he should allocate his gelt? Is this man insane? Or merely a true socialist? But I repeat myself.
    To cap the lunacy, Mr. Hain then goes on to make a not-so-covert threat that if these ‘overpaid’ financial buckos don’t toe his line, there will be a ‘fight’.
    I don’t think so, Mr Hain: you see, City financial institutions, especially funds, can simply up sticks and move to Barcelona, or Aruba, or Beijing, or anywhere else their hearts desire, leaving you with:
    1) No business to tax;
    2) No employees of said business to tax;
    3) No contribution to the local economy by said business and employees.
    In other words, they can, and will, just relocate to a friendler tax jurisdiction if you attempt to impose your idiotic redistributionist, authoritarian nonsense on them.
    No ‘fight’; no, indeed. Mr. Hain will merely look like the dunce he is should his scheme ever be enacted; in fact, he’ll make Messers Sarbanes and Oxley look like models of economic good sense.
    What a week; and it’s only Tuesday!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading