Comments by P Browning

P Browning
Member - 9 posts

We are very likely to agree that the law can, at times, be completely asinine - but here we even have the Gods of the Law Society not able to get it right ! So what chance can there ever be for those mere mortals who struggle hard in the real world to keep people in employment ? In this case the Law Society, as employers, appear to have relied so heavily upon compliance with their statutory obligations under Equality law that they made a decision which, on the limited facts here given was, in effect, automatically unfair. My point is this - If the law is so blinking complicated that even such august employers as the Law Society cannot understand or apply it, is it not fair to state that, if an ordinary employer cannot understand the law, it must automatically and at once bear unfairly upon him or her ? How can anyone reasonably expect compliance with law that even such learned people cannot properly interpret ? In other words, an employer is guilty even before knowing the nature of the charge. What, we ask, can we make of such blatantly unfair and conflicting legislation ? Spanish Inquisition, eat your heart out ! End of Rant !

P Browning
Member - 9 posts

Network Rail boobs yet again. Anyone who has done an ounce of research will know that the colour yellow is far more immediately visible than the colour blue but there's certainly not a shred of evidence that blue is more visible than white.
Equally, if the HSE should really want to make a song and dance, there's a good case for saying that after (say) 2012 all hard hats should be yellow on the same basis that all motorway workers wear yellow tabards.

P Browning
Member - 9 posts

At last ! A public body with the guts to take positive action about the care of sensitive information. Most, if not all, of the reports of losses to date (Governmental and Military) seem to suggest that the persons responsible for carelessly creating the opportunity for these losses are just about bomb-proof. Key documents left on a train, just another example. The lack of common sense precautions is obviously very wide-spread, particularly in the public sector, and it is well past high time that such irresponsibility is recognised for the danger to us all that it represents. Well done Colchester !

P Browning
Member - 9 posts

Here we go again, this is yet another half-hearted attempt to put things right, but surely the first step is to restore the original concept of Indentured Apprenticeships. Just to remind those who were not around at the time, this was always by formal Deed of Indenture so that both the Apprentice (together with his/her parents or guardian) and the Employer were each legally bound in mutual obligation.

In these "olden days", we were able to trawl the local schools for recruits, clearly stating what was on offer, and the clear nature of the commitment required on both sides of the package. Each year, once identified, the new batch of recruits and their parents/guardians were invited to a formal 'induction evening' where, after an introductory presentation and with due ceremony, the Indenture Deeds were formally signed and exchanged between the parties. At the end of four years, the Apprentice was released from his or her obligation, having gained the real value of formal qualifications obtained 'on the job' and by day-release to College, which would be recognised throughout the industry. But then, those were the 'olden days', before everyone got their rights and everyone lost their obligations. The sad thing is that these formal Indentured Apprentice programmes really, really worked, and worked very well indeed. I know, because I was there, for forty years ! Hi Mr. Denham, are you listening ?

P Browning
Member - 9 posts

I fully expect loud howls of protest from those righteous people who, of course, have the absolute right to disagree with me, but I honestly think it is time that someone asked an important question. Just how are we to expect our young people to put their heart and soul (yep, they might even have a soul) into creating a new business, and thus the opportunity for new jobs, when, even before they start, they are faced with a mountain of anti-employer legislation ? They shall become guilty before they are proved innocent, they shall become unpaid tax collectors, they shall become providers of social services such as maternity pay, paternity pay and sick pay, and shall face the wrath of both national and local government if they fail to comply with literally hundreds and thousands of employment laws, health and safety laws, consumer laws and environmental laws. Even if they are still undaunted by all of this in their desire to ecome the new entrepreneur, they must, every living day, beware of the jobsworths who have the absolute right to decend upon them without notice to demand inspection to standards of taxation that even the experts cannot properly interpret. Why would anyone want to put themselves in this position when the 'do nothing' alternative is so much safer and more comfortable ? When, oh when, shall someone realise that until someone takes a risk, and thereby makes a profit, there can be NO taxes, NO health service, NO social services, nothing, not even a government, unless and until there are profits to be taxed. Profits from your labour, profits from investment, profits from buying and selling... Nasty word, but there it is. Continue to strangle it with legislation and you will surely kill the golden goose. I'm very glad that I have got to that old and grumpy stage of life, but I feel very sorry indeed for young people today who, if they seek to become entrepreneurs, must enter a world of trade and commerce that is far, far more daunting than any Dragon's Den. If there are any more such heroes out there, may I wish them the very best of luck, for they will surely need it.

P Browning
Member - 9 posts

Yes, o.k., but what about the forty years ? How many bosses remain the same bosses for forty years and, if they should give up business, or the business goes bust, who then shall "retain a copy of the certificate for forty years" ? Why not a central register, just as for car insurance and licensing ?

The problem with politicians and (sadly) many civil servants is that they've never had the direct and personal experience of business that would enable sensible and practical law-making.

P Browning
Member - 9 posts

Only those employers who (like me) will actually have been duped by a job applicant will know how wrong the law is presently. The lady sat in front of me very sweetly and of course, we could not, and did not, talk 'family' but, having obviously been well aware of her condition, within a week of starting the job, she filed for maternity leave. How unfair was that ?

Further, what is presently to stop any lady from entering a contract of employment and then filing for immediate maternity leave, even before the agreed start-date ?

I am all for fairness in employment matters but fairness is (or used to be) a two-edged sword. Just how much longer should employers be regarded as another branch of the Social Services ?

P Browning
Member - 9 posts

This is just one more example of the way that Lawyers have completely ruined what was once the people's court. Tribunals were initially places where matters could be resolved informally. Now that the fat-fee legal system has got such a firm hold on them, the goal-posts are placed in a constantly moving kaleidoscope so that lay people are now severely disadvantaged in presenting their cases, no matter how hard the Chairman (sorry, I'm not very p.c.) tries to help them through the minefield. Lawyers make laws - in parliament and in the courts. They specialise in splitting etymological hairs to the nth. degree, and then you go to Europe for an even rougher legal ride. But only if you've got the time and the money.