Today's Conservative Party Unpleasantness

[andrewducker]

They're going to cut red tape!

Huzzah!

They're cutting it by.... reducing regulation on "data protection laws, rules on hours, and health and safety regimes."

Because what we need is less protection on our personal data, longer working hours, and less health/safety at work.

Here.

Comments

[grapefruitzzz.livejournal.com]

Omg I can give my construction workers concussion again? YAY!

[matgb]

Hmm, first, even this lefty can see the biased way the BBC has written that article, but here's something from a distinct righty explaining why:
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2007/08/spot_the_differ.html
(I stopped reading samizdata awhileback for the same reason I stopeed reading LEnin's Tomb, there's only so much extremism I can take, but Guy's pretty good on some issues)

And yeah, Redwood, ergo problematic, however...

Data protection. The job I finished last year was tourism based, a huge amount of our customers were teenagers coming over to stay for two weeks, we used to pick them up at the airport as part of the service their parents were paying for.

Imagine paying staff to collect a list of 30 kids aged 13-14 at Heathrow. Then imagine that you've managed to find 28 of them off the flight. So a member of staff goes to the info desk for the airline, with ticket details and name of the two kids to see if they were actually on the flight and have walked past your reps (very common), are delayed at customs (less common) or missed the plane (happens every few weeks).

Odds are good you've got two confused kids lost at Heathrow, kids who barely speak English and may not understand their name being pronounced over the tannoy (because Julianne Drews is Yoo-lee-ana-Drevs not Julie-Ann-Drews).

But you can't find out. Because data protection laws prevent the flight staff from confirming the kids were on the flight. SRSLY.

Rules on hours. I now work partially for my technical employer, the temping agency, partially for my actual employer on a freelance basis, and partially for myself (and a couple politicians) on a freelance/consultancy basis. This week I've done bucketloads of calling, redesigned a website, proofread a magazine and travelled across company; all on the clock, total of 60ish hours. I've actually done nowhere near that much "work", because playing around with site software is something I do for the hell of it anyway, but it's all billable to someone.

Yet I've broken employment law, technically. If a worker chooses to work longer hours, and an employer is happy to pay them, why not? As long as no exploitation happens not a problem; I'll get paid, or more likely I'll take time back at some point.

I'm sort of working now, I've got a different window open with a website I'm working on. So I'm counting my time as about 1/4 of the time spent to be fair and because, dude, it's Sunday...

HEalth and Safety at work. Ever had to fill in a risk assesment form before climbing a ladder? Better, one former employer insisted I be trained on safe ladder usage before using one. Ever been told you can't change a lightbulb because of health and safety? I have been.

There are some daft rules and regs out there. And some bloody good ones. I suspect Redwood would cut loads that are necessary, and good. But I also know that I don't like silly regulations that have been badly drafted and end up creating pointless work and stopping people doing their jobs.

Those lightbulbs I couldn't change? We had to call a tech in from the company to install the things (hot halogen things for signs, got rid of now, bloody expensive to run). Despite the small point I had identical lights at home and new how to change them.

Stopped clocks.

[dapperscavenger.livejournal.com]

"If a worker chooses to work longer hours, and an employer is happy to pay them, why not? As long as no exploitation happens not a problem; I'll get paid, or more likely I'll take time back at some point."

I sort of agree with this, but there are some jobs you have to have a limit on. Some people will work till they drop; they need the money. However, doctors, truck drivers and anyone working with heavy machinery are a few examples of who shouldn't be on that list.

[andrewducker]

Data Protection:
So you're saying that people _should_ legally be allowed to hand information out about me without my permission? I'd like some clarification there on what information companies should be allowed to pass on about your movements - should I be allowed to ask National Rail what trains you've been on recently?

Working Time:
The UK already has an opt-out from the working time directive. Even within it a 48-hour week is permitted, which is plenty for the vast majority of workers.

Health and Safety:
In my experience, health and safety overkill doesn't come from governmental rules, it comes from insurance claims. If you try to change a lightbulb and hurt yourself, you can then sue the company for not providing a ladder (and quite possibly for not having someone else do it for you, and thus forcing you to climb a ladder/stand on a chair). So they ban you from doing it rather than risking hundreds of thousands of pounds in medical lawsuits...

[andrewducker]

Oh - and the UK has the least paid holiday in the EU:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6943667.stm

And that's _after_ the new legal change which means that bank holidays can't be part of the 20 mandatory holiday days, but must be extra.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

I have a real rant on ladders. Everyone should have to be trained on safe ladder use before using ladders; and should always consider whether there's a straightforward non-ladder way to perform the same task. Thousands of people are seriously injured each year as a result of ladder falls; often from relatively low heights. Ladders are useful in the workplace, but people need to understand the risks -- hence risk assessments.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/falls/ladders.htm

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

Seems to me that many of the jobsworth type decisions come down to whether the policy is to be "that which is not explicitly permitted is forbidden" or "that which is not explicitly forbidden is permitted" Both have their places, the difficult part is sometimes working out where...