Skip to main content

Plans to scrap unfair-dismissal claims for 'lazy workers'?

Unproductive workers should lose their right to claim unfair dismissal, a leaked government report says.
The report, commissioned by the prime minister, argues this would mean more capable people would replace those sacked, boosting economic growth. - bbc

That’s the leaked government report commissioned by the prime minister - oh, and paid for by the workers of the state.

The question is, who is going to define ‘lazy’?  The bosses? 

‘S/he’s too lazy to say yes to everything the bosses demand, so s/he has to be replaced by one who is hardworking when it comes to being a yes-person’? 

‘Everyone is accustomed to a 12-hour work day and 5-day work week, so the hardworking one is one who doesn’t mind putting in 15-hour work days’ and a 7-day work week’?

when profit is paramount, and competition its midwife, ‘lazy’ is that which doesn’t deliver more profits today than it did yesterday. The thing is, when profit is paramount, and competition its midwife, ‘lazy’ is that which doesn’t deliver more profits today than it did yesterday.  With this logic, a hardworking person is determined by how much harder s/he works compared to another hardworking person.  That is how the work-life or work-family balance is calculated.  That is how a ‘good family life’ or a ‘good life after work’ is gradually defined by the worker being accustomed to extracting as much joy from her/is family life or life as possible in as few hours as possible whilst not taking issue with the increasing hours and responsibilities at work that gradually turns the family into nothing but a corporate reproductive organ. 

All this talk about how much Employment Appeal Tribunals is costing (£84 from 2010-11) takes our attention away from how much is made through workers prior to their dismissal.  Let’s not forget that the logic of capitalism runs along the lines of ‘taking more from workers than they are given in return’.  That includes ‘lazy‘ workers as well.  Let’s calculate that amount first before talking about how much it takes to run these tribunals.  Oh, and whilst you’re at it, let’s talk about how much its costing the workers to maintain the monarchy, the cost of their so-called ‘royal’ weddings, etc, etc, being paid for by workers whom actually work for a living as well as the living of the royals, celebs, and rich in the country. 

so long as workers earn less than they produce, that is incontrovertible evidence of workers working more than they ought. If you were to think about it longer than it takes to call a worker ‘lazy’, you might realise that the most significant contributor to the ‘laziness’ of workers’ is the absence of identification and ownership of the company.  Why do you think that the bosses out there want workers to work hard and not be ‘lazy’?  Because they own the company, or have far more to gain from its success.  Take this away, i would like to see how many of the bosses out there would be as ‘hardworking’ in telling the workers to ‘work hard’ and not be ‘lazy’. 

But the main point is, so long as workers earn than they produce - which contributes to the profit margin of the company - that is incontrovertible evidence of their working more than they ought.  To call a worker ‘lazy’ within this context is nothing but an effort to extract even more from the workers than they already have.  Think about that.  No really.  Think about that.



Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…