IIRC zero hour contracts were originally much to the benefit of the casual employee, but companies discovered that they could abuse them, and have done so.
I don’t know exactly how it was formulated the one time it was spoken, but in my imagination it went something like this:
*
"We’ve had a long negotiation now, we are tired and tempers are running hot, so let us just sit down for a bit, cool down and think about all the years to come and how enjoyable they will be, with Putin as the only supplier of gas and oil to the EU.
Then come back to the table without your demands, bitch."*
In reality, it was probably more like reminding the EU-side that Norway is the EUs only friendly, politically stable supplier of gas and oil, so there is a limit to how hard they want to push on our core interests.
Of course, there is a bit of a difference between a stable, level-headed country still discussing joining the EU; and a country that joined under special conditions, threw regularly tantrums on getting new special conditions, while blaming the EU for everything national politicans did wrong, and then used a referendum as a game of chicken or an oxbridge debate club of winning points by seeing who could better manipulate the masses while playing power games in their own party, spewing hateful lies against immigrants. And leaving a union after several decades will certainly upset economy and laws, while talking about joining, but not going through just leaves you with the status quo.
The other question is how long Europe is going to be dependent on oil and gas, given the increase in renewable energy, reduction in need for gas with better insulation/ heating technology and so on. Maybe in 20 years, you have no longer an advantage - that’s why it’s good to invest the oil money instead of being shortsighted like Alaska.
OK - I agree that an exploitable labour force tends to encourage low wages and uncertain hours. How could it not? So Brexit happens, and (despite David Davis saying last night that immigration would likely rise from time to time after Brexit) immigration is, over 5 years, halved so that immigrants make up perhaps 5% of the total workforce rather than 10%. (Or lower, if you like). Given that:
[ul]
[li]80% of EU immigrants will have been in the UK for 5 years before March 2019 and thus eligible for permanent residence. They may choose to leave but they’ll have the right to stay and work;[/li][li]14% of the workforce are still unemployed (5.5%) or underemployed (8.1%);[/li][li]Benefit sanctions still force people to apply for any job available and take any job offered;[/li][li]Unionisationamong private sector temporary workers is c.6%;[/li][li]There are still enormous tax advantages to employers not taking on permanent staff;[/li][li]Employee protections remain at least as weak as they are now;[/li][li]The Tories are getting to rewrite workplace regulations without parliamentary oversight;[/li][/ul]
What effect will that reduction in immigration *actually *have on exploited workers?
If it *does *lead to an increase in wages for the same jobs, what effect will that have on the prices these migrant employing businesses charge for, say, food? What are the chances that total inflation caused not just by increased wages, but also by the devaluation of the pound and the costs of tariffs and non-tariffs barriers that Brexit brings anyhow, outweighs wage increases and leaves exploited workers with a nominal pay-rise facing a real-terms pay cut? How many women are going to have give up badly-paid cleaning and caring work to do unpaid cleaning and caring work for their parents and grandparents?
Genuinely, I would love to be wrong about this. I will be thrilled if Brexit leads to higher-wage, secure employment, promotes steady economic growth and secures the health and social care services Britain needs. I will happily come back here in five years and apologise for everything I said above and consider it a small price to pay.
But will it?
Do you have a serious argument that doesn’t consist of you just sneering at middle-class Londoners? Because you’ve yet to present it, nor have you addressed the several substantive (and supported with cites) points which indicate that the poor, working-class folk you think we’re sneering at will be massively screwed by Brexit in the short-to-medium term.
Meanwhile, the clock is ticking (Economist article, so may be behind a paywall). This bit is particularly relevant to Stanislaus’ point on potential price increases.
Bolding mine.
Quite a lot of produce is shipped from warmer climes such as Spain, so those prices will go up. And of course any EU farm subsidies will either fall away or need to be covered by the UK taxpayer, resulting in either higher food prices or higher taxes, and that’s before we get into the issue of restricted movement of workers.
But I’m sure it will all be fine.
What special conditions? Having been rebuffed in the 1960s, Britain’s negotiation position leading up to the 1973 accession to the EEC was, in the words of its chief negotiator, “swallow the lot, and swallow it now.”
I would have to look up the Details, but I do remember that GB was exempt from certain rules that applied to other countries that joined the EU. Not just the Euro (which came much later) or keeping non-metric measures, but serious things.
Some other concessions were made later when GB threw tantums several times, threatening to block votes that required unanimous consent if they didn’t get a Special treat.
I have never heard of it as benefit for the employee, always as way for the employer to pressure the employees, because whether they get 40 hrs this week = enough wage or 10 or less = not enough wage is up to the whim of the Boss.
Other countries might not be affected so much so far.
And I thought one of the whole reason for Leave was to get rid of the whole meddling by the EU - but now you complain that the EU didn’t meddle enough?
From the articles I read, the Problem is that it no longer affects only low-skilled workers, like cleaning women or security guards or similar, who have been exploited similar for years, but now a broad Segment of Young skilled and educated professionals entering the marketplace find only Jobs - real skilled Jobs - with zero-hour-contracts.
This means both: middle-class People complaining, which is much louder than poor People (sad but reality); and loss of good taxable income, loss of settling down, fewer families. Because how can a Young Person in their 20s start a Family if they can’t be sure of paying the rent each month because they don’t know how much Money they are earning each week? That’s not how you build a new Generation of prosperous skilled middle class which pays the taxes and buys stuff to Keep the economy going.
Basically, Brexit is like saying “I got shot in my left leg, obviously the best Treatment is to chop of my right arm, then everything will be fine!” - a solution that doesn’t adress the root of the Problem at all.
A Cartoon on that subject … Bye Bye England and Friends - Scandinavia and the World
Huh. What I saw mostly was the desperate attempt by the Remain-campaign to tell People that the populists steering the Leave -campaign were lying left and right, about Facts, about causes, about consequences, and to get some truth and Facts into the debate.
But populists - whether in France, UK or US - live by using lies to steer the fears, and telling their supporters to “only trust them, everybody else is lying” - so that Facts matter less than the Feeling of “I’ve been cheated, must be the bloody foreigner, and not the conservative politicans or the CEOs”.
Aside from the Problem of skilled EU healthcare workers leaving, many experts have pointed out that the flip side of kicking out all EU citizens is … the fate of the GB citizens currently working outside the GB in EU countries. Revoking right to move would cut both ways, so People would loose their well-paying Jobs and come back to GB to look for a replacement… which is going to come from where?
Surely that applies to most if not all countries that have joined the EU or EC? They all negotiate the terms on which they join, and there are always special measures. The records seem to suggest that British prime minister Heath was absolutely determined to join, come what may (no pun intended.)
As for the unanimous votes, isn’t that the point of them? You can’t say “don’t worry, decisions are only made unanimously, so nothing will pass if you are unhappy with it. But by the way, anyone who does vote against is an obstinate prick who’s just throwing a ‘tantrum’.”
The EU put up with a lot of tantrums demanding Special conditions or else from GB in the past, so it’s reasonable and understandable that it gets fed up when they do leave and no longer see it necessary to give sweet deals.
If you saw of the branch you’re sitting on, fall and hurt yourself, it’s not the fault of the guy who told you to stop sawing. He’s not required to Bandage you up.
A protection racket would be if the EU was throwing GB from the branch. They’re just sitting there, watching you hurt yourself.
In Addition, the EU is more than a simple trade Agreement like NAFTA. There is the idea of shared human values. The Brexit campaign was a Populist-inciting smear campaign using lies to incite hatred against foreigners and others (hate crimes both against foreigners and queers have risen). This is damaging to Democracy and These shared values. So sending a message that following the populists off a cliff hurts because falling off a cliff does hurt, in order to deter maybe a few knuckleheads ready to follow Le Pen because “leaving EU = unicorns and roses” is important. Not because of racket, but to try and steer against the Populist anti-Democracy that was behind founding the EU in the first place. (Remember: after WWII)
As Oliver Welke said back during the Referendum “If…” If you start producing Quality stuff that’s worth the higher tariff that Comes with leaving the Special Agreements of EU Partners - then yes, of course countries and companies will Keep on trading with you. Nobody said that you were going to be sanctioned or something like that.
But higher tariffs, customs etc. makes your goods less competitive. Different forms and laws compared to the other EU countries makes trade with you less attractive. (There’s already the hassle of Exchange because of the non-Euro GBP).
How much does Support in the Country matter, given that the Population wanted an Exit without any plan? They can’t really complain about anything the current government decides on, because nothing was on the table.
It’s not punishment to apply the same Standards in trade Agreements as to other non-EU countries. Part of Agreements depends on the strength: and GB is much smaller a Partner than the rest of the EU. The 27 countries don’t have to agree on every Detail beforehand - that’s what the negotiators deal with. It’s small against big, so big will dictate the Terms.
Special tariffs are sometimes imposed, e.g. against the Chinese, who don’t follow enviromental and workers protection Standards like the EU, so produce at lower cost, so to protect the domestic industry, tariffs raise the Price again. This might not apply to GB - or the EU might decide that workers right are badly protected in the UK and it does apply.
But taking away Special lowered tax rates or tariffs between members once you stop being a member is not punishment.
It doesn’t matter how much your politicans tell your Population that “favoured trade Partner” is possible - it matters if the EU wants GB badly enough to put that on the table, and that Looks unlikely. Why give favoured Status to somebody obstreporous enough to shoot their own foot?
I’m less worried about them than I am about the hundreds of thousands of pensioners living in France and Spain and elsewhere coming back. Talk about overwhelming the NHS.
That said, it looks like the rights of foreign workers and residents (in both directions) is first on the agenda so it’s unlikely that in practice the UK will be kicking out all the foreigners nor that the Continent will send all the British home.
No, rather there are fixed Terms that must be met to become a member, when you apply.
Because Democracy for ordinary Business doesn’t require unanimousity, it requires simple majority, otherwise nothing would get done. But some Groups, in an idealistic Phase, drafted rules that required too much unanimousity on less important things, which leads to blocking.
And it is throwing tantrums when the Persons responsible outright say “I want an unrelated easement for my Country, or I will block this important vote” and not “I disagree with the current Proposition A and suggest changing paragraphs 1,3 and 5 the following way, because it’s better that way”
Similar to the Republicans out-and-out declaring to use Filibusters for blocking not because they disagreed with the Content, but because they disliked the People and wanted to posture for their base. Posturing with the EU helped GB politicans with their base, but the rest of the EU was getting fed up with it.
Now, if we would discuss on how to Change the structure of EU parliament, commission etc. to make it work - that is rather necessary. There are lots of things that don’t work well at the Moment. But that is quite different from saying “Everything about the EU is bad, let’s quit it (without knowing or caring about what else we are going to do)”.
It’s the lack of any Kind of plan, just pie-in-sky promises (see the NHS 350 mil. Point for most memorable) that Shows it was never about Content, only about power Plays of some influential politicans.
Yes, in practice it seems unlikely, because both sides would be hurt, to go with full kicking out.
But if the EU citizens are allowed to stay, the Leave-group will be deeply unhappy, because all their Problems come from having These non-Brits in the first place. The unicorns won’t come if the non-Brits stay! 
I’m not an expert but I can offer some thoughts:
[ul]
[li]The Low Pay Unit - and observers generally - are surprisingly content with the UKs commitment to raising the minimum wage (this week increasing to £7.50). It’s a useful mechanism and one that can be further utilised[/li]
[li]There are, literally, a million votes waiting for the first party to state in their manifesto they will outlaw zhc - the effects of this can be seen in other first world countries as minimal on employers (if that employer is efficient). Agreed, there are too many disincentives reasons for employers to avoid conventional employees[/li]
[li]We are, legally, slowly catching up with the new Victorian exploiters from Silicon Vallye, loop holes used by the gig economy in terms of holiday pay, sick pay, minimum pay are closing[/li]
[li]In London at least, first-generation exploited workers are beginning to unionise, albeit current mostly the south Americans in south London, but it is happening and they have had some quite stunning though small successes (the UVW at Harrods, for example). Mainstream UK unions are in the very early days of reaching out to these people and, in some cases, educating them on UK industrial relations. But these are high profile exemplars[/li]
[li]For my own part, I hope we do more research into the huge rise of bogus self-employment because this is just another way to push costs onto the worker, whether that worker is from abroad, or over 50 or otherwise vulnerable[/li]
[li]The Tories have actually made progress on making work more financially beneficial for those who are returning. It is utterly bizarre to me that the state still subsidises employers for paying low wages by ‘topping up’ income of their low paid. [/li][/ul]
^^
The rider; little of the above makes sense in a labour market fueled by an endless - wholly unregulated - source of cheap, exploited, unskilled workers.
Look, my interest is primarily in understanding the actual effect of the EU/Brexit rather than what the middle class London media thinks we should hear and be interested in/about.
I don’t quite follow; this is a human rights issue, or at the very least a dignity issue; zhc is naked exploitation. That’s not meddling.