Ungainfully Employed?

You will have to forgive the slightly dated nature of some of these posts, but I stored up a few bits and bobs before I left, knowing getting hold of current news in deepest darkest Africa might be slightly tricky. So today, a little note on a couple of people not gainfully employed, but paid by you and me nonetheless. Yup, they are a couple of Labour frontbenchers, and quite high up the tree. In McDonalds terms they might have upward of three gold stars on their badges.

Labour have been decrying every Government policy the Coalition have produced, with little positive to put forward in the way of alternatives - I've mentioned this a couple of times. The Employers' Charter is no different in that respect. Coming out in opposition to this planned legislation, The Other Miliband recently held a press conference stating "the first thing Mr Cameron should be addressing at his meeting today is the risk of a lost generation of young people in this country." A bold call. Rather like suggesting the Coalition should busy themselves with fixing the financial mess the country is in, he does rather run the risk of someone pointing out why there was a problem in the first place. A "lost generation", well how long is a generation these days? I reckon 13 years isn't too wide of the mark. That number seem familiar?

Now I am also not surprised that Miniband is toeing the same line as the Trade Unions, who are naturally screaming blue murder and threatening strikes (do they do anything else?). After all, they own him, having put him into post ahead of his far more popular and politically astute brother thanks to the bizarre voting system Labour have. He, therefore, has to oppose any measure which might make employing people less of a burden and so help ease Britain out of the recession Labour helped it into. Why? - because as sensible as it may sound to a level-headed person, that measure is 'an attack on the working classes' as I am sure we shall be told. Again and again.

The other front bencher has it seems taken up the reins of the Harriet Harman Girl Power Chariot. You know the one - it careers all over the place supposedly championing women but ultimately doing them no favours at all by the utterly bonkers arguments behind all of its utterings. Yvette Cooper-Balls has suggested that women will likely be hit hardest by the Employers' Charter because of their shorter than average employment. She rattles on "the Government is already hitting women the hardest in their pockets through cuts in child benefit and child tax credit. Now these plans look likely to hit hardest at women's jobs, because women are more likely to be in shorter term employment."

The bit she's talking about is the extension from 1 to 2 years employment for an employee to be able to claim wrongful dismissal and the introduction of fees for bringing claims to court under said charge. Theses are not drastic measures, but designed to stop the relentless weight of spurious litigation from shoddy short term employees. Ask employers if they think this is right. Ask business. In fact, ask the majority of dutiful and normal workers. Their wages are lower because their companies have to find the funds to either fight these people or pay them off.

Yvette's statement is utter balderdash for a couple of reasons. Firstly, Yvette has fallen into the same trap as her predecessor in supposing that if any one part of society loses out thanks to a particular policy, that policy must have targeted them and be totally unfair. It is co-incidental that women are in shorter term employment, this however is a policy that has nothing to do with women. It has everything to do with relieving pressures on the private sector - the only thing that can save us from a sovereign debt crisis. As I have blogged before (here), we all know the scales have tipped too far in the direction of employees.

Secondly, apparently cutting child benefit and child tax credit is an attack on women. That seems a little odd to me. I would have thought, the clue being in the title, that both benefits were targeted at funding children, not women. So I would naturally assume the only people you could say a cut in those benefits would affect would be children, or perhaps families if we extended it a little. You might be forgiven for thinking that Ms Cooper-Balls is suggesting having children gives women money, either that or I have totally misunderstood the principles behind the creation of those benefits. Now no Labour Government would ever have a policy like that would they?

Unusually High Volumes of Bullshit

This will be my last post of 2010. I have mulled over a couple of options for today's topic. Should I end the year on a positive note, a forwards looking constructive piece for the good of all humanity? Should I perhaps try to sum up 2010 as it meanders towards its sunset with some form of literary montage post of all this last year's events? No, I don't have the former in me, nor the skill for the latter, plus I wasn't paying attention for much of 2010. Instead, I shall have a quick word or two about the lies we hear on the phone.

The last few years have seen a proliferation in 08 numbers. Almost every company of any size whatsoever has one it seems. Whilst some providers (mobile and landline) are starting to include 0845 and 0870 numbers in free minute packages there are thousands of pricey 0844 and 0871 numbers in operation. As the revenue from 0845 and 0870 dries up, many companies are migrating to the money-spinning alternatives.

The first lie here is the unspoken one - that they don't tell you they make money out of your calls. It is ironic that most complaints numbers benefit the company against whom you are complaining. They share the profits with the provider from your expensive session of frantic button pressing in a desperate attempt to just, please, speak to a human.

The second is when they say that they don't earn any money from your call. If you are calling on one of these numbers, money is being made over and above your normal tariff. If it isn't going to the company directly, they aren't doing the provider a favour out of altruistic feeling. They will receive benefit in kind from the provider, so they are getting paid whatever they say.

Then the third and worst lie is the one you have definitely all heard : "We are experiencing higher than usual call volumes so apologise for the delay". The 08 number rules are vague, so they can leave you on hold as long as they want, and boy do they want. They want you to listen to Greensleeves over and over again. They want you to tap in 17 different buttons from the cascading menus "so that you can be put through to the appropriate department" and then end up speaking to the same person anyway.

Now we all know many of the people behind these companies are a bunch of thieving scoundrels who would sell their own grandmothers for sixpence, so this should come as no surprise that they charge you to call them. I want all the businesses with these numbers to make a New Year's Resolution. If they won't revert to free numbers, I just wish they would have the decency to say from now on:

"Hello, and thank you for calling (insert name of morally bankrupt organisation), we value your call. We value it at 3p per minute. Thousands of you call to complain about our shoddy services daily, so factor in your inevitable wait time and do the maths. We have. Thanks. We really value your call. Today we are experiencing the exact same volume of calls as usual. We even fired a couple of call centre workers to bump up our profits from your wait time. Please listen to all of the following options because it might make the wait feel shorter. Rest assured, whatever your selections you will then be placed in a queue if not arbitrarily cut off and your query will be inexpertly misunderstood by our resident semi-trained baboons. We value your call. Give us your money. If you want to complain about this complaints procedure, please feel free to call back, again and again."

What are the chances? Happy New Year...