BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
In Guardian with no sensible supporting data, so I dismissed it.rick_chasey said:rick_chasey said:68% is a vast amount wtf
2 -
The article below makes sense when you read some of the contributions to the thread on this particular area:david37 said:
Apparently not. at least if the teachers and civil servants on here are to be believed.TheBigBean said:
Are there no racist remain voters?pangolin said:HTH john
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/05/04/leavers-have-a-better-understanding-of-remainers-motivations-than-vice-versa/"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
True, we are a global business which manufactures the majority of its kit in the Far East. Although thinking about what I said about the value of the internal time as a % of revenue, that cost was over a 4.5 year period.rjsterry said:
Thanks for the details On the size, yes, the <0.1% make a bit more sense at that scale - still a few £million. If your turnover were £1m, that would be a grand, which wouldn't go very far. I also get that if you were already exporting/importing in and out of the EU, then you will already have the capabilities, so scaling them up is less of a job than if its all new to you.Stevo_666 said:
Annual turnover is in the £10bn-£15bn bracket.rjsterry said:
Possibly I'm asking the question in the wrong way. I have no real idea how big your group is. What order of magnitude is the group turnover (if you can say)? I would suggest that these things don't scale down proportionately, and the relative cost to an exporting SME with turnover <£1m would be much higher.Stevo_666 said:
A lot of our prep was done internally so no external cost for that part as we were not hiring extra to do it. But I would estimate less than 0.01%. Even if you put a cost on the internal time spent it would still be less than 0.1%.rjsterry said:
You've mentioned that you did well out of it personally. Do you have any idea what the total 'Brexit prep' spend was, say as a percentage of turnover?Stevo_666 said:
I was also pretty surprised at how little some large multinationals did to prepare. We set up a 'task force' in March 2016 and I was the mug who volunteered to coordinate it. In my regular chats with advisors on what others were doing, seems as if quite a few of their other clients really weren't doing their homework. And it wasn't that difficult for an average big group that put it's mind to the task.skyblueamateur said:
We've been reasonably lucky but I'm sure there are other industries which will really be struggling. I think they deserve empathy from both sides of the argument and they definitely need the Government to step up to help them as empathy alone isn't going to save jobs. Until the Government admits that Brexit has it's downsides and mitigates for them they're in the censored unfortunately.yorkshireraw said:
Ok - so not stuff that average man in the street needs to buy everyday.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure there is a ready made pigeon hole for what we do as we provide a mix of hardware and services. But for the hardware side which is what is in point here, I would describe us as electronic equipment. Without giving too much away....yorkshireraw said:@Stevo_666 can I ask what Industry / sector you're in?
Because there is a shed-load of continuing issues in Food. Which is kind of relevant to everyone who eats i.e. everyone.
And yes, we don't need to eat shellfish, but a lot of our biggest consumption / manufactured products rely on imports / exports, for inputs (ingredients, packaging etc) or exporting finished goods.
Any cost increases (because of additional trade friction or increased transport costs) impacts the end consumer due to the relative (compared to cars, TVs etc) low price of food items and the fact food isn't discretionary spend. Sadly, many of those who voted for Brexit (lower income households in deprived areas) will be disproportionately impacted, as they spend relatively more of their disposable income on food.
It's also pretty important for jobs:
The food sector in GB employed 3.5 million people in Q1 2018 (3.9 million if agriculture and fishing are included along with self-employed farmers), a 1.0% increase on a year earlier. It covered 12% of GB employment in Q1 2018 (13% if agriculture and fishing are included along with self-employed farmers).
400K jobs are in manufacturing.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/food-statistics-pocketbook-2017/food-statistics-in-your-pocket-2017-food-chain#:~:text=The food sector3 in,with self-employed farmers).
Not looking for a fight, but am highlighting that while it may be looking ok for one type of business, there are plenty that are having issues, and those issues have potential serious consequences for many people's jobs and the population at large.
Steveo is also correct though and it's surprised me how unprepared some big businesses have been.
Its been a bit of a journey but I'm taking my foot off the pedal now.
As an aside I find it mind boggling that you don't consider time spent internally as counting towards costs. Maybe that's the difference working in a large business, but surely every minute spent on something you can't charge for is a cost. </p>
When you say 'surely every minute spent on something you can't charge for is a cost' - it isn't: the people involved were not getting charged to customers by the hour. In fact very few do in this line of business. We manage the issues that need dealing with and the cost to the business of employing us is the same whatever we work on.
They may not scale down proportionately but that's the score for my outfit.
On the other point, down at SME level, it's not so much charging by the hour: if we need to hire another member of staff, even part time, that will add materially to the wage bill. If that isn't providing something that we can charge a bit more for, it comes off the profit.
Anyway, thankfully we don't import or export anything. I can see it being an issue for all the small contractors who source things like joinery in the EU, though. </p>"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yeah, people responding to a survey aren't going to tick "because I'm a racist".Stevo_666 said:
The article below makes sense when you read some of the contributions to the thread on this particular area:david37 said:
Apparently not. at least if the teachers and civil servants on here are to be believed.TheBigBean said:
Are there no racist remain voters?pangolin said:HTH john
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/05/04/leavers-have-a-better-understanding-of-remainers-motivations-than-vice-versa/0 -
The irony of people on here that moaned that Brexit would mean a lowering of workers rights baulking at the notion that au pairs should be protected by employment legislation.1
-
Re the au pair thing.
Admittedly it’s bureaucratic but, surely you simply need to properly cost up the value of board, utilities etc. to ensure these can be itemised as expenses against gross salary.
It’s a tricky area, I worked in France twice as an outdoor pursuits instructor for peanuts as an 18 and 19 year old and made memories ahead of money. It’s a shame for others to miss out on what for me are my most memorable periods of my working life. The period I will refer to as before bills.
0 -
It’s not being stopped for problems with the system of ah pairs though is it?ballysmate said:The irony of people on here that moaned that Brexit would mean a lowering of workers rights baulking at the notion that au pairs should be protected by employment legislation.
You’re just part of the class wars masquerading it behind bureaucracy.
No one gains from this development.0 -
Your post seems to support what the article is saying.elbowloh said:
Yeah, people responding to a survey aren't going to tick "because I'm a racist".Stevo_666 said:
The article below makes sense when you read some of the contributions to the thread on this particular area:david37 said:
Apparently not. at least if the teachers and civil servants on here are to be believed.TheBigBean said:
Are there no racist remain voters?pangolin said:HTH john
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/05/04/leavers-have-a-better-understanding-of-remainers-motivations-than-vice-versa/"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Try earning enough to pay the rent, utilities, council tax, food and car and then £500 in your pocket. I reckon you are talking £2k a month.morstar said:Re the au pair thing.
Admittedly it’s bureaucratic but, surely you simply need to properly cost up the value of board, utilities etc. to ensure these can be itemised as expenses against gross salary.
It’s a tricky area, I worked in France twice as an outdoor pursuits instructor for peanuts as an 18 and 19 year old and made memories ahead of money. It’s a shame for others to miss out on what for me are my most memorable periods of my working life. The period I will refer to as before bills.0 -
Regardless of why it is stopping, you surely must agree with Bean that au pairs should enjoy the same level of employment protection as any other workers.rick_chasey said:
It’s not being stopped for problems with the system of ah pairs though is it?ballysmate said:The irony of people on here that moaned that Brexit would mean a lowering of workers rights baulking at the notion that au pairs should be protected by employment legislation.
You’re just part of the class wars masquerading it behind bureaucracy.
No one gains from this development.
Would you be happy to turn a blind eye to any other groups of foreign workers brought in and given 100 quid a week plus board and lodgings as per Jez's example?0 -
That article pretty much describes what I see here. That the balance and the nuance of the whole thing is better grasped by the leave side, precisley because they are prepared to see both sides of the argument on its own merits.Stevo_666 said:
The article below makes sense when you read some of the contributions to the thread on this particular area:david37 said:
Apparently not. at least if the teachers and civil servants on here are to be believed.TheBigBean said:
Are there no racist remain voters?pangolin said:HTH john
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/05/04/leavers-have-a-better-understanding-of-remainers-motivations-than-vice-versa/
Screaming and stcking fingers in ears is the more widely held remoaner position. The article sums it up much better than I can with the phrase “ progressives’ greater tendency to disengage from their political opponents”
I.e. just see it from their own perspective and believe their own opinions are fact. Theres a reason why more worldly wise people tended to vote leave and that’s simply their blind ideological zeal has been tempered through experience and knowledge.-1 -
No, as usual coopster you are wrong. Leavers can see remainers argument because it is grounded in fact rather than fantasy.david37 said:
That article pretty much describes what I see here. That the balance and the nuance of the whole thing is better grasped by the leave side, precisley because they are prepared to see both sides of the argument on its own merits.Stevo_666 said:
The article below makes sense when you read some of the contributions to the thread on this particular area:david37 said:
Apparently not. at least if the teachers and civil servants on here are to be believed.TheBigBean said:
Are there no racist remain voters?pangolin said:HTH john
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/05/04/leavers-have-a-better-understanding-of-remainers-motivations-than-vice-versa/
Screaming and stcking fingers in ears is the more widely held remoaner position. The article sums it up much better than I can with the phrase “ progressives’ greater tendency to disengage from their political opponents”
I.e. just see it from their own perspective and believe their own opinions are fact. Theres a reason why more worldly wise people tended to vote leave and that’s simply their blind ideological zeal has been tempered through experience and knowledge.0 -
No one loses out with them. People lose out without them.ballysmate said:
Regardless of why it is stopping, you surely must agree with Bean that au pairs should enjoy the same level of employment protection as any other workers.rick_chasey said:
It’s not being stopped for problems with the system of ah pairs though is it?ballysmate said:The irony of people on here that moaned that Brexit would mean a lowering of workers rights baulking at the notion that au pairs should be protected by employment legislation.
You’re just part of the class wars masquerading it behind bureaucracy.
No one gains from this development.
Would you be happy to turn a blind eye to any other groups of foreign workers brought in and given 100 quid a week plus board and lodgings as per Jez's example?
0 -
That articles came from the LSE , which is hardly a bastion of pro-brexit thinking.darkhairedlord said:
No, as usual coopster you are wrong. Leavers can see remainers argument because it is grounded in fact rather than fantasy.david37 said:
That article pretty much describes what I see here. That the balance and the nuance of the whole thing is better grasped by the leave side, precisley because they are prepared to see both sides of the argument on its own merits.Stevo_666 said:
The article below makes sense when you read some of the contributions to the thread on this particular area:david37 said:
Apparently not. at least if the teachers and civil servants on here are to be believed.TheBigBean said:
Are there no racist remain voters?pangolin said:HTH john
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/05/04/leavers-have-a-better-understanding-of-remainers-motivations-than-vice-versa/
Screaming and stcking fingers in ears is the more widely held remoaner position. The article sums it up much better than I can with the phrase “ progressives’ greater tendency to disengage from their political opponents”
I.e. just see it from their own perspective and believe their own opinions are fact. Theres a reason why more worldly wise people tended to vote leave and that’s simply their blind ideological zeal has been tempered through experience and knowledge.
Anyhow, I thought a that fantasy was about something that is imaginary. Such as our current membership of the EU?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Surely the loser is the au pair, not getting what they are otherwise entitled to?rick_chasey said:
No one loses out with them. People lose out without them.ballysmate said:
Regardless of why it is stopping, you surely must agree with Bean that au pairs should enjoy the same level of employment protection as any other workers.rick_chasey said:
It’s not being stopped for problems with the system of ah pairs though is it?ballysmate said:The irony of people on here that moaned that Brexit would mean a lowering of workers rights baulking at the notion that au pairs should be protected by employment legislation.
You’re just part of the class wars masquerading it behind bureaucracy.
No one gains from this development.
Would you be happy to turn a blind eye to any other groups of foreign workers brought in and given 100 quid a week plus board and lodgings as per Jez's example?
Would you be so sanguine if we were discussing Lincolnshire farmers housing Lithuanian tater pickers in caravans and paying them peanuts?
Or is it ok as long as the au pair gets to live in a nicer house?0 -
-
Then pay them properly and extend to them the same rights enjoyed by the rest of us.0
-
For the ski company employees, the French banned counting the cost of travel, food, accommodation , medical insurance, lift pass and ski hire as deductions from salary, and have then imposed their 36 hour week. And the companies now have to pay the French minimum wage with no deductions. Totally protectionist as usual.
They've always hated the chalet company model.
It just puts up the cost of the holidays for no great benefit, and assumes the things provided by the holiday comapny are not benefits, which is ludicrous.0 -
A barrista is not qualified to do brain surgery, and yet they are still considered an employee and subject to employment law.rick_chasey said:They are not entitled to do nanny work without the qualies.
0 -
No benefit unless you are working there surely?Dorset_Boy said:For the ski company employees, the French banned counting the cost of travel, food, accommodation , medical insurance, lift pass and ski hire as deductions from salary, and have then imposed their 36 hour week. And the companies now have to pay the French minimum wage with no deductions. Totally protectionist as usual.
They've always hated the chalet company model.
It just puts up the cost of the holidays for no great benefit, and assumes the things provided by the holiday comapny are not benefits, which is ludicrous.
There's an argument to be made that better compensated employees will give better service, stick around longer, etc etc.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I would guess it puts the business model to bed, then it's of no benefit.pangolin said:
No benefit unless you are working there surely?Dorset_Boy said:For the ski company employees, the French banned counting the cost of travel, food, accommodation , medical insurance, lift pass and ski hire as deductions from salary, and have then imposed their 36 hour week. And the companies now have to pay the French minimum wage with no deductions. Totally protectionist as usual.
They've always hated the chalet company model.
It just puts up the cost of the holidays for no great benefit, and assumes the things provided by the holiday comapny are not benefits, which is ludicrous.
There's an argument to be made that better compensated employees will give better service, such around longer, etc etc.
I'd have been plenty happy to take a sabbatical from work over the winter to be exploited with a free lift pass...0 -
Yeah, I've worked abroad for very little pay.Jezyboy said:
I would guess it puts the business model to bed, then it's of no benefit.pangolin said:
No benefit unless you are working there surely?Dorset_Boy said:For the ski company employees, the French banned counting the cost of travel, food, accommodation , medical insurance, lift pass and ski hire as deductions from salary, and have then imposed their 36 hour week. And the companies now have to pay the French minimum wage with no deductions. Totally protectionist as usual.
They've always hated the chalet company model.
It just puts up the cost of the holidays for no great benefit, and assumes the things provided by the holiday comapny are not benefits, which is ludicrous.
There's an argument to be made that better compensated employees will give better service, such around longer, etc etc.
I'd have been plenty happy to take a sabbatical from work over the winter to be exploited with a free lift pass...
I guess it's hard to find a system that allows that to happen but prevents exploitation.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Season passes don't cost that much. They are often around the same as 2-3 weeks skiing. The purpose is to charge the tourist not the local.Jezyboy said:
I would guess it puts the business model to bed, then it's of no benefit.pangolin said:
No benefit unless you are working there surely?Dorset_Boy said:For the ski company employees, the French banned counting the cost of travel, food, accommodation , medical insurance, lift pass and ski hire as deductions from salary, and have then imposed their 36 hour week. And the companies now have to pay the French minimum wage with no deductions. Totally protectionist as usual.
They've always hated the chalet company model.
It just puts up the cost of the holidays for no great benefit, and assumes the things provided by the holiday comapny are not benefits, which is ludicrous.
There's an argument to be made that better compensated employees will give better service, such around longer, etc etc.
I'd have been plenty happy to take a sabbatical from work over the winter to be exploited with a free lift pass...
In any case, the whole system is fairly corrupt. The ski company gets the passes free for staff and commission on sales. Same for equipment. The reps often make money selling apres-ski through kickbacks. Chalet reps make money by selling alcohol and other items. All up, a lot untaxed cash and bartered items change hands.0 -
In case anyone is interested an employer can offset £8.20 for accommodation against the minimum wage.
So, if someone works 30 hours week, you pay £100 a week and include accommodation, the hourly rate is (100 + 7*8.20)/30 = £5.25/hour. This is below the minimum wage for anyone over 18.
0 -
Sorry are you saying using au pairs is breaking employment law?!TheBigBean said:
A barrista is not qualified to do brain surgery, and yet they are still considered an employee and subject to employment law.rick_chasey said:They are not entitled to do nanny work without the qualies.
0 -
Does this happen? Do people pay that little? I always imagined an au pair was firmly out of my price range.TheBigBean said:In case anyone is interested an employer can offset £8.20 for accommodation against the minimum wage.
So, if someone works 30 hours week, you pay £100 a week and include accommodation, the hourly rate is (100 + 7*8.20)/30 = £5.25/hour. This is below the minimum wage for anyone over 18.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Who actually has an au pair?
Anyone here?0 -
I've made my case. You can choose to ignore it if you wish.rick_chasey said:
Sorry are you saying using au pairs is breaking employment law?!TheBigBean said:
A barrista is not qualified to do brain surgery, and yet they are still considered an employee and subject to employment law.rick_chasey said:They are not entitled to do nanny work without the qualies.
0 -
Pass accommodation and board then...TheBigBean said:
Season passes don't cost that much. They are often around the same as 2-3 weeks skiing. The purpose is to charge the tourist not the local.Jezyboy said:
I would guess it puts the business model to bed, then it's of no benefit.pangolin said:
No benefit unless you are working there surely?Dorset_Boy said:For the ski company employees, the French banned counting the cost of travel, food, accommodation , medical insurance, lift pass and ski hire as deductions from salary, and have then imposed their 36 hour week. And the companies now have to pay the French minimum wage with no deductions. Totally protectionist as usual.
They've always hated the chalet company model.
It just puts up the cost of the holidays for no great benefit, and assumes the things provided by the holiday comapny are not benefits, which is ludicrous.
There's an argument to be made that better compensated employees will give better service, such around longer, etc etc.
I'd have been plenty happy to take a sabbatical from work over the winter to be exploited with a free lift pass...
In any case, the whole system is fairly corrupt. The ski company gets the passes free for staff and commission on sales. Same for equipment. The reps often make money selling apres-ski through kickbacks. Chalet reps make money by selling alcohol and other items. All up, a lot untaxed cash and bartered items change hands.0 -
I didn’t but a lot of my euro-mates did when I was growing up. The mum would arrange it for the summer holidays from the motherland and so the kids would keep up their language skills and be at home/out having fun rather than in some weird sort of kids crèche thing.elbowloh said:Who actually has an au pair?
Anyone here?
They got 3 days a week off to do whatever and lived within walking distance of Cambridge and a train ride away from London what’s not to like.0
