4 ms·

> worker's rights (it's literally worse than the US) This seems very incorrect given that the UK has stricter laws around dismissal (the bar for losing your jo

by jstx1 3y ago

> worker's rights (it's literally worse than the US) This seems very incorrect given that the UK has stricter laws around dismissal (the bar for losing your job is much higher), better minimum wage laws, more legally mandated holidays per year, paid time off for sickness, parental pay etc. - very basic things that the US doesn't have, at least not uniformly across states and industries.

mikrl 3y ago
The UK has only had a minimum wage act since 1998. So it might be better now, but taking a larger context window… not so much. However, the social benefits around leave etc are definitely better but this is perhaps because of a more homogeneous culture than the US where some states like to work their fingers to the bone, and some states are more relaxed. The UK is definitely work hard, play hard and the only national variation seems to be the work getting done (blue vs white collar in US terms)
- twixfel 3y ago
  There are more to worker's rights than the minimum wage, and saying that "The UK has only had a minimum wage act since 1998." as if its evidence for poor worker's rights in 2023 (or at least worse than the the US's) doesn't really make sense, firstly because that was 25 years ago and plenty can change in that time, and secondly because we are comparing worker's rights in 2023, not 1998.
  - mikrl 3y ago
    So you don’t think that having a shorter history of certain workers rights is also a proxy for current workers rights? That you can just wave a magic legal wand and go from zero to workers paradise in 25, 50, 100 years?
    - twixfel 3y ago
      To be honest I'm so baffled by the idea that the US has better worker's rights than the UK that I scarcely know where to begin. For what it's worth, Sweden and Denmark do not have minimum wages even today. So no, it's not a hugely useful proxy, otherwise according to you the US may have better worker's rights than Denmark (trivially false).
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
LatteLazy 3y ago
FYI, In the UK you cannot go to an employment tribunal unless you worked at a company for 2 years (except if you are explicitly fired for racist or sexist reasons). So for the vast majority of workers, there is no actual difference between the UK and "at will" hire. https://www.gov.uk/dismissal/what-to-do-if-youre-dismissed#:~:text=You%20must%20have%20worked%20for,period%20is%20normally%202%20years https://www.gov.uk/dismissal/what-to-do-if-youre-dismissed#:...
iLoveOncall 3y ago
Under two years of employment, which is the majority nowadays, you can essentially be fired at will. The rest is true, but a absolutely major one that is missing in the UK is unemployment benefits. If you lose your job you basically have no income at all.
- skippyboxedhero 3y ago
  Unemployment benefits exist through UC. Most people who are unemployed, in practice, also claim a number of other benefits that substantially boost your income i.e. housing benefit (so your rent is paid), ESA (another £100/week)...this has created another set of issues where lots of people have become economically inactive rather than "unemployed"...great statistically but not so great for people...but yes, the welfare state for adults who can work in the UK is unbelievably huge (£100bn/year, almost no age groups are net contributors into the tax system anymore...I believe 30-40 are the only net contributors...I don't think the level of government support for consumption has ever been so large in the UK, and few examples in other countries...possibly Nordics before their implosion in the early 90s).
  - iLoveOncall 3y ago
    All those benefits require you to have less than £6,000 saved to be eligible, essentially ensuring you are ruined before kicking in. Not only that, they are not available to visa holders, contrarily to most first world countries. Lastly, the amount is still laughable. In Luxembourg I would have had 80% of my salary for a year, without conditions. The UK is not a first world country at all.
    - skippyboxedhero 3y ago
      No, they don't. And £6k is not ruined because everything else is being paid for you. Because Luxembourg has a contribution-based welfare state. The money you are being paid is your own money that is being returned to you by the state when certain conditions are met (and yes, if you look at any contribution-based system, there is heavily conditionality, universal systems are the only ones without conditionality). The UK annual benefit bill just for people of working age is larger than Luxembourg's GDP. The UK has a universal system that everyone can access regardless of circumstances. You just don't understand how it works at all (this is quite typical, Brits do not understand contribution-based systems either because they are used to a system where the state pays out massive amounts of cash to people in excess of the amount they paid in).

by jstx1 3y ago

mikrl 3y ago

The UK has only had a minimum wage act since 1998. So it might be better now, but taking a larger context window… not so much. However, the social benefits around leave etc are definitely better but this is perhaps because of a more homogeneous culture than the US where some states like to work their fingers to the bone, and some states are more relaxed. The UK is definitely work hard, play hard and the only national variation seems to be the work getting done (blue vs white collar in US terms)

twixfel 3y ago
There are more to worker's rights than the minimum wage, and saying that "The UK has only had a minimum wage act since 1998." as if its evidence for poor worker's rights in 2023 (or at least worse than the the US's) doesn't really make sense, firstly because that was 25 years ago and plenty can change in that time, and secondly because we are comparing worker's rights in 2023, not 1998.
- mikrl 3y ago
  So you don’t think that having a shorter history of certain workers rights is also a proxy for current workers rights? That you can just wave a magic legal wand and go from zero to workers paradise in 25, 50, 100 years?
  - twixfel 3y ago
    To be honest I'm so baffled by the idea that the US has better worker's rights than the UK that I scarcely know where to begin. For what it's worth, Sweden and Denmark do not have minimum wages even today. So no, it's not a hugely useful proxy, otherwise according to you the US may have better worker's rights than Denmark (trivially false).
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

LatteLazy 3y ago

FYI, In the UK you cannot go to an employment tribunal unless you worked at a company for 2 years (except if you are explicitly fired for racist or sexist reasons). So for the vast majority of workers, there is no actual difference between the UK and "at will" hire. https://www.gov.uk/dismissal/what-to-do-if-youre-dismissed#:~:text=You%20must%20have%20worked%20for,period%20is%20normally%202%20years https://www.gov.uk/dismissal/what-to-do-if-youre-dismissed#:...

iLoveOncall 3y ago

Under two years of employment, which is the majority nowadays, you can essentially be fired at will. The rest is true, but a absolutely major one that is missing in the UK is unemployment benefits. If you lose your job you basically have no income at all.

skippyboxedhero 3y ago
Unemployment benefits exist through UC. Most people who are unemployed, in practice, also claim a number of other benefits that substantially boost your income i.e. housing benefit (so your rent is paid), ESA (another £100/week)...this has created another set of issues where lots of people have become economically inactive rather than "unemployed"...great statistically but not so great for people...but yes, the welfare state for adults who can work in the UK is unbelievably huge (£100bn/year, almost no age groups are net contributors into the tax system anymore...I believe 30-40 are the only net contributors...I don't think the level of government support for consumption has ever been so large in the UK, and few examples in other countries...possibly Nordics before their implosion in the early 90s).
- iLoveOncall 3y ago
  All those benefits require you to have less than £6,000 saved to be eligible, essentially ensuring you are ruined before kicking in. Not only that, they are not available to visa holders, contrarily to most first world countries. Lastly, the amount is still laughable. In Luxembourg I would have had 80% of my salary for a year, without conditions. The UK is not a first world country at all.
  - skippyboxedhero 3y ago
    No, they don't. And £6k is not ruined because everything else is being paid for you. Because Luxembourg has a contribution-based welfare state. The money you are being paid is your own money that is being returned to you by the state when certain conditions are met (and yes, if you look at any contribution-based system, there is heavily conditionality, universal systems are the only ones without conditionality). The UK annual benefit bill just for people of working age is larger than Luxembourg's GDP. The UK has a universal system that everyone can access regardless of circumstances. You just don't understand how it works at all (this is quite typical, Brits do not understand contribution-based systems either because they are used to a system where the state pays out massive amounts of cash to people in excess of the amount they paid in).