The Cleggeron sure is strange

Neighbours and family friends will be given the right to demand a change to their working hours to look after children as part of a plan to encourage more parents back into employment.

So that\’s everyone then. Not that I think it\’s a particularly bad idea.

“Just as working women — not men — drove up living standards in the latter half of the 20th century, after the Second World War,

An absurd statement. Living standards tripled at least 45 to 00. No, that wasn\’t purely driven by the entry of women into the workplace.

“This absence of women from our economy is costing us dearly. That means sweeping away the clapped-out rules that make no sense for modern families in a modern economy.”

Twat.

Everyone right now has the right to ask for flexible working hours. Because you can: simply go and ask. There is absolutely no law whatsoever that states that people may not.

You are adding a regulation: this is therefore different from sweeping away clapped out ones. Capisce?

8 comments on “The Cleggeron sure is strange

  1. Governments aren’t the only bureaucratic entities that have the ability to enforce rules that no longer make sense. Companies also have this ability – as does the government in its role as an employer.

    (if you’re either Google or a microbusiness, your HR policy is probably carefully aligned to your current business needs. If you’re a large company with a long history, it’s much more likely to reflect decades of corporate infighting, including legacy rules and policies that made sense once upon a time…)

  2. It’s also the case, as this blog has been one of the most active in showing, that GDP will overstate the impact of working women.

  3. Let’s all continue in thrall to the God of GDP.

    Women (and indeed men) with small kiddies should be doing babysitting services, cleaning services, providing nursery tea services, taxi services on the school run, hotel and client entertainment services (sleepovers and birthday parties) those with a little more experience also providing consultancy services (advice on runny noses, nappy rash and so on) to those with less experience.

    This should of course all be paid for and charged (and taxed) appropriately as part of the formal economy. GDP goes up, which means we are better off, doesn’t it? The money changing hands enables all those involved to keep track of who had done what for whom and who needs to do a bit more, who a bit less.

    The fact that all of this goes on without the business structure behind it, without money changing hands but just informal tally-keeping of favours done or not, means we are worse off, doesn’t it? Because production that does not get included in the GDP statistic doesn’t really exist at all, does it.

  4. Governments aren’t the only bureaucratic entities that have the ability to enforce rules that no longer make sense.

    True. Oil companies are exceptionally good at this.

  5. James,

    re #3. You don’t have to strain the sarcasm quite so much. Most of us aren’t American or, given this is sarcasm about economics, French (and only one apparent Duchy of Normandy village idiot.)

  6. According to the Guardian article, this covers “all employees”. Which is frankly fucking bonkers.

    What’s going to happen with hairdressers, or shop assistants, or 1st line support on call centres?

  7. Tim,

    Don’t be so down on it – every MP could become a free creche for their constituents. It might help to stop them coming up with bloody stupid ideas.

    Disclaimer: Not read the full article. Paywall.

  8. JamesV (#3) said “GDP goes up, which means we are better off, doesn’t it? … Because production that does not get included in the GDP statistic doesn’t really exist at all, does it.”

    Ah, but non-cash production is notoriously difficult to tax….

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>