Fruit and Nutcases

Who made the changes to UK employment law that created Zero Hours Contracts and made other exploitative employment practices commonplace?

#VinceCable #EmploymentLaw

by Monkles

15 July 2017



The number of workers taking cases to employment tribunals dropped dramatically after  the Coalition Government introduced fees of up to £1,200.


This was justified as an austerity measure, in view of a perceived number of costly trivial and vexatious cases brought by undeserving employees.


I shall call these the "Nutcases."


In employment Law there ought to be, and there is bound to be both "Fruit and Nutcases."....


Vexatious hard "Nutcases" are bludgeoned with employment law, but that same law does not spare the more deserving fruit; that being the employees exploited by a bad arse "Nutcase" employer with a great deal more to gain than any employee on a Zero Hour Contract.



Vince Cable subsequently admitted that the fees, his fees, were a "mistake," but since the Tories took control they have shown no appetite for reversing his and their policy.


That is because there is no antidote to the incurable virus of Tory DNA.


In fact this policy is symptomatic of the endemic Tory squeeze on all employment rights. Far from regretting the fees, Tories boast and guffaw like hyenas whenever it is suggested that they might think again.


They and their corporate donors just love their Gig economy with their Zero Hours Contracts.


No thank you. Think again please.


There is no cure for the malady of Tory DNA.


by Monkles

23 November 2011

Dear Vince Cable

humping and dumping bad employers

have the most to gain from your proposals

#VinceCable #EmploymentLaw


Please get a grip.

You have adopted a spurious default position with your claim that Business is disincentified to hire staff because it is too difficult to fire staff unfairly.

A month ago, you said this idea that you are now proposing, was “madness”, and I agreed with you on these pages.

Please get a grip.

You said today that you did not intend to diminish the rights of employees, but I am struggling to understand what exactly you are doing if your proposal does not diminish the right of employees to fair treatment. You say you need to do this in order to help small business, but no one can fail to realise that you are about to support all employers, small medium and large, good and bad, and especially bad employers who have the most to gain from your proposals. Please get a grip.

I have had cause to help out a few employees against bad employers, and in fact I have so far only encountered bad employers. I cannot discuss this small number of cases here but I can direct you to one employer who is demonstrably incapable of treating an employee fairly.

Theresa May hired the man who fired Brodie Clark, and set about saying why publicly in the Houses of Parliament without troubling herself to find out Mr Clark’s position.


Apparently Theresa May was not inhibited by the rules that were in place since Mr Clark was not an employee of one year’s service, but a distinguished employee of some 35 years service.

The Tory default is less about treating employees appropriately, but about removing the notion of unfair dismissal altogether, and that is what we call  humping and dumping.

Apparently we are on our way back to Garrow’s Law, and on your watch.

How do you feel about that?  

“Disincentified” Yes, I invented a word.


humping and dumping bad employers

have the most to gain from your proposals

#VinceCable #EmploymentLaw


Please enter the code
* Required fields
There are no entries yet.
Print Print | Sitemap Recommend this page Recommend this page
© Shoestring Chronicle