Money talks…

The economy has been the major issue of the election campaign and now that a government has finally been formed it seems certain that economic policy is to take centre stage. The consensus is that cuts need to take place but the timing of such cuts is a contentious issue.

The Conservative campaign made it clear that that there will be immediate public sector cuts whilst the Liberal Democrats followed Labour in saying that cuts should be stalled until the economy is stronger. Whilst there have been no official announcements concerning this issue it is now expected that cuts will take place immediately, but we will need to wait for the emergency budget in 50 days time for official confirmation.

The public sector “job for life” culture has already come to an end under Labour and the new coalition is expected to rock the boat even further. It is almost inevitable that there will be a public sector pay freeze and redundancies. The cuts are essential but will obviously not be a boost to the jobs market. Although arguably the cuts could be a good thing for HR outsourcing companies as local authorities will have to seek help to plug the gap in their resources. If such work is outsourced then suppliers must be aware that employees may automatically transfer to them under TUPE.

The new government will have a real challenge in keeping their staff engaged and keeping the unions off the picket lines.

“One in One Out”

Somewhat surprising when it comes to employment law, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats do have quite a few polices in common. The “one in one out” policy for employment legislation is detailed in both manifestos. This will mean that the introduction of any new employment legislation must include a reduction in old laws. Hopefully this policy will see a reduction in red tape and decrease in the administrative burdens on businesses which should aid economic recovery.

The Equality Bill

This single Bill is due to replace 116 separate pieces of equality legislation and is set to come into force in England, Scotland and Wales simultaneously. Under Labour the bulk of the legislation was due to come into force in October 2010. This now seems unlikely as during the final debate on the Bill the Conservative party indicated that they would review the way the Equality Act is brought into force. Now that they are in power it will be interesting to see what happens to this long debated piece of legislation.

It is likely that the new government will scrap the part of the Bill that says central and local government must take socio-economic inequality into account when formulating polices; in an nutshell a big “no” to positive discrimination. The proposed obligations on businesses to publish details of their gender pay gap are also likely to be softened. Although Conservatives state that they are committed to tackling equal pay and confirm that they will outlaw the inclusion of clauses in contracts preventing colleagues discussing their earnings.

Equal pay is expected to be one of the key employment law issues for the new government.

Immigration

The Conservative and Liberal Democrat policies are poles apart so this will be an interesting area. In the coalition negotiations the Liberals have had to give up their idea of an amnesty for illegal immigrants, so that’s already out of the window. Conservatives plan to set an annual limit on non-EU migrants coming to work in the UK and strengthen the student visa system but getting the Liberals to agree to this will be a challenge.

Family friendly rights

Family friendly rights have been at the top of the agenda for all parties. The Conservatives aim is to “make Britain the most family-friendly country in Europe” by introducing a system of shared parental leave where parents share leave between them with only the mother being able to take the first 14 weeks after birth. Liberals have a similar policy but extend the right to fathers by saying that mothers only have to take a maximum of two weeks off after the birth. They also propose giving fathers time off to attend ante-natal appointments.

Another Liberal Democrat pledge is to extend the right to flexible working to all staff, not just those that are parents or carers. Conservatives agree that there should be an extension but want to limit it focus on extending the right just to older workers. There are also Conservative plans to introduce tax breaks for married couples but the Liberals have confirmed that they will not support this.

Making Britain a more family friendly place is a great ideal but we suspect that not all of these ideas will come to fruition because of the cost to the government and businesses.

The youth of today

All three parties have focused on the issue of youth unemployment during their campaigns. Young people have been particularly affected by the recession and there are currently almost one million young people not in education, employment or training. The Conservative and Liberal Democrats both agree that this problem needs to be tackled so we should expect to see more apprenticeships and college places over the next few years.

Other changes

The Conservatives may replace the Human Rights Act to create a British Bill of Rights.

Part of the Agency Workers Directive could be stalled as the new government believes it will reduce workplace flexibility.

The National Minimum Wage may be increased to £7 per hour with the age bands being removed.

Summary

In David Cameron’s first speech as Prime Minister he said that society should not ask “what are my entitlements but what are my responsibilities?” It will be intriguing to see if a Conservative government does try to put an end to Britain’s lay about culture whilst still helping those in need. The new government will certainly have an impact upon employment law and the overall feeling is that hopefully there will be enough regulation to protect the vulnerable, but not so much that economic growth is stalled.

This article was written by Carly Newport, a Solicitor in the Employment Team at Southampton Solicitors Trethowans LLP.

HSLP0101AA337

The UK operates a government whereby a duly elected prime minister is the leader of the party that usually gains the majority share of the vote. The process of government is to debate and regulate on a wide range of measures with the benefit of the population foremost in its mind. Government office relates to the position held by an individual, known as a government minister, which usually relates to a specific task such as health, the economy or education. Governments normally serve a specific term in office which dependent upon the country, is usually between 4 to 5 years, at which time a general election is held to determine whether the incumbent government should continue or a change is desired by the population.

Www.government.org.uk is an informative website which discusses the virtues and processes involved in government as well as the electorate. Sections within the website discuss positions such as the Prime Minister as well as government ministries. In addition the website also provides a useful guide to the voting procedure employed by the majority of governments, which in this case relates to the means by which a proposal is discussed and voted on by ministers.

The website provides a useful guide regarding the intricacies of governments and government offices , whilst providing a simple and user friendly guide to the voting procedure involved in making policy. Its premise is a simple one, which is to provide an authoritative online presence which conveys to its numerous visitors valuable information appertaining to the ideals involved in the government process and the nuances within differing systems around the world.

For further information visit http://www.government.org.uk

The TUC was speaking in criticism of the Conservative Party leader David Cameron, who recently suggested that there was too much health and safety legislation in place in Britain today, and that it had created a “strait-jacket” for employers.

But the general secretary of the TUC Brendan Barber accused the Tory leader of peddling “half-truths and myths” in order to emphasise his claims. He said: “The idea that employers are being over-zealous in their application of health and safety regulation is simply not true.

“Neither does the UK have an excess of regulation; there were more than twice as many health and safety regulations and laws 35 years ago than there are now. Today’s safety laws are generally simpler and easier to understand.”

Mike MacDonald of professionals union Prospect also hit out at Cameron’s allegations. He said: “There is a world of difference between petty bureaucracy enacted under the label of health and safety, and official regulations designed to prevent deaths in the workplace.

“Confusing the two continues to perpetuate a negative image of health and safety regulation, and masks the bigger picture.”

Around 1.2 million people suffered from ill health at work last year. Of those, 246,000 people suffered a personal injury in the workplace. Occupational cancers, such as those caused by asbestos, kill up to 20,000 people in Britain every year.

Up to 4000 people are thought to have suffered rashes, burns and other skin conditions as a result of coming into contact with the leather sofas. One family even had their pet dog put to sleep, as they wrongly believed their rashes to be an allergic reaction to the animal’s fur.

The cause of the victims personal injury claims has been pinpointed to a chemical called dimethyl fumarate (DMF), an anti-mould agent used on the sofas to protect the leather, which can be toxic in small amounts and can cause skin blistering and bleeding. The substance has since been banned by the EU after similar incidents in at least five other countries.

The sofas were manufactured in China and sold in a number of outlets across the UK, including Land of Leather, Walmsley Furnishing and Argos.

The subject of the lawsuit Land of Leather went out of business last year, so more than 300 customers brought their complaint against their insurance company Zurich, seeking up to £3million in compensation for their ailments.

However, a High Court judge ruled last week that they would not be entitled to any payments, as a clause in Land of Leather’s insurance policy meant Zurich could avoid having to pay out compensation.

The policy stated that Land of Leather must not settle claims without permission from Zurich, and if breached, the policy would be deemed void. Before its demise, Land of Leather sought compensation from Linkwise, the company which supplied the sofas. The terms of this agreement were altered after Zurich had agreed to it, and it is this, the insurance company said, which rendered the policy null and void.

The claimants believe they have grounds for appeal as the clause was only valid for claims made against Land of Leather, rather than Land of Leather bringing a case against another company.

In a bid to crack down on “dangerous dog” breeds, owners will have to insure their pets so that the victims of any attack by their dog can be properly compensated for their personal  injury.

The 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act bans the ownership of four breeds of dog in Britain; the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, the dogo Artentino and the fila Brasiliero. The Act also gives police the right to deal with any breed of dog that becomes out of control in a public place.

Along with compulsory dog insurance, the Government has also suggested amending the 1991 Act to cover dog attacks that occur on private property, such as a person’s home.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson has hit out at the practice of people keeping dogs for the sole purpose of intimidating others. He said: “What most dog owners recognise is that what’s going on is cruelty to animals. Other dogs are being treated abysmally because of this fashion for ‘status dogs’, which has been the main issue over the last five or six years.”

More than a hundred people a week are admitted to hospital in Britain as a result of a dog attack. The majority of these have been injured whilst visiting a private property as part of their job duties, including postal workers and electricians.

Billy Hayes, General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union (CWU) said: “This reform cannot come soon enough. Thousands of our members are attacked at work every year.”

VologdaRest News

Today (March 17th 2010) police investigators showed up at the datacenter located at building 5 on 2nd Entuziastov street. They produced a statement entitling them to conduct operational search in order to obtain some evidence located at the iFolder.ru site.

Employees in charge offered to take each and every reasonable step in order to obtain the evidence, and to track a user responsible for uploading the information in question. However, the offer was unexpectedly turned down. Instead, policemen started to insist on seizure and removing of ALL of the Agava’s equipment (approx 100 servers) and taking it to police headquarters for the purpose of their own investigation. After some intense debates the seizure was averted. Unfortunately, as an alternative the investigators switched off and sealed all of the iFolder servers and also a number of servers that had no relation to iFolder whatsoever.

Agava considers that unprecedented event as putting in jeopardy and dimming the future of every business in Runet. We are determined to challenge and overcome the excessive and destructive actions we encountered, to protect our customer’s interests. We thank our clients in advance for their patience, and for media and other support they provide us with.

VologdaRest News

Global Positioning System (GPS) will be introduced in buses, autorickshaws and cars plying in the city and neighbouring regions to keep a track of movement and also to ensure that commuters reach their destinations safely and in time.

The ministry will be using latest technologies like the Radio Frequency Identity Device (RFID) enabled registration number plates and GPS tracking system in public modes of transportation, which surely is a good news.

Already, steps to computerise the database of vehicles and drivers has started in these two places. At a certain key points these places would install the RFID readers. Very soon this project of RFID, GPS and bar coding of finger prints of drivers is expected to start. Thus, the public transport service will be provided in a much effective way along with the tracking of vehicular movements would ensure safe and smooth journey for people.

Once the old registration plates are replaced with the RFID registration plates, the whole system will be implemented in different phases.

This is Merinews Network,its india’s first citizen journalism based news website. We have many news articles on Delhi NCR News and Delhi News.

I mention the above illustration to make a point to those who harbor racism. I hope that you will repent of your sin of racism, which is a great sin against God Who created all men in His image and has commanded all men to love one another, and that you will receive the love and forgiveness of God which is in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior Who paid the penalty for all our sins through His death and shedding of His blood on the Cross of Calvary and Who rose again from the dead to give us eternal life.

You see, just as a co-signer to a bad loan takes the full legal blame and liability to pay the entire debt on the loan so, too, Jesus Christ, God’s eternal and only begotten Son, took upon Himself the full legal and moral liability to pay the entire debt for our sins.

The Bible says that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth and that on the Cross He bore our sins in His own body and received the punishment from God (the Father) that we deserve for our sins and then He rose again from the dead. The Bible teaches that the penalty for even one sin is so great that we could never completely pay the penalty. Only God Himself is capable of fully paying for our sins and Jesus Christ Who is God (the Son) did just that on the Cross of Calvary. It was for us that Christ suffered and died on the Cross! Christ took it upon Himself to pay our debt. Because Christ took the blame and punishment for our sins, God (the Father) can be just in freely forgiving us of our sins when we genuinely repent and put our faith and trust in Jesus Christ alone to save us.

You know, people often ask how all the different races of men could have descended from Adam and Eve. But, in principle this is no different than asking how children with different color hair can come from the same parents. Just as some couples today carry genes to produce children with different color hair, so too Adam and Eve, our very first parents, ultimately carried the genes to produce descendants with different color skin and physical features. Of course, you and I today don’t possess the genes for producing all the varieties of humans as Adam and Eve did. Just as you can get a pure bred from a mutt but not a mutt from a pure bred, so too all varieties of humans were able to come from Adam and Eve our first parents.

All varieties of humans belong to one natural species since all varieties of human beings are inter-fertile, and this is biological proof that we are all descendants of a common human ancestor. This is why the Bible says that God “hath made of one all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth …” (Acts 17:26, KJV). The Bible clearly teaches that God created all human beings in His image. Therefore, as one of my former pastors, Dr. Carl E. Abrahamsen, Jr., so truthfully and eloquently stated, to hate a fellow human being who has been created in the image of God because of the way he or she looks is a great and serious sin and offense against God which needs to be confessed and repented of before the Almighty.

The actual and objective scientific evidence, however, shows that there are natural limits to evolution in nature and that we are not here by chance or by macro-evolutionary processes. Natural selection in nature is not a creative force as many think. Natural selection can only “select” from biological variations that are produced and that have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations are naturally possible.

Genetic information, like any other information, doesn’t happen by chance. Therefore, it’s far more logical and rational to believe that the genetic similarities between all forms of life are because of a common Designer or Genetic Engineer (God) Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life.

Micro-evolution, or variations within a biological kind such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, and cows, is science but not macro-evolution. Macro-evolution, variations across kinds, is not science but faith.

The genes exist in all species for micro-evolution but not for macro-evolution, and there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by natural forces such as radiation can or will generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits.

Another problem for macro-evolution is the issue of survival of the fittest. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not completely one or the other will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset.

No one has shown that DNA can come into existence by chance! It takes DNA to get DNA! In other words, there must already exist DNA in nature to direct the formation of more DNA.

The mathematical odds of even the simplest DNA molecule coming into existence by chance is comparable to a monkey typing the sequence of all the letters and words in a dictionary by randomly hitting keys on a computer keyboard.

Regarding protein molecules, it is has been shown that some individual amino acid molecules making-up proteins can come into existence by chance. But, it has never been shown that the various individual amino acid molecules can come together into a precise sequence by chance to form protein molecules.

Besides all this, none of these molecules can exist for long outside of an already complete and living cell! In other words, the cell could not have gradually evolved. (Please read author’s essay The Natural Limits of Evolution at his website, www.religionscience.com, for a comprehensive and in-depth scientific analysis and discussion of this issue).

There is a God to Whom Ayn Rand and all of us must give an account. God is not being egotistical. Truth demands that God be the center of our lives.

Ayn Rand misunderstands the concept of Christian altruism and the proper context in which Christian altruism is to be applied. Christian altruism does not mean that we should give to others unconditionally in all circumstances because that would not be for the true benefit of others. Christian love seeks what is for the true benefit of others, not whatever they desire or want. For example, the Bible teaches that a person who is not willing to work should not eat. Therefore, feeding such a person is wrong since it would only be helping to increase the selfishness of such a person.

There is a difference between selfness and selfishness. The first involves proper Biblical love and care for oneself as God intends. The latter is based on ego and pride. Christianity is not against legitimate self-interest. We are created in God’s image so, of course, God would want us to love ourselves as well as to love others.

Ayn Rand rightly claims that “A” cannot be “non A” but she misapplies this principle in her critique of Christianity. For example, when Christ said that “the first shall be last and the last shall be first” there is no true contradiction (i.e. “A” being “non A”), as Ayn Rand claims, because the both cases in which the words “first” and “last” are used within the context of the passage have different applications and reasons for usage. Jesus was simply saying that in this world a person is considered “first” or “last” for different reasons than why a person is considered “first” or “last” in God’s kingdom. Again, there is no real contradiction (i.e. there is no “A” equated with “non A”).

According to Christian teaching, the individual (the “self”) is not an end to itself but rather the “self” is a means to an end – that end being to live for God and to please Him and to do His will. Part of living for God is to do good for ourselves as well as for others because we belong to God and are owned by Him.

Christianity is not against the enjoyment of material things; it is against the worship of material things. God alone is worthy of worship! The Bible does not teach that money itself is the root of all evil but rather the Bible teaches that it is “the love of money which is the root of all evil.”

God is glorified when His creatures enjoy the provisions, bounty, and wealth that He provides, but if it is God’s will and purpose in a particular case for an individual to give up all that he has and to give it to the poor then it is only right that the individual do so. After all, everything belongs to God, even the wealth a person gains in this life for nothing would be possible without God’s power and undeserving grace.

Contrary to popular belief, Jesus was not against self-defense in all cases. “Turning the other cheek” simply means that Christians should not retaliate against personal insults by returning insults. “Slapping another’s cheek” in Jewish culture was considered a figure of speech for throwing verbal insult at someone. Jesus, in fact, allowed His disciples to carry swords for self-defense. This is why Peter pulled out a sword to protect Jesus at the time of His arrest. However, Jesus told Peter to put away the sword because it was the Father’s will at that time for Christ to be delivered to suffering and death in order to pay for the sins of the world.

There is nothing wrong with capitalism or making a profit. What is evil is when profits are made without any sense of obligation and duty to God and His commandments. It is God Who enables the capitalist to make money and it is God who requires the capitalist to have due and proper concern for his fellowman’s health and welfare. Profits made at the expense of God’s commandments are an abomination to the Creator and society. CEOs take notice! My fellow conservatives and Republicans take notice!

The above are just some of the Christian arguments refuting Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

The U.S. Constitution simply says that Congress cannot establish religion or prevent the free exercise thereof. In the context of our country’s history, the writings of our founding fathers, and the Constitution itself, all that this means is that there can be no state church. In other words, people or citizens of the United States cannot be forced to belong to any particular religion or particular Christian denomination. It doesn’t mean that religious beliefs cannot be held or expressed by persons in politics or government.

Someone’s personal beliefs will always be expressed in politics and government whether those beliefs are religious or not. What right does the atheist have to express his or her personal beliefs in politics and government but yet deny this same right to those of faith? Someone’s personal beliefs will always influence public policy. People of faith should not be excluded from expressing and influencing public policy anymore than atheists and agnostics should be prevented from expressing and influencing public policy with their beliefs.

The key is a delicate balance and a respect for all within a rightful context. Minorities have rights but so do majorities. In this politically correct society of ours the rights of majorities are being totally ignored and trampled upon!