A definition invented by trustworthiness's Richard Nixon, altered from the original and more relevant meaning of one quarter of negative growth in order that he could tell the public that the US was not in recession when it was.

I must admit to not having read the NMW legislation from cover to cover, but surely if that bit's true, he can be prosecuted?

AGAIN because you seem have difficulty with this question or (and this is harsh but looks as if it is true) your intellectual capacity cannot comprehend such a simple, straight forward question.

[sizeWHICH ECONOMY????[/size

I even coloured it in for you to help

No one is forced to work here, he would have to change his attitude and conditions if he couldn't find anyone to do the work. Presumably everyone knew what the terms were when they joined?

In "The Real World", people don't have oodles and oodles of lovely choices for jobs.

If they leave a job tomorrow, there are not hundreds of jobs available. I know that, in fantasy la la land, some people like to pretend that there are just millions vacancies out there, all ready to be filled, but this is not the reality. That is why there are more people unemployed than there are vacancies.

And given privatisation of services, it is entirely possible that pay, terms and conditions have been changed since people were employed to do the job – there are plenty of workplaces where this has happened more than once as the workers have been passed between companies like a parcel.

That's "The Real World" for you.

I know that the journalist posting this story was so shocked that they double checked – and then the editor and the head of comms did further checks, simply because it is so shocking.

The government has said that not paying people for travel time (thus reducing their pay to below the national minimum wage) is 'not on' and companies shouldn't do it, but they have yet to legislate to close a loophole that, when the legislation was initially enacted, nobody foresaw.

In the case of this branch, I also know that the union is only now in a position to start acting because recruitment (on the basis of the employer's behaviour) has given it good density.

It ain't necessarily so, this business covers both Dorset and Hampshire social services areas contracted out to do the work that both of those regions would probably have handled in-house.

Now imagine that you are a care worker, a home help or similar, working for those local authorities only to be told that you are now redundant and that you can re-apply to this "Care" company for a position there, it happened in Leeds also by the way, to a friend of mine, there was no transfer of employment as the new contractor stated that their own staff could cover the contract - then they recruited from the ex-council staff that had been made redundant.

You really don't have a choice as to whether you work for this particular employer or not, they are the ones doing all of the care work in your county, and the county next door, if you want to stay employed in the care industry and have a desire to actually CARE for your clients then you have to work for the new company.

Unless you understand how Home Help (for example) works then its probably difficult to understand the attitude that some of the employees have, they have a set routine and a set list of clients to visit, some of those dependent elderly and infirm may rely totally on their home help visit, for some it may be the only visit they get that week, for a few the home help is their only point of contact with the outside world and the only chance that some of them (for example) have to bathe that week - this is very basic stuff but vitally important for those "clients".

The last thing you want as a dependent is for your care worker to be limited to fifteen minutes per day and to arrive full of hell because they aren't being paid for the time to travel to you or for their petrol and vehicle costs, indeed they are having to pay to come and see you and the fact that you want a bath today and need helping in and out of it isn't going to make their mood any better when the 20 extra minutes they spend with you makes them late for their next client and is unpaid.

Quite frankly, its a disgrace and the sign of a society that doesn't give a fook about its elderly and infirm and anyone who is happy to go along with that deserves what is coming to them in the future.

Absolutely spot on.

And re your concluding comment –

"The economy won't not picked up by much if al"l. That is what I said above, yes you have read it?

So given the economy [ihas not picked up by much[/i, demonstrate to everyone the falsehood of my previous statement. Go on.

The fact is you can't and you need to realise while misrepresenting what someone said repeatedly may be a government tactic in the hope the lie will be believed but this is not the Daily Mail comment column and you are not getting away with it.

As to strong growth, define stroing growth. Will it for example get us back to where we were in 2008? What figure do you consider strong growth?

Will it come about by the rebalancing of the economy Osborne said was necessary that he has conveniently forgotten? Or will it come about as people empty savings and rush into debt on a house buying spree engineered by Osborne instead?

Or does none of that matter to you and all you are interested in is the raw statistics so you can indulge in a not very good attempt at point scoring?

Of course not, they could easily get one of those care jobs that offer fully-expensed company cars and unlimited expense accounts that you thought was the norm.

The employer in question has been constantly looking to squeeze ever more out of his workers for less.

Yet another case of the real victims of austerity being those least able to resist it - the bloody working poor

Spot on!
My gran was receiving home care a few years ago. Provided by the Council but she still had to pay, and it was contracted to a private company. For starters it doesn't help when the private company was changed 4 times in a 6 year period. My gran was in her late 80's/early 90's and the last thing she wanted was a change in her provider it just added to the confusion/hassle that an older person doesn't want. Especially when the quality wasn't any better each time.
She had severe arthritis in her hands (she used to work as a seamstress) which made picking up and holding even basic items like a remote control or a plate of food very difficult. In addition she had arthritis in both knees and one was very stiff/virtually immobile from a car accident (and the shoddy treatment she received) 30 years previously, so she struggled to walk without a zimmerframe. Fortunately she didn't suffer from dementia or alzheimers or any other kind of disease of the mind.
She needed carers to help get her up in the morning and make her some breakfast, somebody to make her some lunch, and somebody to make her some dinner in the evening. Also these carers needed to help her take the myriad of pills she was prescribed. Because of her fragility, bathing wasn't an option.
She was given, IIRC, 30 mins on a morning, 15 mins at lunch and 20 mins in the evening.
The first problem was that the "morning" visit was at around 10:30. Despite usually waking up around 8/8:30. So a 2 hour wait until anyone was there to help her up (she usually got up by herself despite warnings not to) and until she could have breakfast. The "Lunch" visit was set at around 3:30pm. Obviously well after she wanted lunch. The "Dinner" visit was then at 5pm. Only an hour and a half after lunch. So she wasn't hungry. Also have you tried making someone a dinner in 20 minutes? It doesn't end well.
Then of course there was the problem of the carers coming in, rushing every job they had to do and leaving 5-10 mins early so as to get to the next person in time.
Added on to having different carers (ie could be anyone from the firm, not a set carer) it just led to my gran getting more and more frustrated by the carers instead of being helped by them.
I'm not blaming the actual carers, not at all. They're doing what their company working practices encourage them to do.
I blame the companies and the Council's for employing them to provide substandard care.
Unfortunately everything about it was just frustrating and confusing for my gran. From the hassle of getting the care in the first place to the constant changes and reviews to the actual poor standard of care, it just led to my gran getting annoyed and my mother (who was the one having to organise and respond to everything) becoming exhausted from it all.

I already have. 1.9% growth since your statement...it's really not hard. Writing lines and lines doesn't make you somehow not wrong anymore.

Why do you keep repeating something that isn't true? Just bizarre.

What are you saying JerryChicken? That the ONS is not a reliable source of data? That people who rely on them are using flawed statistics?

The economy has not grown by 1.9% since DaveO's post. Why do you keep repeating something that isn't true?
Answered anyone else's questions yet?