A minister's sentence about employers drew an avalanche of personal testimony, and the vote went overwhelmingly against her. No voters did not argue in the abstract. They told their own stories, and those of their bosses.
The most-respected No case set the tone, with a small business owner promising to tell their husband that “those 70 hours a week” are not working hours. Another voter said they could not wait to tell a boss who “still works 60+hrs a week” that he is not a worker under Labour. A cafe owner counted 15 staff and a waitress shift on top of admin. Others went for the definition itself: “Silly semantics, of course employers are working people.” One asked why a tradesman with a couple of staff is excluded while a corporate manager might not be. The temper ran hot, with a good deal of name-calling alongside the argument.
The most-respected Yes case was cooler and more lawyerly: the phrase “has always meant employees rather than employers”, and arguably “a politicians' political slop word” anyway. Another Yes voter called the remark “Technically correct” while disliking the wording, and a third said an owner living off a cut of employees' labour is not a worker, so higher employer National Insurance is no betrayal. No voters answered mainly with the cost: one said dearer scaling means automation or less hiring.
The argument sits inside the long dispute over Labour's pledge on taxing working people. Several No voters accused the government of “Changing definitions to prop up their broken manifesto”, while one saw a left view of class that casts management as the opposing side.
The Yes case was about what a phrase means. The No case was about who gets up at night worrying about the payroll.
92 Opinions
As the owner of a small business, I'll be sure to inform my husband that those 70 hours a week I'm spending on the business, are in fact, not working hours. I do believe that some business owners exploit workers. Workers need to be protected. But this statement shows little respect for small businesses.
On my, that is ridiculous. An employer, works, therefore they are workers. Yes they are owners of a business, either one bought or built up by the owner/employer. They work, where would that business be if they didn't?
I have to point out my boss works a lot more hours and damn hard. What an insult from someone who s job is to talk! ,messed that up as well
It was a shocking moment I had to rerun it as I couldn’t believe it, she didn’t even pause for breath. This obsessive juvenile ideological nonsense betrays an intellectual void & no capacity to think constructively or appreciate the real World. Would she consider herself as a ‘worker’? These are the broken puppets put up to rule us & she demonstrated that Marxist theory of divide & rule is well. She should go as should this Communist Govt.
I'm saddened that 30% of respondents voted yes. Employers include electricians, roofers, shopkeepers, scaffolders, gardeners, etc. Do people honestly think that just because you own the business that you don't graft like your employees? I'd argue that in most cases the business owner works longer and harder than their employees. When there's a problem it's the employer's phone that rings in the middle of the night, they never get a day off.
If self employed and employers aren’t working people they shouldn’t be taxed!! It’s a shameful statement that undermines the people keeping this country afloat
No, and she's an imbecile.
Silly semantics, of course employers are working people. They go to a place of work, they do a job, they get paid & pay tax... That's working!
The phrase has always meant employees rather than employers. Which is probably better terminology than "(hard) working people" which is really a politicians' political slop word when they want to sound as though they are on the side of whichever group they are trying to court at the time.
They keep fudging this definition because they can't stop spending and need more and more tax