HollyHead
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I hope this link works Janet:https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spintcom/files/Depts%20and%20Committees%20%20-%20ToR/ Open file:Subcoms_ToRs_2017-New.pdf
ALB wrote:It would have to be self-financing (as it wouldn't be) and not take resources away from the Socialist Standard (which it would). And it would require a Conference resolution (unlikely to get through) .So it's a non-starter. It's not a priority.and would only be a vanity publishing. Another of the thousand blooms flourishing here that will wither in the face of reality.I agree. This is another example of the tendency among Party members to duck shove — "Look here's a good idea …" [ for someone else to implement] […usually the EC,]To run projects of the sort argued for here the Party would need an active membership of 2.000+ not the couple of hundred we have at present. We are still awaiting the pamphlet Conference called for in the 1950s on (I think) "The London Traffic Problem."
We seem to have been here before comrades!TREASURERS REPORT RE THE PROPOSAL TO EMPLOY A PARTY MEMBER AS HEAD OFFICE ORGANISER [1998][Edited December 2017] Annual Conference discussed the possibility of paying a Party member to carry out the duties and functions of Head Office Organiser… This Report reflects my understanding of the current [1998] legal position. …EMPLOYMENT STATUS. [1] Some suggestions were made at Conference that the Party could decide for itself to treat the matter as one of internal administration and that the Comrade appointed be treated as being self-employed for the purpose of remuneration and be deemed responsible for his own ‘stamp’.Sadly we cannot do this.Although the terms ‘employment’ and ‘self-employment’ are not defined in the legislation a person’s employment status is in fact decided by applying the following criteria:Does the person run a business on his own account taking the profits and being responsible for any losses?Do they risk their own money in the business?Do they provide their own tools and equipment?Are they free from the instruction and guidance of another (outside the terms and conditions of a contract regarding the work to be undertaken)?Do they work in their own time ?Can they send a substitute to cover any or all aspects of the work?Are they free to undertake other work at the same time?[2] If the answers to the above are in the main ‘yes’ then the person is self-employed.Clearly the Comrade filling the proposed paid post would not be in this category but in the category of ‘employed earner’ being paid an agreed amount per week/month for a set number of hours attendance.The Head Office Organiser is under the direction of the Party as a whole via the EC and Conference Resolutions, EC instructions, set Terms of Reference etc etc. That is he/she is under a contract of service.The HMRC would have no difficulty at all in proving in court that what exists between the Party and the proposed Head Office Organiser is a contract of service, and not a contract for services to be provided by someone who is self-employed.IMPLICATIONS. [1] Both the Party and the Comrade employed would therefore be liable for National Insurance contributions paid as a percentage of earnings.When the current National Insurance scheme was implemented in 1975 it was the intention that all premises carrying on a business should be visited by a National Insurance Inspector at least once every [?three] years to ensure that the regulations were being complied with. HMRC Inspectors now have targets to meet and quotas for contributions “found” unpaid.HO has not [yet] had such a survey — a visit could be prompted by a “squeal” from a disaffected former Party member as was the case when a member of the EC was challenged while in receipt of Incapacity Benefit not so long ago. CONCLUSIONS. [1] The Party cannot fill the post of Head Office Organiser by paying a Comrade as a ‘Self-Employed’ person. To do so runs the risk of petty involvement in unnecessary legal wrangling with the HMRC which the Party would very likely loose.[2] Do we have the willingness and resources necessary to set up and keep the records required.At the moment I think not.
COSTS RELATING TO THE EMPLOYMENTOF A PAID HO ORGANISER (As of 2009)Report from the Treasurers (December 2009.)The thorny question of rates of pay was not raised at ADM.We have therefore estimated the cost of employing someone at the National Minimum Wage (currently [2009]) £5.80 per hour = £232 per week = £928 per month)and at twice NMW rate (£11.60 per hour = £464 per week = £1856 per month) for a forty hour week.Income tax also becomes deductible at 20 per cent on earnings over £125 per week.National Insurance Contributions are (currently) deductible from earnings over £95 per week at 11 per cent of earnings.Employers are also liable to pay Contributions at 12.8 per cent of earnings.Assuming we pay an employee £232 p.w. the employee will have £25.52 NIC deducted and the Party will have to contribute £29.70.At the higher rate the deductions are £51.04 and £59.39.Yearly cost to the Party £12,468 or at higher rate £25,122[Remember these rates are ten years old! and also lets bear in mind London cost of living rates]
A few more "do we":Do we have the resources?Do we have the capacity?Do we have the will?Do we have members willing and able to inform the non-savvy rest of us what your suggestions *actually* involve and cost? Do we do we do we do we doooo?
alanjjohnstone wrote:With globalisation, the mobility of capital, the power of corporations with international commerce laws such as ISDS, the buying and selling of passports among the rich, does capitalism still require the protection of a nation-state?I'd say the answer to that is "yes"The means of enforcing their policies and safeguarding the interests of the capitalist class still remain in the hands of the nation state. (At least in the "advanced" nation states.)Remember the debacle of the proposed "European Army". Also we can recall the difficulties encountered in putting together any "alliance of the willing" when seemingly enthusiastic votes in favour are followed by a reluctance to cough up the readies.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The 2004 centenary get-together was a missed opportunity for another group photo.It's probably too late now to round up those who attended Alan. 2004 was of course way before the time "everyone" carried camera-phones.
gnome wrote:A book to mark the centenary of the Bolshevik coup will shortly be available from Head Office. 230 pages and 42 articles – reprints from the Socialist Standard over the past 100 years. Cover price – £5.00 Postage & packing – £3.00The book was delivered to Head Office yesterday afternoon.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:We need to change the mindset and move away from seeing Clapham High Street as some kind of Socialist St Peter's.The move to a member based organisational structure and the move to consider a second premises in another part of the UK, is one of the most positive things to happen in the part for may years.A *second* set of premises?Where??Rented or purchased?Run / cleaned / maintained by whom? (We have difficulty doing this with the current HO.)Costs? (Council Tax / insurance / heating / lighting / water rates etc etc) [An estimate would be useful — just to keep our feet on the ground
]I'm sure you get the drift so I'll put the ice-water bucket away.jondwhite:Under current UK legislation it is illegal for a political party to accept donations from overseas Tricky yeah?
Laboury:The perception that a Conservative Minister has moved ever so slightly to the “left” as in:“Philip Hammond… getting more and more Laboury as time goes on”.- Emily Thornberry The Daily Politik 22 June 2017 https://www.facebook.com/TheDailyPolitik/videos/1242450209210502/
