Extended Sunday opening hours

[BeRational]

Is there a reason as to why we should stop talking about shoes when the 'latest' question is an actual derail of the OP?

Please quote where the OP makes reference to shoes.

Didn't say it did. You do like imputing positions to people that they are not taking, don't you.

So shoes are not the point of the thread but the question posed by the Prof is.

Why do you find this a difficult topic to answer?

[Ricky Spanish]

And I'm beginning to regret it given the levels of attack I seemed to have received on this.

Attack?

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1339953607071_8935534.png

[ProfessorDavey]

You were the one who brought up shoes.

No it wasn't.

I may be wrong but the first shoes I noticed appeared in 171 from the Prof - were there earlier shoes?

You claimed that I brought up the topic of shoes.

I did not, not that is matters much AS THIS IS NOT ABOUT SHOES!

Ah yes, my mistake, I had misread your post about it not being about the shoes as being from Prof D who did bring up the shoes. The point though is that if you want to solve the problem of the shoes it is not clear that the legislation will do this. I know you have your opinion that we are not supposed to discuss the shoes but take it up with the mods, cannot see it as a derail, why do you think it is?

The only reason I brought up shoes is that they seem the most obvious example where the current situation (from the perspective of a parent) is frustrating.

But the point remains, if a shop wants to open extended hours on Sunday, there are staff happy to work there and it is more convenient to me (to fit around the rest of my life) to shop during those extended hours why should the law prevent me from doing so.

Actually why should I even need to justify why it is more convenient to me. Why do I have to need a reason for wanting to shop during those extended hours.

[BeRational]

You were the one who brought up shoes.

No it wasn't.

I may be wrong but the first shoes I noticed appeared in 171 from the Prof - were there earlier shoes?

You claimed that I brought up the topic of shoes.

I did not, not that is matters much AS THIS IS NOT ABOUT SHOES!

Ah yes, my mistake, I had misread your post about it not being about the shoes as being from Prof D who did bring up the shoes. The point though is that if you want to solve the problem of the shoes it is not clear that the legislation will do this. I know you have your opinion that we are not supposed to discuss the shoes but take it up with the mods, cannot see it as a derail, why do you think it is?

The only reason I brought up shoes is that they seem the most obvious example where the current situation (from the perspective of a parent) is frustrating.

But the point remains, if a shop wants to open extended hours on Sunday, there are staff happy to work there and it is more convenient to me (to fit around the rest of my life) to shop during those extended hours why should the law prevent me from doing so.

Actually why should I even need to justify why it is more convenient to me. Why do I have to need a reason for wanting to shop during those extended hours.

Because it's not important if not sane says it's not.

[ProfessorDavey]

And I'm beginning to regret it given the levels of attack I seemed to have received on this.

Attack?

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1339953607071_8935534.png

Problem is you can't buy those on a Sunday either

[Nearly Sane]

Is there a reason as to why we should stop talking about shoes when the 'latest' question is an actual derail of the OP?

Please quote where the OP makes reference to shoes.

Didn't say it did. You do like imputing positions to people that they are not taking, don't you.

So shoes are not the point of the thread but the question posed by the Prof is.

Why do you find this a difficult topic to answer?

What do you mean 'topic to answer'? That appears to make no sense.

As to the thread, the OP is looking at the financial argument to which the Prof' s argument would be irrelevant.

[ProfessorDavey]

You were the one who brought up shoes.

No it wasn't.

I may be wrong but the first shoes I noticed appeared in 171 from the Prof - were there earlier shoes?

You claimed that I brought up the topic of shoes.

I did not, not that is matters much AS THIS IS NOT ABOUT SHOES!

Ah yes, my mistake, I had misread your post about it not being about the shoes as being from Prof D who did bring up the shoes. The point though is that if you want to solve the problem of the shoes it is not clear that the legislation will do this. I know you have your opinion that we are not supposed to discuss the shoes but take it up with the mods, cannot see it as a derail, why do you think it is?

The only reason I brought up shoes is that they seem the most obvious example where the current situation (from the perspective of a parent) is frustrating.

But the point remains, if a shop wants to open extended hours on Sunday, there are staff happy to work there and it is more convenient to me (to fit around the rest of my life) to shop during those extended hours why should the law prevent me from doing so.

Actually why should I even need to justify why it is more convenient to me. Why do I have to need a reason for wanting to shop during those extended hours.

Because it's not important if not sane says it's not.

Actually I'm struggling to see what business it is of anyone else's as to when I choose to shop. Surely that's entirely up to me and provided there is a shop that wants to open those hours and there are people happy to work those hours then surely that's all there should be to it.

The notion that somehow I have to justify why I don't have much time during a working week etc is bonkers. That's my decision.

All I am saying is that if a shop wants to open, there are people happy to work and I want to shop at that time why should the law prevent me.

[Udayana]

Trying to answer the OP - the change will give a small boost to the economy - at least temporarily, but this will mainly involve  transfer of business from smaller shops to supermarkets or malls - this can can be seen as undermining "local" economies to the extent that these still exist (barely).

Overall, unlikely to make any significant difference to anything important.
 

[Nearly Sane]

Should I be able to get a tube all night to the shoe shops or is the unions just being silly?

[ProfessorDavey]

Is there a reason as to why we should stop talking about shoes when the 'latest' question is an actual derail of the OP?

Please quote where the OP makes reference to shoes.

Didn't say it did. You do like imputing positions to people that they are not taking, don't you.

So shoes are not the point of the thread but the question posed by the Prof is.

Why do you find this a difficult topic to answer?

What do you mean 'topic to answer'? That appears to make no sense.

As to the thread, the OP is looking at the financial argument to which the Prof' s argument would be irrelevant.

My argument is that if:

1. A shop wants to open
2. There are staff happy to work and
3. There are people who want to shop at those times

Then the law shouldn't prevent them

And that of course embeds the financial argument as a shop would only open if it makes commercial sense, which will also involve assessment of 2 and 3.

I would add that there are some addition factors to consider, but these are standard planning ones. So we need to consider noise, traffic etc through the night etc. But these are really relevant to the Sunday opening case, because this would only place the same restrictions as other days, not greater restrictions as is currently the case.

[Nearly Sane]

Which misses the point of the OP which asks is there a generalised financial argument that can be used to justify Sunday opening not for specific shops

[ProfessorDavey]

Which misses the point of the OP which asks is there a generalised financial argument that can be used to justify Sunday opening not for specific shops

But any 'generalised' argument will simply be the sum of the cumulative effect of individual specific shops taking a decision to open longer and the effect on the economy of this.

So I don't see how you can detach the general from the specific.

[Nearly Sane]

Which misses the point of the OP which asks is there a generalised financial argument that can be used to justify Sunday opening not for specific shops

But any 'generalised' argument will simply be the sum of the cumulative effect of individual specific shops taking a decision to open longer and the effect on the economy of this.

So I don't see how you can detach the general from the specific.

Osborne' s argument is financially a generalized one that business will increase overall. That it might for an individual shop but reducing it for another one would undermine that.

[Ricky Spanish]

And I'm beginning to regret it given the levels of attack I seemed to have received on this.

Attack?

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1339953607071_8935534.png

Problem is you can't buy those on a Sunday either

Yes you can. In person between the hours of 11 and 4 (with a half hour browsing before that) or online at any time.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which misses the point of the OP which asks is there a generalised financial argument that can be used to justify Sunday opening not for specific shops

But any 'generalised' argument will simply be the sum of the cumulative effect of individual specific shops taking a decision to open longer and the effect on the economy of this.

So I don't see how you can detach the general from the specific.

Osborne' s argument is financially a generalized one that business will increase overall. That it might for an individual shop but reducing it for another one would undermine that.

But his view will necessary be a cumulative effect of all the individual situations, both positive and negative (if that occurs). I guess they have looked at the effects of the brief suspension of the rules during the summer of 2012 to get some kind of estimate.

[Nearly Sane]

So your position is that you have no opinion on the question in the OP?

[Ricky Spanish]

I don't see BeR berating anyone from deviating from the actual OP question:

"Putting any religious concerns to one side, do folk believe that this will boost the economy, or will it simply transfer monies from smaller shops, currently allowed to open all day on a Sunday, to the larger stores - and hence, in time, do more damage to the economies of many local places than boosting them?"

[ProfessorDavey]

So your position is that you have no opinion on the question in the OP?

I think the evidence suggests it will. Certainly there have been estimates that in London alone an increase in 2 hours of opening hours would result in the creation of 3000 new jobs and £200m extra income. And those new jobs are important, because people taking up those new jobs will themselves spend (not necessarily on Sunday obviously) and boost the economy through that indirect route.

And I think there may be benefits outside those shops that extend opening. So if more people are shopping on a Sunday associated businesses may benefit, for example cafes, restaurants and pubs, and also more specialist shops that aren't going head to head with the big boys but benefit by the extra footfall which increases their revenue on a Sunday or perhaps makes it economic for them to open on a Sunday too.

Certainly there was a boost in sales during the period when the laws were relaxed in 2012, and that including areas of the country which weren't likely to be seeing a direct Olympics effect.

[Gonnagle]

And  a nightingale sang in  Berkeley Square,

Economics! No, is that the main point, no, the point is we are going backwards, when we should be going forward, morally.

Shorter working weeks, shorter hours, more time for family, more time to smell the roses, more time for community, more time to indulge your hobbies, more time to help the less fortunate, more time to make love not war.

Actually why do we work nine to five, seems out dated, why not eight till four or nine till one.

But no, the by word seems to be longer hours, what's wrong with one day when the world stops, for me that is a beautiful thought.

It's the Sunday, it's the Bible bashers day, that's the sticking point, those pesky God botherers trying to pull a fast one, bloody Christians always sticking their oar in.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

And  a nightingale sang in  Berkeley Square,

Economics! No, is that the main point, no, the point is we are going backwards, when we should be going forward, morally.

Shorter working weeks, shorter hours, more time for family, more time to smell the roses, more time for community, more time to indulge your hobbies, more time to help the less fortunate, more time to make love not war.

Actually why do we work nine to five, seems out dated, why not eight till four or nine till one.

But no, the by word seems to be longer hours, what's wrong with one day when the world stops, for me that is a beautiful thought.

It's the Sunday, it's the Bible bashers day, that's the sticking point, those pesky God botherers trying to pull a fast one, bloody Christians always sticking their oar in.

Gonnagle.

Not entirely sure the point you are making.

There is no reason why extending Sunday opening should mean workers are required to work longer (indeed I think that would be against their contract), unless they specifically want to work more, and there a currently plenty of those people.

Anecdote alert, anecdote alert. I have a friend who wanted a part time job and working at the weekends worked well for her. But she got frustrated and left because the limit of 6 hours on a Sunday meant that it wasn't really worth her while - she wanted to get more hours in if she was going to work, given that her Sunday was going to be fundamentally disrupted whether she worked 11-5 (which was all she could) or 9-6 (which she couldn't).

But you are right that the old 9-5 five days a week world is disappearing fast. People want more flexibility than that and increasingly are demanding (and getting) much more 'bespoke' working arrangements that work better for them. I see that as a good thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And  a nightingale sang in  Berkeley Square,

Economics! No, is that the main point, no, the point is we are going backwards, when we should be going forward, morally.

Shorter working weeks, shorter hours, more time for family, more time to smell the roses, more time for community, more time to indulge your hobbies, more time to help the less fortunate, more time to make love not war.

Actually why do we work nine to five, seems out dated, why not eight till four or nine till one.

But no, the by word seems to be longer hours, what's wrong with one day when the world stops, for me that is a beautiful thought.

It's the Sunday, it's the Bible bashers day, that's the sticking point, those pesky God botherers trying to pull a fast one, bloody Christians always sticking their oar in.

Gonnagle.

I see what you are getting at Mr G. Having a day off while others are working is the equivalent of trying to have a lunch break where everybody else is working. That just becomes a ''working lunch'' and having a day off while it's all going on is the equivalent of a ''working day off''.
You are absolutely right about having to work longer...vis...taking work related e mails at home.

[ProfessorDavey]

And  a nightingale sang in  Berkeley Square,

Economics! No, is that the main point, no, the point is we are going backwards, when we should be going forward, morally.

Shorter working weeks, shorter hours, more time for family, more time to smell the roses, more time for community, more time to indulge your hobbies, more time to help the less fortunate, more time to make love not war.

Actually why do we work nine to five, seems out dated, why not eight till four or nine till one.

But no, the by word seems to be longer hours, what's wrong with one day when the world stops, for me that is a beautiful thought.

It's the Sunday, it's the Bible bashers day, that's the sticking point, those pesky God botherers trying to pull a fast one, bloody Christians always sticking their oar in.

Gonnagle.

I see what you are getting at Mr G. Having a day off while others are working is the equivalent of trying to have a lunch break where everybody else is working. That just becomes a ''working lunch'' and having a day off while it's all going on is the equivalent of a ''working day off''.
You are absolutely right about having to work longer...vis...taking work related e mails at home.

Err, what. So by analogy people who don't need to take holidays during the school holiday feel cheated when they jet off on their holidays during quieter school term times while the rest of the world is working. Hmm nope that's wrong - they are delighted to go at a quieter time for less cost and with less queuing, pressure on sun-beds, restaurants etc.

I think there are plenty of people who really like not to be working while others are. Long ago we moved away from the set 'factory' holiday week, and now we are slowly drifting away from the rigid 9-5 five days a week working pattern and that's driven as much, if not more, by employees as employers.

I do agree with you about the intrusive nature of e-mails 24 hours a day, but that is a completely different matter.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

Well you talk about workers contracts, but who calls the tune, in no time those contracts would be worthless, money and profit rule, way of the world, I would love anybody to argue against that fact.

Here in Scotland we have that battle at the moment, Scot rail, train drivers don't need to work Sundays, it is optional, but money will win, what ever the outcome, the train Drivers might get extra money but they will lose the choice, and that is another black mark on society, workers need unions to protect their rights, why, owners only see money, they don't see people.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

Well you talk about workers contracts, but who calls the tune, in no time those contracts would be worthless, money and profit rule, way of the world, I would love anybody to argue against that fact.

Here in Scotland we have that battle at the moment, Scot rail, train drivers don't need to work Sundays, it is optional, but money will win, what ever the outcome, the train Drivers might get extra money but they will lose the choice, and that is another black mark on society, workers need unions to protect their rights, why, owners only see money, they don't see people.

Gonnagle.

There is a bit of a difference between getting highly trained staff such as train drivers to work on an extended Sunday service and getting shop staff. You can't simply pluck someone off the street and get them to drive a train. Most roles in shops require pretty limited training. I imagine additional hours will be taken up by the army of students out there who will likely be delighted to be able to earn a bit of cash at a time which works around their studies.

Hadn't you heard, at the moment there is a big issue with underemployed people - i.e. those that want to work more hours, but are formed to work part time by their employers. This will reduce that problem a touch.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Forum Members,

Quick someone dial 911( American Police will get there quicker than our Police, more Tory cut backs ) the good Prof has swallowed the Tory manifesto and ethos.

Gonnagle.