UK Independence Party speaks at European Parliament:

[minsue]

Simple. All my key employees were men. The one woman was in a post that was easily replaceable.

And I never had one employee resign just because their SO had got a better job somewhere a long way away.

Wow. I really wish I hadn't read this thread, Snooper.

 

[oggbashan]

Employment Law can be a Catch 22 situation both for employers and employees.

A few examples which are not all current law:

A woman wouldn't get maternity pay unless she intended to return to work after having the baby. Even if she didn't intend to come back she couldn't say so because then she wouldn't get her maternity pay. She would get most of it if she said after the baby was born that she wasn't coming back. If she came back she had to work six weeks before getting the final amount - then she could resign.

An employee in a particular company pension scheme who was terminally ill got better benefits for his widow and children if he died while still employed. He had to sign the paperwork to get the benefits for the widow and children or else they lost out. Dying men were propped up in bed and had to scrawl their name. This was changed so that he didn't have to sign if he was terminally ill and no one had told him.

If he KNEW he was dying his employer should retire him and the benefits would be much less. If he didn't know the employer and the doctors would sign a certificate to the effect that he would have been retired but that it would inform him that the illness was terminal. He then died while employed and his widow and children benefitted. OK - so even if he knew he was dying, he was told that as far as his employer was concerned he shouldn't admit that he knew he was dying.

In the same pension scheme the widow/widower of an employee was eligible for a pension if they were married at the time he/she retired AND still married when he/she died. If they divorced after the retirement the survivor, and any subsequent partner got NOTHING. But if they divorced before the retirement and there was a new marriage the new partner got the pension. So there were fast divorces and remarriages just before the employee retired.

A current case. A small shop is run by members of the owner's family except one part-time woman who works during school hours Monday to Friday. She was in a car crash - hit by a drunk driver - and her ankle was badly broken. She could work IF she could sit down most of the time. The job can't be done like that so she is on sick pay from the Government. She may be off work for six months. The shop cannot replace her except with casual staff that they can't trust to handle money so the family is stretched to staff the shop. She could resign. They can't fire her just because she is sick. She can't resign because she would get much less money as unemployed, not 'sick'. If she was 'unemployed ' she wouldn't be sick because she could do another job that allows her to sit down. There aren't any such jobs locally that fit around school times. Both the employee and the employer are suffering and because they are friends both are embarrassed by the situation.

Life is weird.

Og

 

[snooper]

Wow. I really wish I hadn't read this thread, Snooper.

Sorry, Minsue, but out there in the RW of small businesses it is cut-throat, I assure you. If one of my people had been badly ill, say off work for six weeks, and I had had to pay him, and get in a temp, for that time, I would have been out of business. Paying insurance against that was so expensive that it would have bankrupted us also.

It is easy to make laws about equality if the effects don't put your own career in jeopardy. When your bread and butter, and that of those you employ, are at risk, then you play safe. Avoiding obvious risks, like selling to people with bad credit ratings, is considered sensible. Not hiring people who present a serious possibility of costing you a lot of money is apparently a bad thing.

I know of an office where a woman worked as a draughtsperson, preparing technical drawings, a highly skilled, and relatively well-paid job, with a notice period in her contract of three months. Her husband worked in a bank. She came in to work one morning and started packing her personal belongings into a bag. Then she announced that she was leaving that day, giving no notice, because her husband had a promotion and that meant moving 200 miles away. He
was expected to move the same week, to replace a man who had had a heart attack, and she was going with him to start house-hunting.
She received equal pay with the man at the next drawing board. The question is, in the long view, did she offer equal services?
(I can quote names, places, dates, etc to verify this account.)

 

[Black Tulip]

Snooper,

Obviously we do not see eye to eye on this one, but I have to tell you that woman was giving us females a real bad name.

WTF! She should have stuck with her contract. If you want equal pay and equal opportunity, than you have to give equal value and equal reliability too.

You can't have your bread buttered both ways, I think the expression is?

Jeez, that has me fuming. Stupid cow.

Ooops, monday morning I guess.

 

[snooper]

... She should have stuck with her contract. If you want equal pay and equal opportunity, than you have to give equal value and equal reliability too. ...

I understand what you are saying, but what is she to do? Her husband has to move 200 miles within a day or so. He is the main breadwinner, and when they start a family will be the only one. It is his career that is important to the family. UK banks are unforgiving - if he says no to this move he will never get another promotion offer - "Not a team player" is the phrase.
So, she had to go with him. This is not her choice, it is made for her by society. In a perfect world they could have chosen which of them was to be the breadwinner and which the houseparent.

From the company's point of view she was always a risk when compared with a male employee. Life is like that.

The point I was making is that in my company I had my family and several other families' incomes to consider. Risking their incomes by hiring a young woman as a key employee may have been fine and moral and "the right thing to do", but it would still have been stupid. That was why I didn't do it, and that was what the UKIP MEP was saying.

 

[Teenage Venus]

The point I was making is that in my company I had my family and several other families' incomes to consider. Risking their incomes by hiring a young woman as a key employee may have been fine and moral and "the right thing to do", but it would still have been stupid. That was why I didn't do it, and that was what the UKIP MEP was saying.

This is one of those debates that has no pat answer.

Large companies build into their pay structure to cover for sickness or pregnancy possibilities. If you employ an odd 20,000 then 'carrying' a few for cover is no big deal. If you are a small employer, carrying 'cover' becomes a major overhead most can not afford. If they are 'dropped in it', intentionally or otherwise, it often produces a real crisis for management.

I'm not a UKIP supporter, but admire the guy for airing an honest problem, rather than keeping quiet to 'keep his nose clean'.

I guess if I was a small business owner, anyone outside the family would be employed on short, fixed term contracts only, on a 'self-employed' basis. Any onus would be on them then. If they 'produced the goods' they would have contracts renewed. If they chose to start a family, or leave for whatever reason, it would be up to them to bear any financial burden - not me. And it would have little effect on the lives of the other employees.

You may think that a selfish attitude. Maybe, however, business is business. Nobody need accept the terms. If they did, it would be their choice. (That would apply to males, females, and others.)

 

[oggbashan]

The MEP's comments have raised some serious debate in the UK newspapers about the impact of Employment Law on very small enterprises.

There is a problem with the impact of employee rights on small shops, workshops etc. If, like me, your business is a one man band then taking the step to employing someone is very difficult and expensive. If that employee has a serious illness the business may not survive.

Employees should have rights. However the Government and the European Parliament have placed many responsibilities on the employer that have financial implications. It is possible, but expensive, to insure against serious illness of a partner in an enterprise. It is almost impossible to insure against an employee's illness.

The majority of employees in the UK are employed by SMEs (Small to Medium size Enterprises). The impact of Maternity leave, sick leave, vexatious claims for unfair dismissal etc. can destroy the employment of everyone else.

Even larger businesses suffer if a skilled worker is incapacitated. A hypermarket locally has one of its specialist staff on long term sick leave which has lasted months. Another person in the same speciality has broken his ankle and will be off for a month. Training a replacement takes six months. The few specialists left are trying to cover with overtime but the company has had to recruit another person as a temporary and pay 30% above the normal rate. That caused resentment with the permanent staff who refused to work with the newcomer...

What the company would have liked to do was recruit a permanent replacement at the normal rate but it could not because they have to keep the jobs open for those who are sick.

That part of the store isn't meeting the targets set by the store's management. The store is being visited by area management because some of the performance indicators are showing as red. Those reports are going to the UK head office and attracting attention - all because two people out of five are sick.

My solution: The government should fund sick pay, as it used to do, from contributions from employer and employees. The government still takes the money but has put much of the cost of sick pay back to the employer. The employee should have a right to return to work at the same pay but not necessarily in the same job. That would allow flexibility for the employer to cover unexpected absences. As usual, schemes devised by civil servants and politicians do not recognise commercial constraints. That leads to the MEP's remarks. What he said was not politically correct but it shows that there is a real problem not being dealt with.

Og

 

[pop_54]

I'd sooner have the bloke stand up and say what he thinks in the EU Parliament and raise a debate, than blindly toe the PC line and just sign the cheques for the fiddlers over there to keep ripping us off and making more bloody silly unworkable regulations.

Nothing wrong with our wacky parliament either... we invented the bloody system... we should be able to run it how we please to the old traditions.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly,

There is no such thing as an English Parliament. There is the UK Parliament and there are devolved assemblies for Scotland and Wales, and there would be one for Northern Ireland if the parties there could agree to stop killing each other.

A very loose parallel is that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are State assemblies and Westiminster is the Federal Government. People in Scotland and Wales elect Members to the UK Parliament and to the devolved Parliament.

The Scots are to have a new building for their parliament which is three hundred percent over budget and faulty.

The UK parliament has some very odd traditions. The devolved parliaments have taken many of the traditions with them.

In the House of Commons there are red lines on the carpet two swords' lengths apart to stop MPs duelling in the Chamber. Then someone had the bright idea of banning swords - but the red lines are still there.

We elect:

1. Parish Councillors
2. District/City Councillors
3. County Councillors or
4. Unitary Authority Councillors who do both 2 & 3.
5. Members of the devolved parliament if we are in Scotland or Wales but NOT England
6. Members of the UK Parliament in Westminster.

All those are elected by the first past the post system - the person with the most votes in the electoral ward wins.

7. Members of the European Parliament elected by proportional representation for a large area. The number of members each part gets depends on the proportion of votes. If say Labour gets 25%; Conservative 25%; Liberal Democrats 20% and all the minor parties get 30% then there may be 3 Labour, 3 Conservative, 2 Liberal Democrat and 3 split between the minor parties. That is how the UK Independence Party got seats at Europe.

The first past the post system means that in some areas it doesn't matter what I vote for politicians 1-6. The majority for one party means their nominee will be elected even if he (usually a he) is a brainless dolt and the other candidates are intelligent caring human beings.

The electorate is beginning to revolt. They elected a man in a monkey suit as a City's Mayor. He's doing quite well in office.

Locally, a Councillor was outed as having performed in a porn video while a student. Next election he got more votes than before. Another local Councillor is bordering on senile dementia but she is much loved and was a concerned Councillor in the past so she gets re-elected. The other Councillors even forgive her when she votes (as she has done) against her party because she hasn't understood what is being discussed. If the issue is vital, one of her colleagues lifts her arm at the right time (amid laughter from the whole chamber). She doesn't mind.

Og

Thanks Og, as ever you are a veritible fountain of information

*HUGS*

-Colly

 

[Black Tulip]

I understand what you are saying, but what is she to do? Her husband has to move 200 miles within a day or so. He is the main breadwinner, and when they start a family will be the only one. It is his career that is important to the family. UK banks are unforgiving - if he says no to this move he will never get another promotion offer - "Not a team player" is the phrase.
So, she had to go with him. This is not her choice, it is made for her by society. In a perfect world they could have chosen which of them was to be the breadwinner and which the houseparent.

From the company's point of view she was always a risk when compared with a male employee. Life is like that.

The point I was making is that in my company I had my family and several other families' incomes to consider. Risking their incomes by hiring a young woman as a key employee may have been fine and moral and "the right thing to do", but it would still have been stupid. That was why I didn't do it, and that was what the UKIP MEP was saying.

I can understand your position Snooper. But I think I maybe do not understand the situation correctly.

How can the bank tell an employee he has to start working in another part of the country with no more than a few days notice? I assumed a move like that required at least one or two months to organize your private life. That is what happens in my country at least. Not only do you need time to find a new house to live, you have to get rid of your old one as well. Hire or buy doesn't make much difference, you still need time. Your kids, if you have them, need a new school, etc.

What I'm saying is, the woman should have time enough to give proper notice, maybe would have to commute for a month or stay behind to tie up and fulfill her own obligations. I just don't understand the need to leave instantaneously.

 

[oggbashan]

I can understand your position Snooper. But I think I maybe do not understand the situation correctly.

How can the bank tell an employee he has to start working in another part of the country with no more than a few days notice? I assumed a move like that required at least one or two months to organize your private life. That is what happens in my country at least. Not only do you need time to find a new house to live, you have to get rid of your old one as well. Hire or buy doesn't make much difference, you still need time. Your kids, if you have them, need a new school, etc.

What I'm saying is, the woman should have time enough to give proper notice, maybe would have to commute for a month or stay behind to tie up and fulfill her own obligations. I just don't understand the need to leave instantaneously.

Sorry. We haven't accepted all the EU's employment laws. That sort of treatment for employees isn't unusual. You can have visits back home for a couple of months, assistance with moving and househunting - if your employer is a good one - but refuse the move and you can be jobless.

It hasn't changed since I started work.

I was accepted by the Civil Service after passing a post=graduate examination. I was given a form to indicate my choice of department (up to 6 in order of preference). I put the Post office at the top - they employed half the Civil Service at the time - four interesting units as 2,3,4 and 5 and the Inland Revenue ((IRS) for US equivalent) as my 6th choice.

They appointed me to the Ministry of Defence.

The Ministry of Defence sent me a form to indicate my preference... They appointed me to one NOT on my list.

That unit sent me a form asking where I would like to work. i lived in London so I put London first, Chatham (in Kent) second. I could get to either from home. They sent me to Portsmouth.

At the end of my training, I and the other trainee were called in by our manager on a Friday afternoon. There was a job in Scotland starting Monday. Which one of us wanted to go?

We asked for five minutes to decide, went out into the corridor and tossed a coin. He lost. He went to Scotland.

Next Friday afternoon the manager called me in. My job was to be in Plymouth, Devon. I should be there at 8am Monday morning. I had been booked into a hotel by the station from Sunday evening.

I went.

My contract SAID that I would have three years in one place. The small print said I had to comply with 'the interests of the service'.

I shared a flat with three others. One of them had been 2 years in Plymouth. His manager called him in on a Friday afternoon (Friday afternoons are traditional). He had a whole six weeks before he should be in Singapore. If he went as a single man he would be paid x plus allowances y. If he went as a MARRIED man his pay would be x plus 50% and allowance y plus 75%.

Saturday night he proposed to the girl he had known for a whole week. They married four weeks later and went to Singapore. They are still married with a dozen or so grandchildren. He went from sharing a flat with three men to an official residence with a cook, a butler and a maid. By the time they came back to the UK they had saved enough money to buy half a house with the rest on a mortgage.

If I declined to be moved when requested I would have dropped a grade, never to be promoted again, if I wasn't fired.

That was then.

Now:

A local company was taken over by a German firm. The key employees could have jobs - in Germany. If they didn't accept within the week they would have no job. Most accepted. The German firm couldn't do that to their German employees. They could to their UK employees, so they did.

Og

 

[Black Tulip]

Og,

Thank you for clarifying. I was starting to suspect something like this. That explains a lot to me.

See, this kind of behavior from an employer is absolutely unthinkable over here. Just as I could not leave without following the rules for giving notice in advance.

 

[oggbashan]

A recent news item is that Tony Blair's Labour Party has agreed with the Trade Unions that employees might be able to have 4 weeks holiday a year on top of Bank Holidays. The current minimum is 3 weeks and bank holidays can be counted towards that three weeks.

Not that we'll get 4 weeks until after the next election - perhaps. Tony is worried because the Unions are stopping giving funds to the election campaign.

Many employers think that employees who take their full leave entitlement aren't 'team players' and therefore won't get promoted or get bonuses. It is normal for employees who have a 37.5 hour week to be expected to work 50 hours or more without extra pay. If you don't - you're not committed to the company.

Newly qualified doctors are the backbone of the National Health Service. Their hours are being REDUCED to 70 per week.

Og

 

[snooper]

We elect:
...
4. Unitary Authority Councillors who do both 2 & 3. ...

All those are elected by the first past the post system - the person with the most votes in the electoral ward wins.

Er ... no.
The voting system for the Welsh unitary authorities is multiple member seats.
In the ward in which I live there are two members, so I get two votes from a list of candidates.

We elect:
...
5. Members of the devolved parliament if we are in ... Wales ...

All those are elected by the first past the post system - the person with the most votes in the electoral ward wins.

Er ... no.
The voting system for the Welsh assembly is fiendishly complex and is a combination of first past the post and prop. rep.

"They will be known as Members of the Welsh Assembly, or MWAs, and will be chosen in one of two ways:

* 40 members representing individual constituencies and elected under the traditional First Past The Post system.

These will be the same as the 40 Welsh constituencies at Westminster.

* 20 members selected from 'party lists' in the country's five electoral regions.

Electors will therefore have two votes on separate ballot papers. One for a candidate in their constituency and one for a party list in their region." (BBC News Report)

The party lists are not a straight prop. rep., but are used to make up the composition of the Assembly to what it "should" be.

 

[snooper]

... How can the bank tell an employee he has to start working in another part of the country with no more than a few days notice? ...

It can't and it doesn't.

The bank says "There is an unexpected vacancy two hundred miles away. It would represent a promotion for you of a full grade (in this case from Assistant Branch Manager to Branch Manager) and you can have it if you start in three days time."

If he accepts, the bank gives him a zero interest bridging loan for the house sell/purchase, generous hotel accommodation for up to three months, generous removal expenses, etc.

If he refuses, he is never, ever considered again for promotion. As I said, "Not a team player".

 

[oggbashan]

Thank you Snooper for the explanation of the Welsh Assembly. I am about as far as you can get from Wales and not as well informed as I should be. Cymru am Byth!

Wouldn't it be simple if all the elections were on the same basis? I don't suppose that will ever happen.

Og

 

[Teenage Venus]

If he refuses, he is never, ever considered again for promotion. As I said, "Not a team player".

Of course, it is up to the employees to sort this problem. (One of the reasons for Unions.)

If they got together and said that they would ALL refuse - and ALL branches did the same, then the Bank would have to change its policy. Any person not joining in supporting their fellow employees could soon be made to see that it was in their interest to do so.

There has usually got to be give and take in all relationships. If one side has all the big sticks - and uses them, they ain't worth shit. It can and does backfire. The USA is now experiencing this. At the moment its citizens do little about it in many areas, because they have the 'I'm all right Jack' mentality.

A good example of this is 'global warming'. The USA is the biggest polluter, but shies from doing anything - even refusing to sign up to 'Kyoto', because it affects big business.

The reality is now coming home to them from all directions. The fact that China is losing over 2'500 sqare miles of fertile land to desert each year means nothing to US admin. The fact that Greenland's ice cap is now melting ten times faster than anyone guessed means nothing to the USA. The fact that the thousands of Islands in the Maldives etc., will be under water within the next few years means nothing to the USA. Bangladesh is currently approaching a two thirds land covered by flood water, US admin don't care.

HOWEVER, it's now starting to hit the States, though this is kept very hush, hush. Alaska, for instance is now over ten degrees warmer than just 30 years ago. The permafrost is melting at an alarming rate. Forgetting the floods this is causing, and the destruction of homes, what WILL be noticed is the collapse of the Alaska oil pipeline which relies on the permafrost to support it.

When that collapses, apart from the environmental disaster it will cause, it will hit the pockets, and THAT will affect and upset most everybody. If the Arabs then get together and ban oil exports to the USA, it will be THEM hold the big stick, and the days of Bush and his ilk will be gone for ever.

(Ooops! I digressed a bit. Sorry.)

 

[oggbashan]

Of course, it is up to the employees to sort this problem. (One of the reasons for Unions.)

If they got together and said that they would ALL refuse - and ALL branches did the same, then the Bank would have to change its policy. Any person not joining in supporting their fellow employees could soon be made to see that it was in their interest to do so.
...

(Ooops! I digressed a bit. Sorry.)

Mrs Thatcher broke the power of the unions. The Labour Government has kept and uses all the anti-union laws she created.

If employees did as you suggest they would all be fired and their jobs outsourced to SE Asia or wherever - with support from the UK Government.

Og

 

[cloudy]

Of course, it is up to the employees to sort this problem. (One of the reasons for Unions.)

If they got together and said that they would ALL refuse - and ALL branches did the same, then the Bank would have to change its policy. Any person not joining in supporting their fellow employees could soon be made to see that it was in their interest to do so.

Um, no....sorry.

If they all refused, they would all just be out of a job. There are plenty of people willing and able to take their place.

As far as "any person not joining in....", that's where the violence that sometime accompanies union organization comes from. Surely you don't advocate that? In a perfect world, violence wouldn't be an issue, but it isn't, so it is, and it's a very real problem. I've seen it.

When you are in managment in certain industries, transfers=promotions are just one of the things you accept as a hazard of the job. I held such a job for many years, and was transferred/promoted 4 times. The company I worked for treated people very well, and my moves were handled and paid for completely by the company. Did I like moving every year and a half? Not necessarily, but it was my choice - accept it or not. And the moves were done quickly - in one instance I was called on Wednesday, and had to be at my new postion on Monday. Not a problem, they paid for my hotel, househunting trip for the family, etc. Even bought my old house from me. The only thing I had to do once a new house was found, was call a company liason, and give them the old address, new address and a date, they did absolutely everything else, including finding and contracting with a moving company.

Unions are not an answer to much anymore. I know that's going to be an unpopular answer here, but it's true. They drive the price of labor up artificially high, ultimately bankrupting some companies, and sending others scrambling to outsource jobs to other countries where labor costs aren't so high.

I agree there should be laws protecting employees, and there are. Maybe not enough, or not perfect, but labor unions end up hurting far more than they help these days.

 

[Teenage Venus]

If employees did as you suggest they would all be fired and their jobs outsourced to SE Asia or wherever - with support from the UK Government.

Ha, ha, ha, ha. No answer to that.

Since I've been over here I've noted the impact that Asian education and low wages has had on a growing number of diverse industries. America is just starting to feel the effects of these same 'uneducated heathens' beyond their shores.

I have a feeling it will help the imigration problem in the UK though - less coming in, and more returning home. History has a habit of repeating its self. Throughout the ages there has been one dominant power for a short while, then - usually - they destroyed themselves, and another took over. I have a feeling that when my children grow up they will will at least be in a 2nd rate - if not 3rd rate country.

Britain had a hell of an empire, but it faded. What with a combination of global warming effects, rapid use-up of oil resourses, total arrogance, and lack of consideration for anything but the almighty dollar (Which is devaluing at an alarming rate), and the hate we have generated against ourselves, the USA is rapidly on the wane, and may be the shortest lived of any super power.

This is mostly down to the complacency of the average American - and I think I'm upsetting people, so better stop.

 

[Teenage Venus]

As far as "any person not joining in....", that's where the violence that sometime accompanies union organization comes from. Surely you don't advocate that? In a perfect world, violence wouldn't be an issue, but it isn't, so it is, and it's a very real problem. I've seen it.

No, I'm not an advocate of violence, and agree with many, that Unions too powerful can destroy themselves, their industry, and do irreparable harm to an economy. (I've just been reading a history of trades unions, and see how the British shipping industry, steel industry, etc., were destroyed by union power.)

I did say there was no easy answer, and it required 'give and take' on both sides. If either side are not prepared to be reasonable, it is up to the other side to take up other options available to them. In industrial unrest everybody is a loser.

 

[cloudy]

The thing about unions is there is no give and take. By it's very nature, it creates an adversarial relationship with managment/owners, and that's just leads to more problems.

Unions want to have wages and benefits as high as they can get them for their members, that's what they're there for.

Managment wants costs as low as possible for labor and related benefits, that's their job. There is very little middle ground.

When both sides see the other as working against their own best interests there is no easy way to "give and take."

I've always seen that companies that are not unionized, but instead treat their workers as a valuable, and human, resource tend to do much better. Giving employees the chance to own part of the company gives them a vested interest in how well the company does, and taking the time to truly explain decisions that affect everyone goes a long way.

 

[Teenage Venus]

I've always seen that companies that are not unionized, but instead treat their workers as a valuable, and human, resource tend to do much better. Giving employees the chance to own part of the company gives them a vested interest in how well the company does, and taking the time to truly explain decisions that affect everyone goes a long way.

That is an ideal situation, CLOUDY. If employees feel a need for a Union, it should be for the OTHER benefits they provide - not conflict with management. Sadly, Unions only came into existance because employees did not treat them as an integral valuable part of a team providing wealth for the employer, and for the employee, a reasonable pay for a reasonable day's work.

The pendulum swang the other way, then it was the Unions that lost their sense of fairness.

 

[cloudy]

That is an ideal situation, CLOUDY. If employees feel a need for a Union, it should be for the OTHER benefits they provide - not conflict with management. Sadly, Unions only came into existance because employees did not treat them as an integral valuable part of a team providing wealth for the employer, and for the employee, a reasonable pay for a reasonable day's work.

The pendulum swang the other way, then it was the Unions that lost their sense of fairness.

Exactly.

 

[snooper]

Thank you Snooper for the explanation of the Welsh Assembly. I am about as far as you can get from Wales and not as well informed as I should be.

You have my sympathy (though I was born in Hersden!), but it is a cross you will have to bear until you can get here.

Wouldn't it be simple if all the elections were on the same basis? I don't suppose that will ever happen.

NO, it probably won't, especially as the EU elections are by regional list, on the pure d’Hondt formula.

Each region elects a set number of MEPs to the European Parliament. The United Kingdom is split into 12 regions. Each political party prepares a list of candidates ranked in order to match the number of seats to be filled in that region. Once votes are counted, the first seat is allocated to the party or independent candidate with the highest number of votes. If an independent candidate is highest then the seat is allocated to that individual. If the seat has been allocated to a party it will go to the first candidate on that party’s list: that party’s total is then divided by two and the second seat is allocated to the next party or independent candidate with the highest number of votes. The process continues until all seats have been allocated.

An interesting sideline on this is that there exists a beautiful set of pathological cases for every electoral system you can think of, showing under what circumstances it fails to produce the "right" answer, and when counter-intuitive voting tactics can help.