Workers To Win Bank Holiday Rights

Perhaps I would if those who don't know what they are talking about would stop pontificating... that's the type of person who has never lifted a spanner in their life but still tells the mechanic how to do their job.

And I notice you picjk and choose which laws you support... and which you are happy to see broken.

You don't have talk a lot of offensive old............................

[Escapee]

I have found that there are many lazy people in employment, as well as the downright awkward. The big problem is companies find it hard to get rid of them, as HR are very worried about unfair claims that have been made easy by these no win no fee type solicitors. Companies have little worry from unions but these solicitor types are a different matter.

We have one (one in particular) who is the most awkward lazy sod I have ever come across, Ex-Army knows everything. He borrowed a piece of test equipment of my bench last week, and when it came back it didn't work, I knew it wasn't a real fault I just had to do a full factoruy reset because the guy had gone through all the menus to make the equipment unusable, he did the same thing a couple of days earlier when he borrowed a variable power supply and returned it, and carefully installed it back in my equipment rack with the volts and current set to maximum, obviously to cause problems and damage equipment if I powered it back on. Is he a kid,? No, he's in his 50's.

This guy should be sacked, however he thinks he's wonderfull and went to the manager telling him so. He said if I dont get a payrise I will leave, he was told to shut the door on his way out.

There are many lazy useless people in industry today, and its certainly very difficult to get rid of them.

Originally Posted by me283

LOL Like I said, not an employer then? Incidentally, my gripe is against the Government making companies grant extra paid holiday. It really isn't their place to do so. And it's not a "measly eight days", it's an EXTRA eight days in some cases. Why do you say there is something wrong with my business? Speaking as a non-employer, do you actually know what you are talking about?

Ridiculous. You're effectively saying that the whole basis of the representative democracy we live in is invalid, seeing as there is no way even 650 MPs can between them encompass experience of every conceivable corner of the nation they legislate for.

No, I am not an employer. And if I were, I hope I would not be so pompous as to claim that I am right simply because of having some direct experience of being one. I have never been to war, killed a fox, been a victim of a serious crime or killed anybody. But as a citizen of a democratic society I have perfectly valid opinions on all of those issues. Live with it.

I think you hit the nail on the head in post 135 when you said that 'technically' you have been an employer due to a series of senior management positions, and through having been a director and a shareholder. Well sorry, but I know plenty of people who are one or more, or all three of those things at once, without ever holding any position within a company that would give them such special insight into the perils of Human Resources that they could claim to be automatically right.

All I hear from you is a rather sad logical fallacy - it's called an Appeal to Authority. You can read more about it here if you have any interest in posting something a little more convincing than 'I'm right because I know I am'.

[danielf]

[QUOTE=me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

Oi! Richard Branson, can we cut the "you're not an employer" stuff. Apart from being fatuous, not being an employer does not mean you can't understand the implications of this issue from both sides of the fence. And, as I pointed out, I've been an employer and I agree with Chris, so...................

So Andy, you think there are NO lazy people in employment? That really says it all about your "everyone is nice really" approach, and "let's be kind to everyone" approach.

Perhaps I would if those who don't know what they are talking about would stop pontificating... that's the type of person who has never lifted a spanner in their life but still tells the mechanic how to do their job.

And I notice you picjk and choose which laws you support... and which you are happy to see broken.

Can you please learn to quote me238. Leaving it for others to figure out what you're quoting and what you typed does not help getting your point across.

[zoombini]

Hmm, now if Tony gave us all a BMW that would be good

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

You don't have talk a lot of offensive old............................

Nice debating Andy. You should try politics. Isn't there a "Do-Gooders Party"?

Originally Posted by me283

Nice debating Andy. You should try politics. Isn't there a "Do-Gooders Party"?

It's impossible to debate with you because you don't take notice of what other people post. Am I supposed to be cut to the quick by the old 'do gooders' reference? Trust me, I'll live.

[me283]

[QUOTE=danielf]

Originally Posted by me283

Can you please learn to quote me238. Leaving it for others to figure out what you're quoting and what you typed does not help getting your point across.

Can you please learn to quote too? It's ME283, not ME238!
__________________

Originally Posted by Chris T

Ridiculous. You're effectively saying that the whole basis of the representative democracy we live in is invalid, seeing as there is no way even 650 MPs can between them encompass experience of every conceivable corner of the nation they legislate for.

No, I am not an employer. And if I were, I hope I would not be so pompous as to claim that I am right simply because of having some direct experience of being one. I have never been to war, killed a fox, been a victim of a serious crime or killed anybody. But as a citizen of a democratic society I have perfectly valid opinions on all of those issues. Live with it.

I think you hit the nail on the head in post 135 when you said that 'technically' you have been an employer due to a series of senior management positions, and through having been a director and a shareholder. Well sorry, but I know plenty of people who are one or more, or all three of those things at once, without ever holding any position within a company that would give them such special insight into the perils of Human Resources that they could claim to be automatically right.

All I hear from you is a rather sad logical fallacy - it's called an Appeal to Authority. You can read more about it here if you have any interest in posting something a little more convincing than 'I'm right because I know I am'.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise this had gone through parliament, and been approved by every MP; I thought it was an intended proposal by Mr. Bliar to win votes. Silly me. 650 MPs vote for it and it's not even hit the papers.

If you actually bother to read what I said, you might actually appreciate the point I am making. I don't have a problem with employees getting 180 days a year paid holiday... IF IT'S AGREED BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE. It is a private contract, and in my opinion the Government should butt out. And for the record, I have NEVER employed anyone on a contract that didn't pay them Bank Holidays on top of their entitlement. This is a point of principle.

Me283, So, extending your logic should the Government not interfere in health and safety as this is a private matter for employers? The commercial world has always been regulated and always will be. The Government is proposing new regulation for a statutory minimum of 28 days paid leave, including Bank Holidays. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyway looking at the way the election campaign is going it's going to happen which will make me a happy man on behalf of those that have previously been poorly treated by their employers.

And I think you've misconstrued Chris's point. He was drawing an analogy if I remember correctly.



EDIT: Some suggested reading: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...858398-0111222

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

Me283, So, extending your logic should the Government not interfere in health and safety as this is a private matter for employers? The commercial world has always been regulated and always will be. The Government is proposing new regulation for a statutory minimum of 28 days paid leave, including Bank Holidays. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyway looking at the way the election campaign is going it's going to happen which will make me a happy man on behalf of those that have previously been poorly treated by their employers.

And I think you've misconstrued Chris's point. He was drawing an analogy if I remember correctly.



EDIT: Some suggested reading: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...858398-0111222

Health and Safety is a different issue. If someone is injured then it is no longer a private issue between employer and employee.

As for "the way the election campaign is going", I take it you believe that Mr. Bliar (who has yet to call an election), will stay in power? That remains to be seen. I certainly hope not.

Hmm, logic, it's a tough nut to crack sometimes.

[handyman]

Question? I used to be self employed and hired a female to run the shop during the day serving people so that I could be out earning money doing washer repairs.
We closed on bank holidays so under the new rules would I have been liable to pay her for those 8 days a year we where closed?

Also I'm glad I closed the shop as Not only would I have had to fund all her holidays she had a baby the next year so I would have had to have funded her maternaty leave and found some one to replace her.

I dont think I would have been able to simply 'absorb' those costs.

[me283]

Originally Posted by handyman

Question? I used to be self employed and hired a female to run the shop during the day serving people so that I could be out earning money doing washer repairs.
We closed on bank holidays so under the new rules would I have been liable to pay her for those 8 days a year we where closed?

Also I'm glad I closed the shop as Not only would I have had to fund all her holidays she had a baby the next year so I would have had to have funded her maternaty leave and found some one to replace her.

I dont think I would have been able to simply 'absorb' those costs.

I sympathise with you, and yours is exactly the type of case that will be crippled by this proposed legislation.

But never mind, as a previous poster inferred, "you would manage".

[paulyoung666]

Originally Posted by handyman

Question? I used to be self employed and hired a female to run the shop during the day serving people so that I could be out earning money doing washer repairs.
We closed on bank holidays so under the new rules would I have been liable to pay her for those 8 days a year we where closed?

Also I'm glad I closed the shop as Not only would I have had to fund all her holidays she had a baby the next year so I would have had to have funded her maternaty leave and found some one to replace her.

I dont think I would have been able to simply 'absorb' those costs.

if the shop was closed then she was off anyway , so i cant see why you need to pay her

[me283]

Originally Posted by paulyoung666

if the shop was closed then she was off anyway , so i cant see why you need to pay her

Hi Paul,

Thats the whole point of the proposed legislation. Currently some peopl are given, typically 20 days paid leave per annum; in some cases Bank Holidays must be taken out of this, or worked. The proposal is that there be a minimum 20 days paid leave by law, PLUS Bank Holidays as additional paid leave.

As can be seen by the earlier post, this would severely damage small businesses who, contrary to popular opinion, cannot just "swallow" such additional costs.