Disabled rights to be strengthened? Let's hope so!

[Vlad_Dracul]

Originally Posted by jkat

do u get a proprtion of their illness/dissabilty as well? whats the company called "bloodsuckers anonymous" vlad ?

Noper. The situation is that If one of my colleagues goes off sick and cover is required to do their work/hours then they lose a proportion of their pay and I get it.

The company is a major international blue chip company with a name/brand that would be instantly recognisable to all !

Its the modern way you see and i expect that many employers will be adopteding similar practices.

---------- Post added at 10:17 ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 ----------

Originally Posted by cookie_365

This is excellent news

And hopefully companies thinking of instructing this firm for employment law advise will think again too

And presumably employers thinking of employing anyone who has a higher than normal carer workload will think again too..?

---------- Post added at 10:19 ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Well we all pay in taxes for services/benefits we don't necessarily use directly don't we and since the people in question are by definition the most vulnerable in society I think we all have a duty to help. It may have escaped you but the majority always tend to pay for the minority in one way or another and that's as it should be in a civilised society. Furthermore carers save the taxpayer vast sums of money which would otherwise have to be spent on providing long term care to the sick. disabled etc. If you are ever unfortunate enough to become disabled or to have to care for someone who is you'll have those rights too and I don't suppose you'll refuse the assistance they provide. As for the "caucasian,heterosexual,long suffering,non complaining male", presumably your belief is that they're immune from disability or a life of caring for others. Presumably they never do anything which incurs a net cost for anyone else - I mean there's no such thing as the "ordinary caucasian,heterosexual,long suffering,non complaining male" who leaves his wife and family, fails to support them and in so doing forces the taxpayer to provide.... Course not.....


---------- Post added at 21:08 ---------- Previous post was at 21:07 ----------




and your point is?????........... Presumably he's also an "ordinary caucasian,heterosexual,long suffering,non complaining male".

I shall clarify. There was no sight of a father for the child nor any indication or implication that a father was available. Obviously there is a father for this child somewhere and so it would have been helpful if he had been available to comment on what his role is in the childs upbringing.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Vlad_Dracul

I shall clarify. There was no sight of a father for the child nor any indication or implication that a father was available. Obviously there is a father for this child somewhere and so it would have been helpful if he had been available to comment on what his role is in the childs upbringing.

All of which has exactly what to do with extending rights for the disabled and those they depend on?

[Vlad_Dracul]

It is loosely connected in that the father, be he estranged or not, has a legal and moral duty to look after his child and render whatever assistance is necessary to the mother of that child in support of her parenting.

If such support was available then it may well be that this lady may not have had this issue with her employer in the first place.

Of course the presence or not of a father in this matter is speculation at this stage.

It may be useful to consider that whilst the EEC is busy bestowing all sorts of rights and privileges on individuals and groups,along with the associated costs on others who are not the beneficiaries of such rights and privileges, the tiger economies are forging ahead. They have lower cost bases and if we do not remain competitive, then there will be penalties for an even wider group of us in UK plc to pay.

I am quite sure that there are plenty of parents who manage to look after their children and keep in work. Plenty of them have more than one child also I'll wager.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Vlad_Dracul

It is loosely connected in that the father, be he estranged or not, has a legal and moral duty to look after his child and render whatever assistance is necessary to the mother of that child in support of her parenting.

If such support was available then it may well be that this lady may not have had this issue with her employer in the first place.

Of course the presence or not of a father in this matter is speculation at this stage.

It may be useful to consider that whilst the EEC is busy bestowing all sorts of rights and privileges on individuals and groups,along with the associated costs on others who are not the beneficiaries of such rights and privileges, the tiger economies are forging ahead. They have lower cost bases and if we do not remain competitive, then there will be penalties for an even wider group of us in UK plc to pay.

I am quite sure that there are plenty of parents who manage to look after their children and keep in work. Plenty of them have more than one child also I'll wager.

And what if the father isn't around or is himself unable to offer support to his disabled child for whatever reason? Even if he is around, if he is unfortunate enough to have a similar employer to his partner's he'll also be deserving of and a beneficiary of the new rights provided won't he.

Unless I am missing something this lady did want to work and tried her best to obtain felxible working arrangements by which to continue doing so - it was her employers who were found to have acted wrongly in refusing her requests.

I'm afraid the implication of much of what you post is that the disabled and those they depend upon should simply have to get on with it and of course you continue neglecting to acknowledge the vast amount of money carers actually save the taxpayer by doing the decent thing and not placing the entire financial burden on the state.

[jkat]

Originally Posted by Vlad_Dracul

Noper. The situation is that If one of my colleagues goes off sick and cover is required to do their work/hours then they lose a proportion of their pay and I get it.

.

so how does it work, do u for instance fight it out amongst your selves (in your own time of course) who does the extra work and the winner works longer hours or do u manage to fit the extra work in your normal working day?

[Vlad_Dracul]

Originally Posted by jkat

so how does it work, do u for instance fight it out amongst your selves (in your own time of course) who does the extra work and the winner works longer hours or do u manage to fit the extra work in your normal working day?

It works like this.

Our group or team knows what their allocated duties/hours of work etc are for about 6 months ahead.

If a team member goes off sick, the manager will decide if the duties/hours/shift the sick person would have done actually requires covering.

If it is decided that cover is required, then another person will be apporached to cover those duties. It may be that the duties that require covering include more honorous hours/shifts/nights/weekends etc so a person who is just on a week of days might be approached.

Each team member submits documentation every week relating to hours worked etc

There is allocated space on the docs to indicate what cover you provided.

Equally the sick person has space on his sheet to indicate where cover WAS provided for his abscece.

All docs go off to GHQ for processing.

End result,a sum of money moves from coveree to coverer.

Strangley, people are not as sick as they once were...

If it operated in your (anyone reading) work environment, do you think sickness levels would reduce?

Could you just clarify, please?

The money that is transferred non-attendee to covering person - is this basic salary, or overtime/shift allowance/piecework allocation/etc?

[shabbychic]

my OH is my carer (although we now sell antiques online part time) but before i was well enough to do this, his boss had no sympathy whatsoever.
and it proves how much money carer save the country by my own experience.

OH got asked to go for an interveiw to be retrained (if you dont go they stop your allowance)
whilst there the interveiwer basically said to him

"okay, we suggest you keep on being you wifes carer, but once she's give up the ghost, just get in touch, and we'll sort out some training for you to begin a new career" LOL!

[dilli-theclaw]

Indeed, I can't help but get the feeling that some people on here and in general would much prefer the disabled to be put down.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Jefferson T

Indeed, I can't help but get the feeling that some people on here and in general would much prefer the disabled to be put down.

Yes - pretty pathetic aren't they!

and no doubt they'll shout long and loud when they're old/infirm.

[shabbychic]

Originally Posted by Jefferson T

Indeed, I can't help but get the feeling that some people on here and in general would much prefer the disabled to be put down.

Originally Posted by Osem

Yes - pretty pathetic aren't they!

oh well,
at least i know when i do pop it, my OH will end up in a good job