Exploited by an employer then refused a good reference...revenge is sweet.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I would go with ......

C) She felt her son was wronged and this is payback.


Revenge was in the title.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I would go with ......

C) She felt her son was wronged and this is payback.


Revenge was in the title.

Except they admit their son did indeed commit the infraction three separate times. It's like arguing you should not have been pulled over for speeding because someone else was going even faster.

Sorry, you did what you were accused of, man up, own up.

Awesome life lesson to teach, we all think you working was fine, but we can take money from them so let's do it.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: crazyewok
Yep, I agree it won't matter in the wider scale of his life, he just wanted a reference to help get a part time job now he's started college, now it looks like he sat on his arse all summer on his CV instead of working hard.

After 11 years at School...your Son is entitled to a Holiday, Christ, kids nowadays take gap years and bugger of getting melted and losing their virginity, wallets and stuff.
I dont believe any future employer is going to care a jot if your son sat on his CV for 7 weeks. He could always say he worked for a family member and pass on the family members details...you know, just like how Ian Duncan Smith got his one and only job.. BS it to the top.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This lawsuit culture is a big portion of what is wrong with the world.

you make a valid point there......both sides are in the wrong there is little doubt there...the mother knowingly let her son work in a job that broke the child labor laws and so did the company that employed him.....

this is a serious problem in the modern...not unlike a burglar breaking into someones house and injuring themselves and then suing the homeowner

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I am curious have you read the entire thread?

It was a rule true and IMO it was one arbitrarily enforced and in this case was a rule to facilitate a managers emotional need to feel better about himself by firing someone he didn't like. If it hadn't been an arbitrarily enforced rule I would agree with you.

There is telling someone to man up and then there is telling someone there is the KY now bend over. IMO the latter is what you really mean.

As I said before there are many life lessons one could learn from this. One would be don't throw stones in a glass house and the other is it is a dog eat dog world both are valuable lessons as well.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes and much of the info comes from a biased source who thinks the manager felt inadequate because he'd lose a street fight.

I've had ample opportunities over the years to sue employers, though I have never pursued it with any real amount of effort. As an example, I was “laid off” at my last position of 10 years because my employers wife (the real boss at that company) was harassing me. She was doing things like denying my benefits in an attempt to make me quit, because she decided that she wanted a member of the opposite sex to have my position, and straight out told me so. Since I had never done anything wrong she couldn't fire me, but laid me off at the beginning of the new year to replace me with a female employee, just as she had threatened to do. She then continued to give me bad references, or not answer/return any of my reference calls by other potential employers out of spite (she wanted me to quit so she wouldn't have to pay for unemployment). Even though that is sexual discrimination and harassment, I never sued them. Now I work for their competitor (who knew her and her antics), and have a much better and more secure position, which will ultimately be around long after they're out of business.

Unfortunately suing an ex-employer is going to end up being a bigger “black mark” on his record then any bad reference could have ever possibly have been. That is now a matter of public record that will be found by any potential employer in a background check. No other company is going to touch him for fear of being “turned in” or sued themselves. You've established that you're willing to “narc” on an employer for your financial benefit, and people are going to be very reluctant to hire someone with that sort of history.

That is just the facts of life in this world.
Corporations have the money, and they lobby in the laws to their benefit. They nearly always win in the end (directly or indirectly), and thus you'll soon learn that anything done out of “vengeance” never ultimately ends up working in your favor.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well yes the info does come from a biased source but that doesn't mean that the information is untrue so you can either take it at face value or construct "what if" type scenarios in the defense of the manager which is taking some great liberties.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: jude11
...doesn't matter. The employer is responsible for complying with child employment law. My son is not legally able to agree to work longer hours.
The director tried to screw him over 'rules' but failed to follow the law himself.

You also failed to follow the law as you allowed him to continue working under those conditions, also, why wasn't that an issue before? the longer hours i mean? you clearly knew about that.

What rule did he broke 3 times before getting fired?

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: parad0x122
I can't give the whole story in this thread because legal process is ongoing and I must keep the details vague.
If you or anyone else do not believe me then I don't care, but for the sake of discussion I would have hoped we could have assumed my story to be true and seen how the conversation developed.

Then don't do it at all, come back after everything is done. You're giving half of the story while leaving critical details out, but you expect everyone to hurry and pat you in the back and say everything is ok? it doesn't work that way, clearly the details you are leaving out are those that could dramatically change the entire story to a revenge one, and again, you failed to follow the law when allowing your kid to work those extra hours, it didn't bother you before, not until those 3 rules were broken, why?

a reply to: Kaifan

If you truly want to know then keep reading the thread as those details were revealed though I don't think they should have been because cases have been affected by similar chat on the internet but since they have been revealed then you may as well read them and BTW it has been stated several times already the parent broke no laws by allowing him to keep working it is a law the employer must follow not the family.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well yes the info does come from a biased source but that doesn't mean that the information is untrue so you can either take it at face value or construct "what if" type scenarios in the defense of the manager which is taking some great liberties.

The very fact they posted the spiel about the manager being threatened because they would lose a fist fight the poster lost all credibility. The facts are the mother did exactly the same thing she is suing the company for. She knew, she did not care. Lawsuit society, it's disgusting to me.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Kaifan

If you truly want to know then keep reading the thread as those details were revealed though I don't think they should have been because cases have been affected by similar chat on the internet but since they have been revealed then you may as well read them and BTW it has been stated several times already the parent broke no laws by allowing him to keep working it is a law the employer must follow not the family.

No, the mother just thought the company was not doing anything wrong and is out to make a buck with a lawsuit. It would be different if they thought he should not be working as much, but they did not. They were happy with the amount of hours the son worked.

originally posted by: defcon5
I've had ample opportunities over the years to sue employers, though I have never pursued it with any real amount of effort. As an example, I was “laid off” at my last position of 10 years because my employers wife (the real boss at that company) was harassing me. She was doing things like denying my benefits in an attempt to make me quit, because she decided that she wanted a member of the opposite sex to have my position, and straight out told me so. Since I had never done anything wrong she couldn't fire me, but laid me off at the beginning of the new year to replace me with a female employee, just as she had threatened to do. She then continued to give me bad references, or not answer/return any of my reference calls by other potential employers out of spite (she wanted me to quit so she wouldn't have to pay for unemployment). Even though that is sexual discrimination and harassment, I never sued them. Now I work for their competitor (who knew her and her antics), and have a much better and more secure position, which will ultimately be around long after they're out of business.

Unfortunately suing an ex-employer is going to end up being a bigger “black mark” on his record then any bad reference could have ever possibly have been. That is now a matter of public record that will be found by any potential employer in a background check. No other company is going to touch him for fear of being “turned in” or sued themselves. You've established that you're willing to “narc” on an employer for your financial benefit, and people are going to be very reluctant to hire someone with that sort of history.

That is just the facts of life in this world.
Corporations have the money, and they lobby in the laws to their benefit. They nearly always win in the end (directly or indirectly), and thus you'll soon learn that anything done out of “vengeance” never ultimately ends up working in your favor.

This 1000x This.

a reply to: grainofsand

Hello there..

Sorry to hear your son lost his job. However I think its wrong on your part to have let your son work outside the remit of law and then try and get compensation. In a casee like this knowing parents should be as liable as the company is.

kind regards

purp..

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The very fact they posted the spiel about the manager being threatened because they would lose a fist fight the poster lost all credibility.

If you had put "IMO" either at the beginning or end of that sentence I wouldn't have anything to add to it but rest assured that is an opinion and it isn't shared by all.

The facts are the mother did exactly the same thing she is suing the company for. She knew, she did not care. Lawsuit society, it's disgusting to me.

Sorry but I don't remember anywhere the mother saying she worked her son let alone worked her son hours longer than the law allows. As far as the lawsuit society goes in my day I would have probably gotten back at the manager in a physical way but honestly I don't think that is a better way. The kid doesn't have a job and that is that but I doubt they will hire managers like the one they had again now either. If the company mans up in company terms they will find better employees that includes management.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
If you had put "IMO" either at the beginning or end of that sentence I wouldn't have anything to add to it but rest assured that is an opinion and it isn't shared by all.

That's the problem with the OP's statement, not mine. She stated an opinion as fact, and based the entire OP around it.

Sorry but I don't remember anywhere the mother saying she worked her son let alone worked her son hours longer than the law allows. As far as the lawsuit society goes in my day I would have probably gotten back at the manager in a physical way but honestly I don't think that is a better way. The kid doesn't have a job and that is that but I doubt they will hire managers like the one they had again now either. If the company mans up in company terms they will find better employees that includes management.

She knew he was working the hours and he was very happy. At no time does the OP talk about trying to stop it, nor give any indication she was unhappy about it. She was perfectly content with the situation until she looked for a lawsuit. This is not a case of actual exploitation.

It's a disgusting situation. In my day you don't fight someone because you can't follow the rules. You don't sue like a crybaby because you don't like you were legally terminated. Oh wait, that's exactly what people do, and it's what is wrong with the world.

Arthur T. Demoulas in the Market Basket fiasco is how a real man handles things.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, the mother just thought the company was not doing anything wrong

Really can you quote where that was said anywhere in the thread by the mother?? Are you taking liberties again with what transpired?

It would be different if they thought he should not be working as much, but they did not. They were happy with the amount of hours the son worked.

Do you really think that is a good reason to let a company get away with breaking laws?

IMO that mentality makes me sick and is good part of what is wrong with society.

I can see it now. "Yeah the company I work for illegally dumps chemicals in the river but I am happy with the pay and hours I get so I am not going to say anything." Sick just sick.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well I can see we will never see eye to eye on this. Of course your opinion is welcomed I just don't agree with it.

I have already stated the company was within their rights to fire him for even an arbitrarily enforced rule I never said otherwise but I believe they are also within their rights to have them held to the law which they repeatedly broke.

If one party is going to be &%^ and say rules are rules then they shouldn't cry when they are held to the same standard.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Really can you quote where that was said anywhere in the thread by the mother?? Are you taking liberties again with what transpired?

This is what she said.

Now, here's the thing, both me and my son knew that his long hours on printed rotas through the summer (and before he officially left school) were illegal.

So she knew it was illegal, and yet never complained ....

Now, while my son was loving the money and was hungry for every hour he could get, the employer filled his rota with 12 and 13 hour shifts and he loved the money he was earning...he absolutely loved it

Her son was very happy with the situation.
Maybe I missed it, can you show me where she talks about thinking her son was being exploited BEFORE he was fired? Where she said she did not like what was going on?

She knew legally he could not work, and she knew he was very happy doing it, and she never said a word until she decided to get money out of it.

Do you really think that is a good reason to let a company get away with breaking laws?

IMO that mentality makes me sick and is good part of what is wrong with society.

She was letting them get away with it, I am glad she makes you sick as well. She clearly states she knew it was against the law, yet she did nothing. We both are sick about her actions.

I can see it now. "Yeah the company I work for illegally dumps chemicals in the river but I am happy with the pay and hours I get so I am not going to say anything." Sick just sick.

Which is exactly what her and her son did. And that is the kind of person whose claims you are simply accepting. Sick indeed.