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

originally posted by: Grimpachi
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.

Oh we do agree on that. I 100% think the company should be held responsible. They broke the law. I think the OP and her son should not get a penny, I think there should be a hefty fine and it should go to people who were actually exploited.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You said that she said:

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

She never said that. So you did take liberties and reworded it to suit yourself.

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.

No, but I am sick of you taking liberties with what has been said. I am also sick of people defending corperations when they are clearly in the wrong.

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

And you seem to be fine with it as long as they keep their mouths shut. Yes that does make me sick.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Grimpachi
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.

Oh we do agree on that. I 100% think the company should be held responsible. They broke the law. I think the OP and her son should not get a penny, I think there should be a hefty fine and it should go to people who were actually exploited.

I look at as they are getting the money for bringing it to the government's attention so it assures it will not happen again. I do believe we have whistle blower laws that pay out much more.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

She never said that. So you did take liberties and reworded it to suit yourself.

Point me to her post that talks about her not being fine with it.

No, but I am sick of you taking liberties with what has been said. I am also sick of people defending corperations when they are clearly in the wrong.

Well then you are being a hypocrite, I just showed you how she is doing EXACTLY what you claim makes you sick.

And you seem to be fine with it as long as they keep their mouths shut. Yes that does make me sick.

My disgust at this parent looking for a payday when her son did something wrong in no way makes me sympathetic to the business. Maybe you should look at my previous post.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Grimpachi
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.

Oh we do agree on that. I 100% think the company should be held responsible. They broke the law. I think the OP and her son should not get a penny, I think there should be a hefty fine and it should go to people who were actually exploited.

I look at as they are getting the money for bringing it to the government's attention so it assures it will not happen again. I do believe we have whistle blower laws that pay out much more.

Except they had no intention of bringing it to anyone's intention, in fact they were actively facilitating the problem. It was not until he got fired for breaking a policy three different times that they looked for payback. It's disgusting. Company should get a huge fine, whoever signed off on the hours should be fired. This family should not get a penny.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Grimpachi
Nope, my son has just deleted it from his CV/resume, no-one will ever know.

That is also not allowed, if he got a job and failed to tell of this job and his firing, he could be fired from his next job for Gaining employment by fraudulent means.
while I agree your son was taken advantage of, you and your son were happy with it while the getting was good and now you are not because your son got sacked.
He was sacked for breaking his terms of employment, three times.

The above is my rational, fair opinion.
I actually think it's good what you're doing, its nice when the little guy takes on the big company and hopefully you win your case.
If the guy was as much of an ass as you say, then good for you guys.

originally posted by: stargatetravels

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Grimpachi
Nope, my son has just deleted it from his CV/resume, no-one will ever know.

That is also not allowed, if he got a job and failed to tell of his firing, he could be fired from his next job for Gaining employment by fraudulent means.
while I agree your son was taken advantage of, you and your son were happy with it while the getting was good and now you are not because your son got sacked.
He was sacked for breaking his terms of employment, three times.

Bingo.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Point me to her post that talks about her not being fine with it.

It doesn't work that way bub. You made the claim that she was OK with the company and you posted where she said she was OK with her son. There is a difference. Now if you can find a post where she says she was OK with the company then I will admit I missed it otherwise you are taking liberties.

Well then you are being a hypocrite, I just showed you how she is doing EXACTLY what you claim makes you sick.

NO you're full of it. Show me where he or she broke the law.

My disgust at this parent looking for a payday when her son did something wrong in no way makes me sympathetic to the business.

So can you show me where the parent is getting a payday??? I swear I don't know how you come up with this stuff sometimes. It's like your mind rewrites everything you read to suit your notions but I knew that from the beginning when you took liberties with her story.

originally posted by: stargatetravels

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Grimpachi
Nope, my son has just deleted it from his CV/resume, no-one will ever know.

That is also not allowed, if he got a job and failed to tell of his firing, he could be fired from his next job for Gaining employment by fraudulent means.

I wouldn't be so sure because I think it was already stated that it was "legally" deleted that could also be due to his age.

a reply to: Grimpachi

She knew it was illegal. She did nothing to stop it. That is the very definition of being fine with it.

As I already showed, you said what disgusts you, and it's EXACTLY what the OP did. Everything was fine as long as the money was rolling in, it was not until the payday stopped that suddenly the company had to be turned in. Too late to take it back.

Who cares if the parent is getting a payday, in fact it's worse the son is. Either way this is my last reply on the subject, your words sum up my thoughts exactly ....

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.

Change that to ....

"Yeah the company I work for exploits minors but I am happy with the pay and hours I get so I am not going to say anything." Sick just sick.

... and then you have the OP (or at the very least her son).

My last reply on the subject so as to not derail it further.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: stargatetravels

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Grimpachi
Nope, my son has just deleted it from his CV/resume, no-one will ever know.

That is also not allowed, if he got a job and failed to tell of his firing, he could be fired from his next job for Gaining employment by fraudulent means.

I wouldn't be so sure because I think it was already stated that it was "legally" deleted that could also be due to his age.

regardless you will find that "defcon5"s point will cause the most issues....the fact that he did sue an ex employer will be a matter of public record and will affect him for life....much in the same way if you sue a doctor,you will find it very difficult to get proper medical care in the country that you have sued in...

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: stargatetravels

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Grimpachi
Nope, my son has just deleted it from his CV/resume, no-one will ever know.

That is also not allowed, if he got a job and failed to tell of his firing, he could be fired from his next job for Gaining employment by fraudulent means.

I wouldn't be so sure because I think it was already stated that it was "legally" deleted that could also be due to his age.

regardless you will find that "defcon5"s point will cause the most issues....the fact that he did sue an ex employer will be a matter of public record and will affect him for life....much in the same way if you sue a doctor,you will find it very difficult to get proper medical care in the country that you have sued in...

Actually laws are a lot diffrent in the UK.

When I sued my ex company for breach of health and saftey a contract had to be signed that fobade either of us from shareing what happened. If my company talk or give a bad refrence I can sue them even more for defamation and even press criminal charges. Same If Iname the company.

Not sure if that sort of thing is the norm but UK there are certain defamation rights.

Also cause of the NHS a doctor cant refuse to treat you here

Ah....how can the company have "exploited" him..it was his OWN effing choice to work 15hrs shifts and the OP also said in the 1st post the son WANTED it and was happy to work for the company.

Only AFTER he got booted, all of a sudden the work at the company magically becomes an "exploit"?

The ONLY "exploit" here according to the subjective opinion of the OP can be that the son then got booted, in her eyes unfairly...but since she doesn't even even SAY why the son got booted, the entire thread/debate is moot.

Prime example of hypocrisy here.

originally posted by: grainofsand
I was happy with my son working the hours because he was happy....

Funny, your thread title says "exploited"....

Just caught up with the overnight replies, and again I thank everyone for your interesting, thoughtful, entertaining, and/or emotional contributions.

I understand the distress some are feeling for the employer who will be punished for breaking the law, but as the business was so passionate about rules being followed, it is appropriate that the company leads by example and adheres closely to the laws applicable to them.

To those who are making moral assertions about myself or my son, I respect your right to share that opinion but it matters little to me and makes absolutely no difference from a legal perspective.
The law is clear:
A 16 year old cannot legally agree to work more than 8 hours in a day.
An employer who knowingly rota's excess hour shifts to a child is guilty of breaking exploitation law.
It is the sole responsibility of an employer to ensure that child employment law is followed, not the parent, or the child worker.

I have stated that a director used minor rules to sack my lad and his inspiration was because of personal reasons, not because of passion for 'the rules'. If anyone does not believe that, or refuses to accept it as a premise of the story, then discussion related to that is pointless, although amusing when I see how cross some posters appear to be about this.

Nobody is crying about the actual dismissal, there is no action being taken against the employer for that, as I've said previously in the topic. My son broke 'company rules' and was punished with dismissal, although inspired by the directors personal reasons, the facts are the facts and my son accepts the dismissal.
The company knowingly broke child employment laws and in the spirit of passion for 'rules is rules' exhibited by the employer, the company will now be punished for breaking the law.

Legally it is clear, and completely irrelevant if a child worker cared about working longer hours, enjoyed the work, or whatever the inspiration for the action is (revenge or otherwise) - It is a government agency which enforces these cases and the only pertinant question is did the employer knowingly break child employment laws.

You can cry as many tears as you like for an employer who knowingly breaks the law then gets sprung for it after being so vociferous with their own rules. But there are no tears about them enforcing the hidden jewellery rule on our side, my son got caught and accepts it. The company has broken the law and their strong example of 'rules is rules' is of equal inspiration to ensure that they experience the penalty appropriate to them.

As stated, you can bleat about the moral issues as much as you like but the company enforced their rules, as is their right, and a government agency will enforce the law on behalf of my son, as is his right.
A lesson for both parties, the employee learned that some employers are pricks and will selectively enforce rules because of personal reasons, so if you want to keep the job then you comply 100% or risk getting booted.
The employer learned that if you take the risk of breaking employment law then don't treat the hardworking employee like dirt. Win win for all.

Again, thank you for all replies to this thread, even the angry and emotional ones as they are amusing at the very least. It has been interesting to see the polarised views regarding the situation and how some folk are passionately complying employees with a deep 'company man' attitude. That is not me as you can probably imagine, but then I've been self employed for years and cannot imagine ever going back to being a nice little controlled employee working in fear of personal whims of the employer.

a reply to: grainofsand

Oh, yes they will. Employers talk to each other and know more than what's on a piece of paper. There are back channels that will expose every little thing they may want to know, but can't find on a job application. Any court proceedings involving your son will be known far and wide and can/will cost him future jobs or the boss asking him for extra help, which can impact his ability to show himself as a asset for the company. No employer wants a sue happy employee.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
The employee suffered a penalty for breaking company rules.
The employer will suffer a penalty for breaking employment law.
Which bit of that do you believe is factually incorrect?

I am sorry the OP appears to cause you such emotional distress, I just wish I could give you a hug and make it all better for you. Perhaps have a cup of tea, I find that often helps.

a reply to: DAVID64
Well that may or may not be the case, but thank you for sharing your opinion.
I assume you support employees remaining silent and never tackling employers who break the law then?
That is interesting, 'just bend over and take it' mentality as far as I can see. I support your right to bend over and take whatever you wish from an employer though. I am happy for you.

originally posted by: purplemer
In a case like this knowing parents should be as liable as the company is.

I agree, there could very well be a strong argument for the law to be changed as you suggest.
Right now though the responsibility is solely on the employer in the legislation, not the child worker or parents, and the business knowingly broke the law.
The business enforced their 'company rules' as was their right, now a government agency is enforcing the law on behalf of the employee, as is his right. Win win as far as I see it, both parties exercising their legal rights.
An employer who is passionate about all rules being complied with must also follow the laws appropriate to them.
This provides for an equitable working environment and employee/employer relationship.

You know, for the sake of your son, if he wins his case i hope he gets a confidentiality clause in any agreement. If word get around that your son took an employer to a tribunal and won (regardless of who was right or wrong) he might lose more job opportunities in the future because of it.
Employers are kinda funny that way.