It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 15
15
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand


Thoughts anyone?

the love of money is the root of all evil




posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Well... this is a complicated situation.

On one hand, they broke the law. Simple as that. When you break the law, you have to pay for it.

On the other hand, your actions and motivations do sound a bit... immature.

You're right in going after them, they did something against the law. But you should've done that before, and not just to get back at them.

Legally, you seem to be 100% correct.

Morally... you're neither right or wrong, IMO.

The reason why I say this is because you knowingly let it happen and it didn't bother you, so you're clearly not doing this because it's the right thing to do. As a parent, you should be teaching your kid to do the right thing, and not just when it's convenient for him.

But, as I said, his former boss does deserve to pay for breaking the law. So... good luck with that. Just remember to teach your son good morals, and not just how to succeed in life no matter what. And I say this with no intention to offend you, just as a general statement.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob
Thank you sir, I missed it in all the posts, yeah the bracelet seems to be only a small part. If that was truly the only reason, the company should be punished, but I bet there were other reasons.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
www.gov.uk... info on child labor laws in uk for any one curious about them and feel they are relevant in the context of the OP


Part-time work The youngest age a child can work part-time is 13, except children involved in areas like: television theatre modelling Children working in these areas will need a performance licence. Full-time work Children can only start full-time work once they’ve reached the minimum school leaving age - they can then work up to a maximum of 40 hours a week. Once someone reaches 16, you may need to pay them through PAYE. Once someone reaches 18, adult employment rights and rules then apply.



4. Restrictions on child employment There are several restrictions on when and where children are allowed to work. Children are not allowed to work: without an employment permit issued by the education department of the local council, if this is required by local bylaws in places like a factory or industrial site during school hours before 7am or after 7pm for more than one hour before school (unless local bylaws allow it) for more than 4 hours without taking a break of at least 1 hour in most jobs in pubs and betting shops and those prohibited in local bylaws in any work that may be harmful to their health, well-being or education without having a 2-week break from any work during the school holidays in each calendar year There are also special rules which only apply during term times and school holiday times. Term time rules During term time children can only work a maximum of 12 hours a week. This includes: a maximum of 2 hours on school days and Sundays a maximum of 5 hours on Saturdays for 13 to 14-year-olds, or 8 hours for 15 to 16-year-olds School holiday rules During school holidays 13 to 14-year-olds are only allowed to work a maximum of 25 hours a week. This includes: a maximum of 5 hours on weekdays and Saturdays a maximum of 2 hours on Sunday During school holidays 15 to 16-year-olds can only work a maximum of 35 hours a week. This includes: a maximum of 8 hours on weekdays and Saturdays a maximum of 2 hours on Sunday Local rules on the types of work children can do Local bylaws list the jobs that children can’t do. If a job is on this list, a child under the minimum school leaving age can’t do this work. Local bylaws may also have other restrictions on working hours, conditions of work and the type of employment.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I'm just curious why the OP didn't hire his son since he mentioned his firm routinely hires youth labor. Could have made sure he received the proper pay, worked the lawful hours, dealt with prick bosses, and received a letter of recommendation at the end of his employment.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Apologies for my absence from the thread but busy Monday working ,and fun evening watching England beat Switzerland in the Euro qualifiers at mates last night. Right, I'll be as succinct as possible, and particular with my replies because Wales (My home nation) are playing Andorra tonight so internet debate aint happening then lol.


a reply to: hammanderr
Totally agree about the 'unholy alliance' thing, it was at that exact point when the employers principled expression of 'rules is rules' became a one way street, although an alliance requires an agreement, and in this case the employer did not discuss with ,or advise the child employee (my son), at any time that it was illegal so the alliance was also a one way street as far as the employer knew.
It is very interesting to read the emotional replies crying for the employer and ignoring that the employee was treated poorly by a director for weeks, assigned the horrible jobs nobody wanted etc, but because the director couldn't 'break him' to resign, he spitefully found a different route.


originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: grainofsand
I bet employers love your apparent submissive and compliant style, regardless of conditions the employer is putting you under. I don't just bend over for anyone, and I'm glad my son doesn't, but I am happy for you if 'get the lube out and bend over with no questions' is the advice you would give a child of your own.


My advice to my child would be that you're not being employed to be a special snowflake, you're employed to do the jobs that your employer requires. Your decision is between following the rules set out by the company, or finding work elsewhere.

My advice to employees would be that you're not being employed to be a special snowflake, you're employed to do the jobs that your employer requires. Your decision is between following the rules that I have set out for the company, or finding work elsewhere.

Oh please, special snowflake, that is your invention, not mine.
The particular director had personal issues with him and as a result of that he treated him like dirt. The employee wouldn't be broken, and did everything just to prove to the prick that he could. The director then used lame rules which most other employees did not follow. If you support that behaviour by a bad director then it unfortunate, but if you don't believe it as a premise for the OP discussion, then it is pointless continuing any debate between ourselves.


The thing about battles is learning when to pick them. Racist behaviour, sexual harassment? That's a battle worth fighting. Wearing a bracelet? What a ridiculous choice for a last stand.

You obviously didn't read the thread properly. Please stop adding your imagination to the facts of this case, it is not over 'wearing a bracelet'. If you don't believe me that's cool, but it prevents debate if the premise is not accepted and anything else can only be considered trolling really..


You and your son aren't fighting to right some terrible wrong, you're not protecting the world from the next Bhopal or Exxon. You were perfectly happy when the money was rolling in. Now you're acting out of spite. You're not exposing hypocrisy, you're wallowing in it.

Nope, just following the fine example by the employer that 'rules is always rules', even when appropriate to them, can't have it both ways can we.

a reply to: EvillerBob
Your 'special snowflake' line is again invented by you alone. Nowhere in this thread have I indicated anything to support you using it twice on this page. If you are not prepared to have reasoned and adult debate without asserting invented positions that I have not presented myself then I shall no longer engage with you.


originally posted by: network dude
What kind of lesson is your son learning from all this?

Urm...quick answer: Empowerment.

a reply to: Thill
Cheers for the concern, but choices have been made so it's irrelevant now, what happens happens and it's a case of deal with it or cry. Crying doesn't ever help much.

a reply to: LukeDAP

Legally, yep, absolutely clear, the employer alone broke the law, nobody else.
Morally, yes of course it is a massive question, but this is not the philosophy forum, and even if it was, the premise of the OP that the employer treated employee like dirt, in a sustained way for months, would have to set the theme of debate.
Lots of emotional people asserting invented situations in the discussion while refusing to believe the statements in the OP.

a reply to: illusion987
If you don't believe the OP and subsequent posts as factual then no worries, but you have nothing to support that view, aside from your assessment of my typed words.
If you can see anything I've posted to support your doubts about the stated situation then please feel free to quote me, otherwise I shall just dismiss your post as an emotional sidetrack.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas
Cheers for that but I'd already posted the exact same link earlier in the thread.



originally posted by: redinPA
I'm just curious why the OP didn't hire his son since he mentioned his firm routinely hires youth labor. Could have made sure he received the proper pay, worked the lawful hours, dealt with prick bosses, and received a letter of recommendation at the end of his employment.

He wanted to do his own thing and experience his own independent journey into first employment. I respected that with a smile for his independent spirit.
He's learned loads more about tyrant employers and prick bosses this summer than he ever would working for me or any of my self-employed contractor mates, because we are not tyrants or pricks, and we treat our young workers nice.
He will be working part time for me now he has started college, and I am pleased both employee and employer have learned lessons during the eventful chain of events this summer.

Again, thanks for all the interesting, thoughtful, or amusing/emotional replies, but I'm off to watch Wales play Euro qualifier football/soccer tonight so I won't be back here until tomorrow at least.

Kindest regards, as always,

GoS



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
*Update, but too late to edit last post*

In true independent spirit my son did not want to take the easy option of working part time with me now he's started college, so has spent the last couple of weeks applying for work anywhere he can. 30+ applications later he got an interview today and starts work next weekend.

He included the previous job in the OP on his application form and when asked about it told the complete truth about working long and hard but being sacked at the end of the season for the 'hidden bracelet' crime 3 times. He explained he had learned his lesson and hoped the breach of rules wouldn't harm his chances of future work.

Well, here's the best bit, the interviewer said they were aware about such practices by the previous employer from other people, and that if he was good enough to be used for 12/13 hour shifts when they needed the staff then his work must have been up to scratch.
Knowing he is 16 years old, the interviewer also volunteered to my son that they must have broken the law due to the child employment restrictions, my son told the truth that a legal case is in progress.
Interviewer told him that bad employers need to be punished as they give a bad name to businesses. Then also said they have the same view towards bad employees, and the same mindset of company rules, so if he breaks them he will be dealt with appropriately, but within the law. However, if he proves to be a hard worker and toes the line then they will treat him well as they do all their employees, staff discount scheme with themselves and other local businesses, free gym membership, £2 per hour more than the last employer, and permanent all year work with shifts designed to fit around his study/college time.

Can I prove any of this? Of course, but that would require identifying the parties involved in this story so that ain't happening, so to the posters who cry 'I don't believe it' in this thread I say don't waste your time as I don't care in the slightest. It is a story thrown out for discussion and debate is stifled if the premise is not accepted.

My son has learned a lesson from this experience, the rogue employer is learning a lesson right now, and I have actually learned a lesson from my son. It was my suggestion to miss out his experience with the rogue employer on his CV but he refused on reasons of principle, arguing 'the truth is the truth' and he didn't want to lie or hide anything. I totally respect his stance.

...and now he can comfortably wait for that compensation offer from the previous employer, it will be in the thousands, and he's soon old enough to drive so it will go a long way towards driving lessons, car, insurance etc - It seems they picked on the wrong child worker this time, and I hope they learn their lesson, if only for the young people they still employ and continue to treat badly.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand
Just on the question of how much your son might get in compensation...
If a employer states that any financial remuneration awarded to your son will result in the unemployment of others within the company, your son could win the case but end up with nothing other than the knowledge he was right and they were wrong.

Saw this happen before at industrial tribunals. Hope it's not the case but something to remember when he walks through that door. it's not always black and white in these matters



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol
True, nothing is ever black and white in life, although the law is clear in this case, breaches of child worker regulations will result in a fine for the employer if found guilty. There is overwhelming evidence to support the charge, which is why ACAS have taken the case on.
ACAS is a government body which wants to save as much money for the state as possible during employer/employee diputes. Referral to a full tribunal costs the state money in legal/administrative fees as well so if it can be avoided it will be, every time.

Employer has been told by ACAS that they are looking at the max £5000 fine if it goes to tribunal, plus compensation and costs, and employer knows it will also cost them a fortune in legal fees if they defend it. It is now the choice of the employer to take a fine (which will be enforced regardless of if the business will suffer), or make an 'out of court/tribunal' offer to settle the matter in agreement with the employee.
Regardless of any other considerations, the employer is certain to make a compensation offer that is cheaper than the fine and legal costs so it is unlikely to be fifty quid and a bag of chips.




edit on 11-9-2014 by grainofsand because: Typo



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand


Interesting to see you have worked as a contractor.

One man band ltd company?



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: selfharmonise
I continue to work as a self-employed contractor, and if anyone carries out work for me then it is under a self-employed arrangement with invoices provided.
Under UK law I am personally responsible for any breach of law, losses, and/or debts. Unlike a limited company, limited liability partnership, or PLC, I am personally responsible for everything, so I have to be careful as if I mess up I could see court bailiffs legally taking my personal possessions to pay for any liabilities.
On the other hand though, I take all the profit of my work, and it is a simple process declaring my taxes each year compared to the legislation while doing my thing as a seperate legal entity.

...which bit do you see most interesting about that?

*Edit*
It is my informed choice to run my business life as a 'sole trader' and not as a seperate legal entity, and I ask what you find interesting about that with regards to the OP?

edit on 11-9-2014 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

They're not going to settle, if they have to pay the fine regardless.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Hijinx
Ah perhaps my reply was not clear enough (the employer can avoid the fines and costs with an offer to the employee) I shall 'bold' the important bits:



Employer has been told by ACAS that they are looking at the max £5000 fine if it goes to tribunal , plus compensation and costs, and employer knows it will also cost them a fortune in legal fees if they defend it . It is now the choice of the employer to take a fine (which will be enforced regardless of if the business will suffer), or make an 'out of court/tribunal' offer to settle the matter in agreement with the employee.


The 'regardless of if the business will suffer' bit was in context to the reply to soloprotocal regarding his comments of compensation and businesses potentially putting others out of work as a result of having to pay.
This compensation is being encouraged and sanctioned by the government body to avoid a full tribunal which is already clear cut in it's expected outcome.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Yep....and I bet you conveniently disregard ir35.

You know you're a parasite and that's why you offer so much up front in defence.

You're training your son exactly the same way.

Good luck.

Over and out.


a reply to: grainofsand


edit on 12-9-2014 by selfharmonise because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-9-2014 by selfharmonise because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Hijinx
Oh dear, did you not read my last reply at all?
The employer is able to avoid the fine by making an offer which is acceptable to the employee.
Which bit of that do you not understand?



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: selfharmonise
Nope, that is entirely the invention of your own mind.
Try again.

*Edit*
I thank you for your good luck wishes though

edit on 12-9-2014 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

If they were found to have broke the law, they will have to pay the fine regardless.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hijinx
a reply to: grainofsand

If they were found to have broke the law, they will have to pay the fine regardless.

No, you are incorrect. You may not like being incorrect but you are.
The government body in charge of the case have confirmed to me and the employer that no further action will be taken if the employee accepts an out of court/tribunal offer of compensation by the employer.
Perhaps you live in a different country with different rules, but in the UK the state will always try for a settlement without formal legal action because it saves money for all the parties involved, including the state.
The government body is supporting punishment for the employer who broke child employment law. A decent compensation payment is adequate punishment as far as the agency is concerned.
There will be no formal action if the employee settles with the compensation.

Now, do you accept that as being the case or are you going to continue making things up about UK employment dispute procedures which you really know nothing about?



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
This like statutory rape the girl may have slept with 100+ guys
But if ur #101 & ur 18 & shes 15 guess who broke the law & going to jail , so employer is 200% in the wrong



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: blackz28
That is how the UK agency governing employment disputes sees it as well. Law is the law after all, just as 'rules is rules' so passionately enforced by the company.
The moral questions being bleated about by so many in this thread are irrelevant in law, the rogue employer selectively used lame 'rules is rules' to dismiss the employee when they no longer needed him, and the employee is now using the exact same tactic with legislation. Can't have it both ways, and I am happy to teach my son to fight back whenever he can instead of bending over and taking mistreatment with a smile.

I do however support the right of other parents in this thread to encourage their children to blindly accept being screwed over by rogue employers or otherwise. I disagree of course, but support their right to raise the next generation of compliant wage slaves if they wish.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join