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

a reply to: grainofsand

Yeah, sorry but this is the internet. I don't know you, therefore I don't trust you. I, like all of the other members of this forum, have nothing but the facts that are stated in the posts to base my opinions on. So without knowing the entire story, I can't side with you on this, not one bit.

a reply to: kdyam
Nope, just saying that employers must follow child employment laws if they are enforcing BS company regulations in a fascist style.

a reply to: parad0x122
Leave the thread then, if accepting a premise of a thread is too difficult for you.
Discussion is not always about evidence, sometimes concepts are interesting to discuss.

I'm sorry your child had that happen. My teeny bopper jobs always looked out for us.

For those that don't get it, child labor laws are there because children only think for the moment. The money right now, not the consequences. That means this law is needed more in some employment industries and children than others. It still applies.

The OP is pointing out irony. Nit everyone seems to get it.

a reply to: parad0x122
Do you support employers breaking child employment laws?

a reply to: grainofsand

They absolutely are interesting to discuss.

The main concept I'm interested in here though, is the concept of revenge.

The employer was good enough to put themselves at risk of legal action by allowing him to work more hours than he should have.

Your son had no problem cashing those checks while they were still coming, and you had no problem allowing him to be "taken advantage of".

Now that the cash cow has moved onto greener pastures, you're sour and seeking an underhanded lawsuit.

Great example to set for the young buck.

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.

But you as the parent allowed your son to work those hours right?

Peace

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: parad0x122
Do you support employers breaking child employment laws?

No, but by turning a blind eye during the entire duration of your son's employment, you did.

a reply to: Iamthatbish
Thank you.
I'm also pointing out that following rules is a two way street, employer and employee.
I'm amazed so many folk don't appear to see that.

originally posted by: jude11

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.

But you as the parent allowed your son to work those hours right?

Peace

It's okay jude, we don't "get the irony" the OP was trying to depict apparently.

a reply to: parad0x122
Irrelevant because the responsibility is on the employer to not break child labour legislation.
However my son felt about it is no defence in the employment court.
They fired him at the end of the season for some BS company rule.
They broke child labour laws for months.

a reply to: grainofsand

and because he knows he could beat him up in the outside real world

What mature thinking person thinks like that in a work enviroment?

I think there may be more to the story than being told and perhaps a chip on the shoulder mentality.

a reply to: parad0x122
Haha, my son loved the wages, but he broke no laws, the employer did.
He was not personally damaged, but the law does not care about that, it is clear about hours 16 year olds can work, and the employer knowingly broke the law as it suited them, and tried to screw him over something BS at the end of the season.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: grainofsand

and because he knows he could beat him up in the outside real world

What mature thinking person thinks like that in a work enviroment?

I think there may be more to the story than being told and perhaps a chip on the shoulder mentality.

MY sentiments exactly.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Iamthatbish
I'm also pointing out that following rules is a two way street, employer and employee.

So.... it's okay for you and your son to essentially bait the employer into breaking a law, but when your sons breaks a rule at work and is punished for it, it's no longer okay?

Wherever you live, I'd like to live there too. Sounds like conditional (read: only applicable when convenient) laws/rules are the next new-age fad.

a reply to: interupt42
Oh pathetic one liner comment, it was based on an assessment of why the director had alpha male issues.
If you don't understand that directors/managers are ever influenced by such things then you don't understand human males, or live in a world where no such issues are ever experienced.

I don't understand the motivation for firing your son. If it was the end of the season, then so what, why not just let him go on back to school. What did they have to gain or exploit by firing him?

I think your son probably handled things fine, but it seems you don't want him to be his own man. You never stepped in when he was being "exploited", so I really question what your motives are in general. You seem to be focusing on some technicality in the law rather than plain old right and wrong/morals/honor etc. to justify a sleasy money grab.

Facts: Your son worked for hours, got paid for those hours, and made more money than should have been possible in the period allowed. Your son got fired for 3 documented violations that he and you don't seem to dispute.

You son seems to have some class in wanting to let it ride, and I hope you tell him that, but there is no "exploitation" here. The honorable thing to do here is walk away.

I'd like to know what this rule he broke three times was. If it was truly minor, it should have no baring on your legal case, so you should be able to disclose the rule. Heck you may even have a wrongful termination suit. Though it is illuminating that you aren't pursuing such avenues and are instead pursuing this approach. I don't think this rule was as minor as you are claiming.

P.S. since you haven't given us your name, your son's name or the company in question, saying what the rule is that he broke would have no impact on your legal case. Heck even if it is a highly specific, minor rule you could still say it but make it vaguer. You aren't building sympathy for your case by not disclosing what your son did wrong though.

YOU JUST MADE GRAINS POINT. The child isn't mature or an adult.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: grainofsand

and because he knows he could beat him up in the outside real world

What mature thinking person thinks like that in a work enviroment?

I think there may be more to the story than being told and perhaps a chip on the shoulder mentality.