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

a reply to: flammadraco
It was totally about a personal issue between the director and my son, how would an internal appeal ever resolve anything?
My son got screwed by a 'company rule' which many staff ignored, but used the same rules to fire him because of personal issues of a director. The company broke laws about child labour so rather than spending months fighting a case of unfair dismissal which relies on testimony which cannot be proven, just go for the throat and screw them back for breaking employment law.
Why are so many in this thread supporting employers who break child labour law? I'm actually shocked.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: parad0x122
Why not?
The employer knowingly broke the law and one particular director screwed him over because he didn't like him.
I'm shocked that so many replies support employers who breal child labour laws and then support company directors who fire workers inspired by personal reasons.
Is payback so bad, or do y'all just accept whatever an employer wants to enforce as it suits them?

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: jude11
But...Your son knowingly broke the law...You knowingly allowed him to break the law

Nope, the employer broke the law, it is quite clear in legislation.
I was happy with my son working the hours because he was happy....but the employer still knowingly broke the law.
A child does not commit a crime working more hours than child labour laws prescribe. The employer does, alone.

??? shocked ???

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: yeahright
The facts have been provided as they are.
I had hoped the carefully chosen words in the OP explained everything clearly.
Perhaps not to some folk.
How you see it is how it is in this thread. I'm surprised so many are angry that my son wore jewellery hidden under his work coat but they are happy that an employer broke child labour laws...shocked actually.

Nobody is angry that your son wore jewelry under his work clothes. I don't know if anyone is actually angry at all.

He broke the rule three times which is enough to get him fired. It seems like a trivial rule but breaking a dress-code three times is enough to get most people fired. Having said that, I have no doubt that this director and your son had some static and the further, I believe you when you describe the director as a dominant jerk out to get your son.

I have a hard time believing that there wasn't some posturing going on with both sides though, specifically with the mention of who could take out whom, which is completely out of context regarding an employment situation. The "revenge" aspect is morally crappy and the fact that you were willing to overlook that while it suited your son is double dipping on the morally crappy, which is going to rub people the wrong way. I don't know what you think you are teaching him here, but this whole spiel looks like a calculated effort toward deniability and against accountability.

The law is the law, they shouldn't have done it. This is a situation where that old saying that stirring the pot just makes it stink more is worth considering. I doubt that your sons conduct was as stellar as you are making it out to be and I think you may end up with some mud on your face (and your sons) by the time you are done.

It just really looks like you are trying to make excuses for your sons mistake and possibly even trying to profit with a lawsuit in an predatory way.

a reply to: grainofsand

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: flammadraco
Why are so many in this thread supporting employers who break child labour law? I'm actually shocked.

I don't believe any one here is in favor of child labor. In fact it's an insult to many.

What many are pointing out here is that if the employer broke the law then you helped by allowing it to happen. In some courts that would be an accomplice.

You were happy to let your son work all those hours because he was happy. You were aware of everything from the start. But now you will sue and gain from it.

Peace

originally posted by: grainofsand
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.

What's pathetic is your original line that your son could "beat him up in the outside world". Are you sure YOU aren't the 16 yr old in question masquerading on here as the parent? Also, if the company is going to be legally punished for violating child labour laws, then you should be as well, as you are completely complicit.

a reply to: Halfswede
Yes, I'm shocked so many replies are supporting the peronal decisions made by a director about 'company rules' but happy about the same director breaking child employment law...can't have it both ways if one is trying to be holier than thou.

I see several posters complain that Grains son willingly worked those extra and unlawful hours. in many cases people do not object to overtime because that could end in their dismissal.

OTOH the boss is required to be aware of child labor laws and following them is an actual legal requirement put on the employer.

Strange how many are seeing the following company rules as all important, while having no regards to actual laws being broken.

The boss sounds like a banty rooster that ruled the roost, until he met up with a hound dog! lol's

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: interupt42
My son (and I) broke no laws.
The responsibility of child labour laws is solely on the employer.
Try again fella, fail.

Again you are trying to act the victim and set the argument and taking no responsibility. You as a parent do have responsibility when it comes to a minors employement.

Yes if the company broke child labour laws they should be prosecuted.

However, what everyone is tyring to point out to you is: that you and your child were perfectly fine with breaking the law until he got fired. Why did child labour laws become important to you only after he got fired?

a reply to: redhorse
The law is clear.
It is the employers responsibility to rota shifts appropriate to the law when employing minors in the UK.

a reply to: Blaine91555
I was happy for my son to work as much as he was happy working, but when the employer screwed him over for personal reasons I will support him screwing them back for breaking child employment laws. Would you not?

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
Strange how many are seeing the following company rules as all important, while having no regards to actual laws being broken.

a reply to: Hendrick99
[/yawn] You obviously did not understand the context of the explanation in the OP or subsequent posts.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Blaine91555
I was happy for my son to work as much as he was happy working, but when the employer screwed him over for personal reasons I will support him screwing them back for breaking child employment laws. Would you not?

OK so you finally answered, it was out of revenge.

Personally , at 16 I think there might have been a better lesson to teach my son.

In my opinion it doesn't matter what the rule was or why they had it. It was a rule they made and your son accepted as terms of his employment. Maybe the employers just don't like self expression, who knows? What I do know is that it is their business and if one agrees to be employed, then one agrees to follow the rules. It's not follow the rules you like and screw the other ones. It also doesn't matter if it was after his shift, in the middle of his shift or two days prior to his next shift... he was caught. 3 times.

Stupid rule? Maybe. But by accepting the job, he accepted the stupid rule as a condition.

I know that's not what most want to hear, but a lot of us have worked in many places that had "stupid" rules. We complained about them and if they bothered us enough.... we looked for other employment. If not, we just kept our mouth shut and did what we had to do to bring home the bacon.

I agree that they should not have broken the labor laws, but I too... feel that it is petty to turn around and sue/turn them in for doing something you knew was illegal but were fine with UNTIL your son got fired. You'll win the case no doubt, but if it was a problem, then it should have been a problem before termination and not afterward.

Nobody is happy when they feel like their kid got the shaft. I understand the anger here. I would have just chalked it up to a lesson learned though. JMO.

a reply to: grainofsand

Quit calling the Rule BS. The rule was obviously important enough to fire your hard working son over. I'm sorry you have a sore spot, yes it is Ironic the company doesn't follow labor laws, but it's also ironic you are so hot to defend him when he broke the rules, then insult the rule, insult the manager yet refrain from telling us what this rule was.

Businesses have rules for a reason, quite often those rules are part of an employment contract. Whether you agree with those rules or not, if broken this can be ground for termination.

You mention your son broke this rule, not once, but three times. Perhaps it is your son who is diving for alpha male status. Some times power is more than physique, and your son though fit obviously could not stand up to the rules of his job and was in turn fired by his superior.

No I do not agree with the company breaking the rules, how ever the Irony is you being upset for the same thing with the company, that your son did. You can not demonize one, and expect us not to criticize the other.

originally posted by: grainofsand
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.

You keep saying this, but you also keep refusing to say what rule he broke three times by hiding behind an "ongoing issue." B.S. There's not a damn thing that would happen if you told us what rule he broke THREE TIMES. Nothing. YOU SAY it's a "BS Rule" but all we have is your word for it, and your word isn't so hot. Even if your son did not have the legal standing to work those hours, YOU knew damn well what hours he was working and you allowed it to continue with your full knowledge. You were COMPLICIT in this the entire way UNTIL he got fired. It was only THEN that you decided to invoke the child labour laws as a way of retaliation. All that tells us is that if he had not been fired you would have continued to go along with this illegality as long as possible. At best, you're a hypocrite.

originally posted by: Hendrick99
if the company is going to be legally punished for violating child labour laws, then you should be as well, as you are completely complicit.

Nope, in the UK the employer is solely legally responsible for complying with child employment laws.
...don't try the guilty parent stuff with me, my son wanted the work so I was happy. The employer broke the law and will be punished. My son broke 'company rules' and was fired...we're all happy, well maybe not the prick employer.

a reply to: Blaine91555

You obviously are not one of the posters I was referring to, and I agree that both parties have their wrongs, I feel that the employer cast the first stone in firing the youth for a trivial rule violation, which was foolish as the laws that the employer disregarded have a harsher penalty.

I would add the boss might have spent his time more wisely studying the labor laws than becoming expert on trivial company rules and policies.

a reply to: grainofsand

I hope you have a good Lawyer, because you are the legal guardian of your son and it is your right to ensure he is protected and that if his rights are infringed upon that you speak up for him.

I bet this company has a much better lawyer than you can afford. Sometimes it's best not to jump into the pot.