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

The OP better hope nobody finds out that they knew, and endorsed, their child during the breach of the labour laws.

If that becomes known, they will be brought in to the legal claim, just as assuredly as the business.

Have fun!

a reply to: interupt42
Good, Im pleased for you, I'm surprised that you did not see that in the OP title.
Why does 'revenge' trouble you in this circumstance?
The law does not care about revenge being the inspiration of a complaint.

originally posted by: peck420
The OP better hope nobody finds out that they knew, and endorsed, their child during the breach of the labour laws.

If that becomes known, they will be brought in to the legal claim, just as assuredly as the business.

Have fun!

You mean like this thread where a parent was happy to allow the child to work illegally, the son admittedly broke the dress code 3 times and now it's revenge time?

Peace

a reply to: grainofsand

A grand hole in a large number of this conflict is the fact the law you are so adamant has been broken is from 1933, as well it does not bring up the contract your son entered in to, most likely with your permission as he is not an adult.

The law is a tricky thing, and I have not delved to much deeper as of yet but there may be exceptions and amendments written into this law. Your sons rights at this time, have not been infringed upon as this is a labor law, not a fundamental right of your son. Again, being that this law is from 1933, encompasses some but not all regions of the United kingdom of Ireland, and England you may have no case here.

In fact you could bring future employment issues, as well as serious legal ramifications on to your son as well as self. I understand you are pissed off, but I'd seriously recommend conferring with a Lawyer and investigating your claims to the fullest extent before you take this to court.

There are also extensive laws to protect employers as well as businesses from "revenge" cases. Just pick your battles, and make sure you are 100% certain you have a case here or you may find yourself in the hot water.

a reply to: grainofsand

Good for You!.
If everyone did this simultaneously, it would
make a quick end of global economic exploitation.
maybe as a settlement, your son would accept the
Director's resignation.

Monty Python
Link : www.youtube.com...

I'm tired and sleepy after a long week so just wanna say goodnight, no more replies from me, sorry if I've not replied to you, and if you are crying about the 'poor' employer in this thread then you equally have to cry for the child who the employer knowingly broke the law as they booked the 12+ hour shifts in his rota.
Regardless of if the child wanted the hours or not, the employer has sole legal responsibility for the rota, and even if the child wants the work, it is the employer who breaks the law if they provide or require hours which break the rules.
If an employer uses company rules to fire an employee then they should adhere to national laws with the same passion.
UK law is clear on the hours a child can work, even if they like it or not, this company failed to comply with the law, and most ATS folk are giving me loads about my lad breaking 'company rules' but silent about breaking child employment laws.

...that says a lot to me.

a reply to: grainofsand

Upon further review, your son can work a 12-13 hr day if he agrees to do so, if you feel this is unfair it would have been up to you to say no how ever this did not seem to happen.

As well, the law basically states that because your son is 16 he can work up to 35 hrs a week it doesn't place the same restrictions as it does for those under 16. Your son can not be forced to work the hrs he did, but he seemed to agree and you did not object so the law was not broken as it is currently written.

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?

Actually, as a father of 6 and a grandfather of 2 this is what I would do:

First: I would have been well aware of the child labor laws. Why? Because it's my CHILD, and I would not want my child to be taken advantage of (I don't care how happy they might be, the law is the law). I would NOT allow my child to take advantage of a loop hole in a law.

You did.

Second: My children have always been taught that rules are there for a reason. Break a rule because you were not familiar with it? Okay, no problem. But now you are aware of the rule. Break it again? It's on THEM. I teach them to follow rules.

Wondering if your son was taught this.

Third: If my child was fired because they could not follow the rules at their place of employment (especially after 3 infractions), then I would tell them they deserved exactly what happened to them. The director is being a butt head? Sure. LOTS of directors, managers, supervisors can be butt heads. What I teach my kids is to NOT GIVE THEM ANY REASON THAT THEY CAN USE AGAINST THEM.

Apparently, you didn't teach your son that....hence he decide to say "The hell with the rules. I'll do what I want."

Last: Revenge. This is something that I would avoid using and teaching my children. Learn from their experiences. Learn how to avoid problems in the future. Learn how to work out issues.

Apparently you son was willing to do that. It was YOU, by your own admission, that decided to have your revenge.

Even though YOU knew full well that your son was exceeding the amount of hours he was allowed to work, you were quite happy to let the employer continue to break the law....as long as your son was receiving a paycheck.

What does that say about YOU? First you are going to ignore the law, because it worked out for your son? And now (because he couldn't follow rules at the work place....behavior that we have to wonder where he learned that from), the well has run dry. So NOW you suddenly have an issue with how many hours he worked.

Purely for revenge.

Way to go parent! This is what we should all teach our children: Screw over everyone you can for personal reasons. Don't worry about the law while you can take advantage of it.

If your story had ended with: So he learned an important lesson, that you should follow the rules at work, no matter how stupid they sound, and will try to do better in the future, and not give anyone a reason to fire him. I got mad, but my son kept a cool head about it.

If your story had ended there, I would have had a lot more respect for your son....and you.

Again: You had NO issues with the child labor laws while he was drawing a paycheck. You're not interested in the LAW.

You just want revenge.

And that's what you are teaching your son: always take revenge when you can.

originally posted by: grainofsand
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.

No one here is supporting the breach of the child employment law. The only person on this thread that knowingly allowed this law to be breached is yourself.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Erik, wise words. As it sits, I feel grains does not have a case. In fact I believe grains actions may be detrimental to his/her childs working career. At least as a teen.

With out seeing the complete law with all revisions and relating documents I could not say any more, but from what I have researched the employer is well with in the law regarding grains 16 year old. Now if he was 15 it would be considerably different as it appears there is absolutely no exception to how they can be scheduled out side of what is written in the law.

This is an incredibly easy law to research thus far. In fact both websites regarding labor laws, as well as the UK government website for child labor laws intended for employer use are easy to navigate and excellent resources. Was the first result in my google search in fact.

a reply to: flammadraco

The law was not breached. The 16 year old was never forced to work any hours, and grains has yet to state that he was scheduled more than 35 hrs a week. Any block of which the 16 year old agreed to under 35 total a week, is 100% legal by UK law as long as all hrs were paid the appropriate wage.

At 16 he can legally agree to work any and all hours up to 35 a week. He can also legally sign an employment contract, and be bound by it's rules.

There is no legal case here.

a reply to: grainofsand

It should say a lot to you. If the majority feels some kind of way about something then maybe you should look into why that is instead of tossing it out right off. Most of the folks at ATS are parents and they have given you advice that they have either used or were taught themselves. We all understand the ANGRY bear parent. Not one of us on here can say that we don't.

But it's not fair to your son if you can never take a step back and look at the situation from anything other than a parental view. You have taught your son that he doesn't have to follow the rules and that it is worthy of revenge if he is terminated for not doing so.

I have tattoos that are visible regardless of what I wear. I am aware that this inhibits my employment opportunities greatly. When I got the last of these tattoos I was employed. I knew full well what risk I was taking in doing something like that during employment. Luckily, I was not terminated, but I could have been angry at no one but myself if I had been. I thought it was really stupid that I couldn't get a tattoo where I wanted even though I was a great worker... but thinking it was stupid did not give me the right to do so without repercussions.

I'm not downing you or your son. I am a mother and am trying to say that sometimes it's hard to see our kids get knocked down by the world. But it happens and it's better they learn it early on in life instead of thinking their life is over at 40 because they've had the wind knocked out of their sails.

Getting even and seeking revenge for a simple life lesson is a little more than I would have done. I think many here just want you to see that. That's all.

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.

What about parents who knowingly let their kids work under conditions that they know are against the law for employers? If you know this is the law, why did you let your son work there? We understand that the employer is held "Legally" responsible, but what about morally and ethically? You are just as culpable.

One of the many reasons these Child Labour Laws are needed is because of parents like you.

You and the Employer are on the SAME ground. Although your son seems to have some morals which you could learn from...

a reply to: Hijinx
Oh please, I was going to bed, but your silly 'armchair lawyer' advice forced me to post.
We contacted a government agency, provided them with the evidence of timesheets/bank statements/rota's/etc and they have run with it because the employer broke child employment law.
If they'd given him a printed reference for a future employer then this wouldn't have happened, but they refused.

And your silly suggestion that my 'complicity' in my son working over hours is something I should be scared of litigation is ridiculous.
No, I'm sorry you didn't know that it is the sole responsibility of the employer. They broke the law.
My son was happy working the hours and they alone broke UK law, not me, or him.
Only the employer can be prosecuted, and regardless of anyone else's reasons for involvment.

...this is about rules being enforced for the sake of rules, just in law and not 'company policy', can't have one without the other.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

a reply to: grainofsand

a reply to: grainofsand

I never claimed to be a lawyer, I used google went to the UK government websites regarding child labor, as well as employing children, of which your son is not by uk law. I merely suggested you do some research, as well as confer with a LAWYER.


Time will tell, how ever I personally do not agree with you. I feel the law was respected in this regard, and I will not devolve to insulting you to prove my point. I was merely attempting to help you understand your sons employers permission.

You have also now stated you are going after the employer, because they did not offer a reference. Employers do not have to provide a reference again, this is something most often discussed or outlined in the employment contract.

Haha, OK I guess nobody understands that a child can chuckle at employment law, and with the shared concern of a parent who has a close relationship with his child know that he is not being exploited, yet use exploitation laws to punish employers who have broken the law and fired someone for lesser offences.
Wow, the 'hidden jewellery crime' is more important than the child labour crime on ATS, that is tragic.

a reply to: grainofsand
I'm out, I hope your son finds a good role model, continues to work hard, and does great things with his life.

Keep your nose clean, and your head up.

a reply to: Blaine91555
The individual director screwed him over for personal reasons and picked him out over other staff for the minor offences, guess you love authority, unless it involves stopping employers making over hours rota's for child workers?