It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:03 PM

originally posted by: redhorse

originally posted by: jude11
a reply to: grainofsand

I only state this because it seems that a false statement might have been made by your son as to his legal age and ability to work at all? Just a guess of course. Or did the employer falsify a document? Or you?

When you started the OP I believe many thought this was a kid working for cash. At least I did.

So now my question is if the Director even knew he had hired someone illegally because Paperwork is a different story.


Or the whole story is absolute B.S.

Listen, I know I'm going to get hammered for this but most of the OP's post history is made up of Oh Yeah, That Really Happened Stories, or some obscure piece of internet journalism that he uses to posit some That Happened Story. Almost all of which center obsessively around his alleged 16 year old brilliant, athletic, perfect-in-every-way, son who only got that we because the OP is a wonderful, responsible, always-has-his-boy's-back, emotionally-well-rounded father.

All of the capers of this father son duo that we are treated to are carefully interwoven and then defended with a cognitive dissonance that is breath-taking in its totality and a hypocrisy so baffling and yet consistent that it can only be achieved by the profoundly self-unaware or a very, very gifted (if twisted) story-teller.
Personally, I'm betting on the former. I think that he is the son or possibly, he does have a sixteen year old son somewhere and he isn't allowed anywhere near that kid. The wish-fulfillment aspect is so consistent in these posts you could almost dance to it no matter what. Not to mention that most of these posts are hung on some moral dilemma or divisive topic that the OP inevitably takes some self-righteous and/or morally gray stance on. It is just really... weird and suspicious.

I try to take posters at face value, but this guy so obsessively churns out I'm A Great Dad self-aggrandizement agenda driven posts that if he does have a son I would be very worried about that son's emotional well-being. I hope he doesn't.

So, this is an attack I suppose and I apologize jude for using your post for a de-rail and a personal attack on the OP. I expect to get reprimanded by the moderators accordingly but good lord... Somebody needed to say it. Grainofsand is either completely full of it or desperately in need of therapy or some unknown combination of the two. I will say, it is usually interesting though.

No worries,

You may be right.


posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:04 PM

originally posted by: Halfswede

I don't think anyone is taking issue with the legality of the employers actions in regard to working the extra hours. The problem people have is that the OP fully admits:
"I was happy with my son working the hours..."

So? I'd feel exactly the same way.

So many lazy useless kids today. But, here's a kid willing to work, and work long hours.

There are many ways this employer could have handled the situation, so that there wasn't a problem. The employer created the problem. The employer is responsible. PERIOD!

My kid was working at 13, making calls for an insurance agent. The insurance agent contacted her school and made it legal by signing up as a work program. She got paid and got school credit. There are ways to do things and ways not to do things.

I had a job once as assistant to owner of a small company. He neglected to tell his wife, who was the office manager. Not my fault, but she sure blamed me -- and made work hell.

Who knows why a manager has it in for a specific employee. It happens.

edit on 5-9-2014 by Annee because: DAMN QUOTES

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:05 PM
a reply to: grainofsand

Sorry but I don't have any real sympathy for this and I personally believe you should be entitled to nothing. You admit you knew he was working these long hours that were in violation of the law.... yet he didn't complain cause he loved the money and obviously you had no complaints cause he was happy. You had plenty of time to file a complaint but you chose not to do so......

Now that he no longer has this job, working extra hours he should not have been working, so no extra money, now it's a problem? Why?

The answer is simple. He is not making the money any more. Seems to me your issue is not with the hours worked, but rather that he went above and beyond and was not shown any loyalty in return. Well guess what? He just learned a valuable lesson in how the world works in regards to business. However I would say you are wrong. By your own admission your son wanted every hour of work he could get. The company gave it to him and in doing so put themselves at risk. I would suggest that his hard work and loyalty was paid back by putting themselves at risk and by demanding some type of compensation you are being petty, unreasonable, and flat out wrong.

Nobody likes to get fired but it happens. You should be happy he was given an opportunity to make extra money and that the company was willing to put themselves at risk in doing so. No one had a problem with it when it happened. .. everyone was happy. You have no right to complain about anything.

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 10:00 PM

originally posted by: Halfswede

The people like the OP who keep pointing at some "BS rule" and blaming the business may be correct in the letter of the law, but cannot seem to grasp any sense of honor or moral decency which precedes law by eons. The only correct move here is to walk away.

You simply don't get to have any moral high ground when you fully support your son's activities and then cry foul at how he was "exploited" when you openly SUPPORTED the exploitation. The fact that the OP can't see this makes me incredibly sad that there are people who literally can't tell right from wrong at a fundamental level.

Sir or Ma'am... Imagine me standing up and applauding you right now. You hit the nail squarely on the head and said it much better than I tried to.

Yes, yes, yes..... 1,000 times this ^^^^^^^^


a reply to: redhorse

You get a clap as well. After reading the entire thread and your post... I would have to say that you may likely be right.
edit on 9/5/2014 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 10:22 PM

originally posted by: grainofsand
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?

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Straw-man arguments don't work all that well with me I'm afraid. I said or implied no such thing.

Perhaps set the emotion aside and reread my posts?

There were wrong things done here and that is crystal clear. Your kid thumbed his nose at the rules that were a condition of his employment and that should not be forgiven out of anger at another employee's bad behavior.

There are always reasons for rules and they are generally good ones that are well thought out. Even that does not matter. What message does it send to a young person if they don't learn to pay a price for bad behavior. It's OK to break the rules as long as you don't get caught?

Have either of you gone over that other employees head and talked to an exec or owner? That's the first step I'd take. You have no way of knowing if that person was even following company policy. The way to the truth is built upon good communications. He might of got his job back if he is being completely honest with you.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 10:42 PM
a reply to: MrWendal

Seems to me your issue is not with the hours worked, but rather that he went above and beyond and was not shown any loyalty in return. Well guess what? He just learned a valuable lesson in how the world works in regards to business.

What is truly sad here is the company and a 16 year old youth are learning the consequences of having an incompetent in the position of director. If the director was not breaking the law by over scheduling and working a minor past the legal limit the company would not have a problem.

I realize not everyone is an alpha and in many cases those that wanna be will stoop to underhanded actions if they feel their position is challenged. A 30 yr old man in charge of seasonal workers that takes issue with a 16 yr old kid has some very serious problems, I hope he, the director finds professional help before it is to late.

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 10:49 PM

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

OK if it isn't going to come back on him then I say go for it.

Many "real" world life lessons will be learned.

Like it is a dog eat dog world and you should never throw stones if you live in a glass house.

In this case the manager who fired him for a rules is rules policy will certainly come to appreciate that application of laws are laws.

Personally I am also certain that if your son or you had made a stink about adhering to the laws and he had declined to cover other shifts of missing people based on the law the employer would have found some reason to let him go much earlier. That is also how the real world works.

Honestly the company should have never have asked him to work those hours. Very few tenagers would say no to authority. That is one reason the laws exist.

Hey he also learned there will almost always be some jack arse in the position of authority where you work. He will probably learn that lesson many times over throughout his life.

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 10:57 PM
a reply to: grainofsand

This could backfire on your son later down the line depending on who said directors are connected with. Its a very small world and if other companies see that you are quick to take a company to acas then that will harm his employment chances to a degree.

Its utter BS the child labour laws stopping kids earning money when nike and adidas and all the other big name brands all employee children in third world countries, your kid should just ask for a reference not compensation it has probably already cost the firm 5000 pounds just by acas getting involved (not 100% sure on that)

just rely on Karma catching up with the ego tripper.

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 11:57 PM

originally posted by: grainofsand
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.

Then how come you never reported the company BEFORE the lawsuit? I mean you knew they were breaking laws and you responses on the topic in this thread prove that you willingly allowed the laws to be broken for your/your son's gain.

This shows your mentality and hopeful the court points this out when you/your son are on the stand. You didn't think about that did you?

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 08:22 AM
My my, this has been a very interesting thread for responses, almost better than some atheist theme threads I've authored with the emotion it seems to have inspired, totally loving it.

I can't really take the time to reply to every assertion that has been made since I crashed out and enjoyed a lazy Saturday lay in bed so I'll be more general in my comments.
To the poster who feels I need therapy and that my threads are 'made up', I say thank you for your concern, but I post the truth everytime online, and your assessment of my mental health or otherwise is sadly lacking in accuracy. You are however completely free to ignore my contributions on ATS if it helps you retain composure emotionally.

To the posters who 'have no sympathy for me' I remind you that nowhere in this thread have I indicated that any sympathy is wished for. This thread was authored to stimulate interesting discussion about a factual story, and I am happy to see that this has been the case, especially with the emotional responses by so many. Loving it, keep it coming, positive or negative, it is entertaining and I say thank you.

To the posters who say I should worry knowing my son was working excess hours because 'in court' I am complicit and will face some penalty myself, I say nope, you clearly do not understand UK law.
It is absolutely irrelevant if either I or my son cared about him working hours in excess of the legal limit for his age. The law is clear, it is the employers sole responsibility to comply, not the young person, or the parent. The law states that a child cannot work more than 8 hours in a day even if the child is happy to do so. The employer knowingly broke the law when they set the weekly working rota.

The employer knew he was 16, they photocopied his passport before employing him as UK law insists.
The employer enjoyed the benefits of a hardworking young person while knowingly breaking child labour laws. Everyone was happy except a particular director who singled him out for personal reasons, and used 'company rules' to get him booted at the end of the season when he was no longer needed.
If a business is so passionate about all rules always being followed, then there is a paradox when the employer flouts the law relating to the employee. It is for that reason that they are being screwed back - rules is rules as they say.

This could have been easily resolved with a printed reference detailing the long hours and hard work my son did for the season, they refused, or rather the relevant director with personal issues refused to supply one. For that reason we decided to adopt the same vociferous policy of complying with rules and remind the business that they broke child employment law.
People in glass houses and all that, if a business is passionate about company rules then they must be as equally passionate about employment law - can't have your cake and eat it.

And finally, to those who are saying I allowed the exploitation but am only crying about it after he got sacked, no, there are no tears on my cheeks, or the cheeks of my son. UK law says my son was exploited, not me or him, I don't write the law.
An employer screwed him over but failed to be whiter than white in it's consideration of employment law, major fail. They got the benefit of his hard work and treated him like dirt at the end of the season. No problem, he is just exercising his rights under UK law.
Remember, the onus of responsibility for complying with child labour law is solely on the employer. It makes no difference legally if the child or the parent knew the law was broken, no difference at all. So to all those quoting the situation in the US or Canada, it is irrelevant to the OP.
ACAS have taken the case because the employer broke the law, not me, or my son, and all because of a hidden bracelet under a work jacket which had no health and safety issues whatsoever, just company rules. That's fine, we're not making the case about the dismissal, but to remind the employer that if you are passionate about 'rules is rules' then you must make sure you are whiter than white when it comes to employment law.

Thanks for all the contributions so far, interesting and entertaining to the max, especially how so many folk see no issue with a prick director breaking employment law and yet defend his enforcement of 'company rules' for personal reasons.

Oh, and again just so we are all clear, it is irrelevant in UK law if the child worker enjoyed the excess hours or not. The employer is legally required to ensure that they conform to the law, not the parent, or the child. As I said, everyone was happy until 'rules is rules' was enforced by a director for personal reasons. This legal action is just an example of an employee following the same mantra - rules is rules, or the law is the law.

Kind regards as always,


posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 08:39 AM
a reply to: grainofsand

Just a question dude.
You say it was his third minor infringement of company rules...did the employer follow the law and give a verbal warning written warning and a final written warning? If not and the infringement was not gross misconduct you can do them for that also.
Oh and I read your posts all the time grain and I respect your integrity and believe you.

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 08:53 AM
a reply to: boymonkey74
No, they messed up there as well, no written warning detailing the 'offence' etc, but no sacking letter either, just told not to come back.
Didn't bother fighting that one as it was fairly certain the first mention of it would see written warning letters being quickly typed and fellow directors coming forward as 'witnesses'. It was easier to go with the child employment laws as there is clear evidence showing the laws were broken, payslips, printed rota's, and bank payments.

...oh and cheers for the vote of confidence lol, and loving the emotion in this thread, proper interesting

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 08:58 AM
a reply to: grainofsand

My faults is if you son loves money he will love the outcome of this

When it comes to acting illegally and labour laws are broken payouts can be sweet.

I was fired by a pharma company on very illegal grounds. I made enough to put me through 2 more years of University debt free

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 09:04 AM

originally posted by: parad0x122
a reply to: grainofsand

One thought:

If the rule he broke that got him fired is so minor, why haven't you told us what he did?

Doesn't matter what he did, it's obvious it isn't about the rules. The boss either feels threatened by him, or doesn't believe he is bending to his will enough.

I let plenty of my employees off for minor rule infractions, but if they are ignorantly or arrogantly disregarding or ignoring things I say to them, I usually give them the can.

If what the OP says about his son busting his ass, it sounds like its a battle of will, or just a small-dicked boss, IMO.

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 09:04 AM

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: grainofsand

Will the fact that this is going to arbitration and hurting the employer backfire in any way on him finding further employment?

If not then I say the law is the law but if so then it might not have been worth it.

Not in the UK.

You are not allowed to give give bad references in most cases as that break defamation laws. Its only really in top professions and careers you can get black marked.

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 09:07 AM

originally posted by: kdyam
If you son takes this to heart and learns to exploit companies the same way in the future looking for loopholes you are just a few proud hairs away from having reared and raised a criminal...

Id company's are going to exploit you, you may as well exploit them back.

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 09:08 AM
a reply to: crazyewok
That will be a bonus of course, rules is rules and all that as the employer equally enforces their own, the state will enforce it's own now

...the humbling thing for me though is that my lad says he would have preferred the reference because it would have been his first proud letter to show other employers how hardworking he is. I'm gutted for him about that and totally understand why he feels it.

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 09:09 AM

originally posted by: kdyam

You son legally agreed to work the longer hours...

Erm no he didn't.

Under UK law at 16 he was not in a position to legally agree to that.

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 09:14 AM

originally posted by: parad0x122
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.

Guess what thats how the world works. How capitalism works, exploit or be exploited.

And " good enough to put themselves at risk of legal action" ?


Thats like saying in a sex offender case that the 30 old man was good enough to put themselves at risk of legal action for the sake of a concenting14 year old in statutory rape case

Sorry but at 16 he is not considered legally liable or capable to make such decisions and it the adults that employ him job to make sure he and they comply with the law.

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 09:15 AM

originally posted by: boncho
If what the OP says about his son busting his ass, it sounds like its a battle of will, or just a small-dicked boss, IMO.

That's pretty much the story.
He just picked on the wrong 16 year old. I shed no tears for him.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in