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

You should have had a quiet word with the Exploiter.

a reply to: crazyewok
And it could have all been smiles and a cup of tea if they had just typed out a quick reference to show how many times he saved the day with his 12/13 hours shifts when others phoned in sick.

originally posted by: Halfswede
The honorable thing to do here is walk away.

Why when there is a easy £5-10K here

Be a idiot not to take that. Will go well toward Uni fees

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

Behave Solo!
The law said he was exploited, not me or him. Did you not read my posts properly or are you just here to troll?

*Edit*
Comments withdrawn so removed from above quote, all friends

a reply to: crazyewok
True, my lad has started college now and university is his plan, but he still feels robbed of the reference regardless of the compensation.
I've never had trouble getting work, my reputation is that whatever I do I do it well and work hard at it. My son is the same, and the employer refusing to state that to others was just nasty to a young person starting their working life.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
So, as a Father you let your son be exploited in the workplace, but when it didn't work out you complain to the internet....Way to go Dad of the year...You should have grown a pair and had a quiet word with the Exploiter.

Behave Solo!
The law said he was exploited, not me or him. Did you not read my posts properly or are you just here to troll?

Yeah, Sorry man, That was a bit bellow the belt..My Apologies.

In my experience the LAW Allows Exploitation. trust me, If they thought they could get away with it they would still be sending our sons and daughters up chimney's.
I would be surprised if your son has a case against his employer as there are new laws in place that protects employers. Basically, a employer could employ you for 1 year 364 days and fire you without reason.

originally posted by: kdyam

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.

Company regulations are company regulations, just like laws are laws. You follow them or you don't. If you don't follow them you get fired or arrested, if you do follow them then you are in the clear.

Yeah law is the law.

And the company broke the child labour laws.

So it should not be exempted.

And UK law says the child is not legally responsible so you metaphor about robbing a store that sells illegal Jewry is cow faeces.

originally posted by: jude11

But...Your son knowingly broke the law...You knowingly allowed him to break the law an

No he didnt.

Under UK law the child is not the one legally responsible.

Again it like saying in a under-age sex case the child was breaking the law by allowing it

Now of course that a far more serious example but in UK law the principle the same.

a reply to: Soloprotocol
No worries, and I agree, some employers would exploit anyone, we see enough human trafficking and 'slave' agricultural worker convictions in the UK to know that.
ACAS have told him it's a clear case and they are telling the employer the same, so the result of this case is not in doubt.
What the employer offers my son is the question now, and it will be up to him if he wants to accept or go for a full tribunal.

originally posted by: grainofsand
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.

You're showing what type of person you really are with your "BELIEVE-ME-OR-LEAVE" attitude. What a 16yr old tells his mom/dad about his life is seldom a story that resembles reality, yet you take it as gospel fact that he was this perfect angel/model employee, even after he broke a company rule and was warned.

He then broke the company rule again, and was warned AGAIN.

Next he breaks the rule a THIRD TIME and is fired.

But your son is the victim after you and him both sanctioned the so-called "CRIME".... So you like crime when it benefits and hate it when it when your child is expected to rollow the rules???

You sound dangerously like a communist.

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
So you like crime when it benefits and hate it when it when your child is expected to rollow the rules???

The same could be said of the employer who enjoys crime when they benefit yet hates anyone breaking their rules. Where's the difference?

The rest of your post I shall just dismiss as emotional silliness.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: crazyewok
True, my lad has started college now and university is his plan, but he still feels robbed of the reference regardless of the compensation.
I've never had trouble getting work, my reputation is that whatever I do I do it well and work hard at it. My son is the same, and the employer refusing to state that to others was just nasty to a young person starting their working life.

Dunno what he did for work but when you Finnish uni and start in a real career then don't care what job you did at 16.

It 18 and up that counts.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
So, as a Father you let your son be exploited in the workplace, but when it didn't work out you complain to the internet....Way to go Dad of the year...You should have grown a pair and had a quiet word with the Exploiter.

Behave Solo!
The law said he was exploited, not me or him. Did you not read my posts properly or are you just here to troll?

Yeah, Sorry man, That was a bit bellow the belt..My Apologies.

In my experience the LAW Allows Exploitation. trust me, If they thought they could get away with it they would still be sending our sons and daughters up chimney's.
I would be surprised if your son has a case against his employer as there are new laws in place that protects
employers. Basically, a employer could employ you for 1 year 364 days and fire you without reason.

Not in this case.

If you were arguing a dismissal then its just a petty civil court matter.

But as soon as you hit child labour laws, Disability or racial discrimination or in my case serious health safety violations then crap tends to fly in the employers direction.

It will cost the company at least 8K in legal fees to defend with a grim prospect of walking away from a tribunal untouched so my moneys on them settling 4-5K just to avoid the hassle.

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

You sound dangerously like a communist.

Guess what even if he/she is its does not matter squat.

In the UK we have freedom of political ideas and even though I hate the idea of communism here one is free to be what they want and Il defend that freedom.

a reply to: crazyewok
Yep, I agree it won't matter in the wider scale of his life, he just wanted a reference to help get a part time job now he's started college, now it looks like he sat on his arse all summer on his CV instead of working hard.

a reply to: grainofsand

I love the fact that the boss applied the 'rules' and that now the 'rules' are going to bite him back! Now that's karma in action - and I'd like to see more of it going around.

Too often those in 'power' believe that they can apply 'pressure', without any consideration of their 'victims', or the consequences of their actions.

This applies on too many levels in society, while undermining its very fabric, as well as diminishing the true value of all human beings.

a reply to: grainofsand

There is a parallel here. Here is the defining principle:

Parallel Principle
A code of behavior that isn’t enforced with equal rigor until it is convenient.

Let’s take the story at face value. On the one hand, the manager did not globally enforce the dress code rule until it was convenient to dispose of somebody he didn’t like. On the other hand, the labor law violation was ignored by the OP until it was convenient for seeking retribution. [no judgement intended]

In the eyes of the law this parallelism is irrelevant. The company’s behavior was a serious infraction and they alone will likely suffer the consequences. The wheels and gears of the system turn. The output is a boy that was fired and a company that will most likely face consequences for the abuse in question and any other similar abuses that they may have committed. Really the discussion ends there from a legal perspective. There are fixed rules and fixed consequences; end of story.


However, the discussion in this thread centers around the parallel principle.

A code of behavior that isn’t enforced with equal rigor until it is convenient.

If we take the OP at face value, and I see no reason not to, the first proverbial push came from the manager. If somebody pushes you then do you push back? This story is the embodiment of conflict in its primal form. You see two basic answers in this thread. Those in support of the legal action agree that you should push back. Others, naturally, disagree. I wish I knew the correct answer. There are legitimate points on both sides.

Several posters have derided the OP for condemning the company because the OP and the son were happy with the money. The implication is that the OP is being hypocritical. I would like to refer them back to the principle above. Two codes of behavior were enforced as a matter of convenience. The first code was the company’s dress code. The second code enforced as a matter of convenience was the labor laws. If you condemn one then you condemn them both.

This logic holds for the OP as well. If the OP condemns the company then the OP condemns him/herself with their own yardstick. However, I do see a difference in the OP’s favor. The labor laws may have been overlooked by the OP and son to be seen as a team player. That rings true with reality. I see this happening all the time in the workplace. The real treasure may have been the coveted recommendation and the money merely a bonus.

There is also a very vocal side discussion regarding the OP seeking legal retribution while simultaneously complaining about the company’s behavior. I guess this adds to the scales of balance for some but it doesn’t seem very relevant to me.

Thank you for posting your story. It is a fractal of the conflict that we face daily. That fractal has re-expressed itself through the difference of opinion in this very thread. Conflict has become manifest through the discussion of conflict. Hypocrisy has become manifest by condemning hypocrisy. It makes me sad that we can’t handle these things better as a group. I do have hopes that we will one day engineer a solution which will mitigate the negative attributes of our nature and short circuit the negative feedback.

I wish you and your son the best of luck.

You claim that your son was fired for a "BS" reason, yet neglect to tell us what it is? Your reason is because you have to stay vague. I understand you need to be vague.

We have no idea where your son works, nor his name. Iam sure other people have been fired for what ever he did. So tell us why he was fired or I will assume you are in fact the "BS" element in the equation.

Oh, and no one buys the whole "I don't care if you believe me" BS either. You would not post this unless you cared what others thought.

My previous position was in auditing. I can tell you for a fact that companies who engage in illegal activities are often terrible to their employees. You would think this would be the opposite but not so.

The OP mentioned the Alpha male thing. What it was was more likely trying to intimidate a strong person. They like their work force in a state of fear. They also don't want smart people and tend to quickly get rid of them.

My guess is if this company broke child labor laws they probably also broke other laws.

When you are working 12-13, it takes it toll. Most likely by the time you add in compute time, the kid barely had time to eat and sleep. Those minor infractions like BREAKING THE DRESS CODE COULD BE THE DIRECT RESULT OF WORKING TOO MANY HOURS AT SUCH A YOUNG AGE. I know when I work that many hours I tend not to care about how I work.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Sremmos80
The particular company director carried a lot of weight in the firm, had alpha male issues with my much younger son, and it was the end of the season.

Or your son is not the amazing worker you claim and the whole alpha male thing is made up. Why would you even talk about whether your son can beat him up? Sounds like you and your son have alpha male issues.

Your son also could not be bothered following simple policy rules. Company was wrong, but you only seemed to care after the fact.

So either ...

A) You agreed with the company that your son was not being harmed, and are now looking for a handout.
or
B) You thought your son was being harmed, but didn't care enough to stop it.

Either way the company might be sleezy, you definitely are being sleezy. This lawsuit culture is a big portion of what is wrong with the world.