Exploited by an employer then refused a good reference...revenge is sweet., page 4

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:00 PM

link

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: parad0x122
I can't give the whole story in this thread because legal process is ongoing and I must keep the details vague.
If you or anyone else do not believe me then I don't care, but for the sake of discussion I would have hoped we could have assumed my story to be true and seen how the conversation developed.

Unless you or your son has signed a "Compromise Agreement" then there is nothing stopping you discussing the whole story. Not sure who informed you that you would not be allowed to discuss the case but they are wrong and I doubt very much ACAS would have said such a thing.

A Compromise agreement is normally signed before going to an employement tribunal.

yeahright

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:00 PM

link

originally posted by: interupt42
I think you should concentrate on better coping mechanisms if you dont see a problem with sizing up your coworkers for a fight or putting any significance into that.

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

It sounds like this situation was antagonistic from the very beginning. Almost every guy I know, if they encounter a confrontational situation like that will at least consider whether or not he could take the other guy out, if it came to that. I sure don't have a problem with it.

The manager as I see it is the classic bully. He wants to be all Alpha but can only fulfill that by lording his authority over some kid. And now he's discovered he can't even do that competently.

I'm a little irrational on the topic. I hate a bully and I hate some low level management chump who takes advantage of what little authority they do have to pick on someone just because they can. Especially if it's a kid.

I'm not saying I might not be misreading the facts we have been provided, but that's how I see it.

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

Iamthatbish

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:03 PM

link

Your son also learned a lesson in HR. When someone wants to fire you this is classic. Most people are trained by people that don't follow the proper policy and procedure. Now your son knows to read and know policy and procedure.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: parad0x122
Totally agreed, we've spoken at length about complying if you are working for someone, but we all know that many minor rules are ignored by most workers, but an unkind manager can pick on individual employers if they have a personal issue. That is what happened in this case.
They broke the law, knowingly and repeatedly, and as they are so passionate about rule breaking then I am happy for the legal process to take it's course.

grainofsand

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:07 PM

link

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
You've never worked anywhere when rules are ignored for some and an individual manager/director has picked on one employee for personal reasons then?

grainofsand

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:10 PM

link

a reply to: flammadraco
I'm covering all angles on an internet forum, can you blame me?
No need for all the details as the crux of the story was revealed in the OP, do you require evidence or can we just accept the premise of a truthful story for reasoned debate?

jude11

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:12 PM

link

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: jude11
No, at the end of his shift he was asked to remove his work jacket and the offending bracelet was then visible. It was a spot check/sting. The director knew exactly what he was doing and waited for the end of the shift to sting my lad.
There were no health or safety issues with the bracelet and it was only seen after the director asked him to remove his jacket. Why do you seem so supportive of this and an employer which is happy to break child employment laws?

Apparently you don't know me that well. Look at my threads and you'll understand that I in no way stand for authority, bullies, unfairness etc.

But...Your son knowingly broke the law...You knowingly allowed him to break the law and maybe even committed one yourself by allowing your son to be in that environment underage...but when someone in your opinion does it back, you and your son are victims.

Can't see that at all and in fact I find it extremely hypocritical.

Do I agree with the law? Hardly. I also can't agree with "We did nothing wrong and are victims here" mentalities when it is clearly guilt on all sides.

Sorry if I sound harsh but it's just IMHO.

Peace

interupt42

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:13 PM

link

a reply to: yeahright

I hate some low level management chump

From the OP it doesn't sound like a low level managment chump but a director. Like I said all I can go by is what the OP wrote and my interpertation of the event. However, I do have a hard time believing that a director in his 30 would be concerned about a 16 year old employee taking him.

He's often told me about an early 30's director who'

buster2010

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:15 PM

link

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.

As a parent why did you allow him to work knowing that it was breaking the law? So you and your kid had no problem with breaking the law but when he gets fired for breaking a rule for the third time you want to sue. You sound no better than his ex employer.

grainofsand

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:17 PM

link

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.

buster2010

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:21 PM

link

a reply to: grainofsand

Neither me or my lad would have complained about child labour law being broken if the particular director had just agreed to give him a good reference for his work to a future employer. He refused.

What employer in his right mind would give a good reference to an ex employee that they fired for breaking the rules multiple times? No employer that I know would give a good reference to a person like that.

interupt42

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:23 PM

link

a reply to: grainofsand

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.

I think that is what you are trying to make the argument sound like , but the reality is I don't recall anyone say it was OK that the employer broke child labour laws.

From the post I seen everyone is in accordance that If the company broke labor laws they should be dealt with .

However, what they are questioning is why you and your son thought it was OK to break the law until he got fired?

grainofsand

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:23 PM

link

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.

Blaine91555

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:23 PM

link

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

I see two wrongs here and a double lesson to be taught.

He knowingly broke a rule three times which makes the firing justified. There are always reasons and usually very good reasons for such rules.

I worked construction in the 1970's and into the 1980's. We were not allowed to wear rings, bracelets or watches on a band on our wrists. Many construction workers have lost fingers or hands when they get caught in equipment and it was to protect us from our own stupidity. Except under OSHA or MSHA in the US, the first violation was an automatic firing and the company had no choice in the matter.

I suspect that in this case they had a similar reason and there may be equipment that would make wearing that dangerous or they would not have that rule. If that is the case the firing was self-inflicted and it would be wrong to think otherwise.

As far as the hours worked; that is a valid gripe and I'd be on your side with that. Go get em! But don't encourage your child to think breaking the rules is OK, as its not.

I can't really have an opinion beyond that with the full information lacking. Was that rule for safety reasons to protect your son, if you can answer that?

His boss may have been a jerk, but that is meaningless if he knowingly broke the rules.

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

edit on 9/5/2014 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)

grainofsand

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:27 PM

link

a reply to: buster2010
Nope, the employer broke the law, not the child.
He could be happy as a spring-time lamb working the hours, but it is not his responsibility, it is the employers to follow the law. Child employment legislation requires employers to take that responsibility, and if a hidden bracelet under a work uniform which has no health and safety implications is so important, then child employment laws have equal status.
...or perhaps you disagree?

flammadraco

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:28 PM

link

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
You've never worked anywhere when rules are ignored for some and an individual manager/director has picked on one employee for personal reasons then?

Its just the way you say the 3 violations were minimal. I agree your son will win his case due to child law, but as an employer with over 300 staff, I can tell you that of as an employer if I only used parts of the employee staff handbook (policies etc) at times and not others then an employement tribunal would throw the book at me.

For example, if I fired a member of staff for swearing at a customer, but never pulled up a member of staff over uniform violations, then the employee fired for swearing could take me to an employement tribunal for unfair treatment if they prove I did not always follow my own policies. It is a minefield and employers in the UK now have employement lawyers working full time for them.

Back to your sons situation, his ex boss does sound like a twit, but your son should have appealed the dismissal and possibly put a grievance to HR. Did he ever recieve a written warning?

grainofsand

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:30 PM

link

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.

jude11

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:31 PM

link

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....

So even tho you knew a law was being broken, It's ok for the employer to break the law if you're happy with it but as soon as he breaks one that doesn't make you happy, you're not ok with any of it.

Ok,

Peace

jude11

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:33 PM

link

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.

You knowingly allowed the employer to employ your son illegally. You were an accomplice IMHO.

Peace

Annee

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:33 PM

link

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.

YES! It is.

There is a reason kids under a certain age are minors by law.

grainofsand

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:34 PM

link

a reply to: Blaine91555
The jewellery rule was not based on health or safety, it was just a company rule, and it was hidden under a company uniform and only discovered when the prick director asked him to remove his company jacket at the end of his shift.