rudemedic Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 agency workers get 12 weeks before they qualify for the same right as permanent emplyees guess what happens after 11 weeks working with a company yep your moved and thats from personal experiance They can struggle to move you after 11 weeks to simply avoid you qualifying for the same benefits as more permanent employees it can still count as an unfair dismissal. If you go back to the same company within a few weeks it is also like you never left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 They can struggle to move you after 11 weeks to simply avoid you qualifying for the same benefits as more permanent employees it can still count as an unfair dismissal. If you go back to the same company within a few weeks it is also like you never left. They will not have the right to claim unfair dismissal. The only benefits temps/agency workers and permenent staff will share after 12 weeks are in terms of pay, working hours, night work, breaks, annual leave, public holiday pay, shift allowances, overtime rates and unsociable hours premiums, and the right to be informed of internal vacancies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted October 11, 2012 Author Share Posted October 11, 2012 All but a very few politicians are arseholes. But then the same could be said for other groups, such as employers, bankers, journalists, lawyers, bishops (proddy ones, of course), employees, policemen, motorists... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I don't like Tories, and I don't like what Labour have become. Lib dems are dead in the water, and for the minutes of sense that Farage sometimes displays (see an earlier video posted in this very forum) I can't get away from the feeling that UKIP are just a Tory reject party. Realistically, that leaves the Green Party. *shrug* With little more than a fag paper between all of them, democracy and politics just isn't diverse enough any more. For those of us that do vote (and even though the menu of candidates is so bland and uninteresting, I still do) we don't even get an equal say as the majority of voters don't vote for a MP that represents them (http://bit.ly/SRVmwP) - my vote was virtually worthless in Heywood and Middleton (http://www.voterpowe...ywood-middleton) Can't disagree with that. I'm a Labour man, active in the party and believe me it isn't pretty. The grassroots are withering on the vine to mix gardening analogies, petty squabbles and nonsense are rife, in the 5 years or so I've been involved I think I've had a political discussion about twice and that went over the heads of most of the people at the meeting. I know lots about what suchabody in 1982 which is why we don't like them or why that ward doesn't get any help at election time, more time is spent fighting people within the same party than our political opponents. There is a massive disconnect between the wards and constituencies and the national party and Westminister. It makes me bang my head against the wall at times. I've getting stick for ordering 170 Christmas raffle tickets for £20, if we sell 21 tickets we're in profit and that profit goes to the ward to buy :censored:y leaflets and posters to fight the next council elections. And then I watch Gove, Cameron, Osborne and Grayling's speeches at their conference and I remember why I give up my time and do what I do. Labour are far, far from perfect but despite their many faults I would rather have our shower in office than the tories. I think I'm actually more anti-tory than I am pro-Labour and I see Labour as the best chance of stopping the tories doing what they want to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 AFAIK isn't there preliminary hearings before a full blown tribunal takes place, to see wether there is a case to answer? Maybe, it's at that stage that things should be looked at more thoroughly. This is correct, we had a lawyer full time on it for weeks (this also means that a judge is working full time on it at the taxpayers' expense). Some of the wilder stuff was taken out then. It still left 900 pages in the evidence bundle, and the tool of a lawyer was trying all sorts of new things to try and prove racism which they didn't want to strike out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted October 11, 2012 Author Share Posted October 11, 2012 This is correct, we had a lawyer full time on it for weeks (this also means that a judge is working full time on it at the taxpayers' expense). Some of the wilder stuff was taken out then. It still left 900 pages in the evidence bundle, and the tool of a lawyer was trying all sorts of new things to try and prove racism which they didn't want to strike out. I'm quite happy for a judge to be employed to consider such cases. Just because you won the case doesn't mean it should never have been heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 If it got past the stages of case management and the preliminary hearings, there must have been a case to answer, or a reasonable chance of success, else it would have been thrown out. It's not unknown for an employer to act unreasonably when sacking someone, and nor is it unreasonable for an employee to try and add weight to their claim,when bringing it, If that ( in your case ) involves someones colour, or if it ever involves ethnicity/religion/gender/sexual preference,etc then you can see why a lawyer might add that as a causual/contributing factor. After all, most laweyrs are :censored:. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I'm quite happy for a judge to be employed to consider such cases. Just because you won the case doesn't mean it should never have been heard. The judge in the actual case did say that there was no hope of winning the case when he gave the ruling. The benefit of the doubt of course goes to the claimant in terms of striking things out. If it got past the stages of case management and the preliminary hearings, there must have been a case to answer, or a reasonable chance of success, else it would have been thrown out. It's not unknown for an employer to act unreasonably when sacking someone, and nor is it unreasonable for an employee to try and add weight to their claim,when bringing it, If that ( in your case ) involves someones colour, or if it ever involves ethnicity/religion/gender/sexual preference,etc then you can see why a lawyer might add that as a causual/contributing factor. After all, most laweyrs are :censored:. That's all this particular :censored: cares about. The only case he has won was on a procedural error by us, but the judge flamed him for throwing all the racism :censored:e with no reasonable basis, so we are still claiming most of award back in costs as we were forced to defend charges that were wholly mud-slinging. In the recent case it also went against them that they made some extremely weak reference to ageism and sexism that they never followed through with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 Some you win; some you lose. What is your problem with due process? We know your employer has a problem with it, but what is your personal problem? Same question for Zorrro. I'm off to find me headphones... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 My problem is that you're a bell end. Are you coming into town to watch England romp to a 1-0 victory over the mighty San Marino tonight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Are any of you pinkos and fascists going to Crawley in a couple of weeks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Are any of you pinkos and fascists going to Crawley in a couple of weeks? Yep! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I still vote. Well, I go to the polling booth and write highly offensive words in each of the boxes. Makes me feel a little bit better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Some you win; some you lose. What is your problem with due process? We know your employer has a problem with it, but what is your personal problem? Same question for Zorrro. I'm off to find me headphones... The process is rubbish. Even if the claimant wins it can take them a year.It should be a matter of the terms of the contract between employer and employee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 Can't play out tonight sadly. Defo going to Crawley though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I have my first Saturday pass for a while. My dad and a mate of his are going to their first games in a while too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 We're doing Crawley. Driving down Sat morning, staying overnight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 We're doing Crawley. Driving down Sat morning, staying overnight. If you need breakdown cover, this link gives £12.50 to PlayerShare: http://www.spendandraise.com/xtra/shop/goto.php?rb=3-3932 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 If you need breakdown cover, this link gives £12.50 to PlayerShare: http://www.spendandraise.com/xtra/shop/goto.php?rb=3-3932 Thanks. Got mine through bank account unfortunately (for PS, not for me!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Tory Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell has resigned.......at last. Plebs rule OK! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 guyfawk.es/UBAyN5 Discuss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Selective representation of facts by guido there. Only had chance for a quick glance but I don't think it proves anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Raising the initial threshold at the bottom end and reducing the top level which will have a minimal or even perverse level on the take is obviously going to shift the burden towards low earners. I just wish the government would make some spending cuts rather than continuing to print and borrow money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 guyfawk.es/UBAyN5 Discuss Tories tax low earners less and high earners more than than Labour did in an 09/10 to 10/11 comparison. In terms of direct tax, its a no brainer really with the income tax threshold going up. Also would the amount of unemployed going up and loss of government jobs at the lower end mean less income tax being collected? On the other hand the increase in indirect taxes (VAT and excise duties) would mean that the poorest are being hit by other means than which are not taken into account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 guyfawk.es/UBAyN5 Discuss I don't understand those tables at all and I really wish I hadn't clicked on that link - it only encourages the bastard. Teets is right - the data are selective (they could've picked a different year or years; and they probably should've included tax credits). Raising the initial threshold at the bottom end and reducing the top level which will have a minimal or even perverse level on the take is obviously going to shift the burden towards low earners. I don't understand that either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.