unbeliever Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Nobody is arguing for a ban are they? Isn't the argument for stronger protection of workers rights and/or legislation to encourage fixed or minimum hours when it would be appropriate? No Pete is arguing for a ban. Has been throughout. Sometimes he claims to have stepped back from that position only to argue for it again a couple of posts later. If the ban is off the table, we can move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Pardon me if I'm wrong...If you assert that your 'data' is fact...I just wonder how 'fact' can be derived from a subjective notion as happiness? On a scale of one to ten, I feel I'm on perhaps a 7?...yesterday I think it might have been 6... It's subjective. If you ask me if I'm happy and I reply "Yes" then it's a fact that I'm happy.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 ¿ I like not these facts. Bring me some alternative facts. ¿ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 ....looks about.... Nothings changed I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 ....looks about.... Nothings changed I see. Yay, you are back! I had a question on about page 19 about written contracts and the like. This: Ok, let's start with this. Any employer who cannot prove: - that's they've given a formal written contract to their employee - and that they've given a guidebook (to be written by the government and updated as appropriate) to the employee who signs to say they understand the contents of it - that they pay the legal minimum wage with deductions or miscalculating of time (i.e. Sports Direct) - that any dismissal is not as a result of a protected characteristic, trade union membership or health and safety concerns. All companies will have a disciplinary process detailed in that contract I talked about in point 2 so should be easy to show why someone was fired gets jail time. I'm not going to advocate financial penalties as a company will mysteriously go bankrupt only to open with a fractionally different name and carry on as before. Let's make this a big deal, you mistreat your staff you go to jail...and the onus is on your prove it. Obelix, sadly there appears to be a need for more red tape as some employers are taking their staff for a ride, something you agree happens. If ZHCs are at fault then clearly the enforcement of the law isn't correct, so to enforce it better needs to put all the onus on the employer to prove they aren't a bad apple. I'm sure all decent employers such as yourself are almost certainly doing all the above anyway as part of standard HR processes. I'd really like your opinion on whether I'm expecting too much and if so why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Yay, you are back!? No im not. I remarked that nothings changed so I see no reason to be back. When a bit of sanity amongst the particiapants descends I may join in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 No im not. I remarked that nothings changed so I see no reason to be back. When a bit of sanity amongst the particiapants descends I may join in. that's a shame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 No Pete is arguing for a ban. Has been throughout. Sometimes he claims to have stepped back from that position only to argue for it again a couple of posts later. If the ban is off the table, we can move on. With respect...You have flip-flopped between saying there's no need for any action, as there isn't a problem for FT workers on ZHC's..To 'well there might be an issue'... I say there definitely is and issue..even if it's only 37% of survey respondents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) With respect...You have flip-flopped between saying there's no need for any action, as there isn't a problem for FT workers on ZHC's..To 'well there might be an issue'... I say there definitely is and issue..even if it's only 37% of survey respondents. No. You've changed in what you infer from my responses. I've asked you several times not to state your inferences in place of what I've actually said. You don't seem able to stop though. 37% of ZHC folk are not happy. 37% of regular contract folk are unhappy. Forcibly moving folk from one group to the other (which you can't actually do anyway) is supposed to achieve what exactly? Edited March 9, 2017 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 With respect...You have flip-flopped between saying there's no need for any action, as there isn't a problem for FT workers on ZHC's..To 'well there might be an issue'... I say there definitely is and issue..even if it's only 37% of survey respondents. According to some stats floated on this post that's the same %age that are unhappy with their full time job...is that an issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now