Sick Parcelforce couriers charged up to £250 if they can't find cover

[onewheeldave]

Not what I was thinking off... (and your wording didn't say that, it said 'Parcel force charge their workers £250 for each day they have off sick')

 

If they phone in sick, then it's 250 regardless of time they ring? and anything else?

 

If so why does it say 'could' and 'upto'.

 

The link doesn't explain it well enough.

 

Forgive me for not getting distracted by a variety of side issues and strawmen

 

I'm focused on the fact that some parcel force employees are, and have been, made to pay £250 when they take a sick day.

 

That is very, very wrong.

 

And, what's just as sad, if not more so, is that much of the public, instead of condemning this practice, instead pull attention away from it by asking what proportion of employees are made to pay £250, or, does it depend on the time of day they ring

 

Employees are being made to pay £250 when they have to take a sick day.

 

The world truly has gone to <removed> we are living in the age of the apologists

Edited February 7, 2018 by nikki-red

[ricgem2002]

 

A contract for services is absolutely not an employment contract, it's a contract between a stole trader or company and their client.

 

yes and looking how some on here agree with these type of contracts whether it will be written into employment contracts

Edited March 12, 2017 by nikki-red
Fixed the quote

[onewheeldave]

i wonder if this will be written into other employment contracts soon

If parcel force continue to get away with this practice, then yes, it will be written into other employment contracts, on the grounds that to not do so, would place other companies at an 'economic disadvantage' relative to parcel force.

 

That's why it's very important that the public (whose own children will suffer at the hands of those future contract clauses) stand up and condemn these brutal and unjust employment practices.

[tinfoilhat]

If parcel force continue to get away with this practice, then yes, it will be written into other employment contracts, on the grounds that to not do so, would place other companies at an 'economic disadvantage' relative to parcel force.

 

That's why it's very important that the public (whose own children will suffer at the hands of those future contract clauses) stand up and condemn these brutal and unjust employment practices.

 

Self employed aren't employed workers. That's why parcelforce are doing it. There's a difference, very probably a legal one. It's wrong but you won't get it happening accross the board.

[Bob Arctor]

Forgive me for not getting distracted by a variety of side issues and strawmen

 

I'm focused on the fact that some parcel force employees are, and have been, made to pay £250 when they take a sick day.

 

That is very, very wrong.

 

And, what's just as sad, if not more so, is that much of the public, instead of condemning this practice, instead pull attention away from it by asking what proportion of employees are made to pay £250, or, does it depend on the time of day they ring

 

Employees are being made to pay £250 when they have to take a sick day.

 

The world truly has gone to <removed> we are living in the age of the apologists

 

I totally agree that the practice is wrong in this case but it is NOT employees who are being charged, it's self-employed owner-drivers. If you were having an extension built by a self employed builder you would be wise to have a contract for services to set out payment agreements, what work is going to be done, and possibly a clause about delays. That would protect you as a customer if the builder naffed off and left your extension half finished. There is nothing wrong in having a penalty clause in a contract for services but this one looks excessive and it is in the owner-drivers' interests to get the clause changed, in which I would totally support them.

Edited February 7, 2018 by nikki-red

[tinfoilhat]

I totally agree that the practice is wrong in this case but it is NOT employees who are being charged, it's self-employed owner-drivers. If you were having an extension built by a self employed builder you would be wise to have a contract for services to set out payment agreements, what work is going to be done, and possibly a clause about delays. That would protect you as a customer if the builder naffed off and left your extension half finished. There is nothing wrong in having a penalty clause in a contract for services but this one looks excessive and it is in the owner-drivers' interests to get the clause changed, in which I would totally support them.

 

A lot of companies make their self employed work for them exclusively. Do parcelforce have a similar practice?

 

But as I said earlier, self employed couriers aren't a new thing, in fact if only 25% of parcelforce drivers are self employed, that's a lot less than most.

[Obelix]

If parcel force continue to get away with this practice, then yes, it will be written into other employment contracts, on the grounds that to not do so, would place other companies at an 'economic disadvantage' relative to parcel force.

 

That's why it's very important that the public (whose own children will suffer at the hands of those future contract clauses) stand up and condemn these brutal and unjust employment practices.

 

They are NOT employees. Why do you persist in this fiction...?

[steelad]

Just going to throw this out there

 

If i had a route with Parcelforce - which earned me £300 a day

I went sick for a day

Parcelforce charged me £250 to cover my route

I earned £50 for being off sick

 

What would your feelings be??

[ricgem2002]

Just going to throw this out there

 

If i had a route with Parcelforce - which earned me £300 a day

I went sick for a day

Parcelforce charged me £250 to cover my route

I earned £50 for being off sick

 

What would your feelings be??

i for one dont believe this happens and parcleforce pays you the £50 outstanding.

[steelad]

Like ive said previously .. i worked at a company that charged drivers for cover but they still earnt from that route on that day as it was there route by contract.

 

I see no difference why it shouldn't be same for parcelforce unless we believe the media