Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

But they aren't sacked. They have their contract terminated, which is quite different law. Hence my point about the usage of this type of business model should be investigated and probably tightened up.

 

Contract terminated isn't quite as inflammatory as sacked though....

 

However losing £250 and keeping a job is a darn sight better than losing your job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but companies should not be allowed to hire 'businesses' when the work being done is equal to that of an employee, unless they can demonstrate why that setup is appropriate.

 

So that means you wouldnt be able to get expertise in like IT contractors. Accountants... imagine having to have an employed accountant doing nothing for 48 weeks each year becuase you need them every year to sign off.

 

Car mechanics everyone should employ them full time rather than just when a car needs fixing. Bet you dont have a full time window cleaner or gardener either.

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2017 at 15:55 ----------

 

But they aren't sacked. They have their contract terminated, which is quite different law. Hence my point about the usage of this type of business model should be investigated and probably tightened up.

 

Have you thought that perhaps contractors like this arrangement? Perhaps due to the rather large increase in take home pay you get..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to remember this is the guy who whined for 19 pages about red lights on trailers and how he cant be expected to read.

 

Its his debating style. When short of an argument he resorts to insults and outright misrepresentation of facts.

remind you of anyone :suspect:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parcel force charge their workers £250 for each day they have off sick, to cover the cost of a replacement driver.

 

This is wrong- drivers are self employed and already lose a days earnings if they are too ill to work- £250 is more than the days earnings already lost.

Maybe they now constitute 'workers', after a recently-reported Court case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that means you wouldnt be able to get expertise in like IT contractors. Accountants... imagine having to have an employed accountant doing nothing for 48 weeks each year becuase you need them every year to sign off.

 

Car mechanics everyone should employ them full time rather than just when a car needs fixing. Bet you dont have a full time window cleaner or gardener either.

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2017 at 15:55 ----------

 

 

Have you thought that perhaps contractors like this arrangement? Perhaps due to the rather large increase in take home pay you get..?

 

Did you not read my entire post? You just picked up the bits you disagree with and ignored all the parts where I said there are many cases where this is justified and absolutely acceptable, and there are times when it's not? Come on Obelix let's have a reasoned debate here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am having a reasoned debate. I'm point out the bits I disagree with and why and you are getting annoyed?

 

Because you are making it sound like I don't understand the need for contractors. I work in an IT industry where we have many requirements for short-term expertise or additional hands for projects. Most of these contractors are hired for set work and time scales and it would be absolute insanity for my company to hire permanent employers for work that only lasts 6 months. The contractors take extra risk as each job is only guaranteed for 6 months so they need to earn more to cover potentially being out of work for long periods. Hence, why I said in many instances it's absolutely justified.

 

Where it isn't justified in my opinion is when contractors are hired on a semi-permanent basis, doing the same job as employees for indefinite periods of time or with no defined work package or outcomes of their hire. That person becomes an employee and it's this area where thankfully we seem to be seeing tightening up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you are making it sound like I don't understand the need for contractors. I work in an IT industry where we have many requirements for short-term expertise or additional hands for projects. Most of these contractors are hired for set work and time scales and it would be absolute insanity for my company to hire permanent employers for work that only lasts 6 months. The contractors take extra risk as each job is only guaranteed for 6 months so they need to earn more to cover potentially being out of work for long periods. Hence, why I said in many instances it's absolutely justified.

 

Where it isn't justified in my opinion is when contractors are hired on a semi-permanent basis, doing the same job as employees for indefinite periods of time or with no defined work package or outcomes of their hire. That person becomes an employee and it's this area where thankfully we seem to be seeing tightening up.

 

Hiring someone on contract for six months isn't semi permanent? It's just another flip side of the ZHC debate which is slowly merging with this one...

 

Point is if you decide to try and tighten up for whatever reason on ZHC you are going to catch a lot of other people in the crossfire. Firstly you will end up immeditaly putting people out of work because there is no other sensible way to employ them and then the permanent staff get lots fo overtime imposed.

 

You will end up probably impacting the professional services department from things as diverse as accountancy and nursing.

 

ZHC are NOT the problem. The problem is the way people abuse them. So go after them - that's the root cause of the problem. It's foolish to go after the contract because all that will happen is they will find some other way tyo employ them - say through an exclusive temping agency that hires people in and the problems carry on...

 

Self employed people are not the problem. They want the flexibility of being able to offer their work like this... they want the opportunity to use a van to make more money like this... that means that you take the rough with the smooth. They know and accept this.

 

It's like saying people are killed because they ride bikes and get knocked off, oh well we can sort that by banning bikes... Lets rather sort the problem by going after fools who knock people off bikes instead....

Edited by Obelix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Tragedy has struck Don Lane, a 53-year-old courier with the firm DPD, after he collapsed and died from diabetes after being fined £150 by the courier company for attending a hospital appointment to treat his disease.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/05/courier-who-was-fined-for-day-off-to-see-doctor-dies-from-diabetes

 

As another courier said upon hearing of Lane's death:

“£150 is a lot of money for most people so people put their health second in order to provide for their family,”

 

Downing Street said his death was "shocking".

I do hope this means that things will change for delivery workers.

Edited by Mister M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.