Latest posts:
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
I find it is always easiest to work in hours when calculating pro-rata, but keeping hours per day in mind. For example, bank holidays can be a point of contention - someone working 3 days Tuesday to Thursday is still entitled to the leave for bank holidays pro-rata, although they won't actually usually be working on those days. They get the pro-rata hours for official bank holidays added to their pro-rata annual leave. One colleague discovered her leave increased when this was made plain to her manager, who previously believed as she did not work Mondays she did not get leave entitlement for Bank Holidays.
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
Why should they up your hourly rate? If you are working a 60 hour week, for every two of you working there is enough work for three, and you are doing people out of a job. Let the business start employing as many people as it really needs to cover the security of its customers. After all, how good are you going to be when you are exhausted?
Overtime is all very well when it is used to increase production at busy times, or cover for colleagues on leave or off sick, but it should not be used week in week out to run things - otherwise when it is busy, or someone is off sick, you cannot cope.
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
I was asking if that was what you meant rather than expressing an opinion.
Tell someone if you are having problems. But be sure what the problem is.
Is it the carpet or the lighting causing problems? check it out at different times of day if the stairs have natural lighting - and look at how the shadows fall if it is electric light. Better lighting could resolve it.
It might be expensive to change the carpet, but they can certainly keep it in mind for any re-decoration planned.
If you don't tell them what problems you are having, they can't do anything. A colleague put up with a problem with lift doors for years. A new person joined, had the same problem, complained to building services - and got something done.
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
How loud is it? If people have to shout over the music to be heard, it could be too loud. The noise levels in your workplace are regulated, so complain and get them measured/ checked.
Is it possible to have it on in some locations but not others? Depends on the workplace layout and how it is broadcast, but point out if someone has a headache or complex problems to solve a quiet place to work will help.
Is there the option of headphones instead? suggest it to allow those who want it to use them - I know its not an option if people are moving around, but could be for office workers.
And tell the employer the music (or its lack of variation) is causing you stress. They might at least vary the tracks then - and if it does drive you mad, you did warn them!
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
Hypnotic? due to the pattern?
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
The point is, that our law system apparently ignores the fact accidents happen. Kids particularly get hurt because they are pushing boundaries and testing their limits - that is life.
Our job as responsible adults and citizens is to create a secure environment free from obvious hazards - not wrap everyone in cotton wool.
An accident does not need compensation unless it could have been fore-seen. You can fore-see that a broken rail could cause an accident; but a secure rail that has had no problem in forty years is not a fore-seeable risk.
If the judge didn't even look at the rail he has no way of knowing if 40 years service has made it dilapidated and dangerous, or if it is as secure as it was when first put up.
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
The point is that Marie Claire said she was not talking about genuine cases - but at no point did she explain how she would tell the difference between a genuine case and someone swinging the lead.
The person who decides is surely the Doctor - so why is she going on about sick-notes from Doctors? If she cannot accept a professional knows their job then what would she accept to prove it was genuine?
However, she is not reading this, and there is not much point in continuing the thread.
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
Well done Justice Elias.
You can hold whatever beliefs you like, but holding those beliefs does not mean you can hurt others because of them - you still have to obey the law and do your job.
That sounds like good common sense interpretation of our no-discrimination laws.
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
Why do we have to change the name of the register?
We've just about got consumers aware of the Corgi Register, and its all change. If there are improvements needed, can they not be done without changing the name and losing the brand confidence / recognition?
It wastes the time and resource spent to date on advising people to look for Corgi-registered fitters.
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
It may be a physical job, but that does not mean you don't have disabled people, even if you do not have physically disabled people at this point in time. The fact you do not have them does not mean you never will have them, and the fact it is a physical job does not mean disabled people cannot do it.
Read up on the Disability Discrimination Act while you are looking up regulations. If you are a union rep you should already have at least some grounding in anti-discrimination laws.
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
Carl -
I agree totally about keeping records. Even when your manager is great and work life is fantastic, it can all go wrong very quickly. A diary of your work load clearly indicates levels of work - so if (like me a few years back) your great boss leaves and then you get inundated, it shows clearly the difference.
It has helped me a few times when I have refused to be pressured into deadlines. Not that I ever refuse to do specific tasks; I just have very good evidence to show how long things will take, so negotiate deadlines and re-arrange other tasks if urgent work takes priority.
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
The truly terrifying thing about this disaster is how lucky we all were.
It happened in the very early hours of Sunday morning - the quietest time of the week. If people had been working in the nearby offices with walls collapsed and windows blown in, and if more vehicles had been in the area, it could have been a hundred times worse. Injuries could have been very much higher, people could have been killed - but it was mainly property destroyed, not lives.
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
You are not stuck with either poor workers or astronomical Tribunal costs if you have good systems in place and follow them. You can fire anyone as long as you have a reason for doing so, and follow the correct procedures in order to do so. The law is there to protect both sides - and the law (how ever much it is intertwined with Government regulation) is what operates Tribunals, not actually the Government.
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
There is also the issue of what the local council are doing for the homeless? It is their job, afterall, to provide them with basic facilities. Is there a local homeless hostel? Are there appropriate facilities the homeless making the mess can be re-directed to?
I recognise if they are displaying anti-social behaviour by deliberately dirtying the toilets then the Town Hall may need to do something to maintain standards for the others under their remit, but homeless people most definitely are under the local authorities duty of care.
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
Margaret -
It is a difficult situation, but the most they can ask for is a reasonable adjustment to cope with the disability - for someone visiting a few times a year, a curtain and support from staff in organising it is a reasonable adjustment.
Major building works would only be a reasonable adjustment if it was essential and a regular visitor- perhaps not even then, though the situation is one to keep in mind if ever refurbishments are planned. For example - providing one unisex combined disabled toilet/changing facility in a different location to the other changing rooms may be feasible.
What is reasonable is the key factor in any accessibility issue like this.
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
Turing fit notes into an attempt to make everyone the same or an argument against data records both seem way out to me.
The biggest problem with 'fit notes' is the same problem disabled people have now in getting a job - employers discriminate when employing staff. It is not the disability that keeps a lot of people claiming benefit, but the discrimination they face when looking for work.
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
If it is a personal qualification then surely you just confirm in your contract that your staff are suitably trained and professionally qualified?
Re the Data Protection Act, it is a need to know basis for exchanging personal data - you can only give it to those who need to know. So providing all info for all your staff is not in order, because it is up to you to decide your staff's qualifications for their job, but providing it for specific staff doing specific jobs, or to show all have received Health and safety training, is in order.
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
Hmmmm - 'at each location'? we have just one accessible toilet on each floor, bur three different locations on each floor where there are standard Male & Female facilities.
So does each floor count as one location for purposes of the building regs?
I think ours is also less than 1:12, as there are 9 cubicles in the 3 female loos on each floor, and presumably at least 6 in the men's (never having been in there, I don't know the layout). So does the DDA only apply to 'public' buildings and not workplaces?
I'll check it out!
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
I agree Kevin - but doubt we will see a council employee fired, as the way they work is that no-one is accountable because everyone is responsible - no decisions without a committee!
And this did not even take a decision - in order to make the payment, someone would have had to make a decision, but not to pay just took putting the judgement in the file.
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 103 posts
Carl -
Unless you commit an offence, no it is not (legally) wrong to be under the influence. For example, it is not illegal to be drunk, only to be drunk and disorderly - you have to commit an offence while under the influence to fall foul of the law. So it is not wrong to be under the influence at work unless you are not performing to standards required or committing an offence against regulations or breaking the law.
As someone's manager you are not there to judge their morals - only their work!
0 (0)
