Search results

That was and is my view but others have different views so the issue isnt black and white.

As has been shown by the number of contributors to this thread it is not a black and white issue perhaps that is why government ministers in a much higher position than me are paid to make these decisions.

Simple when starting a job the employee makes a commitment to attend and work and similarly having agreed a weekly or monthly wage the employer makes a similar commitment to pay the man/woman provided they turn up for work. I am sure that many will not agree , as they are possibly employers...

I cannot go into specifics but it is the principal that an employer can do this that I object to. and feel is wrong and should be outlawed.

Unless it is for gross misconduct do you not get notice or money in lieu or has that all stopped since I retired.

So assuming that you were made redundant or sacked you would have received financial recompense which you wouldnt if sent home and then expected back next week.

I can fully understand your wife's situation and many like her but what would have been her views had she gone to work and been told we are short of cash so we have no work for you for the rest of this week take 3 days off unpaid.

I have heard of casual labour but it is NOT the same thing at all I am talking of a man having a full time job with all the benefits like holiday entitlement sick pay etc being told we dont need you tomorrow so that person is forced to have the day off and lose pay. That is what I believe is...

I have never had a job or heard of a job where the boss could just say you are not needed tomorrow, I had a full time job and worked and got paid for ful time eveday, perhaps I have been lucky.

thanks for that I am glad that I am not the only person who thinks that way.

Perhaps my terminology is wrong having not been an employer for the last 17 years. My beef is somebody having a seemingly full time job being told you are not needed to morrow or the day after and receiving no pay through not working. I thought that was covered by zero hours contracts, as...

That is exactly what I am saying and even then giving a weeks notice is to unacceptable.

Where did I say I did or even suggest that. I can tell you of the latest only example: when at my pub in Midhurst we employed a customers wife as a kitchen assistant for the duration of Goodwood week 5 days she knew and wanted that. It was the only time and totally different to what I am...

I tried not to, but that is totally different as I would take on staff to do a specific duty or event and no other. I didnt say to my full time or part time bar staff it is February which is always quiet so I dont need you today. I would encourage them to take their winter holiday during...

Irrespective of what they can legally do or not it is my contention that they shouldnt be able to do that and if needed the law should be changed, that is the whole point of this thread.

No full time on PAYE paid either weekly or monthly. I think it is wrong that the firm can just say sorry we have no work to morrow so dont need you.

Nothing to do with me being right or not more to do with the way people have viewed my opinion and perhaps I am to blame for not making it clear what I meant to back up my view.

You are all getting the wrong angle of this or misinterpreting my view. I am not talking of staff that are taken on for a specific need as in a pub who advertise for a barmaid who must be prepared to do Friday and Saturday but firms that employ somebody full time 5 days a week in what ever...

Is it the workers fault that rhe boss has taken on 20 people during the busy time to earn money and only needs 2 at quiet times?

I am talking of firms within the trades like the building trade where because they have no work they can say to a man we have no work today dont come in and obviously he doesnt get paid. If that happens 2 or 3 days in a week what is the worker supposed to do? This could even extend to other...