• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Am I right in thinking ...

To be brutally honest I wouldn't employ anyone who expected to be paid when not working.
 
The law is often an ass.
 
bonus said:
Same here, but stupid rules are made unfortunately. Like paying women when having a baby or being ill for excessive amounts of time .
Click to expand...

Where's the obligatory emoticon to demonstrate that this was a tongue in cheek comment? It was right?
 
Scardoc said:
Where's the obligatory emoticon to demonstrate that this was a tongue in cheek comment? It was right?
Click to expand...
I very much hope so... Think of it this way if the fat companies don't look after their investments then the tax payer (me and you) will have to look after them. That means more tax for us and richer pickings for the greedy businesses. Personally I think companies should be given more of the burden and not the individuals. However, it is all swings and roundabouts as there is only a finite pot in total.
 
My employers rules were that you could go to appointments during working hours but you had to either take a half day leave or make up the time. There was also a three strikes rule re sickness absence. If you were off more that 3 times in a (rolling) year then you were hauled up in front of your manager and HR and basically given an improvement notice (i.e. no sickness for 6 months) The 3 strikes rule applied if you were off for a week at a time or 3 one day absenses. This led to situations on the call centre where people were so terrified of having a day off that when gastric flu was going round people would come in and throw up in their wastebins by their desk. As the next shift used the same desks you can see why it went round like wild fire. I just thank whoever that I don't have to deal with them any more.
 
Back
Top