# Abusive. aggressive employee



## 1927 (Mar 1, 2008)

If an employee called a manager an effing cunt, and an effing arsehole, raised his hands to the manager and became agressive as well as abusive,because the manager asked the employee to comply with a simple request, for which he had had two previous warnings do you think it would be unreasonable for the manager to issue a further warning or dismiss employee. Discuss.


----------



## The Groke (Mar 1, 2008)

P45 without hesitation surely?


----------



## Santino (Mar 1, 2008)

There are two schools of thought. One would say that the employee should be escorted from the building, and the other says that they should be given more training.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 1, 2008)

1927 said:


> If an employee called a manager an effing cunt, and an effing arsehole, raised his hands to the manager and became agressive as well as abusive,because the manager asked the employee to comply with a simple request, for which he had had two previous warnings do you think it would be unreasonable for the manager to issue a further warning or dismiss employee. Discuss.



Abusive, agressive Ex-employee?
P45, close the door on your way out....surely?

E2A: depends on the company procedure though...maybe you have to issue a written warning.


----------



## JHE (Mar 1, 2008)

What the fuck is this?  Is u75 so full of bosses, managers and allied bastards that it functions as an advice-giving branch of the CBI or Institute of Directors?

I don't claim that it is never right to sack people, but without knowing why the worker called the manager a fucking cunt and a fucking arsehole and seemed aggressive, I cannot possibly say the worker was in the wrong.  Without further information, I'd give the worker the benefit of the doubt, not the manager.

And maybe the manager is a fucking arsehole.


----------



## coccinelle (Mar 1, 2008)

It's not even open to discussion.  The employee goes there and then.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 1, 2008)

Contractually speaking, I can not imagine getting away with behaviour like that. Whether or not the manager deserved it is another point.


----------



## bodach (Mar 1, 2008)

Ah, the system.


----------



## Melinda (Mar 1, 2008)

JHE said:


> What the fuck is this?  Is u75 so full of bosses, managers and allied bastards that it functions as an advice-giving branch of the CBI or Institute of Directors?
> 
> I don't claim that it is never right to sack people, but without knowing why the worker called the manager a fucking cunt and a fucking arsehole and seemed aggressive, I cannot possibly say the worker was in the wrong.  Without further information, I'd give the worker the benefit of the doubt, not the manager.
> 
> And maybe the manager is a fucking arsehole.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 1, 2008)

JHE said:


> Without further information, I'd give the worker the benefit of the doubt, not the manager.
> 
> And maybe the manager is a fucking arsehole.


Maybe but we do know this....


1927 said:


> because the manager asked the employee to comply with a simple request, for which he had had two previous warnings do you think it would be unreasonable for the manager to issue a further warning or dismiss employee. Discuss.


----------



## JHE (Mar 1, 2008)

No, Rutita, we do NOT know why the worker was angry with the manager.  We do not even know what the poster above claims was a "simple request", let alone what had happened before.

We've just got a moaning boss or boss's mouthpiece inviting us to agree that the worker should be sacked.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 1, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Abusive, agressive Ex-employee?
> P45, close the door on your way out....surely?



If it's an Ex-employee then how would one be furnished with their P45?

There's certain conduct expected of both the management and workers. If a worker or manager is abusive towards another member of staff then that's reasonable cause for that employee to be disciplined for gross misconduct.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 1, 2008)

JHE said:


> No, Rutita, we do NOT know why the worker was angry with the manager.  We do not even know what the poster above claims was a "simple request", let alone what had happened before.
> 
> We've just got a moaning boss or boss's mouthpiece inviting us to agree that the worker should be sacked.



Calm down mate, regardless of whether the boss is a wanker or not....I do not know of any job where I could handle the situation by swearing at, being abusive to, or raising my hand to ANYONE without disciplinary action being taken. It is NOT the way to deal with things, wanker bosses or not.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 1, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> If it's an Ex-employee then how would one be furnished with their P45?


 Meaning this could be a sackable offence. 



> There's certain conduct expected of both the management and workers. If a worker or manager is abusive towards another member of staff then that's reasonable cause for that employee to be disciplined for gross misconduct.


 I edited my original post because I'm not sure of the procedures of this comapny.


----------



## bodach (Mar 1, 2008)

Wrong thread.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 1, 2008)

bodach said:


> Wrong thread.



There is no system without individuals.


----------



## bodach (Mar 1, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> There is no system without individuals.


----------



## cesare (Mar 1, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Calm down mate, regardless of whether the boss is a wanker or not....I do not know of any job where I could handle the situation by swearing at, being abusive to, or raising my hand to ANYONE without disciplinary action being taken. It is NOT the way to deal with things, wanker bosses or not.




But the thing is, there could be any number of reasons* why this has happened. You gotta investigate first. 






* Including, but not limited to: thyroid problems, mental health illness, hypoglycaemia etc etc etc


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 1, 2008)

cesare said:


> But the thing is, there could be any number of reasons* why this has happened. You gotta investigate first.


I accept the point, but can't imagine this behaviour being overlooked and going undisciplined in a work environment where there are procedures in place.


----------



## lighterthief (Mar 1, 2008)

Alex B said:


> There are two schools of thought. One would say that the employee should be escorted from the building, and the other says that they should be given more training.




So, so true.


----------



## cesare (Mar 1, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> I accept the point, but can't imagine this behaviour being overlooked and going undisciplined in a work environment where there are procedures in place.



If someone is ill, or has a condition where the treatment has been changed (just by way of two examples) - this type of behaviour might occur and disciplining isn't going to resolve the problem. It's not about 'overlooking' - quite the reverse.

It's about understanding the circumstances that led up to/contributed to the incident and then deciding on an *appropriate* course of action, which may - or may not - include disciplinary sanctions.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 1, 2008)

*1927:*
Please qualify WHAT the simple request was.... and HOW that request relates to the 'employee's' contract/job description.


----------



## cesare (Mar 1, 2008)

Are you the manager concerned, 1927?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 1, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Meaning this could be a sackable offence.



But if they're an EX employee then they're no longer with the company and can't be sacked, apologies for the pedantry etc.

I'm an unrepentant trades unionist but rules are rules. A worker can be protected against management trying to bend the rules to suit themselves but have to follow the conduct that is expected of them too. It's got nothing to do with company policies it's employment law that nobody, no matter what their position, is abused in any way in the work place.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 1, 2008)

1927 said:


> If an employee called a manager an effing cunt, and an effing arsehole, raised his hands to the manager and became agressive as well as abusive,because the manager asked the employee to comply with a simple request, for which he had had two previous warnings do you think it would be unreasonable for the manager to issue a further warning or dismiss employee. Discuss.



Editor asked Crispy to get him a cup of tea again?


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Mar 1, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Contractually speaking, I can not imagine getting away with behaviour like that. Whether or not the manager deserved it is another point.



I agree...

as an aside could the employee have a point? Is this manager a cunt and provoking him in any way?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 1, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> But if they're an EX employee then they're no longer with the company and can't be sacked, apologies for the pedantry etc.


 The point was, abusive and aggressive = Ex employee. 



> I'm an unrepentant trades unionist but rules are rules. A worker can be protected against management trying to bend the rules to suit themselves but have to follow the conduct that is expected of them too. It's got nothing to do with company policies it's employment law.


Was my point about the way things are done/how one behaves.


Let's await 1927 full explanation of what the circumstances were.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 1, 2008)

LilMissHissyFit said:


> I agree...
> 
> as an aside could the employee have a point? Is this manager a cunt and provoking him in any way?



Quite possibly but threatening abusive behaviour will not necessarily hekp you in that situation.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 1, 2008)

I've been provoked in the most appalling ways by plenty of 'managers' in the past but have never given them the satisfaction of getting the better of me. I have come across plenty of irrational bullies and the vast majority have been colleagues, but not all. I have always kept my temper and survived.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 1, 2008)

two sheds said:


> Editor asked Crispy to get him a cup of tea again?


----------



## Wolveryeti (Mar 1, 2008)

If I was the boss I'd sack them on the spot. Intimations of physical violence, swearing at me in front of the whole office  You must be out of your mind, son.

There are plenty of constructive avenues through which to express dissatisfaction. The above do not qualify. It's the workplace, not fucking nursery school.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 1, 2008)

DapperDonDamaja said:


> It's the workplace, not fucking nursery school.


In my experience it's adults who behave like that, not toddlers.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 1, 2008)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I've been provoked in the most appalling ways by plenty of 'managers' in the past but have never given them the satisfaction of getting the better of me. I have come across plenty of irrational bullies and the vast majority have been colleagues, but not all. I have always kept my temper and survived.



A 'manager' effed and blinded at me in front of a room full of people once but I decided to take it no further. I had subtly wound him up however and it was just funny to watch more than anything else, I wouldn't have wanted him to lose his job over a bit of comedy


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Mar 1, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Quite possibly but threatening abusive behaviour will not necessarily hekp you in that situation.



I quite agree... Im interested though


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 1, 2008)

LilMissHissyFit said:


> I quite agree... Im interested though


Me too, so I've asked this....


Rutita1 said:


> *1927:*
> Please qualify WHAT the simple request was.... and HOW that request relates to the 'employee's' contract/job description.


----------



## Firky (Mar 1, 2008)

Would it not be better to ask yourself why this person called you a cunt and wanted to batter you, 1927?


----------



## dylanredefined (Mar 1, 2008)

Depends on the work place surely ? and time and place but pretty sure outside of a pretty stressful  enviorment its out the door.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 1, 2008)

firky said:


> Would it not be better to ask yourself why this person called you a cunt and wanted to batter you, 1927?



Because he was asked to wear overalls provided. He has continually refused to wear them because he doesnt like the colour. They are orange, its a health and safety issue!


----------



## scifisam (Mar 1, 2008)

1927 said:


> Because he was asked to wear overalls provided. He has continually refused to wear them because he doesnt like the colour. They are orange, its a health and safety issue!



Sounds as though he might be a health and safety issue himself, then. 

Someone else mentioned possible health issues causing violent behaviour; it's fair to check them out before dismissing him, but it's also fair (to everyone else) to at least suspend him for now.


----------



## soulman (Mar 1, 2008)

1927 said:


> Because he was asked to wear overalls provided. He has continually refused to wear them because he doesnt like the colour. They are orange, its a health and safety issue!



Have you asked him what colour overalls he would prefer. Probably not you management twat!


----------



## 1927 (Mar 1, 2008)

soulman said:


> Have you asked him what colour overalls he would prefer. Probably not you management twat!



Who said I was the manager?

Overalls are orange beacuse orange is a bright colour, so workers can be seen. Would be a bit pointless having black overalls where visibility is a requirement wouldn't it, you thick twat!


----------



## Kanda (Mar 1, 2008)

JHE said:


> And maybe the manager is a fucking arsehole.



Maybe he was, why stoop to the same level. If the actions of the manager weren't justifiable then fucking cream him with senior management, don't stoop to his level.

It's basic workplace behaviour. I've got cunty managers sacked or at least *sent for more training* in the past. Use your fucking head, don't go spaz.

It's being smart, not a competition or war.


----------



## soulman (Mar 1, 2008)

You think orange is the only bright colour thicko?

Management or not, you're coming across as an arselicking apoligist.


----------



## Kanda (Mar 1, 2008)

soulman said:


> You think orange is the only bright colour thicko?
> 
> Management or not, you're coming across as an arselicking apoligist.



Who are you addressing?


----------



## Kanda (Mar 1, 2008)

nvm.. I learnt to read up


----------



## Firky (Mar 1, 2008)

1927 said:


> Because he was asked to wear overalls provided. He has continually refused to wear them because he doesnt like the colour. They are orange, its a health and safety issue!



Did you explain this to him or just expect him to wear the overalls?

TBF he would look like he came out of guantanamo bay.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 1, 2008)

firky said:


> Did you explain this to him or just expect him to wear the overalls?
> 
> TBF he would look like he came out of guantanamo bay.



Everyone else in company wear same overalls,its H&S issue and also a uniform. It is in his contract to wear them.

He has been disciplined before for the same thing.

He has agreed to wear them everytime has been discplined but after a couple of months he stops again.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 1, 2008)

firky said:


> Did you explain this to him or just expect him to wear the overalls?



Well, it's just clothes - it wouldn't generally need explaining.



> TBF he would look like he came out of guantanamo bay.



That thought did occur to me too  Though even then he'd only be entitled to get that aggressive if he had actually just come out of Guantanamo Bay!


----------



## soulman (Mar 2, 2008)

You were asked earlier if this manager is a cunt. You didn't answer. You're playing games. If you're the employee then walk soft lad!


----------



## Wilf (Mar 2, 2008)

1927 said:


> Who said I was the manager?



Okay, you were not the manager.  Does that mean you were *not present *at the said 'event'?  If so, do  you have the full *context*?  Do you *know *that the manger was called an 'effing cunt' (oh, how coy!)?  Do you *know *that hands were raised?


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 2, 2008)

If it's a health and safety issue, doesn't thank make it more important to make sure he follows the rules? Otherwise he's putting others, not just himself, at risk with his behaviour.

I'm not saying the manager isn't being a c*nt about this issue, but health & safety is a bit more important than some stupid jobsworth task most managers delight in.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 2, 2008)

1927 said:


> Who said I was the manager?
> 
> Overalls are orange beacuse orange is a bright colour, so workers can be seen. Would be a bit pointless having black overalls where visibility is a requirement wouldn't it, you thick twat!



what colour is the employee or are they a muslim by any chance, i can think of no better inferred or actual work place bullying if they were than to make them wear orange overalls?

look here comes muhummed straigh out of gitmo... etc...

yeah farking terrorist.

what's the underlying issue here?


----------



## 1927 (Mar 2, 2008)

The underlying issue is an employee who refuses to wear orange overalls in an environment-construction and quarry work- where orange overalls are a prerequisite for health and safety reasons!


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 2, 2008)

Yes, but is the employee muslim or could be viewed as muslim by his skin colour?

Because that could be a valid reason for his refusal to wear them - although, to be fair, if it is, I would have thought he would have said so by now.

Has he ever given a valid reason why he doesn't want to wear them?


----------



## 1927 (Mar 2, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> Yes, but is the employee muslim or could be viewed as muslim by his skin colour?
> 
> Because that could be a valid reason for his refusal to wear them - although, to be fair, if it is, I would have thought he would have said so by now.
> 
> Has he ever given a valid reason why he doesn't want to wear them?



He is not muslim, but even if he was I dont see how he could object on the basis that it is a legal requirement.

He has stated that he just doesn't like orange!


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 2, 2008)

Um, I don't think that's a valid reason.

Why are they orange? Is that a company colour or purely for high vis thing? And if he got yellow ones, for example, would he wear them?

Does he have ginger hair?


----------



## scifisam (Mar 2, 2008)

This is ridiculous. Someone gets aggressive because he doesn't like orange, and it's the employer's fault?


----------



## 1927 (Mar 2, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> Um, I don't think that's a valid reason.
> 
> Why are they orange? Is that a company colour or purely for high vis thing? And if he got yellow ones, for example, would he wear them?
> 
> Does he have ginger hair?



They are orange because that is the colour adopted historically for work in quarries. It is a uniform in effect as well as the overalls have the name of the company on. It is so that the employees look more professional, as oppossed to other companies in the sector whose workers just wear any old thing and often have no PPE.

Yellow is not an option, firstly the shops selling safetywear do not sell a yellow range and secondly it isnt the uniform colour.

You are having a laff about the ginger hair thing surely!


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 2, 2008)

So it would seem, scifisam.

As my mother said to me frequently, we all have to do things we don't want to do.

This guy is contractually obliged to wear orange overalls for his safety, and that of others, so basically, he has to.

If he doesn't like it, he should reconsider his employment with the company.

I was trying to see if this guy had any kind of valid reason for not wearing them but I guess there isn't, really.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 2, 2008)

1927 said:


> You are having a laff about the ginger hair thing surely!



It wasn't so much a laugh as me specualting on the possiblilty of why he doesn't want to wear them.

But, your post has made it perfectly clear why orange was chosen, and there are no viable alternatives, so the way forward is pretty clear.

either he wears them or reconsiders his postion with the company - and I say this because he could be putting other people's lives at risk and that makes him a liability the company can do without.


----------



## bodach (Mar 2, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> So it would seem, scifisam.
> 
> As my mother said to me frequently, we all have to do things we don't want to do.
> 
> ...



You type far too much.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 2, 2008)

One of my many talents


----------



## cesare (Mar 2, 2008)

Seems a bit odd.

Interview and induction - high risk industry highlighted & requirement to wear PPC. Possibly also explained in staff handbook and/or contract.

At some point into employment  'well, I'm not going to fucking wear these any more you c*nt' = warning #1

Some time a bit further down the line  'I'm not going to fucking wear these anymore you c*nt' = warning #2

Most recently 'I'm not going to fucking wear these any more you c*nt', 'why not?' 'Because I fucking don't like orange of course!* 

Very odd.


----------



## cesare (Mar 2, 2008)

I've a niggling suspicion that we don't have the whole story here


----------



## two sheds (Mar 2, 2008)

cesare said:


> I've a niggling suspicion that we don't have the whole story here



Yes, what shade of orange was it?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 2, 2008)

1927 said:


> The underlying issue is an employee who refuses to wear orange overalls in an environment-construction and quarry work- where orange overalls are a prerequisite for health and safety reasons!



tha'ts a yes isn't it.

so what you are really saying is the employ is getting bullyed at work to the point where asking them to wear an item or face the sack pushes them to the point where they flip out and become agressive.

Otherwise you'd just say yes or no ...

are you the one doing the pushing...

why do you want them sacked?


----------



## cesare (Mar 2, 2008)

two sheds said:


> Yes, what shade of orange was it?





I'm wondering if he actually works in the quarry proper. Might turn out to be the office bound credit controller or summat


----------



## Wilf (Mar 2, 2008)

1927 said:


> They are orange because that is the colour adopted historically for work in quarries. It is a uniform in effect as well as the overalls have the name of the company on. It is so that the employees look more professional, as oppossed to other companies in the sector whose workers just wear any old thing and often have no PPE.
> 
> Yellow is not an option, firstly the shops selling safetywear do not sell a yellow range and secondly it isnt the uniform colour.
> 
> You are having a laff about the ginger hair thing surely!



Hmmm...

post 38 - its 'health and safety'

post 55 - 'legal requirement'

But here you say its just 'historic' - a 'uniform' - something to make your workers 'more professional'.  Also, you make it clear that workers for other firms just wear 'any old thing'.  That suggests it *isn't *a legal requirement.

And are you suggesting you really can't buy other coloured overalls?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 2, 2008)

1927 said:


> Because he was asked to wear overalls provided. He has continually refused to wear them because he doesnt like the colour. They are orange, its a health and safety issue!



If he refuses to work when you've provided the right equipment then it's fair game that the disciplinary procedure will take its course. No union rep in their right mind would represent someone on the basis that they're being awkward or fussy. is he the only one of many disagreeing though... more info needed.



soulman said:


> Have you asked him what colour overalls he would prefer. Probably not you management twat!



Yeah, run along you faux left winger.


----------



## pk (Mar 2, 2008)

1927 said:


> If an employee called a manager an effing cunt, and an effing arsehole, raised his hands to the manager and became agressive as well as abusive,because the manager asked the employee to comply with a simple request, for which he had had two previous warnings do you think it would be unreasonable for the manager to issue a further warning or dismiss employee. Discuss.



Sack the little prick, take pleasure in doing so, and take even more pleasure in the inevitable outrage that comes from twats here.

Even better, sack him on video and stick it on Youtube so we can all have a laugh.

You know you want to!


----------



## stowpirate (Mar 2, 2008)

1927 said:


> If an employee called a manager an effing cunt, and an effing arsehole, raised his hands to the manager and became agressive as well as abusive,because the manager asked the employee to comply with a simple request, for which he had had two previous warnings do you think it would be unreasonable for the manager to issue a further warning or dismiss employee. Discuss.



I was working on QA inspection for Atco in Stowmarket Suffolk and witnessed an employee being bullied on the production line. Other members of staff were sending him text messages and throwing nuts and bolts and other items of lawn mowers at him. Over a number of days he complained that he  wanted to be moved and eventually three line managers had a informal meeting when he had gone home. In which they called him every name you can imagine. The next morning a women line manager came to tell him he was being moved. She shouted and screamed at him and told him to "fuck off up onto her production line" she waved her hands around in anger and the poor  employee was obviously  shocked .  At which point I had seen enough I complained to my line manager this was unacceptable at which point I was threatened with physical violence. I then went to the supervisor and complained and refused to be moved with the result that the production line came to a snails pace. The original bully boys and my line manager stopped working!!!  Eventually I was moved and harassed by the rest of the line managers and finally forced to leave. The final outcome was that the line manager was demoted.  This was the company in question.

http://www.atco.co.uk/


----------



## 1927 (Mar 2, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> tha'ts a yes isn't it.
> 
> so what you are really saying is the employ is getting bullyed at work to the point where asking them to wear an item or face the sack pushes them to the point where they flip out and become agressive.
> 
> ...



How is he being bullied?


----------



## lights.out.london (Mar 2, 2008)

JHE said:


> What the fuck is this?  Is u75 so full of bosses, managers and allied bastards that it functions as an advice-giving branch of the CBI or Institute of Directors?


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 2, 2008)

Epic troll!


----------



## dessiato (Mar 2, 2008)

I've come to this thread late, and am too lazy to read the whole thing.

I have, however, been in the position to investigate this type situation. What I did was suspend both parties pending the outcome of the investigation which was conducted within one day. The outcome was that the employee was fired, gross misconduct due to language, and threatening behaviour. The manager was 'retrained' and given a formal warning about his behaviour for provoking the situation. It was felt that the actual reaction was disproportionate and the threat of violence was unaceptable. The manager only got wawy with it because it was shown that his request was not unreasonable, but that it was important that he became more 'people oriented'.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 2, 2008)

I would never wear orange and would deck anyone who tried to make me wear it


----------



## Balbi (Mar 2, 2008)

But you're famous for the orange and black stripes combo!


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 2, 2008)

Balbi said:


> But you're famous for the orange and black stripes combo!


Orange and brown
Orange all over is a crime in many ways - makes you look like you're either on death row in the US or about to get your head sawn off. And it clashes with ginger hair.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 2, 2008)

You might glow a bit more than your usual radiescent sparkle


----------



## 1927 (Mar 2, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> I would never wear orange and would deck anyone who tried to make me wear it



You wouldnt be welcome as an employee with us then.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 2, 2008)

1927 said:


> You wouldnt be welcome as an employee with us then.



I can live with that - you sound like a shit boss anyway


----------



## 1927 (Mar 2, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> I can live with that - you sound like a shit boss anyway



Explain


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 2, 2008)

1927 said:


> Explain



Making people wear orange.
All bosses are shit anyways.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 2, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> Making people wear orange.
> All bosses are shit anyways.



Thats Ok then , you was just being a twat.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 2, 2008)

1927 said:


> Thats Ok then , you was just being a twat.


Yes I was 

It's Sunday and I have nothing else to do all day at work.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 2, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> I can live with that - you sound like a shit boss anyway


----------



## dilute micro (Mar 2, 2008)

Managers can be bullies themselves and can treat people unfairly.  If someone reacts to that then I don't have a problem with it.  Usually there's more to the story and management has the benefit of the appearance of being the victim.  Of course every so often its the employee alone who's got the problems.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 2, 2008)

Why don't you compromise? Maybe yellow is more his colour?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 2, 2008)

1927 said:


> How is he being bullied?



why are you so willing to insit they are not.

unless they have some kind of mental problem then orange isn't goign to be the issue is it numb nuts...


----------



## Wilf (Mar 2, 2008)

1927 - any thoughts on post 68?


----------



## Funky_monks (Mar 2, 2008)

Yesterday, I refused to wear my yellow bib n brace because it didn't go with my shirt.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2008)

4thwrite said:


> 1927 - any thoughts on post 68?



Worst generation ever.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 2, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Worst generation ever.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 2, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> why are you so willing to insit they are not.
> 
> unless they have some kind of mental problem then orange isn't goign to be the issue is it numb nuts...



He is only being asked to wear a set of overalls provided for his safety and welfare, something which is in his employment, something he has been disciplined for previously. Something he has given a written undertaken to wear. And you believe he is being bullied. FFS


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 2, 2008)

Give him some yellow ones


----------



## 1927 (Mar 2, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> Give him some yellow ones



No


----------



## 1927 (Mar 2, 2008)

"Your responsibilities
Your most important responsibilities as an employee are:

to take reasonable care of your own health and safety 
if possible avoid wearing jewellery or loose clothing if operating machinery 
if you have long hair or wear a headscarf, make sure it's tucked out of the way (it could get caught in machinery) 
to take reasonable care not to put other people - fellow employees and members of the public - at risk by what you do or don't do in the course of your work 
to co-operate with your employer, making sure you get proper training and you understand and follow the company's health and safety policies 
not to interfere with or misuse anything that's been provided for your health, safety or welfare" 
Personal protective equipment
Your employer must provide personal protective equipment (PPE) to you free of charge. You must use this correctly, and follow the training and instruction you've been given.

In some jobs, failure to use PPE properly can be grounds for disciplinary action or even dismissal. However, you can refuse to wear PPE if it puts your safety at risk (eg PPE of the wrong size could put you at risk because of its poor fit). 



Taken from here


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 2, 2008)

1927 said:


> No



Pink? Green? A man's got to have a choice!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 2, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> Pink? Green? A man's got to have a choice!


----------



## 1927 (Mar 2, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> Pink? Green? A man's got to have a choice!



No he doesn't


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 2, 2008)

Go on, meet him half way - do something nice once in your life


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 2, 2008)

Is this employee your  colleague  1927?


----------



## 1927 (Mar 2, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> Go on, meet him half way - do something nice once in your life



Its imparcticable to do this. The quarries, our clients, insist that employees have ornage overalls. No orange overalls, no access to quarry, no contract, no work for men, redundancy, end of company!


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 2, 2008)

1927 said:


> Its imparcticable to do this. The quarries, our clients, insist that employees have ornage overalls. No orange overalls, no access to quarry, no contract, no work for men, redundancy, end of company!



fire the cunt then


----------



## 1927 (Mar 2, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> fire the cunt then



lol


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 2, 2008)

1927 said:


> He is only being asked to wear a set of overalls provided for his safety and welfare, something which is in his employment, something he has been disciplined for previously. Something he has given a written undertaken to wear. And you believe he is being bullied. FFS



why though does it bother you so much if you aren't the boss are you hoping for a promotion if he get's fired or summit?

It's none of your, to put it bluntly, fucking business is it if the worker isn't you and you aren't the manager i cannot beleive that anyone would be so dumb as to openly cheer the removeal of a colluege for what is in essence a minor thing which isn't legally manditory.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Mar 2, 2008)

1927 said:


> Its imparcticable to do this. The quarries, our clients, insist that employees have ornage overalls. No orange overalls, no access to quarry, no contract, no work for men, redundancy, end of company!



Orange with nice green and blue flowers maybe?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 2, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> what is in essence a minor thing which isn't legally manditory.



Isn't it a legal requirement if it's written into his contract of employment that he has to wear a uniform authorised, chosen and provided by the company?


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Isn't it a legal requirement if it's written into his contract of employment that he has to wear a uniform authorised, chosen and provided by the company?



No you are not legally bound to wear a uniform. A park keeper would not be breaking the law by not wearing his bottle green tunic. However you do have some legal duties when at work:

From the HSE website

As an employee you have legal duties too. They include:

■ taking reasonable care for your own health and safety and that of others who
may be affected by what you do or do not do;
■ co-operating with your employer on health and safety;
■ correctly using work items provided by your employer, including personal
protective equipment, in accordance with training or instructions; and
■ not interfering with or misusing anything provided for your health, safety
or welfare.​
A Pair of orange overalls is not a uniform it is high vis clobber to stop you being ran over by a great big quarry wagon.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 2, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> why though does it bother you so much if you aren't the boss are you hoping for a promotion if he get's fired or summit?
> 
> It's none of your, to put it bluntly, fucking business is it if the worker isn't you and you aren't the manager i cannot beleive that anyone would be so dumb as to openly cheer the removeal of a colluege for what is in essence a minor thing which isn't legally manditory.



Where did I cheer his removal. When did I even mention that he might be removed?


----------



## two sheds (Mar 2, 2008)

LilMissHissyFit said:


> Orange with nice green and blue flowers maybe?



Green and blue flowers would cost too much, even in bulk  they've clearly only bought cheap orange things calculated to offend the maximum number of employees.


----------



## soulman (Mar 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> If he refuses to work when you've provided the right equipment then it's fair game that the disciplinary procedure will take its course. No union rep in their right mind would represent someone on the basis that they're being awkward or fussy. is he the only one of many disagreeing though... more info needed.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, run along you faux left winger.



LOL


----------



## Giles (Mar 2, 2008)

firky said:


> No you are not legally bound to wear a uniform. A park keeper would not be breaking the law by not wearing his bottle green tunic. However you do have some legal duties when at work:



Health & Safety aside, in many jobs you have to wear a uniform. 

Surely if this was made clear to you when you took the job, you have to wear the uniform?

I remember working in shops and stuff where you had to wear their uniform. 

I mean, could a policeman just turn up in jeans and a t-shirt and say "I'm not wearing that uniform, especially that hat that looks like a big tit on my head" without getting into trouble?

Giles..


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Mar 2, 2008)

two sheds said:


> Green and blue flowers would cost too much, even in bulk  they've clearly only bought cheap orange things calculated to offend the maximum number of employees.




*shakes head*

They _really need auntie Gok_


----------



## Funky_monks (Mar 2, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> Pink? Green? A man's got to have a choice!



I think on monday I'm going to demand black wellies, cos I think the green ones clash with my (yellow) bib n brace.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 2, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> why though does it bother you so much if you aren't the boss are you hoping for a promotion if he get's fired or summit?
> 
> It's none of your, to put it bluntly, fucking business is it if the worker isn't you and you aren't the manager i cannot beleive that anyone would be so dumb as to openly cheer the removeal of a colluege for what is in essence a minor thing which isn't legally manditory.



It is an offence worthy of gross misconduct to refuse to work on the basis that PPE isn't the right colour [to suit your personal taste]. Speaking as a real trades unionist here as opposed to just a manager hater, no union rep in their right mind would defend this guy over the facts that have been given.

Employment laws work both ways. 'Awkwardness' from individual employees does damage to unions as they try to fight just causes for the good of all of the members rather than piss about with individual folk who have an axe to grind.


----------



## soulman (Mar 2, 2008)

If a union rep has to come on here for advice then they deserve the shit they get...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 2, 2008)

soulman said:


> If a union rep has to come on here for advice then they deserve the shit they get...



Are you suggesting that 1927 is a union rep?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 2, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Are you suggesting that 1927 is a union rep?



And why would a union rep deserve 'shit'?

Piss off soulman there's a good chap.


----------



## soulman (Mar 2, 2008)

I hope not...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> And why would a union rep deserve 'shit'?
> 
> .



I wasn't suggesting they do.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Mar 2, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> I wasn't suggesting they do.


I think C66 was following on from your post rather than disagreeing?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 2, 2008)

Bob_the_lost said:


> I think C66 was following on from your post rather than disagreeing?



Yeah that's right...



Rutita1 said:


> I wasn't suggesting they do.



Sorry hun


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Mar 2, 2008)

They need some blue and green flowers. Maybe even a few red to balance out the orangeness


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 2, 2008)

cesare said:


> But the thing is, there could be any number of reasons* why this has happened. You gotta investigate first.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh no its not, i mean:





coccinelle said:


> It's not even open to discussion.  The employee goes there and then.


----------



## soulman (Mar 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> And why would a union rep deserve 'shit'?



Having worked, and been in a union for most of my adult life, I can think of quite a few reasons. One of them would be if a union rep had to come on this site to ask for advice.



> Piss off soulman there's a good chap.



You wanna wind your neck in sunshine.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 2, 2008)

pk said:


> Sack the little prick, take pleasure in doing so, and take even more pleasure in the inevitable outrage that comes from twats here.
> 
> Even better, sack him on video and stick it on Youtube so we can all have a laugh.
> 
> You know you want to!


twat.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Yeah that's right...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry hun



I see.  Just wanted to be sure.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> It is an offence worthy of gross misconduct to refuse to work on the basis that PPE isn't the right colour [to suit your personal taste]. Speaking as a real trades unionist here as opposed to just a manager hater, no union rep in their right mind would defend this guy over the facts that have been given.
> 
> Employment laws work both ways. 'Awkwardness' from individual employees does damage to unions as they try to fight just causes for the good of all of the members rather than piss about with individual folk who have an axe to grind.



butt he whole point here is that we don't have the whole story we have the story thrid hand from an alternate staff member who seems to have an unntaral urge to want someone to be fired.  In itself the story is told from that point of view.  

as a real union rep I would be livid if that were the only verison of events which saw some one fired.  I would at least expect to hear what the worker themselves had said or who they viewed the situation.

gross misconduct of course can be followed but even then there is still a proceedure which must be followed to establish the facts of the matter which we certainly don't have here on this thread. 

and has been said before there's a number of reasons why this person might have become aggressive.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 3, 2008)

What does the contract of employment say?


----------



## subversplat (Mar 3, 2008)

Why not just forget it and if he gets himself run over then it's his loss.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 3, 2008)

.....


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 3, 2008)

JHE said:


> What the fuck is this?  Is u75 so full of bosses, managers and allied bastards that it functions as an advice-giving branch of the CBI or Institute of Directors?



Well fucking said. There's more and more of these sorts of threads appearing (on a supposedly left-leaning bulletin board) and it's getting silly. There's any number of supportive orgs for bosses without them drowning out other areas as well.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Mar 3, 2008)

I keep hearing about these organisations, weird that no one ever says where they are? Maybe the boogieman stole them and everyone needs a new one now.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Mar 3, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> Well fucking said. There's more and more of these sorts of threads appearing (on a supposedly left-leaning bulletin board) and it's getting silly. There's any number of supportive orgs for bosses without them drowning out other areas as well.


C'mon... one of the good things about Urban is it's diversity. Or are you suggesting that before joining Urban there needs to be a political leanings questionnaire to make sure everyone's the "right" sort of poster ? And has the "right" sort of opinions ? 
Wonder how many members there'd be then ? LOL  (And anyhow - this is the employment forum innit for employment questions ?)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 3, 2008)

I find it interesting that if you are 'left' leaning you can't ethically be a manager/supervisor/boss.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Mar 3, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> I find it interesting that if you are 'left' leaning you can't ethically be a manager/supervisor/boss.


Me too  In reality, most people I know seem to be able to separate work and politics quite nicely and don't let the two collide when at work...


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 3, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> I find it interesting that if you are 'left' leaning you can't ethically be a manager/supervisor/boss.



Can you though?


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 3, 2008)

SouthCoaster said:


> Me too  In reality, most people I know seem to be able to separate work and politics quite nicely and don't let the two collide when at work...



Yes - it _is _possible to be a two-faced hypocrite who advocates left-causes like workers rights at the same time as sacking and disciplining them for being uppity and disrespectful to their betters in the workplace itself.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 3, 2008)

SouthCoaster said:


> Me too  In reality, most people I know seem to be able to separate work and politics quite nicely and don't let the two collide when at work...



That's impossible - how are work and politics seperate?


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 3, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> I find it interesting that if you are 'left' leaning you can't ethically be a manager/supervisor/boss.



One of the main points of left-politics is that it makes the distinction between bosses and workers. The whole of marxist theory works on that principle, for example. You get the the owners of production/service, then the managers (whip-hands) of production/service - who's job it is to marshall and control the actual workers themselves at the bottom of that chain.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Mar 3, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> Can you though?


In all seriousness, you must be able to otherwise there'd be far less people in bosses jobs... again I suspect the reality is that most people/bosses don't take their politics to work with them so how would anyone know ?

I been at my current employer for 10 years now & tbh I can only recall a few  political discussions the whole time... it's the kind of thing that causes divisions & arguments so whilst it's not discouraged, it kind of appears most people keep off the subject


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 3, 2008)

SouthCoaster said:


> In all seriousness, you must be able to otherwise there'd be far less people in bosses jobs... again I suspect the reality is that most people/bosses don't take their politics to work with them so how would anyone know ?



Work _is_ politics.
There's more to politics than just talking about it.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Mar 3, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> Yes - it _is _possible to be a two-faced hypocrite who advocates left-causes like workers rights at the same time as sacking and disciplining them for being uppity and disrespectful to their betters in the workplace itself.


Depends if you believe going to work and getting a supervisory job/moving up the career ladder to improve your family's lot is by definition hypocritical or bettering oneself doesn't it really


----------



## GoneCoastal (Mar 3, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> That's impossible - how are work and politics seperate?


Because I don't take my politics to work either. I vote as a private individual and sure I consider what my vote's impact is going to be on myself/family/others etc but I wouldn't go in and announce my political views to my colleagues - nor would I expect them to tell me


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 3, 2008)

SouthCoaster said:


> Because I don't take my politics to work either. I vote as a private individual and sure I consider what my vote's impact is going to be on myself/family/others etc but I wouldn't go in and announce my political views to my colleagues - nor would I expect them to tell me



No, that's not what they mean. I believe what they're trying to say is actions speak louder than words.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 3, 2008)

You must be very naive if you don't think your political outlook affects the way you work


----------



## GoneCoastal (Mar 3, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> Work _is_ politics.
> There's more to politics than just talking about it.


Very true indeed - but again I suspect most folks are lethargic about the whole issue and prob in quite a lot of cases reasonably happy... primrose path I think is the expression iirc


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 3, 2008)

SouthCoaster said:


> Because I don't take my politics to work either. I vote as a private individual and sure I consider what my vote's impact is going to be on myself/family/others etc but I wouldn't go in and announce my political views to my colleagues - nor would I expect them to tell me



It's a shame that - we need more politicking in the workplace - I couldn't work anywhere where we could only talk about certain things. I'm finding it difficult to imagine how you can avoid talking about it.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Mar 3, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> You must be very naive if you don't think your political outlook affects the way you work


Nope not naive, just realistic and if I felt that my employer was impinging on or acting against my political thoughts & beliefs, I'd look for another job. & I've got a reasonable amount of work experience now, I just realised it'll be 30 years in August


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 3, 2008)

So if you are a 'lefty' you need to stay a 'worker' ?


----------



## GoneCoastal (Mar 3, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> It's a shame that - we need more politicking in the workplace - I couldn't work anywhere where we could only talk about certain things. I'm finding it difficult to imagine how you can avoid talking about it.


It was much more openly political in the NHS when I worked there as you'd expect but in a private company, far less so...


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 3, 2008)

SouthCoaster said:


> Depends if you believe going to work and getting a supervisory job/moving up the career ladder to improve your family's lot is by definition hypocritical or bettering oneself doesn't it really



It's called individualistic, corporate-ladderclimbing embourgification. To those who wish to follow such a path I say this: go ahead by all means - but don't try and kid yourself or others that you are still "one of us". You've taken on a role that you know involves hringing, firing and dislipining "uppity" workwers onbehalf of the capitalist employer. Your loyalty is now to "them" and not "us". You can't face both ways at once.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 3, 2008)

SouthCoaster said:


> C'mon... one of the good things about Urban is it's diversity. Or are you suggesting that before joining Urban there needs to be a political leanings questionnaire to make sure everyone's the "right" sort of poster ? And has the "right" sort of opinions ?
> Wonder how many members there'd be then ? LOL  (And anyhow - this is the employment forum innit for employment questions ?)



no other wise we'd never have let poster numbers the troll in ....oh hang on am i actualy argueeing for this i am aren't i .... yes only then if we can back date it ...


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 3, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> So if you are a 'lefty' you need to stay a 'worker' ?



Yes. Or assume a bossmanship and accept you are no longer a lefty as your new role is inherantly at odds with leftwing politics.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 3, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> It's called individualistic, corporate-ladderclimbing embourgification. Top those who wish to follow such a path I say this: go ahead by all means - but don't try and kid yourself or others that you are still "one of us". You've taken on a role that you know involves hringing, firing and dislipining *"uppity"* workwers onbehalf of the capitalist employer. Your loyalty is now to "them" and not "us". You can't face both ways at once.



Can 'uppity' in some cases also mean those who don't honour their contract in some way? Therefore are not doing their job.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 3, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> Yes - it _is _possible to be a two-faced hypocrite who advocates left-causes like workers rights at the same time as sacking and disciplining them for being uppity and disrespectful to their betters in the workplace itself.



because yet again your straw man cellar is over runeth with inhabitaints... 

these are of course th eonly reason to sack or discapline peoople...

have you ever had a job other than paper selling one...


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 3, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> So if you are a 'lefty' you need to stay a 'worker' ?



I would say so - how can you be a boss and yet on the side of the workers?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 3, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> I would say so - how can you be a boss and yet on the side of the workers?



Decent contracts, terms of employment, pay etc...?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 3, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Can 'uppity' in some cases also mean those who don't honour their contract in some way? Therefore are not doing their job.



according to numbers the troll it's anyone in any way who has been told off by the boss be it utterly legitimate or otherwise...

numbers the troll thinks that the worker can do no wrong....

number the troll also doens't know their arse formt heir elbow when it comes to employment legisalation or indeed another other left wing topic....

numbers is a freeper who is pretending to be a left winger in order to troll as one to discredit left wing thinking...

numbers has been spotted...


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 3, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Can 'uppity' in some cases also mean those who don't honour their contract in some way? Therefore are not doing their job.



That's the bosses side of the argument and they have no trouble being heard. I don't see it as the role of a socialist to aid it.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 3, 2008)

If you started a collective giving rights to all in the organisation. I suppose that would be different.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 3, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> numbers is a freeper who is pretending to be a left winger in order to troll as one to discredit left wing thinking...



Substantiate that or retract, please.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 3, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> That's the bosses side of the argument and they have no trouble being heard. I don't see it as the role of a socialist to aid it.



It's not really just 'the bosses' side of the argument. I have been fired twice in my life. Both times I was unable to or not doing my job, therefore not honouring my contract. They were right to let me go.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Mar 3, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> It's called individualistic, corporate-ladderclimbing embourgification. Top those who wish to follow such a path I say this: go ahead by all means - but don't try and kid yourself or others that you are still "one of us". You've taken on a role that you know involves hringing, firing and dislipining "uppity" workwers onbehalf of the capitalist employer. Your loyalty is now to "them" and not "us". You can't face both ways at once.


Ooops well, that's a goodly chunk of the workforce then including Nurses (matrons), Doctors, consultants  etc etc & a goodly chunk of the folks I know from the council estats where I was born, all up agin the wall


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 3, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> I would say so - how can you be a boss and yet on the side of the workers?



because you have to work within the system you can't say sod this i'm turnignt his department into an anarchist socialist non hirearchical section of the work place.  You can however support and protect your staff and defend theri existing rights and legitimately attempt to get new ones for them.  I think that there's far to much concentration on middle management (largely because this is as high up as most peopel who discuss it are in compaines, but it's hardly line managers or even their direct superiors who are to blame for the design or polices of the companies it's not like the even have a say in them they are simply in the same boat as the worker but paid slightly more and in extreme cases might fire them which will be bullets and gun provided by HR.

Bosses which is what originally people were ralyign against ie company owners Stock holders Share Holders not middle managment it's such a shit focus... we'll attack the workers on the second lowest rung to protect the ones underneith them however workers above them fuck em they are part of the system ... it all get's incredably partisan very quickely...


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 3, 2008)

SouthCoaster said:


> Ooops well, that's a goodly chunk of the workforce then



There's a lot of truth that the ruling class has followed a policy of obsenely swelling the ranks of the boss-classes over the last 30 years in order to break down solidarity bewtween workers. Solidarity _is_ hard to foster when you have workplaces where everyoen is someone else's boss.

The point is to fight to change this - not pretend it doesn't matter and pretend these embourgified types still solidarise with "their staff" regardless.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 3, 2008)

Would like to know how Poster thinks of a small shopkeeper employing someone part time to help them out or any other small business.. enemy of the worker? Always???
Good example also re: higher up nurses or teachers. People who aren't in 'business' to make money anyhow.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Mar 3, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> I would say so - how can you be a boss and yet on the side of the workers?


Depends if there have to be automatically "sides" or if you want to work as a "team" - where I am - if we don't work as a team, the company don't get contracts and we are *all* out of jobs potentially - so it's a good incentive to  work together  

Anyhow - speaking of work - I better get on with some


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 3, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> Substantiate that or retract, please.



everythign you have ever posted on employment rights or left wign thinking is evidence enough of some one who doens't understand the prinicpals or indeed have any practical mehtod of implamenting it.

you reacitonary deleberate knee jerk posting style and your entire repitioure of usless catch phrase poltics.

All buuilt and designed as a freeper troll....

as i have said before Got your number freeper boy... 

and let's face it no one but no one thinks you are a credible source of radical or left wing poltics you are jsut here to attempt to misdirect and turn people off left wing poltics with your constant embittered moaning... 

even if you are not then you antics are such a good aprody of this that it achives the same ends.

so either you are a freeper troll or doing such a plausable impression of one as makes no difference...

QED


----------



## GoneCoastal (Mar 3, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> There's a lot of truth that the ruling class has followed a policy of obsenely swelling the ranks of the boss-classes over the last 30 years in order to break down solidarity bewtween workers. Solidarity _is_ hard to foster when you have workplaces where everyoen is someone else's boss.
> 
> The point is to fight to change this - not pretend it doesn't matter and pretend these embourgified types still solidarise with "their staff" regardless.


Or perhaps people want to get on and improve things for themselves ? 

Anyhow - ends derail & clears of to do some work


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 3, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Would like to know how Poster thinks of a small shopkeeper employing someone part time to help them out or any other small business.. enemy of the worker? Always???
> Good example also re: higher up nurses or teachers. People who aren't in 'business' to make money anyhow.



That's a good point and I'd say that the former are the old, "classic" petit-bourgeoise whilst the latter are the "new" petit-bourgeioise. In my experience, anyway, it's the corporate-ladderclimbers in the second category who are the nastiest to those beneath them inthe heirarchy. Others' experience may be different, though.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 3, 2008)

SouthCoaster said:


> Or perhaps people want to get on and improve things for themselves ?



This sort of individual advancement is at the expense of collective solidarity and accross-the-board improvements for all. It becomes an alternative to solidarity.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 3, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> everythign you have ever posted on employment rights or left wign thinking is evidence enough of some one who doens't understand the prinicpals or indeed have any practical mehtod of implamenting it.
> 
> you reacitonary deleberate knee jerk posting style and your entire repitioure of usless catch phrase poltics.
> 
> ...



So, basically, nothing at all. And you, of course, are the Great Arbiter of what is "correct" or acceptable leftwing thought. 

I don't know why I took you off ignore.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 3, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> That's a good point and I'd say that the former are the old, "classic" petit-bourgeoise whilst the latter are the "new" petit-bourgeioise. In my experience, anyway, it's the corporate-ladderclimbers in the second category who are the nastiest to those beneath them inthe heirarchy. Others' experience may be different, though.



So the corner shop who employs someone part time to stack the shelves is 'corporate ladder climbing'?

Or just needs a bit of a hand because they are up at about 5am and don't close till 10pm?

Nurses and teachers are corporate ladder climbers?? I doubt most of them think of themselves as any other than a nurse or teacher to tell you the truth.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 3, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> So the corner shop who employs someone part time to stack the shelves is 'corporate ladder climbing'?
> 
> Or just needs a bit of a hand because they are up at about 5am and don't close till 10pm?



No, those are the old "classic" petit-bourgoeise. They don't really have a corporate ladder to climb - unless their business expands dramaticallly.



_angel_ said:


> Nurses and teachers are corporate ladder climbers?? I doubt most of them think of themselves as any other than a nurse or teacher to tell you the truth.



With them (and others who fall within what I call the "new petit-bourgeoisie") it depends on if they start trying to climb the corporate ladder within their employers and become responsble for hiring, firing and disciplining workers. it's at that point that a line is crossed, imo.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 3, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> So, basically, nothing at all. And you, of course, are the Great Arbiter of what is "correct" or acceptable leftwing thought.



laughs and points... that man has no and i mean no sense of irony...

coming from the 'propper' left wing socialist, who conitnually rubbishes the Left yet when asked to define this homogonious grouping of disperate and different organsieations or define their aims he stutters and stumbles and then founces ro threats people with ignoring them until they go away... 

not one question answered in their entire posting career of any significance not one defintion preovide yet continuouis runnign down and degridation of anthing which numbers the troll doens't think is appropreate, oddly and every time these are issues which it serves the right wing agenda to have pushed off topic and into bollcks back biting and dogma and it's always numebrs the troll...

Got your numbers son ... 

go play els where for you the trolling is over...


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 3, 2008)

Yeah, yadda yadda yadda .. whatever, garfield. I'm tired of going round in circles with you. 

Think what you like. Hurl insults if it gives you a nice warm feeling inside. I really couldn't care less for your opinions anymore.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 3, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> No, those are the old "classic" petit-bourgoeise. They don't really have a corporate ladder to climb - unless thei rbusiness expands dramticallly.
> 
> 
> 
> With them (and others who fall within what I call the "new petit-bourgeoisie") it depends on if they start trying to climb the corporate ladder within their employers and become responsble for hiring, firing and disciplining workers. it's at that point that a line is crossed, imo.




I don't know much about nursing but AFAIK hiring /firing teachers only goes with the head teacher who are in quite a different position to a head of year, for example. I think.

Although a lot of times with them being forced to be run like businesses and not got enough money they have (heads) to make redundancies that are out of their control.

Head teachers seem a different thing altogether to 'ordinary' teachers as far as I can tell.. I couldn't claim to know the set up in nursing.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Mar 3, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> This sort of individual advancement is at the expense of collective solidarity and accross-the-board improvements for all. It becomes an alternative to solidarity.


But it's the much reviled human nature to do it  
People are individuals and not everyone wants solidarity rammed down their throats - tbh it seems to me that your idea of solidarity might well equate to a kind of dictatorship type of solidarity    if you see what I mean 

*Determines to come back later at lunchtime or summat*
Back laters


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 3, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> Yeah, yadda yadda yadda .. whatever, garfield. I'm tired of going round in circles with you.
> 
> Think what you like. Hurl insults if it gives you a nice warm feeling inside. I really couldn't care less for your opinions anymore.


there's no isult anywhere near that you have been called out my friend face facts and move on...


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 3, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> there's no isult anywhere near that you have been called out my friend face facts and move on...



If thinking that makes you feel happy, that's your bag. Looks a bit tragic (like a kid yelling "you're fleas") from where I'm standing, but there you go...


----------



## Xanadu (Mar 3, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> Others' experience may be different, though.





You're getting soft in your old age!


----------



## radiohead (Mar 3, 2008)

can we get back to talking about orange overalls please?


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 3, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> So if you are a 'lefty' you need to stay a 'worker' ?




No.  A left-wing boss in a profit-making organisation is an oxymoron.  The best a boss can be is a hand-wringing liberal.  The velvet coated shackle.


----------



## cesare (Mar 3, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> No.  A left-wing boss in a profit-making organisation is an oxymoron.  The best a boss can be is a hand-wringing liberal.  The velvet coated shackle.



How do you define 'boss'?

Does it kick in at a low paid supervisor earning 50p more an hour than their 'team'?


----------



## Wolveryeti (Mar 3, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> No.  A left-wing boss in a profit-making organisation is an oxymoron.  The best a boss can be is a hand-wringing liberal.  The velvet coated shackle.



This is a somewhat bizarre comment. 

If firms divide up all profits amongst their employees they can never grow, and thus with population growth you will get unemployment.

Is it left wing to not give a fuck about unemployment, whilst keeping your clique rich?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 3, 2008)

DapperDonDamaja said:


> This is a somewhat bizarre comment.
> 
> If firms divide up all profits amongst their employees they can never grow, and thus with population growth you will get unemployment.
> 
> Is it left wing to not give a fuck about unemployment, whilst keeping your clique rich?


You have heard of the Co-op I take it?


----------



## cesare (Mar 3, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> You have heard of the Co-op I take it?



There's some great co-ops, but they can't get beyond a certain size before they have to introduce hierarchies to deal with communication if nothing else, and then it all disintegrates  

Back to the subject matter: I'd be happy to post summat about 1927's company's dilemma with this employee but 1927 isn't answering the questions.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 3, 2008)

radiohead said:


> can we get back to talking about orange overalls please?



Quite - for example it wasn't in the contract of employment 1927 put up earlier that people have to wear orange overalls. No mention of orange at all, with or without coloured flowers. QED surely. 

I was idly wondering how poster34200 would have dealt with this if it was happening in what he'd consider an ideal company in what he'd consider an ideal society. Would he have us all wearing orange uniforms THEN I ask?


----------



## cesare (Mar 3, 2008)

two sheds said:


> Quite - for example it wasn't in the contract of employment 1927 put up earlier that people have to wear orange overalls. No mention of orange at all, with or without coloured flowers. QED surely.



He didn't post up the contract of employment, sheddy. He just posted a link from the HSE/some government body. Anyone can do that. It's information about the general principles - not how those principles apply in this case.

1927's been asked for more information over and over, but he doesn't supply it. 

For all we know this bloke might be an office bod without any requirement to wear high vis.

We just don't know.

And until 1927 shares some decent info, everyone speculates on the basis of what 1927 has deigned to share so far.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> For all we know this bloke might be an office bod without any requirement to wear high vis.
> 
> We just don't know.
> 
> And until 1927 shares some decent info, everyone speculates on the basis of what 1927 has deigned to share so far.


 Hmmmmmmm he did say the following...


1927 said:


> He is only being asked to wear a set of overalls provided for his safety and welfare, something which is in his employment, something he has been disciplined for previously. Something he has given a written undertaken to wear. And you believe he is being bullied. FFS


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2008)

@posternumbers  one problem I see with your position is that, if everyone who had left-wing views refused promotion, then the management roles would all be given to true right-wingers. I don't think any of us would want that. 

Becoming a 'boss' of some sort does change your relationship to the methods of production, it's true, but it doesn't automatically change all of your political views, IMO. 



Rutita1 said:


> Hmmmmmmm he did say the following...



No! Only the full contract, with names and addresses, is enough of an answer! Only that specific information is sufficient to decide whether getting aggressive at work is OK or not!

Course, if it had been a manager getting aggressive with a junior member of staff, the same people would have been suggesting legal action immedately without any extra info


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 3, 2008)

scifisam said:


> No! Only the full contract, with names and addresses, is enough of an answer! Only that specific information is sufficient to decide whether getting aggressive at work is OK or not!


Oh come on he couldn't and shouldn't post that here even if he wanted to.
IMO getting aggressive and raising your hand to someone is only ever OK if it is to protect yourself/in self defence, at work or not.



> Course, if it had been a manager getting aggressive with a junior member of staff, the same people would have been suggesting legal action immedately without any extra info


 Well yeah there is that. Strange double standards.


BTW, are you a teacher? There is something about the way you type 'No!' that makes me feel like I'm back at school.


----------



## lighterthief (Mar 3, 2008)

1927 said:


> If an employee called a manager an effing cunt, and an effing arsehole, raised his hands to the manager and became agressive as well as abusive,because the manager asked the employee to comply with a simple request, for which he had had two previous warnings do you think it would be unreasonable for the manager to issue a further warning or dismiss employee. Discuss.


Talking about the orange overalls is missing the point here IMO.  It's the fact that the employee is being "aggressive as well as abusive", irrespective of the reasons.


----------



## cesare (Mar 3, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Hmmmmmmm he did say the following...



Rutita, I'm not getting a strop on.

1927 starts a thread asking whether he (or his company) should sack this bloke.

Whatever I've said in terms of finding out what the full circumstances are, and asking 1927 about them - have been met in silence from 1927.

The most we get is 1927's reliance on a link to HSE regs which we don't even know if they apply to this bloke.

The only extra bit of info that 1927 has provided is that the bloke allegedly said that he didn't like orange.

There's something wrong/incomplete here


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> Rutita, I'm not getting a strop on.


I know.  Wasn't sure you had seen that is all.



> 1927 starts a thread asking whether he (or his company) should sack this bloke.
> 
> Whatever I've said in terms of finding out what the full circumstances are, and asking 1927 about them - have been met in silence from 1927.
> 
> ...



I know, I've asked a few questions as well that have not been answered. Of course there's more to the story. It has been interesting to see folk's reactions to this thread though. 

Also, I am now wondering whether I can ethically be promoted to team-leader and vote the same way I do. According to some, I will have to start voting Tory.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh come on he couldn't and shouldn't post that here even if he wanted to.
> IMO getting aggressive and raising your hand to someone is only ever OK if it is to protect yourself/in self defence, at work or not.













> Well yeah there is that. Strange double standards.
> 
> 
> BTW, are you a teacher? There is something about the way you type 'No!' that makes me feel like I'm back at school.



Yep! Which I guess automatically makes me right-wing, since I spend all day telling other people what to do.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2008)

I think that's prettty standard.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 3, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Yep! Which I guess automatically makes me right-wing, since I spend all day telling other people what to do.



Takes one to know one I suppose. 
After reading this thread today I will have to radically re-think my identity, just when I thought I knew myself.


----------



## cesare (Mar 3, 2008)

Don't let's go into one

Loads of us are hypocritical - bosses/petit bourgeois.

As long as we understand what we are.

Doesn't detract from the point of the thread. Need further info from 1927.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> Don't let's go into one
> 
> Loads of us are hypocritical - bosses/petit bourgeois.
> 
> ...



Actually, you are one I reckon would ask for further info if it were an employee talking about their boss getting aggressive. Lots of others wouldn't be so balanced, though.

We're all hypocritical, it's just that it's funnier when you spot other people doing it.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 3, 2008)

I will try and give some more info without giving too much away, there are after all people on here who know me and it wouldnt take too much to work out identities.

Suffice to say, Company provides service in construction/quarry industry. Employee carries out that service. Quarries require all subcontractors to wear certain items of PPE including *ORANGE *overalls. Employye was once dismissed for not wearing PPE. Was reinstated on appeal. Has had subsequent warnings for continual refusal to wear overalls. He is banned from certain customers sites, to the point that at times it has been difficult to provide him with a full days work. He has made written undertakings to wear his overalls, in his original contract and following written warnings, he continues to refuse to wear them.

Any more infor please ask, and stop being fucking pedantic "oh he might be an office worker" FFS some of you people!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 3, 2008)

What do you do 1927? in relation to said employee...


----------



## 1927 (Mar 3, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> What do you do 1927? in relation to said employee...



How is that relevant?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 3, 2008)

1927 said:


> How is that relevant?



Just curious. 
I suppose it puts your question in the OP into context and perspective. That's all.


----------



## paolo (Mar 4, 2008)

Couple of questions

- Was the employee ever previously in a role where there was no uniform requirement?
- What was the accepted case for reinstatement?
- As part of the reinstatement, did the employee agree to wear the uniform?
- Are the site bans at the request of customers?


----------



## two sheds (Mar 4, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> Couple of questions
> 
> - Was the employee ever previously in a role where there was no uniform requirement?
> - What was the accepted case for reinstatement?
> ...



and 

- What shade of orange is it? 



Ta cesare by the way - i hadn't read the post correctly re contract.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Mar 4, 2008)

Swarfega said:


> P45 without hesitation surely?



Capitalist lackey! Fascist pigdog! etc


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Mar 4, 2008)

JHE said:


> What the fuck is this?  Is u75 so full of bosses, managers and allied bastards that it functions as an advice-giving branch of the CBI or Institute of Directors?
> 
> I don't claim that it is never right to sack people, but without knowing why the worker called the manager a fucking cunt and a fucking arsehole and seemed aggressive, I cannot possibly say the worker was in the wrong.  Without further information, I'd give the worker the benefit of the doubt, not the manager.
> 
> And maybe the manager is a fucking arsehole.




Next time the Daily Wail complains that this site is full of baby-eating anarchists I suggest that it is promptly directed to this thread


----------



## snadge (Mar 4, 2008)

Well I work in the construction industry and we also have to wear orange overalls as a "hi viz" type aid for drivers of vehicles.

If we didn't wear 'em we would be sacked, plain and simple.

no 2 ways about it, if the blokes been warned several times and he's still being a tit, sack him, I would have no issues about doing it, if there was an accident his supervisor would also be liable for not implementing company h&s policy.

would people here still be as quick to defend if the the bloke in question continually broke the site speed limits in a truck.

health and safety rules may be a bit restrictive at times but they are there for a reason.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 4, 2008)

(((bosses)))

Seriously is Urban filled with management and bosses or something?

There's quite a few ex bosses of mine that needed a good fucking smack.


----------



## cesare (Mar 4, 2008)

1927 said:


> I will try and give some more info without giving too much away, there are after all people on here who know me and it wouldnt take too much to work out identities.
> 
> Suffice to say, Company provides service in construction/quarry industry. Employee carries out that service. Quarries require all subcontractors to wear certain items of PPE including *ORANGE *overalls. Employye was once dismissed for not wearing PPE. Was reinstated on appeal. Has had subsequent warnings for continual refusal to wear overalls. He is banned from certain customers sites, to the point that at times it has been difficult to provide him with a full days work. He has made written undertakings to wear his overalls, in his original contract and following written warnings, he continues to refuse to wear them.
> 
> Any more infor please ask, and stop being fucking pedantic "oh he might be an office worker" FFS some of you people!



OK this is a bit different (but cheers for posting the extra info)

When you first started the thread you said he'd had 2x previous warnings; you didn't say anything about a previous dismissal that was overturned at appeal. Nor anything about banning from customer sites & written undertakings to wear PPE that he subsequently reneged on.

And as you're taking the piss just for me even asking whether he's actually an ops worker as opposed to an office worker (and that's not an unreasonable question) - presumably he's on ops.

It's been like drawing teeth just to get this limited info out of you after pages and pages of questions. 

I'm feeling pretty frustrated myself after pages of this & loads of questions that you haven't answered until now so fuck knows what the bloke in question feels like on the receiving end if you/your work is the same in real life. 

If wearing PPE is such a HUGE issue, I still don't understand why your company has let it get to this point. If he was previously dismissed for this - surely his reinstatement would have made it clear that any future breaches would result in his dismissal. Yet you say that the warnings were after his reinstatement: _Was reinstated on appeal. Has had subsequent warnings for continual refusal to wear overalls
_

I suspect there's a shitload more that would come out if we kept on asking you questions. But that would take loads of bloody effort.

My interpretation is that all you want is to be able to sack this guy with an urban stamp of approval. It's not as simple as that.

If you want advice on how to sack him safely; check out the ACAS site.

Or follow PK's advice and see where that leads you


----------



## revol68 (Mar 4, 2008)

Cesare the way you treat bosses and managers is little more than a type of racism, it's people like you that mean  bosses and workers can't work and live together in harmony.

You should be ashamed of yourself!


----------



## cesare (Mar 4, 2008)

revol68 said:


> Cesare the way you treat bosses and managers is little more than a type of racism, it's people like you that mean  bosses and workers can't work and live together in harmony.
> 
> You should be ashamed of yourself!




I know 

I'm doing an exaggerated Les Dawson bridle with my arms tucked under my bust whilst giving 1927 a 'look' over the fence.


----------



## cesare (Mar 4, 2008)

Take that! Capital.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 4, 2008)

revol68 said:


> Seriously is Urban filled with management and bosses or something?



Increasingly, it would appear so.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 4, 2008)

cesare said:


> How do you define 'boss'?
> 
> Does it kick in at a low paid supervisor earning 50p more an hour than their 'team'?



Yes, when that "low paid supervisor" lords it over their subordinates. In my experience, it's precisley those jumped-up fuckers one micro-grade above that have been the most spiteful, petty and powermad little turds.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 4, 2008)

scifisam said:


> @posternumbers  one problem I see with your position is that, if everyone who had left-wing views refused promotion, then the management roles would all be given to true right-wingers. I don't think any of us would want that.



To be honest, at least you'd know where you stood rather than deal with some two-faced hypocrite who talks left but then disciplines/sacks you anyway for "disrespeting them as a manager" or having "the wrong attitude".


----------



## Funky_monks (Mar 5, 2008)

*This thread is brilliant!*

God knows how long it has taken pressure from workers/unions etc for bosses to be frightened of litigation enough to provide proper PPE.

I'd kick up a right stink if my boss didn't provide my waterproofs/safety boots. Theres no fucking _way_ I'd want to pay for those things myself, especially at the rate they get worn through.

If he provided a set of overalls for nowt as well then so much the better. 

Presumably this 'agressive' employee wants to wear his own clothes out?

What a numpty. 

I cant understand whats left wing about not wanting your boss to buy these things for you to be honest.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 5, 2008)

cesare said:


> OK this is a bit different (but cheers for posting the extra info)
> 
> When you first started the thread you said he'd had 2x previous warnings; you didn't say anything about a previous dismissal that was overturned at appeal. Nor anything about banning from customer sites & written undertakings to wear PPE that he subsequently reneged on.
> 
> ...




When I first posted I only mentioned the one incident to see what peeps would think if this was a one off/first incident. some people said sack him just on that basis. As I have given more info more people have come out and said sack him. Personally I think this thread has actually been very interesting for some of the opinions posted. i cannot understand those that have said boss=bad, employee=good, irrelevant of any facts before them.  As has been pointed out it nothing short of a type of racism and opens up a lot of other arguments we could have about employee/ employer relationships.

If you are interested the employee was reinstated not for any reason other than the owner of the company is actually a nice guy, the employee had been caught and photographed by a client working on an unpropped tipper body,an absolute no-no as anyone with experience of such things would know, and not wearing PPE! He is still banned from all that customers' sites.

The employee didnt think he even deserved a warning and said that if he got one he would be getting union involved, he got a warning anyway.Personally I think he prob got off lightly and any union who defends him in full knowledge of the facts and the employees past misdemeanours would be unreasonable, but there you go. If the union are as one eyed as some posters on this thread i guess they will be waiting outside the gates tomorrow morning!!


----------



## two sheds (Mar 5, 2008)

1927 said:


> When I first posted I only mentioned the one incident to see what peeps would think if this was a one off/first incident. some people said sack him just on that basis. As I have given more info more people have come out and said sack him. Personally I think this thread has actually been very interesting for some of the opinions posted. i cannot understand those that have said boss=bad, employee=good, irrelevant of any facts before them.  As has been pointed out it nothing short of a type of racism and opens up a lot of other arguments we could have about employee/ employer relationships.
> 
> If you are interested the employee was reinstated not for any reason other than the owner of the company is actually a nice guy, the employee had been caught and photographed by a client working on an unpropped tipper body,an absolute no-no as anyone with experience of such things would know, and not wearing PPE! He is still banned from all that customers' sites.
> 
> The employee didnt think he even deserved a warning and said that if he got one he would be getting union involved, he got a warning anyway.Personally I think he prob got off lightly and any union who defends him in full knowledge of the facts and the employees past misdemeanours would be unreasonable, but there you go. If the union are as one eyed as some posters on this thread i guess they will be waiting outside the gates tomorrow morning!!



How does he feel about purple?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 5, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> butt he whole point here is that we don't have the whole story we have the story thrid hand from an alternate staff member who seems to have an unntaral urge to want someone to be fired.  In itself the story is told from that point of view.



Of course we don't know the full story. I was commenting on the information that the OP was giving, which, if a worker refuses to work on the basis that his Personal protective equipment _provided_ for him isn't to his tastes, a rep can't defend him as it's just based on a whim rather than a true case for discrimination or flouting health and safety laws..  



> as a real union rep I would be livid if that were the only version of events which saw some one fired.  I would at least expect to hear what the worker themselves had said or who they viewed the situation.



If you are a real union rep then you'd understand that any disciplinary action has to go through the correct procedures where you can defend the employee if employment law has been violated; with the back-up of the union members if laws are ignored or they want to take the piss.



> gross misconduct of course can be followed but even then there is still a proceedure which must be followed to establish the facts of the matter which we certainly don't have here on this thread.



Perhaps the OP will expand upon how he'll choose to deal with this alleged errant worker.? 



> and has been said before there's a number of reasons why this person might have become aggressive.



That doesn't come into it really. If the worker has been discriminated against in any way then there's procedures to go through for that to be dealt with. Albeit, most industries aren't unionised nowadays (thanks Maggie x) but employment law still stands. To react on a personal rather than a legal level will have reduced the chance of the worker's case standing up to scrutiny in a court of law, unfortunately. 

The management could cite aggression for the reason of dismissal. The worker would then have to prove what caused the aggression but should have made official complaints to higher management or independent witnesses before it reached that stage. Hindsight isn't wonderful in these circumstances.

But if he's lucky enough to be backed up with a pro union that know what they're talking about; then the OP better watch his back as the management has to start jumping through all the legal hoops themselves to prove the correct procedures were carried out and are water-tight


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 5, 2008)

Funky_monks said:


> I'd kick up a right stink if my boss didn't provide my waterproofs/safety boots. Theres no fucking _way_ I'd want to pay for those things myself, especially at the rate they get worn through.
> 
> If he provided a set of overalls for nowt as well then so much the better.
> 
> ...



Word.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 5, 2008)

I'd still like Trinnie and Susannah to take a look. Can't be too careful.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 5, 2008)

4thwrite said:


> I'd still like Trinnie and Susannah to take a look. Can't be too careful.


----------

