# i've just had to sack someone



## rubbershoes (May 24, 2007)

i've never had to do it before and it wasn't fun

they hadn't done anything wrong. it was just their attitude that was off.


----------



## Kanda (May 24, 2007)

I've had to do it a few times, it sucks. 

Bit of a flakey reason though, I hope all the appropriate measures (disciplinary) were taken...


----------



## bluestreak (May 24, 2007)

and that's a sacking offence?  had they been warned?  jesus *gets fear* what does my attitude say about me!


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> and that's a sacking offence?  had they been warned?  jesus *gets fear* what does my attitude say about me!



You're out mate, security are going to escort you to the door.


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

Is bad attitude a sackable offence in their employment contract?


----------



## sojourner (May 24, 2007)

Kanda said:
			
		

> Bit of a flakey reason though, I hope all the appropriate measures (disciplinary) were taken...


I was just gonna say that...


----------



## rubbershoes (May 24, 2007)

they were still in their probationary period


----------



## dylanredefined (May 24, 2007)

Its just as stressful sacking someone as it is being sacked been in both postions. Even if the person your sacking really deserves it  .


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

it sucks dont it?

thiugh you REALLY need to make sure that the correct procedures have been followed otherwise it gets shitty.

it took us best part of 4 months to get rid of somoene who was being a total muppet


----------



## Kanda (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> they were still in their probationary period



Probably deserve it then. Not like they've had years to develop hatred for colleagues like most of us


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> they were still in their probationary period



Fair enough then! Fuck em!


----------



## og ogilby (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> they were still in their probationary period


Target practice.


----------



## snorbury (May 24, 2007)

bad attitude can be good though


----------



## rubbershoes (May 24, 2007)

trouble was, she was my secretary and now i don't have anyone to do my typing  

short term pain for long term gain though


----------



## snorbury (May 24, 2007)

what was her attitude?


----------



## Kanda (May 24, 2007)

snorbury said:
			
		

> what was her attitude?



Off


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

snorbury said:
			
		

> what was her attitude?



Did she reject your sexual advances?


----------



## snorbury (May 24, 2007)

offish or office officially off


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

You sound like a bit of a twat rubbershoes.


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> You sound like a bit of a twat rubbershoes.



For having a secretary with a bad attitude?


----------



## rubbershoes (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> You sound like a bit of a twat rubbershoes.




thanks for saying so

i'd ask her to do stuff and she'd  say she was too busy

she  wouldn't answer the phones when the receptionist was at lunch


she made more work for everyoine around her as it as all about her her her


----------



## Kanda (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> You sound like a bit of a twat rubbershoes.



Based on what????  

Employ someone, they have a shit attitude on probation, fire them, wtf is twattish about that???


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> thanks for saying so



You want to give her her cards mate.


----------



## sojourner (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> You sound like a bit of a twat rubbershoes.


Why?


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> thanks for saying so


You're welcome.

You've just sacked someone because, what - they weren't enthusiastic enough about doing your typing?  And now you're on here whining about how tough it is for you   Diddums.


----------



## pengaleng (May 24, 2007)

I sacked one of my temps cus she was a vacuous cunt


----------



## Kanda (May 24, 2007)

If she had an attitude like Thora's, I would have sacked her on day one...


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> I sacked one of my temps cus she was a vacuous cunt



Thats the fucking spirit mate  

I'm gonna sack one of my temps now so I can join in the thread


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> i've never had to do it before and it wasn't fun
> 
> they hadn't done anything wrong. it was just their attitude that was off.



This last sentence makes me feel very uncomfortable. If they hadn't done anything wrong, by your admission, then why were they sacked?

Even though they were within their probationary period, procedures still need to be followed...


----------



## rubbershoes (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> You've just sacked someone because, what - they weren't enthusiastic enough about doing your typing?  And now you're on here whining about how tough it is for you   Diddums.




if you want to see it that way then that's up to you. 

everyone else seems to understand why she had to go


----------



## Kanda (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Even though they were within their probationary period, procedures still need to be followed...



No they don't.


----------



## rubbershoes (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Even though they were within their probationary period, procedures still need to be followed...




i took appropraite legal advice


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> This last sentence makes me feel very uncomfortable. If they hadn't done anything wrong, by your admission, then why were they sacked?
> 
> Even though they were within their probationary period, procedures still need to be followed...



In my experience, if a company wants rid of someone, they'll get rid. 

Even when a company is acting 100% in the wrong they'll take the risk because so many people don't actually pursue potential legal claims...or if they do they then settle pretty easily.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> thanks for saying so
> 
> i'd ask her to do stuff and she'd  say she was too busy
> 
> ...



So, aren't all these things that she did that were "wrong", rather than just "attitude"? 

Did anyone explain to her that she was expected to provide cover for the receptionist at lunch time?

Did anyone explain to her how to prioritise her work and which bits she could leave, if you asked her to do stuff which was more important?


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

Sacking is really moreish; do someone in marketing next mate, they've always got people sitting around not really doing anything.


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> if you want to see it that way then that's up to you.
> 
> everyone else seems to understand why she had to go


Sorry, my mistake - it _is_ fine to take someone's job from them, even though they've done nothing wrong, because you decide you don't like their attitude.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

Bazza said:
			
		

> In my experience, if a company wants rid of someone, they'll get rid.
> 
> Even when a company is acting 100% in the wrong they'll take the risk because so many people don't actually pursue potential legal claims...or if they do they then settle pretty easily.



This is absolutely true, but it doesn't make me feel any more comfortable that someone is coming on here and posting up a thread announcing that they have sacked someone because of their "attitude"!


----------



## pengaleng (May 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Thats the fucking spirit mate
> 
> I'm gonna sack one of my temps now so I can join in the thread




seriously tho, she was fucking awful, would talk about nothing but how much her dior handbag and gucci shoes cost that her sugar daddy bought for her and how much his credit card limit was. my patience was lucky to last a week listening to that shit.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> if you want to see it that way then that's up to you.
> 
> *everyone else seems to understand why she had to go*



I don't. 

Please explain.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> i took appropraite legal advice



Everyone knows that lawyers, including employment lawyers, will answer the questions asked of them. So, if you asked your legal adviser how to sack someone legally with regard to procedures, I am sure they gave you the legal answer.

That doesn't answer the moral question though - was this person given proper management support and advice and plenty of warning as to the consequences of what you call her "attitude"?


----------



## rubbershoes (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> Sorry, my mistake - it _is_ fine to take someone's job from them, even though they've done nothing wrong, because you decide you don't like their attitude.




they've been here 4 weeks and have skills and exoerience that will enable them to get another job easily

if she had stayed it would have been made things difficult for everyone else in the office here. the good of the many and all that


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

dylanredefined said:
			
		

> Its just as stressful sacking someone as it is being sacked been in both postions. Even if the person your sacking really deserves it  .


What bollocks!!


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

dylanredefined said:
			
		

> Its just as stressful sacking someone as it is being sacked been in both postions. Even if the person your sacking really deserves it  .



oh boo-fucking-hoo. My heart bleeds for you.

here's a tip - don't be a fucking manager and enjoy all the benefits that that postion grants you if you can't hack it.

jesus.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> seriously tho, she was fucking awful, would talk about nothing but how much her dior handbag and gucci shoes cost that her sugar daddy bought for her and how much his credit card limit was. my patience was lucky to last a week listening to that shit.



The slight but important difference is that you are talking about a temp, who is employed by an agency and would, presumably, be able to get another posting. The OP appears to be talking about sacking someone from their permanent position, without any concern or even thought about the consequences of doing so.


----------



## rubbershoes (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> This is absolutely true, but it doesn't make me feel any more comfortable that someone is coming on here and posting up a thread announcing that they have sacked someone because of their "attitude"!




the thread is not to crow about sacking her . the initial post (note the   in it) showed my dislike of the whole process


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> they've been here 4 weeks and have skills and exoerience that will enable them to get another job easily
> 
> if she had stayed it would have been made things difficult for everyone else in the office here. the good of the many and all that



Since you sacked her, you were, presumably, her manager. What did you do to explain the job and her responsibilities to her?


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> they've been here 4 weeks and have skills and exoerience that will enable them to get another job easily
> 
> if she had stayed it would have been made things difficult for everyone else in the office here. the good of the many and all that


How caring of you.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> You're welcome.
> 
> You've just sacked someone because, what - they weren't enthusiastic enough about doing your typing?  And now you're on here whining about how tough it is for you   Diddums.



Seemed to me they got sacked because they weren't doing their job properly. Fair grounds given she was in the probation period (she was an idiot to act like that before securing the job properly if you ask me).


----------



## rubbershoes (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> The slight but important difference is that you are talking about a temp, who is employed by an agency and would, presumably, be able to get another posting. The OP appears to be talking about sacking someone from their permanent position, without any concern or even thought about the consequences of doing so.




they had worked here for 4 weeks. does that mean we have to employ them till they retire?


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> the thread is not to crow about sacking her . the initial post (note the   in it) showed my dislike of the whole process



And yet you seem to have made no effort to work with this person and every effort to find ways of sacking her "legally"!

I think you may have an attitudinal problem!


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> What bollocks!!



its really not nice sacking someone.

the guy I sacked last year had been nicking stuff from us, surfing porn whilst on a clients site (the clients systems picked this up and they then informed us) . surfing lots of porn whilst on our premises (we have systems in place to pick it up but generally operate a laid back internet usage policy) and was generally a bit of a twat

i still felt like shit sacking him.


----------



## pengaleng (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> The slight but important difference is that you are talking about a temp, who is employed by an agency and would, presumably, be able to get another posting. The OP appears to be talking about sacking someone from their permanent position, without any concern or even thought about the consequences of doing so.




yeah they were on probation init, everyone knows you put one foot wrong on probation and yer out the door, sometimes its cut throat like that...


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> they had worked here for 4 weeks. does that mean we have to employ them till they retire?



No, but it does mean that you should have ensured she was clear about her role and responsibilities, and was given the opportunity to improve or to explain why she wasn't coping and was busy.

Okay, you have a moral rather than a legal obligation to do that, but you are certainly not going to build a reputation as a good employer if you sack someone for no reason and without following your own procedures.


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> its really not nice sacking someone.
> 
> the guy I sacked last year had been nicking stuff from us, surfing porn whilst on a clients site (the clients systems picked this up and they then informed us) . surfing lots of porn whilst on our premises (we have systems in place to pick it up but generally operate a laid back internet usage policy) and was generally a bit of a twat
> 
> i still felt like shit sacking him.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> Seemed to me they got sacked because they weren't doing their job properly. Fair grounds given she was in the probation period (she was an idiot to act like that before securing the job properly if you ask me).



Indeed, although this is not what the OP says, which is why I jumped in 

If, however, she wasn't coping with the job, a decent employer would have asked why, and considered whether, for example, there was too much work, or there were conflicting priorities, or if it hadn't been made clear to her what her role was.


----------



## pengaleng (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> And yet you seem to have made no effort to work with this person and every effort to find ways of sacking her "legally"!
> 
> I think you may have an attitudinal problem!



most probations have a clause which clearly states that the company can get rid of them at any time during this period with a weeks notice....

I thought that was common knowledge?


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

can I propose a minutes silence for poor managers that put people out of work as and when they feel like it...

I know, I for one, feel for them extremely deeply....


----------



## Kanda (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> And yet you seem to have made no effort to work with this person and every effort to find ways of sacking her "legally"!



I'd like you to point out where the sacking was illegal....


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

>




so you would prefer it if everyione was a heartless bastard and just sacked people with no feeling of conscience?

nice... (mind you this is what happens in a lot of larger companies I guess)

if you have even the smallest bit of intelligence then you know you dont start skiving and fucking about until after your probation period ends...


----------



## Kanda (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> if you have even the smallest bit of intelligence then you know you dont start skiving and fucking about until after your probation period ends...



Exactly!!!


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> most probations have a clause which clearly states that the company can get rid of them at any time during this period with a weeks notice....
> 
> I thought that was common knowledge?



How do you know that this person was aware of that? It's only "common knowledge" to people who have worked in an organisation which has a probation period, and, in fact, what you describe is not a common probationary clause at all.

Because you know something, doesn't mean that others do, and employers/managers have a duty to ensure that their employees DO understand such things. 

This thread was started by someone saying that they had sacked someone who had done nothing wrong!


----------



## Iam (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> if you have even the smallest bit of intelligence then you know you dont start skiving and fucking about until after your probation period ends...



Bingo.


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> can I propose a minutes silence for poor managers that put people out of work as and when they feel like it...
> 
> I know, I for one, feel for them extremely deeply....


(((managers)))  

I especially feel for the caring ones, who only have their underlings best interests at heart.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Indeed, although this is not what the OP says, which is why I jumped in
> 
> If, however, she wasn't coping with the job, a decent employer would have asked why, and considered whether, for example, there was too much work, or there were conflicting priorities, or if it hadn't been made clear to her what her role was.



Coping? How do you mean?


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> if she had stayed it would have been made things difficult for everyone else in the office here. the good of the many and all that



If someone doesn't fit in with a team, it could be a good reason to let them go. Getting a good working team isn't easy to do, however, it is very easy to disrupt.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> so you would prefer it if everyione was a heartless bastard and just sacked people with no feeling of conscience?
> 
> nice... (mind you this is what happens in a lot of larger companies I guess)
> 
> if you have even the smallest bit of intelligence then you know you dont start skiving and fucking about until after your probation period ends...



Where is the suggestion that this person had been skiving or fucking about? So far, what we have heard is that she had an "attitude", that she was too busy, and that she wouldn't do extra duties, without any indication that she had been offered any help with workload, or explanation of the need to do extra duties.

The OP was possibly demonstrating that they were a "heartless bastard with no feeling of conscience" if they didn't offer this support and advice to someone who, after all, relies on them for their livelihood!


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> (((managers)))
> 
> I especially feel for the caring ones, who only have their underlings best interests at heart.



yes I'm sure some    faces on a bulletin board will really console someone thats just lost their job...

pathetic wankers.

oooo poor me, I just had to sack someone, oh no - I'm very unfortunate I am....


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> Coping? How do you mean?


I mean, because she said she was too busy when asked to do something which her manager clearly thought she should have had time to do. That doesn't sound like someone who is coping!


----------



## rubbershoes (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Since you sacked her, you were, presumably, her manager. What did you do to explain the job and her responsibilities to her?



her job was to be my secretary. typing, phoning clients,filing,  organising meetings etc. she's been a secretary  for more than 20 years so knows what a secretary has to do. a few times i asked her to sort out some invoices that needed paying urgently but she said she was too busy. so i had to do them

well why shouldn't i? you may ask. we're all humans and who am i to tell her what to do. i earn the money to pay her wages. that does not give me the right to treat her like shit. but it does give me the right to give her perfectly reasonable requests for her to dso something that is part of her job and which any other secretary i've ever had would say _fine, no problem_ to.#

what she was doing when she said no to my requests was not urgent. she just had a backlog of work, as we all do, and presumably felt that her clearing her backlog was more important than my time.

and as for not answering the phones, she was told at interview that this was something she had to do and she just didn't do it. she'd wait for someone else to do it. someone had had a word with her about it a couple of weeks ago but she didn't change


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> No, but it does mean that you should have ensured she was clear about her role and responsibilities, and was given the opportunity to improve or to explain why she wasn't coping and was busy.
> 
> Okay, you have a moral rather than a legal obligation to do that, but you are certainly not going to build a reputation as a good employer if you sack someone for no reason and without following your own procedures.



In all fairness, on the basis of these posts, you don't really know what the OP is like. 

For all you know, the attitude could have really stunk.

E2A: Like my point earlier, someone with a bad attitude can disrupt what would otherwise be an effective team. Seen it loads. Been there myself (with the bad attitude) and I'm just lucky my company stuck by me.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

Kanda said:
			
		

> I'd like you to point out where the sacking was illegal....


And I would like you to point out where I said that the sacking was illegal!

Read my posts again


----------



## pengaleng (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> How do you know that this person was aware of that? It's only "common knowledge" to people who have worked in an organisation which has a probation period, and, in fact, what you describe is not a common probationary clause at all.



I think you'll find it is actually very common.


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

We need to get the secretary on here for her side of the story.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

Bazza said:
			
		

> In all fairness, on the basis of these posts, you don't really know what the OP is like.
> 
> For all you know, the attitude could have really stunk.


This is absolutely true - I am basing my rant on words on a screen, but that is all I have got to go on, and the OP stated that this person had done nothing wrong. 

It now seems that, in fact, she had done stuff that was "wrong", so the question moves on to whether she was given the appropriate support to help her to improve and to avoid sacking her.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> This thread was started by someone saying that they had sacked someone who had done nothing wrong!



You keep banging on about that despite the fact that he elaborated on the situation...


----------



## rubbershoes (May 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> We need to get the secretary on here for her side of the story.




it may be thora


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> I think you'll find it is actually very common.



I don't doubt that it is common in certain fields, my point is that it is not "common knowledge". 

I wouldn't have known the arrangements for probationary periods, if I started working somewhere, without being told. The length of a probationary period varies, too.


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> We need to get the secretary on here for her side of the story.


I don't want her here if she's got a bad attitude


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> i earn the money to pay her wages.



   

you utter utter prick.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> I mean, because she said she was too busy when asked to do something which her manager clearly thought she should have had time to do. That doesn't sound like someone who is coping!



That depends on how you're reading it. She could be just badly organised.


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> it may be thora



Nah, I reckon thora would have stabbed him with a letter opener on her way out


----------



## sojourner (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> and as for not answering the phones, she was told at interview that this was something she had to do and she just didn't do it. she'd wait for someone else to do it. someone had had a word with her about it a couple of weeks ago but she didn't change


Okay, I was waiting for you to expand a little in the face of all the posts, and you are sounding like a bit of a twat now tbh

Someone 'having a word' about the phones should have been you, if she's your secretary.  If she answers to you, the responsibility to be clear about her role was yours.  Ditto clarification about the backlog of work should have been sorted out with clear communication about prioritising.  She might have been performing a secretarial role for 20 years, but in a new organisation she may well not have known what was the highest priority work.


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> I don't doubt that it is common in certain fields, my point is that it is not "common knowledge".
> 
> I wouldn't have known the arrangements for probationary periods, if I started working somewhere, without being told. The length of a probationary period varies, too.



It should be in your contract (not that anyone ever reads them properly!)


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> This is absolutely true - I am basing my rant on words on a screen, but that is all I have got to go on, and the OP stated that this person had done nothing wrong.
> 
> It now seems that, in fact, she had done stuff that was "wrong", so the question moves on to whether she was given the appropriate support to help her to improve and to avoid sacking her.




Why do you care so much? It's OK to sack people. Especially if they suck. Why waste money 'giving them support'.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 24, 2007)

TBH I know exactly the type of person rubbershoes is talking about, and given what you've said I don't blame you - I've had the misfortune to work with people like this in the past.

If she can't handle the workload of being a PA/secretary she shouldn't be in the job, plain and simple. Stuff like covering reception over lunches and stuff...fuck that, there are 000s of people who are capable of understanding such things without them being explained, and if you're a secretary who can'r cope with the workload that comes with the job you shouldn't be doing it.


----------



## pengaleng (May 24, 2007)

I love this thread, I'm gonna go sack my temp that spat in my bin this morning


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> her job was to be my secretary. typing, phoning clients,filing,  organising meetings etc. she's been a secretary  for more than 20 years so knows what a secretary has to do. a few times i asked her to sort out some invoices that needed paying urgently but she said she was too busy. so i had to do them
> 
> well why shouldn't i? you may ask. we're all humans and who am i to tell her what to do. i earn the money to pay her wages. that does not give me the right to treat her like shit. but it does give me the right to give her perfectly reasonable requests for her to dso something that is part of her job and which any other secretary i've ever had would say _fine, no problem_ to.#
> 
> ...



So, how is this not having done anything wrong??

This is not about "attitude" at all, as far as I can tell. It's about someone who failed to prioritise or organise their work properly, and who refused a reasonable management instruction?

Having only been there for a few weeks, perhaps she was still trying to work to the new routines? This is particularly true if she had been in a different office environment for many years, and knew their procedures and systems really well, but didn't know others. Perhaps she was struggling to get stuff done, and misunderstood that the invoices were a priority, because they had been done by someone else in her last job?


----------



## rubbershoes (May 24, 2007)

i thoight this thread would loiter unremarked  on the dusty e & e forum before sliding off without a reply

show's how much i know


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> It should be in your contract (not that anyone ever reads them properly!)



PAH. I know mine inside out. I know exactly when I'm breaching it.


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

urban75 - where managers now proffer each other support on the hardships of sacking people...

you couldn't make it up.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> I love this thread, I'm gonna go sack my temp that spat in my bin this morning



I am usually at work, defending people from the whims of managers, so not able to rant like this


----------



## rubbershoes (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> So, how is this not having done anything wrong??
> 
> This is not about "attitude" at all, as far as I can tell. It's about someone who failed to prioritise or organise their work properly, and who refused a reasonable management instruction?
> 
> Having only been there for a few weeks, perhaps she was still trying to work to the new routines? This is particularly true if she had been in a different office environment for many years, and knew their procedures and systems really well, but didn't know others. Perhaps she was struggling to get stuff done, and misunderstood that the invoices were a priority, because they had been done by someone else in her last job?




she was in her previous job for three weeks


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> I love this thread, I'm gonna go sack my temp that spat in my bin this morning



Im going to start sacking everybody, see how long I can get away with it for


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> i thoight this thread would loiter unremarked  on the dusty e & e forum before sliding off without a reply
> 
> show's how much i know



Are you a private practice lawyer?


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> urban75 - where managers now proffer each other support on the hardships of sacking people...
> 
> you couldn't make it up.



I am not seeing much support, but perhaps that's because of my own bias


----------



## kyser_soze (May 24, 2007)

> I wouldn't have known the arrangements for probationary periods, if I started working somewhere, without being told. The length of a probationary period varies, too.



You know that thing you sign called a contract? That'll have all that in it, and if you sign without reading it, tough shit.


----------



## og ogilby (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> i thoight this thread would loiter unremarked  on the dusty e & e forum before sliding off without a reply
> 
> show's how much i know


Your sacked.


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> urban75 - where managers now proffer each other support on the hardships of sacking people...
> 
> you couldn't make it up.



I've joined the Tory Party, C of E and Freemasons since they made me management


----------



## pengaleng (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> I am usually at work, defending people from the whims of managers, so not able to rant like this




your HR? 

HR sucks some big motherfuckin balls.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> i thoight this thread would loiter unremarked  on the dusty e & e forum before sliding off without a reply
> 
> show's how much i know



Ah, but you bargained without a national official of a trade union being off work on leave and feeling sorry for herself because she has got a stinking cold, so is stuck at home with the computer


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> urban75 - where managers now proffer each other support on the hardships of sacking people...
> 
> you couldn't make it up.



Stop it. I'm posting from Starbucks...I almost spat my latte all over my laptop and blackberry.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 24, 2007)

I wish I could sack some of my colleagues, lazy, unpunctual, ineffectual twats that they are.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> your HR?
> 
> HR sucks some big motherfuckin balls.


Do I really sound lke HR???

Human Resources within an organisation/company are the ones who would ensure that procedures were followed, but I can assure you I am not HR


----------



## rubbershoes (May 24, 2007)

right.

 i have to get back to work

maybe i'll be the only one still standing in the office by the end of the day


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

actually rubbershoes - could you change the title of the thread - it contains a lie - 'I've just *had* to sack someone' - that is a lie.

you chose to. Because you wanted to. So at least be an honest shit.


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

og ogilby said:
			
		

> Your sacked.



you havnt followed the procedures correctly so now my client, mr shoes, is going to seek a tribunal hearing and take you to the facking cleaners mate.. 

moves for an "automatically unfair" judgement


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> right.
> 
> i have to get back to work
> 
> maybe i'll be the only one still standing in the office by the end of the day



can you change the thread title first please.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> You know that thing you sign called a contract? That'll have all that in it, and if you sign without reading it, tough shit.


Er, not true.

Most people sign a letter of appointment, which forms one part of the "contract" but rarely contains information on what happens during a probationary period, which is often elsewhere, like in a staff handbook.

Also, that same staff handbook is likely to contain information which hints strongly that someone would not be sacked without certain procedures being followed.


----------



## rubbershoes (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> can you change the thread title first please.




tht's a bit of a bad attitude you have there cheg

mind how you go?


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

og ogilby said:
			
		

> Your sacked.



Your sacked smilie?

Oh, sorry, you meant "you're sacked" 

Sorry, ranting brings out my pedantry...


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Middle Class tossers of Urban unite! You have nothing to lose but your dignity.

What a joke some management shithead comes on looking for sympathy cos it's really hard sacking someone.

And of course her attitude is shite, it's fucking secretarial work it's shite, only an oscar nomimated actress, a happy clappy christian or a brain dead gnat could approach it with a good attitude.


----------



## myname (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> if you want to see it that way then that's up to you.
> 
> everyone else seems to understand why she had to go



i don't understand why she had to go

all you've said is her attitude was 'off' whatever that means, and that she said she was too busy when you asked her to do something (maybe she was busy) and she didn't want to cover reception during lunch (you don't say if this was meant to be part of her job or not).

and you want sympathy?


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> tht's a bit of a bad attitude you have there cheg
> 
> mind how you go?



go & cry into your hanky you pathetic weasel.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> actually rubbershoes - could you change the title of the thread - it contains a lie - 'I've just *had* to sack someone' - that is a lie.
> 
> you chose to. Because you wanted to. So at least be an honest shit.



What's wrong with sacking people who are shit at their job? They obviously don't want to be there so everyone wins.


----------



## og ogilby (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Your sacked smilie?
> 
> Oh, sorry, you meant "you're sacked"
> 
> Sorry, ranting brings out my pedantry...


I noticed I'd spelled it wrong but I have a bad attitude so I thought, fook it.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Er, not true.
> 
> Most people sign a letter of appointment, which forms one part of the "contract" but rarely contains information on what happens during a probationary period, which is often elsewhere, like in a staff handbook.
> 
> Also, that same staff handbook is likely to contain information which hints strongly that someone would not be sacked without certain procedures being followed.



I've NEVER signed a letter of appt when starting a new job, always a full contract.

I wouldn't accept such a letter from an employer either, be it for a 1 week contract position or permanent job.


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

nowadays you have to issue a writen statement of the main areas relating to the employment within 2 months of the job commencing. this normally (or should) include things like notice periods etc


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Middle Class tossers of Urban unite! You have nothing to lose but your dignity.
> 
> What a joke some management shithead comes on looking for sympathy cos it's really hard sacking someone.
> 
> And of course her attitude is shite, it's fucking secretarial work it's shite, only an oscar nomimated actress, a happy clappy christian or a brain dead gnat could approach it with a good attitude.



Hey, secretarial work is not necessarily shite!  

Working for shit managers who don't provide support or even explain what is expected of one, is pretty shite, though!


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

to think this board is full of stuff about stopping the gentrification of Brixton and yet tonnes of the cunts on it are managerial types, go die from executive stress you hateful cunts!


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> I've NEVER signed a letter of appt when starting a new job, always a full contract.
> 
> I wouldn't accept such a letter from an employer either, be it for a 1 week contract position or permanent job.


I think you are misunderstanding what forms a "contract".

Of course, as a contractor, the rules are different, but for an employee, all that is required is a letter of appointment, which must contain the written particulars, and reference to where the rest of the contract is.

Otherwise, every public sector worker would have to sign a massive book, containing copies of the staff handbook and every negotiated agreement as well as individual terms and conditions.


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Middle Class tossers of Urban unite! You have nothing to lose but your dignity.



I sense hostility towards people who've worked hard to get a career. You've cracked a couple of jibes about my profession the other day, does it make me a bad person in your eyes?


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Er, not true.
> 
> Most people sign a letter of appointment, which forms one part of the "contract" but rarely contains information on what happens during a probationary period, which is often elsewhere, like in a staff handbook.
> 
> Also, that same staff handbook is likely to contain information which hints strongly that someone would not be sacked without certain procedures being followed.




you may aso have to bear in mind that I dont think shoes works for a big company. smaller companies often dont have all the stuff a large company would. The basic legal requirements and not much beyond normally. 

although we are a small company we are lucky in that we have a very experienced person looking after that side of things so we have fully documented procedures and handbooks etc. Most small companies wont and are run on more personal lines


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 24, 2007)

Heh the 'class divide' in all its glory...


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

Bazza said:
			
		

> I sense hostility towards people who've worked hard to get a career. You've cracked a couple of jibes about my profession the other day, does it make me a bad person in your eyes?



ooo heaven forbid some hostility - cover your hard working eyes bazza.

we're hard workers! we pay your wages!


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> to think this board is full of stuff about stopping the gentrification of Brixton and yet tonnes of the cunts on it are managerial types, go die from executive stress you hateful cunts!



There is nothing wrong with managers per se, so long as they are good managers. I would rather have properly trained and supportive managers, then heartless, uncaring shits who are only interested in their own careers.

Lots of managers are decent people, and work hard with their staff and the unions to make the workplace a decent place, and to support the individuals who work for them.

I would be more than happy to share a bulletin board and a drink or two with such managers (and frequently do, in fact!)


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> Heh the 'class divide' in all its glory...



innit, 

this won't and can't be resolved on Urban, the weapon of criticism must give way to the criticism of weapons!


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2007)

Can you sack someone for being annoying?


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> to think this board is full of stuff about stopping the gentrification of Brixton and yet tonnes of the cunts on it are managerial types, go die from executive stress you hateful cunts!




maybe if you climbed up that greasy pole you would be able to afford to go see your team play every now and then   

I have raged against the machine and it gets you nowhere.. fast.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> you may aso have to bear in mind that I dont think shoes works for a big company. smaller companies often dont have all the stuff a large company would. The basic legal requirements and not much beyond normally.
> 
> although we are a small company we are lucky in that we have a very experienced person looking after that side of things so we have fully documented procedures and handbooks etc. Most small companies wont and are run on more personal lines



I guessed he didn't work for a large company - that was why I made the point about getting a bad reputation if they sack someone so easily and thoughtlessly. 

But every employer has to have procedures in place.

I can't actually comment on whether or not this person was dismissed legally, as I don't know enough about it, but I am damn sure that she was not dismissed properly, in moral terms.!


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> ooo heaven forbid some hostility - cover your hard working eyes bazza.
> 
> we're hard workers! we pay your wages!



Tis fine, I'm thick skinned. Just seems like a massive chip on your shoulder.

I pay no-one's wages, no need to apply the OP's post to me.


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> There is nothing wrong with managers per se, so long as they are good managers. I would rather have properly trained and supportive managers, then heartless, uncaring shits who are only interested in their own careers.
> 
> Lots of managers are decent people, and work hard with their staff and the unions to make the workplace a decent place, and to support the individuals who work for them.
> 
> I would be more than happy to share a bulletin board and a drink or two with such managers (and frequently do, in fact!)



no they can get fucked!

the worst one's are the supportive friendly ones, it just means they crack the whip with a smile and offer a pat on the back when give you the boot out the door on the order of their betters.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Can you sack someone for being annoying?



No 

Except during their first 12 months of employment when, unless there is some discrimination, or the dismissal is as a result of the person asserting their statutory right (in this case, she has a statutory right to a lunch break - perhaps she has a case! ), there is no recourse to an employment tribunal, so actually nothing you can do about it if you are sacked for no reason at all and without following procedures.

Doesn't make it right, though


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> maybe if you climbed up that greasy pole you would be able to afford to go see your team play every now and then
> 
> I have raged against the machine and it gets you nowhere.. fast.



fuck management! i'd rather go into teaching!


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> no they can get fucked!
> 
> the worst one's are the supportive friendly ones, it just means they crack the whip with a smile and offer a pat on the back when give you the boot out the door on the order of their betters.


Dear Revol68
You sound like you're 19 and have been watching reruns of Citizen Smith and The Young Ones
yours A Fascist Pig


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> No
> 
> Except during their first 12 months of employment when, unless there is some discrimination, or the dismissal is as a result of the person asserting their statutory right (in this case, she has a statutory right to a lunch break - perhaps she has a case! ), there is no recourse to an employment tribunal, so actually nothing you can do about it if you are sacked for no reason at all and without following procedures.
> 
> Doesn't make it right, though


What if they are so annoying that they are disruptive?


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> no they can get fucked!
> 
> the worst one's are the supportive friendly ones, it just means they crack the whip with a smile and offer a pat on the back when give you the boot out the door on the order of their betters.



Okay, so you are wanting anarchy.

Move on, this thread has no relevance to you.


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> fuck management! i'd rather go into teaching!



Child Oppressor!


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> fuck management! i'd rather go into teaching!



You need very good management skills for that.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> What if they are so annoying that they are disruptive?


Then they are being disciplined not for being annoying, but for being disruptive.


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Okay, so you are wanting anarchy.
> 
> Move on, this thread has no relevance to you.



I want communism, and the last manager to be hung with the guts of the last capitalist.


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> i've never had to do it before and it wasn't fun
> 
> they hadn't done anything wrong.



just quoting the OP for posterity.

So - how many of you others would like to get sacked when you 'haven't done anything wrong' ?

By a manager that sits on his arse posting shit and wasting time on a website like urban75...


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Dear Revol68
> You sound like you're 19 and have been watching reruns of Citizen Smith and The Young Ones
> yours A Fascist Pig



or someone whose worked in plenty of shit jobs.


----------



## jæd (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> I want communism, and the last manager to be hung with the guts of the last capitalist.



So why don't you move to China or Cuba...?


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> or someone whose worked in plenty of shit jobs.


More fool you - get a decent one then!


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> I want communism, and the last manager to be hung with the guts of the last capitalist.



Love it. You accept that capatilism is such a big part of football though and passionately support a team (like I do) that goes against these principles.


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> More fool you - get a decent one then!



With that 'attitude'!


----------



## kyser_soze (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> I think you are misunderstanding what forms a "contract".
> 
> Of course, as a contractor, the rules are different, but for an employee, all that is required is a letter of appointment, which must contain the written particulars, and reference to where the rest of the contract is.
> 
> Otherwise, every public sector worker would have to sign a massive book, containing copies of the staff handbook and every negotiated agreement as well as individual terms and conditions.



Rubbish. The employee handbook is usually a separate document, and you can download standard contracts from the net:

http://www.simply-docs.co.uk/Docume...ent+contract&gclid=CP7vj7XypowCFSQHEgod6iqP5w
Full time clerical worker

Everything the employee needs to know. You take a template like this and alter it accordingly


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> More fool you - get a decent one then!



But that would involve compromising with the man!


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Bazza said:
			
		

> Love it. You accept that capatilism is such a big part of football though and passionately support a team (like I do) that goes against these principles.



eh no i accept that football isn't some special sphere that would be unaffected by capitalism and so think it's stupid to support a football team or not on the basis of how big they are, afterall you don't see me buying my groceries from the shittiest cornershop with no variety do you?


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Rubbish. The employee handbook is usually a separate document, and you can download standard contracts from the net:
> 
> http://www.simply-docs.co.uk/Docume...ent+contract&gclid=CP7vj7XypowCFSQHEgod6iqP5w
> Full time clerical worker
> ...



I beg your pardon!  

You think I am talking rubbish? 

I can promise you that I know what I am talking about. But is it worth the argument/effort of trying to explain to in what way I know what I am talking about?


----------



## bluestreak (May 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Nah, I reckon thora would have stabbed him with a letter opener on her way out



heh, as any fule know Thora doesn't do typing 

it;s kind of hard to have sympathy for rubbershoes, or the secretary.  i can get really angry about this.  i was let go at the end of my probationary period last year with a thank you, we can't fault your work but you've had too many sick days (six in eight months, depression-related).  a bit of me still thinks i should have taken it to tribunal because i was effectively sacked for suffering from depression.  it was the "we can't fault your work" that really fucked me off.  it was rubbing salt in the wound.


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> But that would involve compromising with the man!



eh i make compromises every fucking day.

do you idiots think it's just a matter of wanting a better job?

 

this place is infested with middle class cunts.


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

You had an eight month probation period? 

That was the point I was making though, Blue, companies know when they're taking the piss, they just choose to take the risk on the chance that someone isn't going to pay legal fees for a long drawn out process. I think that's shitty to be honest, but it will keep happening.


----------



## Neva (May 24, 2007)

Your such an idiot revol68


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> eh i make compromises every fucking day.
> 
> do you idiots think it's just a matter of wanting a better job?
> 
> ...



Seriously, revol68, fuck off out of this thread, eh? It's really not suitable for anarcho-communists


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> this place is infested with middle class cunts.


Being middle class doesn't make you a cunt. Being a cunt does. There are plenty of working class cunts too, you for example.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> I beg your pardon!
> 
> You think I am talking rubbish?
> 
> I can promise you that I know what I am talking about. But is it worth the argument/effort of trying to explain to in what way I know what I am talking about?



Whatever - wherever I've worked both public and private sector I've signed a full contract (most running to 30 pages or so) which detail every aspect of my job in terms of rights and responsibilties. Very much like the contract templates I've linked to in fact.


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> this place is infested with middle class cunts.



You included Rev


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> eh i make compromises every fucking day.
> 
> do you idiots think it's just a matter of wanting a better job?


it is for most people


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Being middle class doesn't make you a cunt. Being a cunt does. There are plenty of working class cunts too



Aint that the fucking truth...


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

Unfortunately, even good employers do sometimes get it wrong, and sack someone wrongly or unfairly. 

I know of someone who was sacked, albeit with a lump sum payment, because they announced that they were suffering from a debilitating illness which would almost certainly have given them protection under the Disability Discrimination Act, but they didn't want to go to an Employment Tribunal because of all the hassle involved, and the fact that they wouldn't have got much out of it in the end.

Sometimes, unfortunately, it is best for the employee just to go quietly.

I find it very frustrating, but I have to respect people's choices/decisions.


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> eh i make compromises every fucking day.
> 
> do you idiots think it's just a matter of wanting a better job?
> 
> ...



I don't think it's a matter of wanting a better job but I don't understand why you hate and insult everyone who doesn't fit in with your line of thinking. Rather than endear us to your position and views, it just makes you look like a sad, bitter loser with a massive chip on their shoulder.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Whatever - wherever I've worked both public and private sector I've signed a full contract (most running to 30 pages or so) which detail every aspect of my job in terms of rights and responsibilties. Very much like the contract templates I've linked to in fact.



This is very rare.

Honestly.

And there is no legal requirement to sign a "full" contract.

I am an employment lawyer and a trade union official, and have been for nearly 20 years, if that helps to explain why it's not worth continuing this debate.


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

7 pages already. Just think, if that secretary had a better attitude, none of this would have happened.


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> i've never had to do it before and it wasn't fun
> 
> they hadn't done anything wrong.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

Bazza said:
			
		

> 7 pages already. Just think, if that secretary had a better attitude, none of this would have happened.


 

Or if I had been at work today. Or well enough to go out.


----------



## sojourner (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> this place is infested with middle class cunts.


And yet...you're still here


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2007)

My mental picture of revol68 is a tiny angry red faced little midget. With a jester's outfit on for some reason. Like Rumpelstiltskin


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 24, 2007)

sojourner said:
			
		

> And yet...you're still here



Well someone has to provide comedy value.


----------



## sojourner (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Like Rumpelstiltskin


   Spot on - I've seen a pic of him


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Bazza said:
			
		

> I don't think it's a matter of wanting a better job but I don't understand why you hate and insult everyone who doesn't fit in with your line of thinking. Rather than endear us to your position and views, it just makes you look like a sad, bitter loser with a massive chip on their shoulder.



sorry to break this to you but anarchists and communists aren't too worried about winning around lawyers and managers, your socio economic position, role and experiance of capitalism don't tend to make youse susceptable to radical ideas.


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> My mental picture of revol68 is a tiny angry red faced little midget. With a jester's outfit on for some reason. Like Rumpelstiltskin



rather than using the well worn diversionary tactic of derailing the thread by attacking people personally can we stick to slagging off rubbershoes and managers in general that try and attract sympathy for a voluntary act whereby they sack someone even though they've 'done nothing wrong'. Or is that all a bit too radical for you lot these days?


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> sorry to break this to you but anarchists and communists aren't too worried about winning around lawyers and managers, your socio economic position, role and experiance of capitalism don't tend to make youse susceptable to radical ideas.



Arent you pretty middle class yourself revol? I thought you were a graduate of Queens?


----------



## jæd (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> sorry to break this to you but anarchists and communists aren't too worried about winning around lawyers and managers, your socio economic position, role and experiance of capitalism don't tend to make youse susceptable to radical ideas.



You know that the lawyers are people who can get you put in prison (or protect you from it) and the managers are the people who can give you a job...

So if you want a nice life they are people to win around...


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> sorry to break this to you but anarchists and communists aren't too worried about winning around lawyers and managers, your socio economic position, role and experiance of capitalism don't tend to make youse susceptable to radical ideas.



So, why haven't you fucked off out of this thread yet, then?


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> rather than using the well worn diversionary tactic of derailing the thread by attacking people personally can we stick to slagging off rubbershoes and managers in general that try and attract sympathy for a voluntary act whereby they sack someone even though they've 'done nothing wrong'. Or is that all a bit too radical for you lot these days?



I think we have been doing that rather well (well, I think I have been doing that rather well, anyway).

But the OP has left the thread now, so it's not half as much fun anymore


----------



## sojourner (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> rather than using the well worn diversionary tactic of derailing the thread by attacking people personally can we stick to slagging off rubbershoes and managers in general that try and attract sympathy for a voluntary act whereby they sack someone even though they've 'done nothing wrong'. Or is that all a bit too radical for you lot these days?


But it's funny cos it's true


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> rather than using the well worn diversionary tactic of derailing the thread by attacking people personally can we stick to slagging off rubbershoes and managers in general that try and attract sympathy for a voluntary act whereby they sack someone even though they've 'done nothing wrong'. Or is that all a bit too radical for you lot these days?


Who's you lot?
I'm here for my own amusement as usual fella


----------



## bluestreak (May 24, 2007)

Bazza said:
			
		

> You had an eight month probation period?
> 
> That was the point I was making though, Blue, companies know when they're taking the piss, they just choose to take the risk on the chance that someone isn't going to pay legal fees for a long drawn out process. I think that's shitty to be honest, but it will keep happening.



it was six but they extended it.  i guess the extension was my warning to get better or else.  it was a housing association so i kind of trusted them to do the right thing.  they sent me to OT who recommended that they pay for some therapy (just to kind of help me along really) but that never showed up.  to be hoenst i think i did pretty well considering that i was homeless for a good four months of the job!

still, such is life.  *shrug*  it's the system, it's not in place for the likes of me.  i've spent years temping and i know that if the work isn't good enough you're gone.  that's how it is.  they hire temps so they don't ahve to train you or give you the same rights as permanent staff.  in some ways all of us who temp are just letting them get away with it.  what can you do?  you can get angry about it like revol does and hopefully he's a more effective activist than he is orator... hell, i used to, but it didn't get me anywhere except angry and miserable.  so you just get on with it and do the best you can not to let the system break you or turn you into one of them.


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> sorry to break this to you but anarchists and communists aren't too worried about winning around lawyers and managers, your socio economic position, role and experiance of capitalism don't tend to make youse susceptable to radical ideas.



Can I be a lawyer who isn't a capitalist? Just because I'm not a commie doesn't make me a capitalist pig. 

Whatever your views are, it's not really something I'm interested in. You're entitled to your views and I admire your committment to the cause - just don't understand the bitterness you have that leads you to calling people cunts left, right and centre. 

Look at most of the threads you come on, no-one seems to like you. Even when you've been talking about your love life it seems like girls leave you for other guys who don't exactly sound like Prince Charming. 

I can't comprehend spending my life being so bitter towards people...Why would anyone want to come across like such an arse.


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> rather than using the well worn diversionary tactic of derailing the thread by attacking people personally can we stick to slagging off rubbershoes and managers in general that try and attract sympathy for a voluntary act whereby they sack someone even though they've 'done nothing wrong'. Or is that all a bit too radical for you lot these days?




but its easier to shoot fish in a barrel innit?


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> heh, as any fule know Thora doesn't do typing
> 
> it;s kind of hard to have sympathy for rubbershoes, or the secretary.  i can get really angry about this.  i was let go at the end of my probationary period last year with a thank you, we can't fault your work but you've had too many sick days (six in eight months, depression-related).  a bit of me still thinks i should have taken it to tribunal because i was effectively sacked for suffering from depression.  it was the "we can't fault your work" that really fucked me off.  it was rubbing salt in the wound.


I can type AND file thankyouverymuch  

The manager that sacked you for suffering from depression probably felt a bit bad about it for, oh - long enough to whine on the internet about how it put a downer on their day.  Anyway, having you in the office with a glum face might have ruined the positive vibe or something


----------



## kyser_soze (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> This is very rare.
> 
> Honestly.
> 
> ...



That's amazing - I don't know anyone, not have I met anyone in all the positions I've worked in from being in an abbatoir to the ad industry, who didn't sign a proper working contract.


----------



## Neva (May 24, 2007)

crap wrong thread


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> So why don't you move to China or Cuba...?


LOL.

Yeah revol, why don't you move to one of them commie paradises???


----------



## kyser_soze (May 24, 2007)

> sorry to break this to you but anarchists and communists aren't too worried about winning around lawyers and managers, your socio economic position, role and experiance of capitalism don't tend to make youse susceptable to radical ideas.



Yeah, cos you're all doing such a standup job of winning over people who work in call centres, supermarkets and the rest of the 'new' working class aren't you?


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> That's amazing - I don't know anyone, not have I met anyone in all the positions I've worked in from being in an abbatoir to the ad industry, who didn't sign a proper working contract.


I think I've only signed a proper contract once, when I was working at a uni that had a proper HR dept.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2007)

I'm very glad rubbershoes and several others on this thread haven't been my managers; I had a four year probationary period and my attitude wasn't all it could have been over that time. Luckily I have had and continue to have very good line managers who see their role as helping their staff overcome the problems which produce 'bad attitudes', long may this continue as I suspect my 'attitude' problems are not entirely in the past.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Arent you pretty middle class yourself revol? I thought you were a graduate of Queens?



yes, because no one working class ever went to university. 
You got out much since the 1940's?


----------



## kyser_soze (May 24, 2007)

'Kin hell. I'd NEVER work without signing a full contract which I and the employer both have a copy of...


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> urban75 - where managers now proffer each other support on the hardships of sacking people...
> 
> you couldn't make it up.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 24, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> I'm very glad rubbershoes and several others on this thread haven't been my managers; I had a four year probationary period and my attitude wasn't all it could have been over that time. Luckily I have had and continue to have very good line managers who see their role as helping their staff overcome the problems which produce 'bad attitudes', long may this continue as I suspect my 'attitude' problems are not entirely in the past.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Four years?!?


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> yes, because no one working class ever went to university.
> You got out much since the 1940's?


You're middle class if you're a graduate, fella


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> it was six but they extended it.  i guess the extension was my warning to get better or else.  it was a housing association so i kind of trusted them to do the right thing.  they sent me to OT who recommended that they pay for some therapy (just to kind of help me along really) but that never showed up.  to be hoenst i think i did pretty well considering that i was homeless for a good four months of the job!
> 
> still, such is life.  *shrug*  it's the system, it's not in place for the likes of me.  i've spent years temping and i know that if the work isn't good enough you're gone.  that's how it is.  they hire temps so they don't ahve to train you or give you the same rights as permanent staff.  in some ways all of us who temp are just letting them get away with it.  what can you do?  you can get angry about it like revol does and hopefully he's a more effective activist than he is orator... hell, i used to, but it didn't get me anywhere except angry and miserable.  so you just get on with it and do the best you can not to let the system break you or turn you into one of them.



I am sorry to hear that things have not worked out for you, and also sorry that you don't feel "empowered" enough to stand up for yourself. I hope you feel stronger in the future, and don't always let people get away with shit. Mind you, I also hope that you find a role/job where you don't need to let anyone get away with stuff, because you are treated well - that would be best, wouldn't it? 

However, I fail to see how revol screaming at all of us and callling us names because of our class, and wanting to hang every manager up etc. etc., is really very constructive, so I don't see him as being an "effective activist". You can't be a good trade unionist, ime as well as imo, unless and until you accept that there are decent managers out there.

Trade unions are part of the "system" as well, you see, and all of us want the employer to be successful - trade unions simply don't want that success to be at the expense of the workforce and to the sole benefit of the owners.


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

> Look at most of the threads you come on, no-one seems to like you. Even when you've been talking about your love life it seems like girls leave you for other guys who don't exactly sound like Prince Charming.



Now I don;t mind insults but this is pure slander.

When have I ever mentioned a girl leaving me for someone else?

 

And believe me i'm rather charming in real life.


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> You're middle class if you're a graduate, fella


Er... Says who?  Think class might be a tiny bit more complex than that.


----------



## Kanda (May 24, 2007)

What's the aircon set at in your office Revol??

Seem a bit hot under the collar today


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> That's amazing - I don't know anyone, not have I met anyone in all the positions I've worked in from being in an abbatoir to the ad industry, who didn't sign a proper working contract.



There is no civil servant in the UK who has signed such a "contract", and I very much doubt that there is any local government worker, either


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> You're middle class if you're a graduate, fella



  

yeah even if I do earn 13,000 a year as a glorified data inputter.

me thinks some people lack a class analysis.


----------



## bluestreak (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> I can type AND file thankyouverymuch
> 
> The manager that sacked you for suffering from depression probably felt a bit bad about it for, oh - long enough to whine on the internet about how it put a downer on their day.  Anyway, having you in the office with a glum face might have ruined the positive vibe or something



tbh, she was a miserable faced cow so much that i actually felt more cheerful.  anyhoo, i don't expect the management to be my friend, and i won't work for profit-making industries.  best i can do.  dread to think what will happen if anyone is foolish enough to make me management.  still, i doubt that will happen.  i'm 28 and have risen to the heady heights of complaints officer on 20k a year.  at this rate i'll be in my 40s before i need to worry about sacking people.

oh, and i never said you COULDN'T type or file. i just said you didn't.  in the same way that i can theoretically stick razorblades in my arsehole but don't.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2007)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> Four years?!?



Yep we take this sort of thing very seriously at the OU; as we do training and monitoring managers. It's all a bit old fashioned in some ways but it seems to work for enough people.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> Er... Says who?  Think class might be a tiny bit more complex than that.


Working class people work in mines and shit.
They don't go to university


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> yes, because no one working class ever went to university.
> You got out much since the 1940's?



I reckon Im much more working class than you rev.

You went to Grammar School as well didnt you?


----------



## kyser_soze (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> There is no civil servant in the UK who has signed such a "contract", and I very much doubt that there is any local government worker, either



That's funny - my other half is a civil servant and her contact was about 45 pages, excluding the emplyee handbook. I know this because I went through it with her.


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

look at all the terribly hardworking stuff rubbershoes was up to while his awful secretary wasn't doing any work!

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=2855519

finding out about moles!

finding out where sushi can be eaten in bristol!

wanting to get on a website for pirated films and CD's!

talking about his toothpaste!

learning about 'funky house'!

well well well - it would appear his secretary wasn't the only one doing nothing...


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> yeah even if I do earn 13,000 a year as a glorified data inputter.
> 
> me thinks some people lack a class analysis.


Does that make you working class then? Being a data inputter. I must be working class then.


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Working class people work in mines and shit.
> They don't go to university


Good point.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> yeah even if I do earn 13,000 a year as a glorified data inputter.
> 
> me thinks some people lack a class analysis.



I am sure you know that how much you are paid doesn't affect your "class".

Otherwise, what about all those unemployed Lords who sit around in their crumbling stately homes? Are they working class because they are skint?

It is certainly true that "working class" people - or rather, people from a working class background - have gone to university, but it does, generally, change their status to closer to the traditional "middle class" when they do so.

Of course, such simplistic categorisations of "class" are no longer valid or relevant, but don't let that stop you from attacking me as a middle class cunt, since that's clearly what you want to do.

But I would prefer you to fuck off, personally


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 24, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Yep we take this sort of thing very seriously at the OU; as we do training and monitoring managers. It's all a bit old fashioned in some ways but it seems to work for enough people.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



But four years??? Jesus...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> look at all the terribly hardworking stuff rubbershoes was up to while his awful secretary wasn't doing any work!
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=2855519
> 
> ...



I think I've detected another attitude problem. 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> yeah even if I do earn 13,000 a year as a glorified data inputter.



Well forgive me for not bending over and allowing myself to be exploited like you clearly are.


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

like someone said, there is a pretty clear class division on this one, it seems we know where the line is now.

this can't be reasoned out, there can't be middle ground, this is simply the very basis of class war, managers expect workers to work hard with a good attitude, most workers seek to do less work and fuck about on the internet as shown here, they also don't tend to give two shits about their work.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> That's funny - my other half is a civil servant and her contact was about 45 pages, excluding the emplyee handbook. I know this because I went through it with her.



And you have just proved my point. The staff handbook is part of the contract, as is every collective agreement which affects your wife's job.

Therefore, she has not signed a "full contract".

Can we not move on from this point? It's simply a misunderstanding or communication failure, and we are wasting good arguing time


----------



## Kanda (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> look at all the terribly hardworking stuff rubbershoes was up to while his awful secretary wasn't doing any work!
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=2855519
> 
> ...



You might want to look at the times they were posted... I had a quick flick through and most were kinda out of hours or lunchtimes


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2007)

Bazza said:
			
		

> Well forgive me for not bending over and allowing myself to be exploited like you clearly are.



Do you mean that everyone on 13k is allowing themselves to be 'fucked over' or is it just Revol?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> I reckon Im much more working class than you rev.
> 
> You went to Grammar School as well didnt you?



you do understand the northern ireland education system?

just checking cos i'd hate for you to make a cock out of yourself.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 24, 2007)

Fair enough - every job I ever worked in (and when I employed people myself) the employee handbook was a separate document that didn't have to be signed but was given out with the main contract.


----------



## bluestreak (May 24, 2007)

guin, it's not that i didn't really want to stand up for myself, it's more that i knew that i'd been stitched up really, that they'd covered their back, and that really the time and money it would take were more than it was worth really.  and yeah, i have no doubt there are good managers out there, and that many managers are nice people, but their role in the class system is clearly defined.  in political terms managers have to prove themselves to be committed to worker's rights, and then they risk their own jobs and security.  this isn't so prevalent IME in the charity NFP social sector and management tends to be more liberal and compassionate which is one of the reasons why i work in the sector.  but they still have to protect their projects, their budgets, and their targets.  it's nearly always going to be cheaper and more efficient to 'let someone go' than to risk a vital (as i was) staff member go on long term sick.  easier to get someone in who doesn't pose a problem and to send me off with glowing references.  someone else's problem innit.  but instead of hating the managers who are just doing what it takes to survive like most of us all, i ahte the fucking system that expects them to do so.  i only reserve individual hatred for the sort of blakey wankers who enjoy lording it over people from the heady heights of middle-management.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 24, 2007)

Right, this thread is boring me now, I'm off. Have fun people!


----------



## Crispy (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> I think I've only signed a proper contract once, when I was working at a uni that had a proper HR dept.



I've never had one, and I'm a profeshunull

My class analysis is that this hot weather's got everybody rowdy, so I'm cancelling double maths and you can all go outside and play.


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

Kanda said:
			
		

> You might want to look at the times they were posted... I had a quick flick through and most were kinda out of hours or lunchtimes



I just checked - a fair few are in office hours. 

  

And - shut it!!


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> you do understand the northern ireland education system?
> 
> just checking cos i'd hate for you to make a cock out of yourself.



Most kids dont go to Grammer Schools in NI do they? (Im sure you'll correct me if Im wrong)

Theres nowt wrong with being middle class rev, I dont hold it against you


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Most kids dont go to Grammer Schools in NI do they? (Im sure you'll correct me if Im wrong)
> 
> Theres nowt wrong with being middle class rev, I dont hold it against you


I didn't go to grammar school. I must be working class. My consciousness has been awakened!


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Fair enough - every job I ever worked in (and when I employed people myself) the employee handbook was a separate document that didn't have to be signed but was given out with the main contract.


But it still, in law, forms part of the "contract of employment". As do other documents.


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> That's funny - my other half is a civil servant and her contact was about 45 pages, excluding the emplyee handbook. I know this because I went through it with her.




most civil servants used to have something called terms and conditions of service rather than a contract which included a ref to a handbook (all 45 volumes of it - in our dept at the time i think it was LOcode2 and LOcode 7) and many... many.. circulars


A Crown servant, in theory,  is dismissible at any time at the will of the Crown. However, various aspects of employment legislation have been extended to “Crown employment,” particularly in the areas of employment protection, trade union rights and discrimination.



> Whilst it may remain unclear whether an employee of the Crown is to be regarded as
> having a contract with his employer, it is clear that if he does have a contract it is not,
> as explained above, a contract of service in the strict meaning of that expression. The
> Crown employee is not therefore an employee as defined in the [Employment Rights
> ...


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

dylanredefined said:
			
		

> Its just as stressful sacking someone as it is being sacked been in both postions. Even if the person your sacking really deserves it  .



a question for dylan. In what way is sacking someone as stressful as say, not having enough money to buy food, not being able to pay bills, not being able to buy clothes for your kids, being able to pay your rent etc?

I await your response eagerly.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> a question for dylan. In what way is sacking someone as stressful as say, not having enough money to buy food, not being able to pay bills, not being able to buy clothes for your kids, being able to pay your rent etc?
> 
> I await your response eagerly.



Perhaps they were referring only to the moment of sacking; this could be stressful for a manager precisely because they are aware of the consequences. However, it still remains the case that it is not the manager who has to actually deal with those consequences; therefore it isn't ultimately as stressful...so there! 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## dennisr (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> (((managers)))
> 
> I especially feel for the caring ones, who only have their underlings best interests at heart.



Absafekinlootly


----------



## bruise (May 24, 2007)

what a deeply disappointing thread. fair play to Cheg and Thora and also to Guiniveroodoo for at least getting splinters up her arse. The rest of you should be ashamed of yourself. bunch of fucking wankers. any of you heard of 

a) common decency
b) some kind of protection from the whims of managers
c) minimum trade union consciousness

of course it's too much to much to expect people to actually be on the left or anything like that. 

jeez.

(oh, and revol - great comedy anarcho routine there, mate. nice one)


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Does that make you working class then? Being a data inputter. I must be working class then.


Data inputter sounds pretty working class to me  

Surely class is more about your relationship to the means of production, position of power over other workers, if your income comes from anything other than selling your labour, rather than whether you went to grammar school or if your dad was a teacher or a miner?


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Most kids dont go to Grammer Schools in NI do they? (Im sure you'll correct me if Im wrong)
> 
> Theres nowt wrong with being middle class rev, I dont hold it against you



the last figure I heard was that close to 40% of kids in Northern Ireland went to Grammar Schools.

Now entry to grammar schools is based on the 11+ which whilst clearly giving an advantage to middle class kids who can in general afford tutoring, better learning etc etc there are still alot of working class kids that pass it. In my family two passed and two failed.

Anyway the point is that my current position is decidely working class and I don't have much sympathy for wankers complaining about how hard it is to sack someone, especially a wanker who spends plenty of time on here and yet whinges about his secretaries bad attitude.


----------



## marshall (May 24, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Perhaps they were referring only to the moment of sacking; this could be stressful for a manager precisely because they are aware of the consequences. However, it still remains the case that it is not the manager who has to actually deal with those consequences; therefore it isn't ultimately as stressful...so there!
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



but 'the moment of sacking' is quite liberating for the manager, it's the build-up that's stressful.


----------



## dennisr (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> urban75 - where managers now proffer each other support on the hardships of sacking people...
> 
> you couldn't make it up.



nail on head....


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> Data inputter sounds pretty working class to me
> 
> Surely class is more about your relationship to the means of production, position of power over other workers, if your income comes from anything other than selling your labour, rather than whether you went to grammar school or if your dad was a teacher or a miner?


I dunno - it changes every time I think about it - sometime's it's just to do with what kind of curtains you have or summat


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I dunno - it changes every time I think about it - sometime's it's just to do with what kind of curtains you have or summat


I find the Aldi-Tesco-Waitrose divide to be the most useful model.


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Perhaps they were referring only to the moment of sacking; this could be stressful for a manager precisely because they are aware of the consequences. However, it still remains the case that it is not the manager who has to actually deal with those consequences; therefore it isn't ultimately as stressful...so there!



ah yes good point. I'm shedding a tear in solidarity with managers hardships right now.


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

I watched that Joe Strummer film the other day and whilst he was firmly to the left, he had no gripes in sacking people and stitching them up to further his career.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> I find the Aldi-Tesco-Waitrose divide to be the most useful model.


I'm a Tesco fella cos I can't be bothered to cycle to Balham. Oh dear.


----------



## dennisr (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> ooo heaven forbid some hostility - cover your hard working eyes bazza.
> 
> we're hard workers! we pay your wages!


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I'm a Tesco fella cos I can't be bothered to cycle to Balham. Oh dear.


I'm disappointed in you.  You'll be sacking your cleaning lady on a whim next


----------



## dennisr (May 24, 2007)

Bazza said:
			
		

> I watched that Joe Strummer film the other day and whilst he was firmly to the left, he had no gripes in sacking people and stitching them up to further his career.



must be fair enough in cuntfaces case then.. after all he 'earns' their wages


----------



## kyser_soze (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> Data inputter sounds pretty working class to me
> 
> Surely class is more about your relationship to the means of production, position of power over other workers, if your income comes from anything other than selling your labour, rather than whether you went to grammar school or if your dad was a teacher or a miner?



As I said in response to revols comments about lawyers etc, I don't see the ideas of trade unionism making headway into career areas like this.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2007)

marshall said:
			
		

> but 'the moment of sacking' is quite liberating for the manager, it's the build-up that's stressful.



I don't think this was true for the OP; they obviously didn't find it liberating and came on here looking for support and sympathy to help them 'move on'. As I said previously I'm glad they aren't my manager.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

>



  I'm not too bothered what you think really. I'm not a greedy sod and I always look out for others. They're my benchmarks for being a decent person.


----------



## dolly's gal (May 24, 2007)

marshall said:
			
		

> but 'the moment of sacking' is quite liberating for the manager, it's the build-up that's stressful.



oh that's good to know. wonderful in fact


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> As I said in response to revols comments about lawyers etc, I don't see the ideas of trade unionism making headway into career areas like this.


And..?


----------



## Crispy (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> Data inputter sounds pretty working class to me
> 
> Surely class is more about your relationship to the means of production, position of power over other workers, if your income comes from anything other than selling your labour, rather than whether you went to grammar school or if your dad was a teacher or a miner?



That is absolutely the case. Unfortunately, as a nation, we have this huge history of cultural snobbery which completely fucks up any attempt to sort things out using the real definition.


----------



## _angel_ (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> can I propose a minutes silence for poor managers that put people out of work as and when they feel like it...
> 
> I know, I for one, feel for them extremely deeply....




And a yellow ribbon


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2007)

Bazza said:
			
		

> I watched that Joe Strummer film the other day and whilst he was firmly to the left, he had no gripes in sacking people and stitching them up to further his career.



Is it OK not to take our moral lead from bio pics of dead rock stars?

Asked as a Clash fan of very long standing - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I dunno - it changes every time I think about it - sometime's it's just to do with what kind of curtains you have or summat



I thought it was whether you wore Daps, Plimsoles or Pumps to PE lessons


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Is it OK not to take our moral lead from bio pics of dead rock stars?
> 
> Asked as a Clash fan of very long standing - Louis MacNeice



I wouldn't dream of taking my lead from rock stars. Just making a point...albeit not a great one.


----------



## dolly's gal (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> Surely class is more about your relationship to the means of production, position of power over other workers, if your income comes from anything other than selling your labour, rather than whether you went to grammar school or if your dad was a teacher or a miner?



if you eat cheap ham on cheap white bread sandwiches you are working class. it's the best class litmus test out there


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2007)

Bazza said:
			
		

> I wouldn't dream of taking my lead from rock stars. Just making a point...albeit not a great one.



The point seemed to be that it was OK because Joe did it...the logic of which I was questioning.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

dolly's gal said:
			
		

> if you eat cheap ham on cheap white bread sandwiches you are working class. it's the best class litmus test out there


Ah, but what if you eat cheap vegetarian ham on cheap bread, like I did earlier today? 

Oh, and what if you buy your patio furniture from Lidl?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2007)

dolly's gal said:
			
		

> if you eat cheap ham on cheap white bread sandwiches you are working class. it's the best class litmus test out there



Or you're a child. 

Louis MacNeice (father of two)


----------



## _angel_ (May 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> I thought it was whether you wore Daps, Plimsoles or Pumps to PE lessons


 Don't lets re-open Dapgate again.


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> The point seemed to be that it was OK because Joe did it...the logic of which I was questioning.



There was some post up there that I didn't quote properly in order to make my point. Your interpretation certainly wasn't what I was getting at though.


----------



## lego (May 24, 2007)

Sorry, but how stupid do you have to be to tell your boss, _while on your probation period_, that you're too busy to do something?


----------



## dolly's gal (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Ah, but what if you eat cheap vegetarian ham on cheap bread, like I did earlier today?



if you are a vegetarian you are not a working class. not a real one anyway


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> I thought it was whether you wore Daps, Plimsoles or Pumps to PE lessons


Isn't that a regional thing?  Daps for me (Westcountry).


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> That is absolutely the case. Unfortunately, as a nation, we have this huge history of cultural snobbery which completely fucks up any attempt to sort things out using the real definition.


Well I'm confused as anything - whether I am middle class or working class, nothing changes who I am or how I feel about the world, so I'm not sure how useful the terms are anymore.


----------



## Kanda (May 24, 2007)

I thought the difference between working class and middle class was:

Working class: Doesn't actually want to work (such as this secretary)
Middle Class: Does work and is reasonably happy doing so

Weird innit


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 24, 2007)

The dividing line between helping someone who's dragging your team down and ditching them for someone who can do the job better is difficult to judge at any point.

Some people you know won't change, won't be capable of getting to the standard you need in the time you've got. In those cases all you can do is either grin and bear it till the project is over or get rid of them if you can.

It's not fun telling someone they're out on their ear, even when you've got to do it. Then again it's not fun having to drag someone's dead weight around because they can't manage the job they're in, i've done that far too often now to have much patience with it.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2007)

dolly's gal said:
			
		

> if you are a vegetarian you are not a working class. not a real one anyway


What if you're Indian?


----------



## dolly's gal (May 24, 2007)

Kanda said:
			
		

> I thought the difference between working class and middle class was:
> 
> Working class: Doesn't actually want to work (such as this secretary)
> Middle Class: Does work and is reasonably happy doing so



i can't actually tell if you're joking kanda   i do hope you are...


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

*sips Chateau de Chassilier*


----------



## Kanda (May 24, 2007)

dolly's gal said:
			
		

> i can't actually tell if you're joking kanda   i do hope you are...


----------



## _angel_ (May 24, 2007)

dolly's gal said:
			
		

> if you are a vegetarian you are not a working class. not a real one anyway




Heh.


seriously, vegetarian ham - what's the point. If you want ham just eat it.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 24, 2007)

lego said:
			
		

> Sorry, but how stupid do you have to be to tell your boss, _while on your probation period_, that you're too busy to do something?



Come the beautiful revolution things are gonna change. Forget 'Jobs for the boys' think more 'Jobs for the morons.'


----------



## bluestreak (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> Data inputter sounds pretty working class to me
> 
> Surely class is more about your relationship to the means of production, position of power over other workers, if your income comes from anything other than selling your labour, rather than whether you went to grammar school or if your dad was a teacher or a miner?



hush now, that makes far too much sense for around here.


----------



## bmd (May 24, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, even good employers do sometimes get it wrong, and sack someone wrongly or unfairly.



And sometimes employees are complete wankers who make everyone's working lives a misery with their cuntery.

There's a reception person where I work like this but because she stays on the 'right side' of the law there's nothing to be done. She treats some clients really nicely, because of the way they dress usually, and looks down her nose at others. 

This is just a for instance, but it's a really shit attitude to have towards people who have enough problems with their self-esteem already.

All the things that Guiniveretoo has mentioned have been tried and she's even been disciplined because she gossips but really, unless she slips up again, she's here for as long as she likes. I mean, how do you discipline someone for a shit attitude?

It stinks and not because of any other reason than the clients get a shit service from a judgemental, gossipy old bat.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> *sips Chateau de Chassilier*



Very fassable indeed.


----------



## bluestreak (May 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> I thought it was whether you wore Daps, Plimsoles or Pumps to PE lessons



i used to bunk off PE and go for a smoke.  what class am i?


----------



## dolly's gal (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> What if you're Indian?



yes, you can be vegetarian and working class if you're indian. i should have clarified at the beginning, this test only applies to white british people


----------



## Crispy (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Well I'm confused as anything - whether I am middle class or working class, nothing changes who I am or how I feel about the world, so I'm not sure how useful the terms are anymore.


Basic marx (which I presume is where the whole point of talking about these things in these terms comes from). Class is all about your relationship to the means of production and capital. You either own them, wholly or in part, or you sell your labour to them. If you do the latter then you are working class.

It gets complicated when you sell your labour, and _also_ own capital/means of production by eg. owning property or shares in a company.

The term 'middle class' is far more woolly, and is reserved for those workers who either facilitate the boss' orders or have such valuable labour that the system no longer harms them.

I think. Someone put me in my place if I belong there.


----------



## Iam (May 24, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> i used to bunk off PE and go for a smoke.  what class am i?



Extra PE?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 24, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> i used to bunk off PE and go for a smoke.  what class am i?


2E, always were the bad boys.


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

Bob Marleys Dad said:
			
		

> And sometimes employees are complete wankers who make everyone's working lives a misery with their cuntery.
> 
> There's a reception person where I work like this but because she stays on the 'right side' of the law there's nothing to be done. She treats some clients really nicely, because of the way they dress usually, and looks down her nose at others.
> 
> ...



sounds like a reorganisation and "consolidation of roles" is needed...

thats how a lot of comapnies do this anyhow


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

dolly's gal said:
			
		

> yes, you can be vegetarian and working class if you're indian. i should have clarified at the beginning, this test only applies to white british people



Im a white Vegetarian but I had an Indian great great great grandad


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

dolly's gal said:
			
		

> yes, you can be vegetarian and working class if you're indian. i should have clarified at the beginning, this test only applies to white british people


I thought that was quite obviously implied in your first post dolly - I think OU's just being difficult.


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Basic marx (which I presume is where the whole point of talking about these things in these terms comes from). Class is all about your relationship to the means of production and capital. You either own them, wholly or in part, or you sell your labour to them. If you do the latter then you are working class.
> 
> It gets complicated when you sell your labour, and _also_ own capital/means of production by eg. owning property or shares in a company.
> 
> ...



so did you live in a shoe box in the middle of the road?


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

I reckon Smoking is enough to get you classed as workign class nowadays.

And not eating organic, locally sourced produce


----------



## dolly's gal (May 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Im a white Vegetarian but I had an Indian great great great grandad



that's nice dear. 

ham sandwich anyone?


----------



## Crispy (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> so did you live in a shoe box in the middle of the road?


Nope, I'm Priveleged Middle Class, and I don't have a chip on my shoulder about it.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 24, 2007)

dolly's gal said:
			
		

> ham sandwich anyone?




on white?


----------



## bmd (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> sounds like a reorganisation and "consolidation of roles" is needed...
> 
> thats how a lot of comapnies do this anyhow



You're right and I can't understand why they won't do this, she's a right nightmare.

The other day we were having a meeting and she walked in with a visitor. She shouldn't have even brought them into the building never mind into the room but she just decides to do stuff like this, off her own back. She's been here 3 years so it's not like she doesn't know the procedure.

And before Che Guevara starts, she shouldn't have brought them in because we have a strict confidentiality policy for the protection of clients.


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> And not eating organic, locally sourced produce



that just makes you scum.

That and eating something from KFC, McDonalds, Burger King & not necking fair trade coke (liquid and powdered varieiteis)


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2007)

I am working class! Whahey!


----------



## Iam (May 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> I reckon Smoking is enough to get you classed as workign class nowadays.
> 
> And not eating organic, locally sourced produce



What about smoking organic, locally sourced produce???


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

> not necking fair trade coke.



Is there a photo of a happy Peruvian peasant on the wrap?


----------



## dolly's gal (May 24, 2007)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> on white?



but of course!


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I am working class! Whahey!



Fuck, I only ever became mates with you 'cos I thought i was going up in the world


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Nope, I'm Priveleged Middle Class, and I don't have a chip on my shoulder about it.






i guess these days I am too. though originally I aspired to be working class from the dark, dank bottomless pit that was where we were (to us working class was like ... so far up the ladder that we were in awe of it. we were "sponger" class)

still class.. its all just bollocks really isnt it?

a cunt is a cunt is a cunt regardless of social position\wealth\number of furbies owned


----------



## _angel_ (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I am working class! Whahey!



No you're a ginger. They're a separate species and exempt from any other hierarchy.


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I am working class! Whahey!


Course you are  

Just make sure you know which side you're on if it ever comes to it, otherwise you might end up strung up from a lamp post by the entrails of a manager or summat


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

> still class.. its all just bollocks really isnt it?



eh no dickhead it's not.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

dolly's gal said:
			
		

> if you are a vegetarian you are not a working class. not a real one anyway



But I wore plimsolls to do PE, black ones with elastic bits in them!


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> a cunt is a cunt is a cunt regardless of social position\wealth\number of furbies owned



if only all managers showed pingus level of self-awareness.


----------



## Crispy (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> eh no dickhead it's not.


The social snobbery bit is bollocks, though. And gets in the way of the truth of the situation.


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> eh no dickhead it's not.




ooooooooooooooooooh yes it is

seriously ... its all just some method of pidgeonholing people and like all generalisaions its bollocks.

just my opinion mind.

feel free to convince me that its not bollocks btw  mind you 3 years of sociology failed to convince me


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> still class.. its all just bollocks really isnt it?
> 
> a cunt is a cunt is a cunt regardless of social position\wealth\number of furbies owned


Yep, cos class is all about whether someone is personally a cunt or not   I bet George Bush is lovely to his kids.


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> The social snobbery bit is bollocks, though. And gets in the way of the truth of the situation.




this is actually probably more acurate that "its all just bollocks" to be fair


----------



## Crispy (May 24, 2007)

It's not sociology, it's economics. Very simple and My First Marx should cover it in the first 5 pages. You sell your labour for money? You're working class. You profit from that labour? You're a boss.

"Middle Class" is a word with a very fuzzy defintion, and we need a better one.


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> feel free to convince me that its not bollocks btw  mind you 3 years of sociology failed to convince me



I don't know whether that says more about you or the education system.

So tell me do you think their is nothing relevant in the relationship between a shop owner and the shelf stacker? Or does it all just come down to being a 'nice guy'?


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> if only all managers showed pingus level of self-awareness.




manager!

fuck, I am far worse than that in the class struggle view of the world...


----------



## tim (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> Sorry, my mistake - it _is_ fine to take someone's job from them, even though they've done nothing wrong, because you decide you don't like their attitude.



The Lord  giveth, and the Lord taketh away.


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

tim said:
			
		

> The Lord  giveth, and the Lord taketh away.



yeah it is quite like serfdom isn't it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> So tell me do you think their is nothing relevant in the relationship between a shop owner and the shelf stacker? Or does it all just come down to being a 'nice guy'?


Because a person's employment does not give the full picture of that person, that's why it's crap. .


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> I don't know whether that says more about you or the education system.
> 
> So tell me do you think their is nothing relevant in the relationship between a shop owner and the shelf stacker? Or does it all just come down to being a 'nice guy'?




depends tbh

but what I dont believe in is that the full nature of their relationship is limited by who works for who, or who pays whose wages. its far more complicated than that. anyhow we are derailing the thread a smidgeon and this topic has been done to death many times (I think).

but being a nice guy to me is about life in general and not just about someones employment situation.

and it was possibly the education system that placed a raving marxist teaching a sociology class that is to balme. I tend to find evangalists of any persurasion make me look at the flip side of the coin.


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

for the last fucking time, class is not about being nice or being a good person!

you did sociology for three years and you still come out with shit like this.


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Because a person's employment does not give the full picture of that person, that's why it's crap. .



eh who said it did or ever aspired to?

anyway your a dippers fan, what would youse know about class, youse are lower than the lumpen.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> for the last fucking time, class is not about being nice or being a good person!


So middle classes aren't all cunts then?


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> eh no dickhead it's not.



And you are just a name caller!  

If you have a point to make, why not make it, rather than just calling people names, and causing them to have to guess as to what you mean?


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> So middle classes aren't all cunts then?



you are not approached the word cunt with enough nuance comrade!


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> eh who said it did or ever aspired to?


Then what's the point of using it as a label for people?


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (May 24, 2007)

People in the UK seem obsessed by class. It doesn't matter, there's some fuckers that are luckier than others. Or maybe some people worked harder. Have bigger tits, kiss butt more. It's what winds me up about those with a chip on their shoulder about been working class. It's a fucking victim mentality. "I'm been kept down cos I'm working class."
Nah, you're been kept down cos you allow yourself to be kept down. Or you're lazy. Or both.


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Then what's the point of using it as a label for people?



it's not about labelling people but about seeking to understand certain social roles and strata and more importantly for this thread understanding how that informs their world outlook.

I mean clearly the sacked and the sacker have completely different views of the event, in large part influenced by their class role, that is one's a secretary and the other's a manager, one has certain powers the other fuck all.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> It's not sociology, it's economics. Very simple and My First Marx should cover it in the first 5 pages. You sell your labour for money? You're working class. You profit from that labour? You're a boss.
> 
> "Middle Class" is a word with a very fuzzy defintion, and we need a better one.



It's not as simple as that, and never has been, really.

For example, what about people who don't work at all? How are they defined? I am thinking of people who are on the dole from choice, those who are between jobs, those who have disabilities, those who are moneyed so don't need to work, those who have small children and are unable to work, those who have a partner who will support them, so choose not to work... etc. etc.

Also, a lot of jobs these days don't lead to any production as such, so how are these defined?

Is it about how your father was defined? What about how your mother was defined? Who did that definition? Is it about your upbringing/background, or what you do as an adult? What if that changes? 

If someone goes to a grammar school, are they middle class for ever? What if a graduate becomes a road sweeper - do they become working class?


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

Boris Sprinkler said:
			
		

> People in the UK seem obsessed by class. It doesn't matter, there's some fuckers that are luckier than others. Or maybe some people worked harder. Have bigger tits, kiss butt more. It's what winds me up about those with a chip on their shoulder about been working class. It's a fucking victim mentality. "I'm been kept down cos I'm working class."
> Nah, you're been kept down cos you allow yourself to be kept down. Or you're lazy. Or both.



  

yes dearie that's very much the case.


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> for the last fucking time, class is not about being nice or being a good person!
> 
> you did sociology for three years and you still come out with shit like this.




you really dont have a fucking clue do you?

class has fuck all to do with your personality. Which you do seem to be able to grasp.

what you dont seem to be able to grasp is that, for me, class is meaningless. I make no judgements of peoples worth\ability\whatever based upon some pidgeonholing system.

irrespective of wether someone provides labour for someone else or is the  capital that is fueled by that labour is irrelevant to my world view.

I couldnt give a flying fuck if someone is earl bollockface of cumbria, Mr withenshaw from a nice bit of cheshire or Eric from the north end of birkenhead. or if they own vast tracts of witshire, run a widget factory or dig for worms with in order to put food on the table. I judge a person on their actions and how those actions fit into a set of principles that I hold. Somene who I think is a great bloke could be a cunt to someone else.. the actions performed by these people is what I judge them on not their position in the labour market.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> you really dont have a fucking clue do you?
> 
> class has fuck all to do with your personality. Which you do seem to be able to grasp.
> 
> ...



Word


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

anyhow mr shoes..

has this thread turned out how you expected it to?


----------



## A Dashing Blade (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> . . .
> I mean clearly the sacked and the sacker have completely different views of the event,


Not neccessarily



			
				revol68 said:
			
		

> in large part influenced by their class role . . .


it's the year 2007 not 1977 ffs, get real.



			
				revol68 said:
			
		

> that is one's a secretary and the other's a manager, one has certain powers the other fuck all.


I assume you're referring to the secretary as having no power in which case you've clearly never worked in an office environment


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

A Dashing Blade said:
			
		

> Not neccessarily
> 
> it's the year 2007 not 1977 ffs, get real.
> 
> I assume you're referring to the secretary as having no power in which case you've clearly never worked in an office environment



oh yeah sorry I should have got with the Thatcher and realised there was no such thing as society and class disappeared the moment some lads with essex accents started making money in the city. 

And I have worked in office environments, infact i'm in one now, perhaps you could tell me of secretaries firing their bosses.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> yes dearie that's very much the case.



aye it was a flimsy, argument in any case. I knew what i meant in my head. 

I win every argument in my head.


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> you really dont have a fucking clue do you?
> 
> class has fuck all to do with your personality. Which you do seem to be able to grasp.
> 
> ...



i'm pointing out it's not about judging people in some wet 'whose a nice guy way', it's a political and class distinction, i'm sure my boss is lovely to his wife and kids but he's a cunt to me.


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> i'm pointing out it's not about judging people in some wet 'whose a nice guy way', it's a political and class distinction, i'm sure my boss is lovely to his wife and kids but he's a cunt to me.




is his being a cunt to you a result of his position or is it a result of the interactions you have had?

is he a cunt to very other employee? (in which case you may have an argument) or is it a case of personalities?

i.e. does he treat you like a cunt because he doenst like you or because you are working class and he isnt?


----------



## A Dashing Blade (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> oh yeah sorry I should have got with the Thatcher and realised there was no such thing as society and class disappeared the moment some lads with essex accents started making money in the city.



And your point is what caller?  

you'd better start defining your terms if we're to go down this road . . .


----------



## Iam (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> i'm pointing out it's not about judging people in some wet 'whose a nice guy way', it's a political and class distinction, i'm sure my boss is lovely to his wife and kids but he's a cunt to me.



I dare you to tell him that...


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (May 24, 2007)

get a better job then. It's got nothing to with class. It's the fact your boss is a cunt. Unless he dresses in red and chases you round the room with a load of hounds.


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

A Dashing Blade said:
			
		

> And your point is what caller?



no one says that anymore. It's beyond lame.


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Boris Sprinkler said:
			
		

> get a better job then. It's got nothing to with class. It's the fact your boss is a cunt. Unless he dresses in red and chases you round the room with a load of hounds.



let me know a job that doesn't have a boss that i'm qualified for.


----------



## _angel_ (May 24, 2007)

Boris Sprinkler said:
			
		

> People in the UK seem obsessed by class. It doesn't matter, there's some fuckers that are luckier than others. Or maybe some people worked harder. Have bigger tits, kiss butt more. It's what winds me up about those with a chip on their shoulder about been working class. It's a fucking victim mentality. "I'm been kept down cos I'm working class."
> Nah, you're been kept down cos you allow yourself to be kept down. Or you're lazy. Or both.




which utopia do you live in? Narnia?


----------



## A Dashing Blade (May 24, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> no one says that anymore. It's beyond lame.



Shit, and there I was trying to get down wiv de yoof


----------



## A Dashing Blade (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> let me know a job that doesn't have a boss that i'm qualified for.



Self-employment? Or is that too Thatcherite for you?


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

A Dashing Blade said:
			
		

> Self-employment? Or is that too Thatcherite for you?



fuck! 

Your right!

Let me just pull some start up capital out of my arse, suppouse whilst I'm there I can have a feel around for my magic beans too.


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

get a bank loan

or apply for a grant\other funding

how do you think other people start up businesses?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> is his being a cunt to you a result of his position or is it a result of the interactions you have had?
> 
> is he a cunt to very other employee? (in which case you may have an argument) or is it a case of personalities?
> 
> i.e. does he treat you like a cunt because he doenst like you or because you are working class and he isnt?



His ability to act the way he does *and* for that to have some all too real fall out (e.g. getting someone fired) is about his class position; he has been enabled by a set of class relationships to deprive someone of their employment...this isn't true of the non-manager employee.

Cheers - Louis Macneice


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (May 24, 2007)

_angel_ said:
			
		

> which utopia do you live in? Narnia?



give ya clue it's to the right of my name.  

Anyway even when in the UK I never felt oppressed. Well in my first job, but then I realised i could do stuff about that, and therefore i did. I've never been a model employee but always managed to work in places I've enjoyed. It's called making the most out of having to work, we all have to, so why make it shitter than it has to be. 

And I'm working class too.

Or was.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (May 24, 2007)

Was being semi-serious.

You said "let me know a job that doesn't have a boss that i'm qualified for."

Implication : You don't want to have a boss.
Fair enough in my book, perfectly valid view and one that I agree with. But if you are really into that then you'd better start thinking ahead non?


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> get a bank loan
> 
> or apply for a grant\other funding
> 
> how do you think other people start up businesses?



A bank loan to do what with?

I suppouse it would be amazing slaving my balls off to pay back the bank knowing that most small start ups go to the wall within 2 years.

More to the point why would I want to be self employed? I want rid of capitalism  in total.


----------



## treelover (May 24, 2007)

A big up to the Urban75 managerial massive! 


even if they don't say that anymore either


----------



## chegrimandi (May 24, 2007)

I'm off home!

rubbershoes - I hope you read this thread and feel like shit & think again next time you whimsically sack someone that in your own words 'hasn't done anything wrong'.


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

if i take out a bank loan it will to fund my slump off into academia for a few more years.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> I want rid of capitalism  in total.


<Waits for someone to come up with "Well f**k off to North Korea then" line>


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> His ability to act the way he does *and* for that to have some all too real fall out (e.g. getting someone fired) is about his class position; he has been enabled by a set of class relationships to deprive someone of their employment...this isn't true of the non-manager employee.
> 
> Cheers - Louis Macneice



so he is being a cunt to him purely on the basis of his class position?

or do you think there just might be a tiny chance there may be other factors involved too?


----------



## Chairman Meow (May 24, 2007)

This thread is an eye-opener for sure.


----------



## Kanda (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> I want rid of capitalism  in total.



and replaced with?


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Kanda said:
			
		

> and replaced with?



a billion replicants of your ma!

or failing that libertarian communism.


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2007)

Chairman Meow said:
			
		

> This thread is an eye-opener for sure.



Aye, maybe its time we had a U75 Management Forum


----------



## Kanda (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> a billion replicants of your ma!



You wouldn't want that, the NHS would be bogged down completely.


----------



## jæd (May 24, 2007)

Kanda said:
			
		

> and replaced with?



Anarchy...!


----------



## A Dashing Blade (May 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Aye, maybe its time we had a U75 Management Forum



Have always thought a U75 Finance and Investment Forum would be a laugh . . .


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> A bank loan to do what with?
> 
> I suppouse it would be amazing slaving my balls off to pay back the bank knowing that most small start ups go to the wall within 2 years.
> 
> More to the point why would I want to be self employed? I want rid of capitalism  in total.




but you are ok with somone else taking that risk in order to employ you?

but then thats not ok is it as hes now no longer working class so shouldnt do it.


hmm bit of a problem developing here vis a vis the employment prospects of .. well everyone.

still I guess the state could provide for all, we all know we can trust them right?


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 24, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> His ability to act the way he does *and* for that to have some all too real fall out (e.g. getting someone fired) is about his class position; he has been enabled by a set of class relationships to deprive someone of their employment...this isn't true of the non-manager employee.
> 
> Cheers - Louis Macneice


But how would you have a society where there weren't those sort of relationships?. Even primitive soceities have structures...


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Aye, maybe its time we had a U75 Management Forum



I think it's about time Urban had a purge!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> so he is being a cunt to him purely on the basis of his class position?
> 
> or do you think there just might be a tiny chance there may be other factors involved too?



You're missing my point, which is class matters. It can't be dismissed as some on this thread (yourself included) seem to want; it is a set of hugely unequal relationships that have very real effects. The niceness or otherwise of the parties involved doesn't fundamentally alter the inequality of the relationships.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> I think it's about time Urban had a purge!




we could call it a pogrom


----------



## jæd (May 24, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> You're missing my point, which is class matters.



I haven't heard that since the 1970's...! Do you really think that...?


----------



## Geri (May 24, 2007)

All of this hassle could have been avoided if you did your own typing, like me.


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> But how would you have a society where there weren't those sort of relationships?. Even primitive soceities have structures...



what!??

You propose getting rid of the King and feudalism!!!
But how would you have a society where there weren't these sorts of relationships? Even primitive societies have structures......


----------



## Crispy (May 24, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> I haven't heard that since the 1970's...! Do you really think that...?


I can't believe peopole think it doesn't.

Of course, these days, the vast majority of the working class aren't in this country, so the issue isn't as obvious.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> what!??
> 
> You propose getting rid of the King and feudalism!!!
> But how would you have a society where there weren't these sorts of relationships? Even primitive societies have structures......


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> But how would you have a society where there weren't those sort of relationships?. Even primitive soceities have structures...



I'm talking about relationships determined by the needs of capital, not simply all hierarchical relationships. For example, when I used to go fishing on a boat out in the channel, I accepted that for safety's sake I better listen to the skipper...he was more expert then me. However, I don't think I'd have jumped overboard if he told me just because he owned the boat. Not all unequal relationships are the same, is the point I'm trying to make in a rather heavy handed fashion.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## A Dashing Blade (May 24, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Even primitive societies have structures......


Like the old Soviet Union?


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> You're missing my point, which is class matters. It can't be dismissed as some on this thread (yourself included) seem to want; it is a set of hugely unequal relationships that have very real effects. The niceness or otherwise of the parties involved doesn't fundamentally alter the inequality of the relationships.
> 
> Louis MacNeice




so why does "class" alter the nature of the relationships? I can see that the nature of the relationships kinda defines some of the roles and infulence but class is simply a "theory" that is being used to infer some sort of unfair struggle going on.

if someone who is working class by hard work and an element of luck becomes management does that change the person?

the point I am trying to make is that class is irrelevant as a wholy defining definition when looking at the overall nature of the relationship between employee and employer. Its a sum of various interactions and circumstances not simply a "I provide labour therefore I am downtrodden and powerless". Employees infulence companies direction and loads of other things all the time. employees can, and do get bad managers sacked (well in companies that are not inefficient anyhow). if they cant then its not simply because of class stuggle. there wil be other factors involved (like the manager having some hold over his superior, or genral fuckwittery).

this is why I say class (in itself) has no bearing on my world.

anyhow just what is middle class?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> I haven't heard that since the 1970's...! Do you really think that...?



I'd have thought it so obvious that it barely needs mentioning; go and check out some mortality and morbidity stats for a start if you think that class stopped counting post 1979.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## jæd (May 24, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> I can't believe peopole think it doesn't.
> 
> Of course, these days, the vast majority of the working class aren't in this country, so the issue isn't as obvious.



Well... Being born into a posh family helps, but its not going to 100% determine where you will die... 

I'm just amazed that people will let a series of social relationships and ideals will rule what they will get out of life...


----------



## Hollis (May 24, 2007)

Well done rubbershoes..  

Sacking someone's a cathartic experience.. after putting up with months of bullshite, procedures etc.. its bye bye time!  

Never pleasant - but I generally think you're doing them a favour.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> so why does "class" alter the nature of the relationships? I can see that the nature of the relationships kinda defines some of the roles and infulence but class is simply a "theory" that is being used to infer some sort of unfair struggle going on.
> 
> if someone who is working class by hard work and an element of luck becomes management does that change the person?
> 
> ...



Brutally simply an employee can't sack a boss. Once you are in a position to hire and fire (which I am at times), you do not become a different person (whatever that might mean), but what you are able to do changes. You seem to be trying to deny this all too obvious fact.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## jæd (May 24, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> I'd have thought it so obvious that it barely needs mentioning; go and check out some mortality and morbidity stats for a start if you think that class stopped counting post 1979.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Thats just cash... Give someone a £ 1 million and they will have nicer healthcare. Or do the "working classes" suffer from their own type of coff...? (sic)


----------



## jæd (May 24, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Brutally simply an employee can't sack a boss.



They can if a Tribunal doesn't go management's way...


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> They can if a Tribunal doesn't go management's way...




lol


----------



## Geri (May 24, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> Thats just cash... Give someone a £ 1 million and they will have nicer healthcare. Or do the "working classes" suffer from their own type of coff...? (sic)



You'd have to give *everyone* a million though, otherwise you are just improving the life of one working class person.

Which wouldn't make much of an impact on the statistics, would it?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 24, 2007)

floria_tosca said:
			
		

> You'd have to give *everyone* a million though, otherwise you are just improving the life of one working class person.
> 
> Which wouldn't make much of an impact on the statistics, would it?


The point was over there somewhere

---------->


----------



## Geri (May 24, 2007)

Bob_the_lost said:
			
		

> The point was over there somewhere
> 
> ---------->



What?


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Brutally simply an employee can't sack a boss. Once you are in a position to hire and fire (which I am at times), you do not become a different person (whatever that might mean), but what you are able to do changes. You seem to be trying to deny this all too obvious fact.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice




no I am not

I am just saying that "class" is not the be all and end all of the nature of that realtionship.

I can see where you are comming from though. In that respect I agree that the "class" element infulences the relationship and to some extent defines it. However it does not define the overall realtionship which is made up of various factors.


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

floria_tosca said:
			
		

> What?




the point being that a rich working class person will have access to good healthcare so therefore the class of that person in relation to the propensity of dying of the lurgy is less relevant than the amount of cash they can throw at it. ergo class is not as relavant as cash when it comes to this sort of thing


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> Thats just cash... Give someone a £ 1 million and they will have nicer healthcare. Or do the "working classes" suffer from their own type of coff...? (sic)



You obviously didn't go and have a look at the stats did you? When you have hopefully you'll realise how silly your 'working class coff' question is. Clue...start off with some figures on industrial/workplace injury, then move on to look at accident rates for children.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. If you want something that really addressed this whole manager /managed division from a class based health outcomes positon, you could do worse then look at Wilkinson et als. studies of civil servants. It turns out it's not the stress of taking 'tough management decisions' that makes you ill, but rather the disempowerment of being one of the managed.


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

This thread  

OMGLOLZ


----------



## Geri (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> the point being that a rich working class person will have access to good healthcare so therefore the class of that person in relation to the propensity of dying of the lurgy is less relevant than the amount of cash they can throw at it. ergo class is not as relavant as cash when it comes to this sort of thing



You can't really seperate class and money though. I suggest you pay more attention to Louis MacNeice's posts, and do some research.

There are also environmental factors as well, such as working class people more likely to live in worse conditions, houses that are damp, overcrowded etc. 

Of course these problems could be solved with cash but they don't have the cash.


----------



## Bazza (May 24, 2007)

floria_tosca said:
			
		

> Of course these problems could be solved with cash but they don't have the cash.



Except to smoke. 

D joke)


----------



## bluestreak (May 24, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> I haven't heard that since the 1970's...! Do you really think that...?



ye gods, that's one of the most moronic things i've seen written on here in ages.

the idea that class doesn't have any effect on a person can only be espoused by a complete idiot or someone who does extremely well out of the status quo.


----------



## Thora (May 24, 2007)

Did you not get that memo about class being abolished bluey?  It's a meritocracy now.


----------



## mk12 (May 24, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> i've never had to do it before and it wasn't fun
> 
> they hadn't done anything wrong. it was just their attitude that was off.




my heart bleeds


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> my heart bleeds



I'd clear that up quick smart, or you'll be out on your ear!

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> no I am not
> 
> I am just saying that "class" is not the be all and end all of the nature of that realtionship.
> 
> I can see where you are comming from though. In that respect I agree that the "class" element infulences the relationship and to some extent defines it. However it does not define the overall realtionship which is made up of various factors.



Well we seem to have come some way from:
_seriously ... its all just some method of pidgeonholing people and like all generalisaions its bollocks.

just my opinion mind.

feel free to convince me that its not...​_
So that's a result.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## bluestreak (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> Did you not get that memo about class being abolished bluey?  It's a meritocracy now.



i don't read memos.  memos come from management.


----------



## bmd (May 24, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> This thread
> 
> OMGLOLZ



I know! ZOMG!!!11!ONE   

Talk about class-obsessed knobheads.


----------



## Pingu (May 24, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Well we seem to have come some way from:
> _seriously ... its all just some method of pidgeonholing people and like all generalisaions its bollocks.
> 
> just my opinion mind.
> ...




to be fair your slant on it is a bit diff from revols...

his POV, IMO is still bollocks


----------



## revol68 (May 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> to be fair your slant on it is a bit diff from revols...
> 
> his POV, IMO is still bollocks



eh how?

I just choose to add cunt ass a suffix to middle class.


----------



## mrs quoad (May 24, 2007)

*


----------



## smokedout (May 24, 2007)

> i earn the money to pay her wages.



think really hard about that

who earns the money to pay your wages?


----------



## Thora (May 25, 2007)

Bob Marleys Dad said:
			
		

> I know! ZOMG!!!11!ONE
> 
> Talk about class-obsessed knobheads.


I'm actually seriously quite shocked that people think class doesn't exist or is irrelevant or is about where you shop.  And believe me, I'm not an "all middle class people are cunts" type - revol thinks my politics are shit


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 25, 2007)

I don't think that class no longer exists, but I do think it is much more difficult to define it than people claim or state. It's even more difficult these days, in fact, because of the new industries in which we find ourselves, and because of the impoverishment of some of the traditionally upper class families, as well as the empowerment of women.

Innit.


----------



## Wolveryeti (May 25, 2007)

Firing is not the end of the world (from someone who was on the receiving end once). In fact it helped me raise my expectations and enabled me to find a job I was enthusiastic about. 

I think there's a lot of ill-thought-out hostility directed towards the OP on this thread.


----------



## bruise (May 25, 2007)

DapperDonDamaja said:
			
		

> I think there's a lot of ill-thought-out hostility directed towards the OP on this thread.



then you're as much of a tosser as he clearly is.


----------



## Kanda (May 25, 2007)

bruise said:
			
		

> then you're as much of a tosser as he clearly is.



Good example of what Dapper said


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

DapperDonDamaja said:
			
		

> Firing is not the end of the world (from someone who was on the receiving end once). In fact it helped me raise my expectations and enabled me to find a job I was enthusiastic about.
> 
> I think there's a lot of ill-thought-out hostility directed towards the OP on this thread.



its not ill-thought-out. Far from it.

The only ill-thought-out thing I can see is rubberboy firing someone who had 'done nothing wrong'.


----------



## bruise (May 25, 2007)

Kanda said:
			
		

> Good example of what Dapper said



thank you - and you hardly cover yourself with glory in this thread


----------



## Kanda (May 25, 2007)

bruise said:
			
		

> thank you - and you hardly cover yourself with glory in this thread



Aww, shucks 

Not sure what you mean though, my first point was I hope all appropriate measures were taken. The rest was just tongue in cheek pissing about...


----------



## bruise (May 25, 2007)

i just hope all those on this thread who so singularily lack any sense of human decency or of basic solidarity don't need the support of other people in their lives. but whatever - carry on taking your dreams of potency out on other poor unfortunates.


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

says alot for how Urban's going when a thread like this was even contemplated let alone posted and supported.


----------



## Crispy (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> says alot for how Urban's going when a thread like this was even contemplated let alone posted and supported.


Going? Gone a long time ago. Nice to see a bit of the old fire though


----------



## Kanda (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> says alot for how Urban's going when a thread like this was even contemplated let alone posted and supported.



There wasn't a notice on the door when I entered dictating what should or should not be discussed 

I was just looking for a flat


----------



## sparkling (May 25, 2007)

*Attitude does matter*

I work for a very small team for a local authority and am lucky enough to be doing something I believe passionately in as does the rest of my colleagues apart from our team clerk.

She has made it clear that its 'just a job' always arrives late and leaves early, takes long lunch breaks and then comes back to her desk and cannot answer the phone because she is 'eating'.

If you ask her to do something she will raise her eyebrows or say no in a jokey sort of way or even say she cannot be bothered.  If you pushed her on this she would say she is joking but it feels quite serious and you get the feeling that if she could she would rather not.

You get the feeling she would rather be texting her boyfriend or buying stuff off ebay and that when families ring who are obviously in distress its all rather annoying and irratating.

We had a difficult team meeting recently (difficult because we are losing funding and jobs are literally on the line and the service may come to a grinding halt and who will support our families then?) and she said 'I suppose I'll have to look interested as the Service manager is coming'

Its hard to pin point anything except her attitude but within our small team its draining.  It takes us away from the stuff we should be doing ie supporting young people and families who are going through crisis to be persuading or cajoling her to do what is afterall her job.

Can I also say that I found some of the comments about doing secretarial work rather patronising.  I've had loads of jobs that are not well paid or particularly well thought of such as cleaning or folding knickers for hours in bloody Littlewoods but I've always tried to have a professional approach to the job and if I didn't like it or agree with the ethos of the company I've found something else eventually.

Just my thoughts to add to what seems to be a very aggressive thread.


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> it took us best part of 4 months to get rid of somoene who was being a total muppet



Less than 1 years service = letter saying bye, bye

more than 1 year = ACAS guidelines, warnings, process etc


----------



## Neva (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> says alot for how Urban's going when a thread like this was even contemplated let alone posted and supported.



It's getting better?


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

Neva said:
			
		

> It's getting better?



no. that the politics is utterly shite and any semblance of radical thought, class consciousness, workers solidarity and anarchism has been washed away by a new breed of liberal apolitical 'just be nice while I sack you' fair trade types.


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

sparkling said:
			
		

> I work for a very small team for a local authority and am lucky enough to be doing something I believe passionately in as does the rest of my colleagues apart from our team clerk.
> 
> She has made it clear that its 'just a job' always arrives late and leaves early, takes long lunch breaks and then comes back to her desk and cannot answer the phone because she is 'eating'.
> 
> ...



your work mate sounds grand, you sound like the kind of prick who needed picked on in school.

a dose of proletarian cynicism is in order for alot of pricks on these boards.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 25, 2007)

You massive wanker


----------



## Radar (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> your work mate sounds grand, you sound like the kind of prick who needed picked on in school.
> 
> a dose of proletarian cynicism is in order for alot of pricks on these boards.









Stick yer proletarian cynicism up your arse.. Cynical enough for you ?


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> your work mate sounds grand, you sound like the kind of prick who needed picked on in school.
> 
> a dose of proletarian cynicism is in order for alot of pricks on these boards.


Heheheh - I really want to set up a wevolutionaries island for folk like you. I'd give you about 2 months before 50% have been killed and the other 50% are starving to death and dreaming about McDonalds burgers


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

I've never gave tow fucks about any job i've ever done, cos at the end of the day your just a resource, a line in an accounts book and they'll shaft you as soon as look at you.

saying that i've always been pleasant to customers (well not all of them!).

seriously catch a grip, youse cunts are all sitting on Urban giving off about bad attitudes in work? The hypocrisy! Youse aren't even doctors, nurses, skilled crafts people producing socially useful services and goods, youse are mostly desk jockeys.


----------



## Crispy (May 25, 2007)

*puts hand up*
I'm socially useful


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> Heheheh - I really want to set up a wevolutionaries island for folk like you. I'd give you about 2 months before 50% have been killed and the other 50% are starving to death and dreaming about McDonalds burgers



what an original retort, unfortunately it overlooks the fact i'm quite happy to volunteer and put the effort into things I actually give a fuck about, including two years in anti sectarian youth and community project, alright there were days when I didn't feel like doing the mopping but I still done it cos it was for something I saw as useful, something I had a say and role in.


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> your work mate sounds grand, you sound like the kind of prick who needed picked on in school.
> 
> a dose of proletarian cynicism is in order for alot of pricks on these boards.



so, co-operative working, teamwork, professionalism, client care etc etc doesn't come into your view of the world... you've obviously never had to 'carry' a freeloader at work, 'cos it's not just the bosses who want to get shot, it usually fellow workers who are pissed off as well ..... understandably.... 


... but you wouldn't appear know a proleterian if they came & bit you on the arse.... unless you are the kind of arsehole who takes the piss out of colleagues by dumping work on them and calls it being 'weally wadical' ... a keyboard revolutionary of the worst kind... but fortunately of the most ineffective kind as well, so happy days


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> so, co-operative working, teamwork, professionalism, client care etc etc doesn't come into your view of the world... you've obviously never had to 'carry' a freeloader at work, 'cos it's not just the bosses who want to get shot, it usually fellow workers who are pissed off as well ..... understandably....
> 
> 
> ... but you wouldn't appear know a proleterian if they came & bit you on the arse.... unless you are the kind of arsehole who takes the piss out of colleagues by dumping work on them and calls it being 'weally wadical' ... a keyboard revolutionary of the worst kind... but fortunately of the most ineffective kind as well, so happy days



I don't dump work on anyone and i've worked with plenty of pricks who fuck over their workmates, ironically in my experiance it's exactly the cunts who identify with proffessionalism and the 'ethos' of the company that are the guilty parties, quick to shaft a colleague to get up the greasy pole. Some kid whose fed up, bored, and with a bad attitude to management is usually the person I find it easiest to get on with.

As I said we aren't talking about socially useful services here, nursing and the like. 

Still no one has told me where their great proffessionalism and work ethic fits with posting on Urban during their working day.


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> what an original retort, unfortunately it overlooks the fact i'm quite happy to volunteer and put the effort into things I actually give a fuck about, including two years in anti sectarian youth and community project, alright there were days when I didn't feel like doing the mopping but I still done it cos it was for something I saw as useful, something I had a say and role in.


It's not in the least original. But what you armchair revolutionaries fail to understand is that by being a shit worker, you are making it harder for the other workers around you. Being a wanker isn't a meaningful political statement.

Also I don't 'feel' like coming into work, and I don't have much love for the crap I have to do every day, but it pays the mortgage and puts food on the family table. That is the essence of being working class, not being some kind of fop who has the luxury of picking and choosing whether he works or not.


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> But what you armchair revolutionaries



how do you know that revol is an 'armchair revolutionary'?


----------



## _angel_ (May 25, 2007)

Sparkling - your colleague sounds like they have done summat wrong. The OP quite clearly states this person hadn't. Therefore I'm not sure they 'needed' sacking.


----------



## _angel_ (May 25, 2007)

double fucking post because this site is so slow!!


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

> I've never gave tow fucks about any job i've ever done, cos at the end of the day your just a resource, a line in an accounts book


who can serisously look me in the eyes and say this isn't The Truth. 

Bjesus, I mean, how do you live with yourselves caring about your own chains


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> how do you know that revol is an 'armchair revolutionary'?



Because he sounds like one.


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> It's not in the least original. But what you armchair revolutionaries fail to understand is that by being a shit worker, you are making it harder for the other workers around you. Being a wanker isn't a meaningful political statement.
> 
> Also I don't 'feel' like coming into work, and I don't have much love for the crap I have to do every day, but it pays the mortgage and puts food on the family table. That is the essence of being working class, not being some kind of fop who has the luxury of picking and choosing whether he works or not.



eh who has the luxury of choosing to work or not? 

certainly not me.

I'm in work right now and i don't push work onto my colleagues at all.
This thread is about a secretary being sacked for having a 'bad attitude' and then someone whinging about their colleagues attitude, no mention of them dumping work on them, just that the other person has no desire to push themselves, which is fair enough, it's the cunts who do more than they should that push work on their colleagues, cos managers set that as the new standard.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

> But what you armchair revolutionaries fail to understand is that by being a shit worker, you are making it harder for the other workers around you.


How about being freinds with other workers. No friend of mine would tighten the chains/noose around my neck. And 'course nothing armchair about injecting a bit more anti-work feeling into your "office". You want guns with that?


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

I tried explaining to a thearpist how work makes me feel. He said he understood this part of me like someone working at blockbusters who hates movies. I dunno if he was right.


----------



## EarlyWorm (May 25, 2007)

Apart from a fight with most of Urban for not being on your wavelength what do you actually want in practicle terms Revol68?

Does your data input provide a direct benefit to society?

Am I just a cunt for asking?


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> Because he sounds like one.



so you don't know what level of engagement he has in active politics - you're just using a lazy slur against him because it suits you to do so?


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> Because he sounds like one.


Have you ever been to the g8 revol  wevolutionary 

bjesus, i guess you must think those anarchoid youths look so damn sexy with their bandanna and what-not.

painfully true that i probs won't skive at all when i get a job. dunno why. unless bigger boys come along and bully me into it


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> so you don't know what level of engagement he has in active politics - you're just using a lazy slur against him because it suits you to do so?


Yeah that's about the size of it.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

YOU WANT GUNS WITH THAT 

sad truth, is that Revol is a "wevolutionary" academic, probably


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> Yeah that's about the size of it.



cheers!


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

EarlyWorm said:
			
		

> Apart from a fight with most of Urban for not being on your wavelength what do you actually want in practicle terms Revol68?
> 
> Does your data input provide a direct benefit to society?
> 
> Am I just a cunt for asking?



No of course my job doesn't, like the vast majority of jobs under capitalism it needs fucking abolished and i'd not be near it if it weren't for the fact I got to pay the rent etc.

My point is that I'm aware of the pathetic meaningless of my job and have no desire to whinge at people for having bad attitudes.


----------



## _angel_ (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> I've never gave tow fucks about any job i've ever done, cos at the end of the day your just a resource, a line in an accounts book and they'll shaft you as soon as look at you.
> 
> saying that i've always been pleasant to customers (well not all of them!).
> 
> seriously catch a grip, youse cunts are all sitting on Urban giving off about bad attitudes in work? The hypocrisy! Youse aren't even doctors, nurses, skilled crafts people producing socially useful services and goods, youse are mostly desk jockeys.



Frontline people/ receptionists/ office workers are very important when they're working in local government/ social services/ I could go on. They're the difference between a vital service being delivered to vulnerable people and it not being.

I wonder how many of them share your attitude.


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> YOU WANT GUNS WITH THAT
> 
> sad truth, is that Revol is a "wevolutionary" academic, probably



i fucking wish!


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

nah. i'm incapable of work.


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

The point of this thread is that Rubbershoes couldn't have worded his OP any worse for this audience 

What he should have said was that he had to sack someone not because of some gross violation but because they were generally shit at the job.


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> This thread is about a secretary being sacked for having a 'bad attitude' and then someone whinging about their colleagues attitude, no mention of them dumping work on them, just that the other person has no desire to push themselves, which is fair enough, it's the cunts who do more than they should that push work on their colleagues, cos managers set that as the new standard.



but your comments were about an entirely different situation... post 406.. remember.... a team clerk who hadn't been sacked, but sounds like she is a pain in the arse to colleagues & clients alike.... & you upped & did your Citizen Smith act.....

... and you wonder why everyone laughs at you...


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

_angel_ said:
			
		

> Frontline people/ receptionists/ office workers are very important when they're working in local government/ social services/ I could go on. They're the difference between a vital service being delivered to vulnerable people and it not being.
> 
> I wonder how many of them share your attitude.



like i've said i'm never a cunt to customers or people needing a service (well not always cos some deserve it) but in my experiance it is actually the most jobsworthy pricks, the type that tut at you arriving in late who actually screw the customer, never go out of their way to help and stick to the rules to the point of needing slapped. Friends who've work in plenty of places have similar experiances and when I was on the dole I got some young stoner women who was very helpful and genuinely friendly and she was because she didn't give a shit about her job or her bosses and in no way identified with the ethos of the social security department.


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> but your comments were about an entirely different situation... post 406.. remember.... a team clerk who hadn't been sacked, but sounds like she is a pain in the arse to colleagues & clients alike.... & you upped & did your Citizen Smith act.....
> 
> ... and you wonder why everyone laughs at you...



well there was no mention of her actually dumping work on anyone, just sparkling whinging about her attitude to work, an attitude I empathise with.

and stop using the fucking term client, it reeks of the kind of middle class proffessionalism i despise!


----------



## bruise (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> The point of this thread is that Rubbershoes couldn't have worded his OP any worse for this audience
> 
> What he should have said was that he had to sack someone not because of some gross violation but because they were generally shit at the job.



you really don't get it, do you? 

'this audience' consists largely of people who sympathised with a victimising manager who sacked someone because she didn't lick arse. and how difficult it was for the poor man to go through the terrible trauma of having to sack someone. 

a few people had the temerity to point out that maybe she deserved some sympathy for not having a job and for having such a shit manager in the first place.


----------



## Crispy (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> stop using the fucking term client, it reeks of the kind of middle class proffessionalism i despise!


What word would you rather I use for the person who engages me to do the professional work for which I've been trained?


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> well there was no mention of her actually dumping work on anyone, just sparkling whinging about her attitude to work, an attitude I empathise with.
> 
> and stop using the fucking term client, it reeks of the kind of middle class proffessionalism i despise!



So, you didn't read the post then before commenting...

... you don't like the term 'client'... and your suggestion is ?

... that you don't like professionalism, middle class or otherwise, doesn't come as a huge shock tbh..


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> trouble was, she was my secretary and now i don't have anyone to do my typing
> 
> short term pain for long term gain though



lets also analyse the extent of rubbertwats pain - he's actually just pissed off that he might have to do his own typing. How very much beneath you rubberboy...how terrible for you.

meanwhile this lady is out of a job when she had 'done nothing wrong' - your words - coming into a bank holiday weekend. Nice chap you are.


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

bruise said:
			
		

> you really don't get it, do you?
> 
> 'this audience' consists largely of people who sympathised with a victimising manager who sacked someone because she didn't lick arse. and how difficult it was for the poor man to go through the terrible trauma of having to sack someone.
> 
> a few people had the temerity to point out that maybe she deserved some sympathy for not having a job and for having such a shit manager in the first place.


No I don't 'get' it. I don't understand your world view. There is work to be done, some worthy, some less worthy, some lowly, some prestigous. This would be true regardless of the political and economic system. If someone is shit at a particular job - then they should go and find another.

I'm not quite sure where the requirement to 'lick arse' comes into it - that seems to have been magicked out of thin air to add a splash of colour to your post.


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> What word would you rather I use for the person who engages me to do the professional work for which I've been trained?



a fucking customer or a fucking person or even 'the company i work for'.

does every cunt on urban have 'clients', are youse all free roaming contractors?

is there anyone in a proper proletarian job?


----------



## Orang Utan (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> a fucking customer or a fucking person or even 'the company i work for'.
> 
> does every cunt on urban have 'clients', are youse all free roaming contractors?
> 
> is there anyone in a proper proletarian job?



What like miners and welders?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> does every cunt on urban have 'clients', are youse all free roaming contractors?
> 
> is there anyone in a proper proletarian job?


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> No I don't 'get' it. I don't understand your world view. There is work to be done, some worthy, some less worthy, some lowly, some prestigous. This would be true regardless of the political and economic system. If someone is shit at a particular job - then they should go and find another.
> 
> I'm not quite sure where the requirement to 'lick arse' comes into it - that seems to have been magicked out of thin air to add a splash of colour to your post.




there's a class war on and until it ends managers can all suck on my fucking balls!


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> thiugh you REALLY need to make sure that the correct procedures have been followed otherwise it gets shitty.
> 
> it took us best part of 4 months to get rid of somoene who was being a total muppet



lets look at lovely chap number 2 once again. Mr Pingu.

now Mr pingu complains about those pesky rules and regulations he has to follow when depriving someone of their livelihood! how terrible for you - employment law - should just have away with it eh?


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> What like miners and welders?



eh no one where your paid a wage and don't any means of production and aren't a fucking manager.

call centre workers, data input, mcdonalds workers, waitors, bar staff, civil service, supermarket worker?


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> is there anyone in a proper proletarian job?




..haven't you learned from your last Citizen Smith outing ??...  

But go on then, define which jobs are worthy of your proeterian attention, I'm sure there must be some horny handed sons & daughters of toil out there waiting for your wevolutionary company...   


PS if your looking for a job, try stand up comedy, you're clearly born for it...


----------



## _angel_ (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> eh no one where your paid a wage and don't any means of production and aren't a fucking manager.
> 
> call centre workers, data input, mcdonalds workers, waitors, bar staff, civil service, supermarket worker?


^^^^^^^
All the jobs I ever had practically.


----------



## Kanda (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> lets look at lovely chap number 2 once again. Mr Pingu.
> 
> now Mr pingu complains about those pesky rules and regulations he has to follow when depriving someone of their livelihood! how terrible for you - employment law - should just have away with it eh?



Did Pingu elaborate on what *being a total muppet* is? 

Or are you jumping to conclusions? It's quite a wide ranging term really.


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

my team leader is always banging on about 'our client' yadda yadda, they aren't a fucking client, they are essentially our bosses.


----------



## bruise (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> No I don't 'get' it. I don't understand your world view. There is work to be done, some worthy, some less worthy, some lowly, some prestigous. This would be true regardless of the political and economic system. If someone is shit at a particular job - then they should go and find another.
> 
> I'm not quite sure where the requirement to 'lick arse' comes into it - that seems to have been magicked out of thin air to add a splash of colour to your post.



re-read the OP. the way he reported it himself was that she had done nothing wrong. she simply had 'the wrong attitude'. if you think that deserves the sack then you have the same lack of humanity / solidarity as him. given that you're not a manager that would just make you "manager's bitch" material. 

i have no particular problem with your first paragraph - except  that in the real world some people have more control and more choices than others - usually systematised by class / ethnicity / gender and disability. but then you knew that, didn't you. 

the rest of the stuff about class this or that or using revol as a football is just so much bollox to avoid the basic issue. if anyone wants to soul-search - perhaps they should ask why they're so quick to leap to sympathise with the manager rather than the person being given the sack?


----------



## Crispy (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> is there anyone in a proper proletarian job?



Not many, I'd wager - for two reasons

1. It's really hard to post on the internet and rivet ships in a dockyard at the same time

EDIT: Or flip burgers or sell mobile phones or stack shelves and post.

2. All the proletarian jobs are in India and China these days


----------



## jæd (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> lets look at lovely chap number 2 once again. Mr Pingu.
> 
> now Mr pingu complains about those pesky rules and regulations he has to follow when depriving someone of their livelihood! how terrible for you - employment law - should just have away with it eh?



So... People should keep their jobs if they are crap at them...? Crap workers cost a business money, and could cause the business to fail. Should you let them drag everyone else down...?


----------



## dolly's gal (May 25, 2007)

Kanda said:
			
		

> Did Pingu elaborate on what *being a total muppet* is?
> 
> Or are you jumping to conclusions? It's quite a wide ranging term really.



hm yes the definitions are endless and varied. managers should consult their staff manuals for a full breakdown of the term "total muppet" in order to see if it's a sackable offence


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> there's a class war on and until it ends managers can all suck on my fucking balls!


 Go on lad - you tell them.


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Not many, I'd wager - for two reasons
> 
> 1. It's really hard to post on the internet and rivet ships in a dockyard at the same time
> 
> 2. All the proletarian jobs are in India and China these days



ahh so all those call centre workers and civil service plebs are imaginary, all the folks sat in office backrooms?

you must have a pretty shitty definition of proletarian, especially as the job i do is also done in india.


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> So... People should keep their jobs if they are crap at them...? Crap workers cost a business money, and could cause the business to fail. Should you let them drag everyone else down...?



no no no jaed - you don't know that they were crap at their job. Pingu says the person was being a 'muppet'. This is a subjective term - and one that you can't sack people for...

I was more interested in his mentioning of to be careful about the rules you have to follow. This to me implies he has not followed the rules of employment law in the past...why else would he need to remind others to do it...?


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> So... People should keep their jobs if they are crap at them...? Crap workers cost a business money, and could cause the business to fail. Should you let them drag everyone else down...?



Do you think I give two fucks?


----------



## Crispy (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> ahh so all those call centre workers and civil service plebs are imaginary, all the folks sat in office backrooms?
> 
> you must have a pretty shitty definition of proletarian, especially as the job i do is also done in india.


Sorry, thread moving too fast. You know what I meant anyway = it's slack office jobs that let us post here all day.


----------



## Kanda (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> I was more interested in his mentioning of to be careful about the rules you have to follow. This to me implies he has not followed the rules of employment law in the past...why else would he need to remind others to do it...?



It implies to me he is fully aware of laws and the need to protect employees and is willing others to do the same, just as I did in my 1st post.

The term muppet is really to vague to even try jumping on him about imo...


----------



## jæd (May 25, 2007)

dolly's gal said:
			
		

> hm yes the definitions are endless and varied. managers should consult their staff manuals for a full breakdown of the term "total muppet" in order to see if it's a sackable offence



How come the guy didn't get a written warnimg when he reached muppet level.  Though being a *total* muppet is a sackable offence...


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

Kanda said:
			
		

> The term muppet is really to vague to even try jumping on him about imo...



no. If you went to an industrial tribunal with the reason for sacking being employee was a muppet you'd be hung out to dry. It's up to him to show what the employee did that made them inadequate for work and worthy of being sacked...


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

anyway - a load of people have been outed on this thread as anti-workerist cunts of the highest order.


----------



## EastEnder (May 25, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> So... People should keep their jobs if they are crap at them...? Crap workers cost a business money, and could cause the business to fail. Should you let them drag everyone else down...?


People should always be given a decent chance to improve, assuming they really are "crap". It's too easy to regard workers as merely company "assets", just numbers on a balance sheet. All businesses need to make money to survive, but that should be balanced with morality & humanity. I want to work for somewhere that's successful, but not at the cost of screwing people over.


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Sorry, thread moving too fast. You know what I meant anyway = it's slack office jobs that let us post here all day.



exactly, yet the same cunts who spend all day on here are bitching about workers with bad attitudes and no work ethic!

I do however think their is a disproportionate amount of free lancers and small business people on here, albeit in trendy IT and Media sectors.


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

bruise said:
			
		

> re-read the OP. the way he reported it himself was that she had done nothing wrong. she simply had 'the wrong attitude'. if you think that deserves the sack then you have the same lack of humanity / solidarity as him. given that you're not a manager that would just make you "manager's bitch" material.
> 
> the rest of the stuff about class this or that or using revol as a football is just so much bollox to avoid the basic issue. if anyone wants to soul-search - perhaps they should ask why they're so quick to leap to sympathise with the manager rather than the person being given the sack?



But there are 2 threads in one here. 

I don't see why the woman in post #1 was sacked either.. attitude (good or bad) shouldn't matter as long as you do the job..

... the situation in post 406 is very different, which has started a whole new row..


----------



## the button (May 25, 2007)




----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

> People should always be given a decent chance to improve, assuming they really are "crap". It's too easy to regard workers as merely company "assets", just numbers on a balance sheet. All businesses need to make money to survive, but that should be balanced with morality & humanity. I want to work for somewhere that's successful, but not at the cost of screwing people over.



And the Al Gore prize for the Most Niave Liberal Twat Oblivious to an Inconvenient truth is awared to Eastender.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> my team leader is always banging on about 'our client' yadda yadda, they aren't a fucking client, they are essentially our bosses.


_Team leader_? Don't you mean gaffer?


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

that's the spirit!


----------



## Orang Utan (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> eh no one where your paid a wage and don't any means of production and aren't a fucking manager.
> 
> call centre workers, data input, mcdonalds workers, waitors, bar staff, civil service, supermarket worker?


There's plenty on here, though most of them are paid monthly salaries these days. They may not be posting on this thread right now cos they'll be at work!


----------



## Neva (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> no. that the politics is utterly shite and any semblance of radical thought, class consciousness, workers solidarity and anarchism has been washed away by a new breed of liberal apolitical 'just be nice while I sack you' fair trade types.



So your angry that the board has become slightly more representative of the real world? 

In all honesty that is something I’ve come to believe too recently and would be very interested to hear what you suggest is done to counteract this terroristic threat? Lets face it the quick insult and zero argument tactic we’re seeing in this thread doesn't seem to be working too well. People are laughing at loyal Revol68 for gods sake! Something has to be done and I believe you and I are the men to do it. 

My first thought is that before anything else we should stop the spread of this disease before it gets out of control. Obviously the mods and board owners won’t stop it, they seem to think that if it’s not breaking any rules or guidelines then it’s somehow okay for people to post what they want. Anyway I believe the best way to solve this problem would be to empower the masses. We should campaign for a rating system of posts with a heavy bias in favour of the more “radical”. For example your posts gain points for citing Marx and Chomsky but lose them for Thomas Jefferson or, I don’t know, spelling Bush without using the $ sign or something, we’ll thrash out the details later. Once a sufficient number of negative points have been accumulated that post will be stricken from the database so as to prevent contamination of those more pure minded. Obviously this has to be extended onto the poster themselves of course, I recommend a three strikes and you’re out policy, three deleted posts and the individual responsible is in line for an IP ban. That will show them. 

Of course this will only counter act those rebels already in existence on the board. For greater security I feel we should have a system that eliminate the arrival of people with differing ideas entirely, to prevent the effects of cognitive dissonance from ever darkening our beautiful blue boards again. We must ask, no demand, that new posters complete a Q&A sheet composed by ourselves (or others made of the right stuff) were through a series of socio-politically focused questions we can ascertain if the applicants fit in with our, lets face it, narrow spectrum of acceptable politics. Anyone further to the right than Alistair Carmichael is out while anyone more to the left than Galloway gets let in purely as comedic entertainment. 

Doubtless there will be naysayers, people who fit in with our line of thinking but just don’t appreciate what we’re trying to do for them. They’ll say we’re too harsh, they might make valid arguments along the lines that if the mods and board owners are okay with the postings of counter-revolutionaries then how is it our place to kick up a fuss? Perhaps some misguided fools will claim that without differing mindsets a discussion board cannot live, cannot breathe. That differing _personalities_ are not the true foundation for real discussion but differing _ideologies_. 

What do we say to such people? 

FUCK THEM. 

Although obviously we can’t say that so we’ll have to placate them in someway while still accomplishing our goals. Never fear comrade, I have a plan already. We will reverse our previous position on the need for screening of new posters! (Later of course we will deny we ever took such a position but lets focus on the now, for now.) We will raise the embargo on people with “crap politics” but only after we agree to a compromise, which our opponents will accept of course as they are weak and believe in silly things like looking beyond small differences to what makes as connected as people and blah, blah you get the picture. Anyway the compromise will be that while new posters with differing ideas are allowed on to the boards they are to be kept “under review” for the first six months. If during those six months our indoctrination takes hold then they’re welcome to stay, if not then we have no choice, order must be maintained. The beautiful thing about this system is that we don’t even have to say they did anything. It doesn’t matter if the people who actually own the site have no problem with them as they didn’t do anything wrong. We can just say we talked with them for six months and it was their attitude that was wrong!

Truly ours will be less a bulletin board and more an internet Utopia.


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> _Team leader_? Don't you mean gaffer?



No, he means 'oppressive tool of the ruling class'...


----------



## jæd (May 25, 2007)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> People should always be given a decent chance to improve, assuming they really are "crap". It's too easy to regard workers as merely company "assets", just numbers on a balance sheet.



And if they're given a chance and are still complete & total muppets...?  




			
				EastEnder said:
			
		

> All businesses need to make money to survive, but that should be balanced with morality & humanity. I want to work for somewhere that's successful, but not at the cost of screwing people over.



Give us a call when you find this business... I'd like to commute there on my Unicorn...


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

bruise said:
			
		

> re-read the OP. the way he reported it himself was that she had done nothing wrong. she simply had 'the wrong attitude'. if you think that deserves the sack then you have the same lack of humanity / solidarity as him. given that you're not a manager that would just make you "manager's bitch" material.


I said in a previous post that Rubbershoes really fucked up the OP in heroic tragi-comic fashion. He meant she was sacked for being generally rubbish, rather than stealing, violence or making some collossal fuck-up. I think that you and Chegrimandi are bing deliberately obtuse in refusing to see the obvious on this. As for Revo - it is my first direct experience of the fellow, and he is excellent value 

I have just finished working with someone for 2 years who was shit. I was kind of his boss, only because he wasn't really capable of sorting his own work out. We both had a pile of stuff to get done and if I didn't tell him to do x, he would just daydream and I would have to do it. He lived with his parents and didn't have a family to feed.

I tried everything with him. I took time out of my personal breaks to look through his CV, give him some coaching on interviews, find out what he really wanted to do, help him look for jobs. 

Last month he finally got another job and is now filling a desk somewhere else and being someone else's problem. He was construtively dismissed from two previous jobs as people didn't want to obviously sack him. In one of those constructive dismissals (which he didn't pursue) he was quite traumatised by the bullying he recieved. It would have been much better if they had just said - you are shit at this job, here's your P45 - find another.


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> _Team leader_? Don't you mean gaffer?



no cos i don't work on a building site.

anyway he's essentially my manager.

he gave us a lecture a month or so ago about disruptive 'shop steward' attitudes which divide the team and how we all need to work for each other, twat.


----------



## hektik (May 25, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> i thoight this thread would loiter unremarked  on the dusty e & e forum before sliding off without a reply
> 
> show's how much i know



really?

i saw it yesterday when it was still on page 1, and knew it would turn into a multi-page-a-thon.

ticks all the boxes as far as i can see: a possible 'injustice' against someone that most of the board would identify with, a "look how urban75 has changed" undercurrent, and the person who committed the "injustice" willing to defend the actions.

its the urban75 equivilent of a perfect storm.


----------



## _angel_ (May 25, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Not many, I'd wager - for two reasons
> 
> 1. It's really hard to post on the internet and rivet ships in a dockyard at the same time
> 
> ...



Surely there must be some people who post on their own time?


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> There's plenty on here, though most of them are paid monthly salaries these days. They may not be posting on this thread right now cos they'll be at work!



what's being paid monthly got to do with it.

and yes it seems most of them aren't on here right now, instead we have their managers on complaining about their 'attitudes'.


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

hektik said:
			
		

> its the urban75 equivilent of a perfect storm.


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

_angel_ said:
			
		

> Surely there must be some people who post on their own time?



But surely anyone who is posting at work is clearly subverting the means of production for their own ends, and so should be declared a revolutionary hero.....


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> I said in a previous post that Rubbershoes really fucked up the OP in heroic tragi-comic fashion.



I don't care. He said he sacked someone for doing nothing wrong so deserves all the abuse and then some...


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

Neva said:
			
		

> So your angry that the board has become slightly more representative of the real world?
> 
> In all honesty that is something I’ve come to believe too recently and would be very interested to hear what you suggest is done to counteract this terroristic threat? Lets face it the quick insult and zero argument tactic we’re seeing in this thread doesn't seem to be working too well. People are laughing at loyal Revol68 for gods sake! Something has to be done and I believe you and I are the men to do it.
> 
> ...



I agree Comrade - although I reserve the right to immediately factionalise and back-bite at the first committee stage. You social-facist-trotskyite traitor


----------



## EastEnder (May 25, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> And if they're given a chance and are still complete & total muppets...?


If they're "complete & total muppets", why were they employed in the first place? Maybe that says more about the company's poor recruiting skills....




			
				jæd said:
			
		

> Give us a call when you find this business... I'd like to commute there on my Unicorn...


I said I _want_ to work for somewhere like that, I didn't say it existed...


----------



## jæd (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> he gave us a lecture a month or so ago about disruptive 'shop steward' attitudes which divide the team and how we all need to work for each other, twat.



So what do you do...?


----------



## bruise (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> I said in a previous post that Rubbershoes really fucked up the OP in heroic tragi-comic fashion. He meant she was sacked for being generally rubbish, rather than stealing, violence or making some collossal fuck-up. I think that you and Chegrimandi are bing deliberately obtuse in refusing to see the obvious on this.



what was fucked up about the OP was his invitation to sympathise with a manager having to go through the 'difficult' 2 secs of sacking someone. then streams of people sympathising with him. he didn't give any further details, so i'm being obtuse because i can't read his mind? i don't know rubbershoes and probably am not going to get invited to his next dinner party. that's not the point. the point is how fucked up it is that posters are happy to sympathise with a manager sacking someone. end of. 

the rest is the usual derail / avoidance crap to avoid addressing the issue.


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> I don't care. He said he sacked someone for doing nothing wrong so deserves all the abuse and then some...



i don't care what he sacked them for (short of violence, endanger lives) he deserves all the abuse for being a cunting manager, afterall if i have to smile my own i'm not going to hold back at someone elses, especially whent he fuck wit starts a pity poor me thread about how hard it is to sack someone.


----------



## bruise (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> anyway - a load of people have been outed on this thread as anti-workerist cunts of the highest order.



i'm 'anti-workerist' - i think you meant 'anti-worker' not the same thing. but, anyway - complete agreement with what you intended to say.


----------



## jæd (May 25, 2007)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> If they're "complete & total muppets", why were they employed in the first place? Maybe that says more about the company's poor recruiting skills....



Because the recruiter is a muppet as well...? Because the total muppet is good at talking...? The total muppet is a mate of a manger who's since left...


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> So what do you do...?


yeah but in all honesty the manager is a lier who would indeed screw you and youre family over in an instant. no? your boss cares about what you care about? and that isn't 'whats good for the team'?


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> So what do you do...?



i'm a glorified data inputter, I sit here and manually click shit for an industry that would be abolished in any decent society.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

sorry for misspelling 'liar'


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

bruise said:
			
		

> i'm 'anti-workerist' - i think you meant 'anti-worker' not the same thing. but, anyway - complete agreement with what you intended to say.



frigging pedantic teachers.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> what's being paid monthly got to do with it.
> 
> and yes it seems most of them aren't on here right now, instead we have their managers on complaining about their 'attitudes'.


A wage is weekly, a salary monthly - you were asking if anyone here was on a wage


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

bruise said:
			
		

> what was fucked up about the OP was his invitation to sympathise with a manager having to go through the 'difficult' 2 secs of sacking someone. then streams of people sympathising with him. he didn't give any further details, so i'm being obtuse because i can't read his mind? i don't know rubbershoes and probably am not going to get invited to his next dinner party. that's not the point. the point is how fucked up it is that posters are happy to sympathise with a manager sacking someone. end of.
> 
> the rest is the usual derail / avoidance crap to avoid addressing the issue.


There will always be positions of responsibility in any society. And with that responsibility comes regret or discomfort at difficult decisions.

Like with you uber-revolutionaries after the revolution. I'm sure when you are marching people off to the gulags or beating up counter-revolutionaries in the street, I'm sure you might occassionally feel the odd twinge of regret or guilt. Of course you won't say anything at the time, or you'll be outed as a class traitor.


----------



## Pingu (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> lets look at lovely chap number 2 once again. Mr Pingu.
> 
> now Mr pingu complains about those pesky rules and regulations he has to follow when depriving someone of their livelihood! how terrible for you - employment law - should just have away with it eh?




god no. i fully support the rules and regs. they are there to make sure that shiytty employers dont just do away with somone cos they wouldnt go to the pub on a friday etc.

however.. when someone steals from you and surfs porn on a client site, ignores the warnings they are given yes it does rankle a bit that it takes 4 months to remove them. we still followed the correct process though.

or should somone be employed no matter what they do? Or should the job go to someone who isnt a muppet?


----------



## bruise (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> frigging pedantic teachers.


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> There will always be positions of responsibility in any society. And with that responsibility comes regret or discomfort at difficult decisions.
> 
> Like with you uber-revolutionaries after the revolution. I'm sure when you are marching people off to the gulags or beating up counter-revolutionaries in the street, I'm sure you might occassionally feel the odd twinge of regret or guilt. Of course you won't say anything at the time, or you'll be outed as a class traitor.



and for what great cause was rubbershoes sacking this woman? for the heroic bottomline of his employers account book, how fucking noble!

I hope he gets stabbed up by crack fiends who then post a thread about how much they regret it but it had to be done.


----------



## likesfish (May 25, 2007)

dylan sacked someone because they were employed as a care assistant and did'nt do the job 
i.e did'nt feed old people or left an old person in there own shit


----------



## jæd (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> i'm a glorified data inputter, I sit here and manually click shit for an industry that would be abolished in any decent society.



You'd best get used to it... Because it seems as far up the corporate ladder as you will go. (Other people might extend themselves and get better jobs, perhaps even become manager, but that probably isn't "Working Class" enough for you...?)


----------



## bruise (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> There will always be positions of responsibility in any society. And with that responsibility comes regret or discomfort at difficult decisions..



doubtless. in this case - as hard as the woman who loses her job for a 'bad attitude'? what pisses me off is the OP but also the balance of the thread since then. 




			
				Idaho said:
			
		

> Like with you uber-revolutionaries after the revolution. I'm sure when you are marching people off to the gulags or beating up counter-revolutionaries in the street, I'm sure you might occassionally feel the odd twinge of regret or guilt. Of course you won't say anything at the time, or you'll be outed as a class traitor.



see, you know nothing about me. you can't answer the point so you reach for a tired insult. i thought you were better than that.


----------



## Pingu (May 25, 2007)

i <3 this thread

irony, sarcasm, class war, insults, the only thing thats really lacking is kittens, a bucket and a sealion for an urban full house


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> You'd best get used to it... Because it seems as far up the corporate ladder as you will go. (Other people might extend themselves and get better jobs, perhaps even become manager, but that probably isn't "Working Class" enough for you...?)



i wouldn't want to, selling my body over is bad enough without giving the cunts my soul.

i'll probably try and go into teaching eventually.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> There will always be positions of responsibility in any society. And with that responsibility comes regret or discomfort at difficult decisions.
> 
> Like with you uber-revolutionaries after the revolution. I'm sure when you are marching people off to the gulags or beating up counter-revolutionaries in the street, I'm sure you might occassionally feel the odd twinge of regret or guilt. Of course you won't say anything at the time, or you'll be outed as a class traitor.


What a plonker!


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

for me it just comes down to that i would rather be mates with my co-workers than the boss. i don't care how charismatics he/she is, does she/he speak The Truth. And if my work-mates buy into the PERVERSE teamwork ideology, then i'd rather be mates with myself tbh.


----------



## jæd (May 25, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> i <3 this thread
> 
> irony, sarcasm, class war, insults, the only thing thats really lacking is kittens, a bucket and a sealion for an urban full house



And I bet all the posters calling for the OP's burning-at-the-stake will be in exactly his position in a few years time...!


----------



## jæd (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> i'll probably try and go into teaching eventually.



Out of interest... Would the head-teacher of any school be right to give you the boot if you were a crap teacher...? Wasting the kids time and not letting them fulfill their potential...? Etc, etc...


----------



## Belushi (May 25, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> And I bet all the posters calling for the OP's burning-at-the-stake will be in exactly his position in a few years time...!



Revol is prime management material


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

Would you take orders from him :-/


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> Out of interest... Would the head-teacher of any school be right to give you the boot if you were a crap teacher...? Wasting the kids time and not letting them fulfill their potential...? Etc, etc...



probably, though i'd imagine i'd be in more trouble for having a bad attitude towards the curriculum and all the bullshit assesment that gets in the way of real teaching.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

One looks thru the prospects.ac.uk website, and it's full of "must have excellent commuication skills", for every job! Basically means can you lie to people and keep a straight face, imo.


----------



## Belushi (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> One looks thru the prospects.ac.uk website, and it's full of "must have excellent commuication skills", for every job! Basically means can you lie to people and keep a straight face, imo.



A teacher with poor communication skills wouldnt be much cop


----------



## EastEnder (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> for me it just comes down to that i would rather be mates with my co-workers than the boss.


What happens if one of your co-workers gets promoted and becomes your boss? Are you obliged to start hating them?


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

bruise said:
			
		

> see, you know nothing about me. you can't answer the point so you reach for a tired insult. i thought you were better than that.


I'm responding to the toy-town nonsense on this thread. If you want to disassociate yourself from Revo then feel free to do so.


----------



## Thora (May 25, 2007)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> What happens if one of your co-workers gets promoted and becomes your boss? Are you obliged to start hating them?


You don't have to hate your boss, you just have to remember which side they're on.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

I don't know tbh. Would they be the same person? Could you really keep the same relationship, even from their perspective?


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> i'll probably try and go into teaching eventually.



Private or state?


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

There is no working class tho. Not till we what upsets the cleamers upsets the data inputters too.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

I don't get this ethical lifestyle tbh. there's plenty of ways to be ethical without changing your recycling habits or apyed work. Lifestylists


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

Double post.


----------



## bmd (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> lets also analyse the extent of rubbertwats pain - he's actually just pissed off that he might have to do his own typing. How very much beneath you rubberboy...how terrible for you.
> 
> meanwhile this lady is out of a job when she had 'done nothing wrong' - your words - coming into a bank holiday weekend. Nice chap you are.



Why are you getting so worked up about this? Rubbershoes sacked someone for perceiving that they weren't doing their job. You keep banging on and on about the first post but with subsequent posts RS has clarified why she wasn't what he wanted for the job. We're now at post 500 and you're still going on and on about it as if you actually have a point to make. You don't you're just making yourself look like a fool.

Why is it not ok to sympathise with someone after they've been in a difficult situation? Tell me Bruise, which situations do you find difficult in your job, ones that you get paid to do and yet wouldn't mind a bit of empathy after you've found them difficult?

What is it about someone managing someone else and deciding that they don't like their performance that is so awful? Who is supposed to do that if not a manager? And yet, they are still a human being and if the people on this thread stopped and thought for a moment I wonder what difference they'd find in their rabid slaverings against one human being as opposed to another i.e. a secretary and a manager?

Is there a little transference going on here? Been told off by mummy a few too many times revol68? Been sacked unfairly? Or are you just on here, sticking it to the man?

Bravo! Bravo!


----------



## EastEnder (May 25, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> You don't have to hate your boss, you just have to remember which side they're on.


Couldn't agree more, although I'd probably go further to question the implication that all workers are on the same side. I've seen plenty of people at the same level in companies screw each other over.


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

Bob Marleys Dad said:
			
		

> Why are you getting so worked up about this? Rubbershoes sacked someone for perceiving that they weren't doing their job. !



because bob marleys dad I care passionately about defending workers rights and don't like hearing of managers fucking people over on a whim...this happens every single day - thousands of times over - across the entire world - workers getting fucked by jumped up little cunts of managers. I don't need to log onto urban and see shitty managers moaning about their secretaries not working hard enough (I now have to do my own typing! oh no!) and how hard it was for them to sack them...

I would have thought that is an extremely easy thing to understand.

I'd appreciate a reply to this as I had you down as a reasonable poster on here.


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> You don't have to hate your boss, you just have to remember which side they're on.


The 19th century was a fair while ago now. I think we can safely let go.

If you think that the class relationship between a factory foreman and machine workers in the 1880s are comparable with the relationship between some avergage office spud and their 'team leader' then you live in another universe.


----------



## Kanda (May 25, 2007)

I've also had Managers that have fought like fuck for me though... 

In fact, I wouldn't say I have ever had one that hasn't until now, but I'm pretty capable of standing up for myself these days.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

I sometimes marvel ot the double-think of anti-socialist posters on these boards. It's all 'mummy' and 'daddy' and 'wevolutionary'. Ffs, what are you trying to reform? And why the fuck should anyone give a shit about your frankly bizzarely insulting way of talking to people? 

I mean, as far as i can tell, you've even stolen your insults from arch socialists


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> The 19th century was a fair while ago now. I think we can safely let go.
> 
> If you think that the class relationship between a factory foreman and machine workers in the 1880s are comparable with the relationship between some avergage office spud and their 'team leader' then you live in another universe.


Prima facie you've misunderstood Thora. She was clearly making a statement on sommething prescriptive, not a statement about natural states of affairs.


----------



## bmd (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> because bob marleys dad I care passionately about defending workers rights and don't like hearing of managers fucking people over on a whim...this happens every single day - thousands of times over - across the entire world - workers getting fucked by jumped up little cunts of managers. I don't need to log onto urban and see shitty managers moaning about their secretaries not working hard enough (I now have to do my own typing! oh no!) and how hard it was for them to sack them...
> 
> I would have thought that is an extremely easy thing to understand.
> 
> I'd appreciate a reply to this as I had you down as a reasonable poster on here.



Cunts of managers, shitty managers, managers fucking people over on a whim...your words.

I am all for workers rights, 100% behind them and just like everyone else who's had a job I've been on the receiving end of managerial fuckery. But I also know that workers can be utter cunts and you seem determined to believe and perceive that RS was 100% wrong and that this woman, of whom you only know negative stuff about, was right. Why is that Chegrimandi?

Can you see why I perceive that your argument is based on an irrational hatred of management?


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

Bob Marleys Dad said:
			
		

> Can you see why I perceive that your argument is based on an irrational hatred of management?


what are you basing your arguments on, oh Rational One?


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

Bob Marleys Dad said:
			
		

> Can you see why I perceive that your argument is based on an irrational hatred of management?



I do have a hatred of management. You are quite correct. But it is far from irrational. It is based on what I've seen in work places - what I've heard from other people, books I've read, films I've watched, and my union activities. It is also based on my reading of how capitalism works, why it works like that and the role that managers have within that system and the effect that management decisions have on workers within the system...

so forgive me for finding it a bit much when a manager - that profits personally from exploiting the labour of others - comes on here to moan about how hard it was for them to deprive someone of their livelihood.



comments like - now I have to do my own typing - help reinforce this entirely rational hatred.


----------



## Thora (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> The 19th century was a fair while ago now. I think we can safely let go.
> 
> If you think that the class relationship between a factory foreman and machine workers in the 1880s are comparable with the relationship between some avergage office spud and their 'team leader' then you live in another universe.


I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.  Workers and bosses share the same class interests these days?


----------



## rubbershoes (May 25, 2007)

hi everyone


----------



## snorbury (May 25, 2007)

did you get off with her?


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.  Workers and bosses share the same class interests these days?


In the 19th Century you could easily tell who was who. They started work at different times, wore different clothes, had vastly different salaries, lived in different places, had different social obligations, etc, etc.

Trying to claim that some shmoe called Neil in an office and his team leader/manager Nigel (who lives two doors down from him, earns £4k more a year and used to do Neil's job 2 years ago) share this same schism is just a piss poor understanding of history and of current social and economic relationships.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

> earns £4k more a year and used to do Neil's job 2 years ago) share this same schism is just a piss poor understanding of history and of current social and economic relationships.


can you explain 'economic relationships'? Is this understanding emancipatory; or does it make you suck more.


----------



## rubbershoes (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> so forgive me for finding it a bit much when a manager - that profits personally from exploiting the labour of others - comes on here to moan about how hard it was for them to deprive someone of their livelihood.
> 
> 
> 
> comments like - now I have to do my own typing - help reinforce this entirely rational hatred.




right. let's get started.

do i profit personally from expoiting the labour of others. i get a salary from my boss. we all get a salary from my boss. how is that expoilting my secretary's labour? isn't she just as much exploiting my labour? 

her skills are typing far faster than i would be able to. my skills are dictating what goes in the letters.  we have different skills and both get paid for exercising them. where's the exploitation?

if she wants to do my job, then she can do the training , get the qualifications and do it. no one is forcing her to be a secretary. 

and as for depriving her of her livelihood. that's just bollocks. there's a shortage of experienced secretaries and will get another  job in no time


----------



## og ogilby (May 25, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> hi everyone


 Bet you daren't sack another today.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 25, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> A wage is weekly, a salary monthly - you were asking if anyone here was on a wage



Not neccessarily; wage can mean just a regular payment. If you're going to be pedantic it pays to do a little checking first. 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

anyway, my analysis is: to stop little african children from crying, we need a worldwide universal act. the only universal act that is materially possible, is a socialist one


----------



## Orang Utan (May 25, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Not neccessarily; wage can mean just a regular payment. If you're going to be pedantic it pays to do a little checking first.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


What's the difference between salary and wage then? What did revol69 mean when he said on a wage?


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> right. let's get started.
> 
> do i profit personally from expoiting the labour of others. i get a salary from my boss. we all get a salary from my boss. how is that expoilting my secretary's labour? isn't she just as much exploiting my labour?
> 
> ...



I've really got fuck all pleasant to say to you I'm afraid.


----------



## rubbershoes (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> I've really got fuck all pleasant to say to you I'm afraid.




well i can't answer a reasoned argument like that


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

now, i think rubbershoes lacks all virtue. but it costs nothing to be polite


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 25, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> And I bet all the posters calling for the OP's burning-at-the-stake will be in exactly his position in a few years time...!



I'm in that position now. I wouldn't have behaved in the way he described. And i wouldn't look for sympathy on a BB. Your point was?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> In Trying to claim that some shmoe called Neil in an office and his team leader/manager Nigel (who lives two doors down from him, earns £4k more a year and used to do Neil's job 2 years ago) share this same schism is just a piss poor understanding of history and of current social and economic relationships.


I agree with this, this idea of Evil Bosses out to screw the Workers for the benefit of Capital isn't what I see and tbh I've never met anyone who did see it that way outside of urban. Continue pushing it and the left will stay as out of power as it is now...


----------



## bmd (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> I do have a hatred of management. You are quite correct. But it is far from irrational. It is based on what I've seen in work places - what I've heard from other people, books I've read, films I've watched, and my union activities. It is also based on my reading of how capitalism works, why it works like that and the role that managers have within that system and the effect that management decisions have on workers within the system...
> 
> so forgive me for finding it a bit much when a manager - that profits personally from exploiting the labour of others - comes on here to moan about how hard it was for them to deprive someone of their livelihood.
> 
> ...



So what can be done about these managers? These capitalist exploiters of you and me? These livelihood deprivers? What can I do?

I do what I've always done and tackle it where I find it, I open my big gob and shoot it off. It always used to be at whoever was in authority, whoever they were and whether or not they were any good.

Let's face it, unless we have a radical change in the political landscape then managers are here to stay. And there are some good ones and some bad ones, just like everything else in life and I don't think that RS is a bad one, he made a decision based on his experience and judgement and carried it out, like managers do.

If I'd refused to carry out certain responsibilities in my job, during my probationary period then I'd not be surprised if I was booted out. Especially if my last job lasted 3 weeks. 

I'm assuming a lot there but then so are you Chegrimandi and the issues you have with managers you have brought to this thread and attempted to hammer it into their likeness.

I have a responsibility to tackle bad management wherever I work, I believe that, but if that is the case then I also have a responsibility to tackle bad workers because they both make my working life shit and I won't accept that.

I'm not a politician, I'm not a shop steward and I'm not trying to change the world but I do believe that if everyone took responsibility for what was theirs then this shit wouldn't rear its head half as often.


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> well i can't answer a reasoned argument like that



I've put my reasoned argument many times on this thread. I won't be changing my opinion and beliefs that I've formulated slowly over about ten years - despite any weak apologist bullshit you come out with for your behaviour to try and justify your actions and appease your guilt.


----------



## EastEnder (May 25, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> What's the difference between salary and wage then? What did revol69 mean when he said on a wage?


What does it matter what it's called? I work, I get paid. Simple as that.


----------



## rubbershoes (May 25, 2007)

anmyone interested if clarify the oriiginal post.

_ i had to sack someone _can be read in two ways

i had no option but to sack her

or

the task of sacking her fell on me



and yes, it is the secind that i meant. i was part of the decision to get rid of her and normally the deed would be done by HR. HR weren't around sio it fell on me to tell her

just so you know

I'll be off to buff up my cloven hooves now


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> can you explain 'economic relationships'? Is this understanding emancipatory; or does it make you suck more.


Suck more what? If I am going to suck, I want to suck something. As far as I am aware 'suck' is a transitive verb.


----------



## rubbershoes (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> I've put my reasoned argument many times on this thread. I won't be changing my opinion and beliefs that I've formulated slowly over about ten years - despite any weak apologist bullshit you come out with for your behaviour to try and justify your actions and appease your guilt.




sorry i 've been away for the last day and don't feel like wading through 20+pages


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 25, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> What's the difference between salary and wage then? What did revol69 mean when he said on a wage?



Sometimes there is no difference; which was the point I was making. As to what revol meant...you'll have to ask them.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (May 25, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> right. let's get started.
> 
> do i profit personally from expoiting the labour of others. i get a salary from my boss. we all get a salary from my boss. how is that expoilting my secretary's labour? isn't she just as much exploiting my labour?
> 
> ...



Did you get your new Secretary to type that?


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> I won't be changing my opinion and beliefs that I've formulated slowly over about ten years.


No matter what? 

That's the spirit. Never budge, not an inch.


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> anmyone interested if clarify the oriiginal post.
> 
> _ i had to sack someone _can be read in two ways
> 
> ...



24 hours to come up with *that *backtrack.


----------



## Maidmarian (May 25, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> right. let's get started.
> 
> do i profit personally from expoiting the labour of others. i get a salary from my boss. we all get a salary from my boss. how is that expoilting my secretary's labour? isn't she just as much exploiting my labour?
> 
> ...



I can't believe I just read that !


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> Suck more what? If I am going to suck, I want to suck something. As far as I am aware 'suck' is a transitive verb.


way to look intelligent  

besides which: rubber shoes: plastic souls!  

Gotta run, but it's been great being ignored


----------



## rubbershoes (May 25, 2007)

hardly.

read the op

and i don't deny that i was involved in the decisioon to get rid 
of her


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> way to look intelligent
> 
> besides which: rubber shoes: plastic souls!
> 
> Gotta run, but it's been great being ignored


Clubbing baby seals.


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> No matter what?
> 
> That's the spirit. Never budge, not an inch.



no Idaho. I have beliefs and principals that I've thought long & hard about.

 

why is that difficult to understand?


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

"Never give-up on a good thing". And The Truth and that.


----------



## bmd (May 25, 2007)

Maidmarian said:
			
		

> I can't believe I just read that !



Because?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> no Idaho. I have beliefs and principals that I've thought long & hard about.
> 
> 
> 
> why is that difficult to understand?


At a guess because it implies that you're unwilling to consider that you're wrong and/or that your beliefs/principles may require alteration as they've lead you into blind biggotry.


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

Bob_the_lost said:
			
		

> At a guess because it implies that you're unwilling to consider that you're wrong and/or that your beliefs/principles may require alteration as they've lead you into blind biggotry.



 

bigoted against management and exploiters. Absolutely fine by me.


----------



## EastEnder (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> bigoted against management and exploiters. Absolutely fine by me.


"management _and_ exploiters"......?

I thought management _were_ exploiters?


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

i don't think 'and' always has to mean such, tho eastender.


----------



## Belushi (May 25, 2007)

bouncer_the_dog said:
			
		

> Did you get your new Secretary to type that?



Heh


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> bigoted against management and exploiters. Absolutely fine by me.


Demonising your enemy is rarely an ethical position.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

it's very natural tho. and in all honesty - "if it does the job", then great.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> it's very natural tho. and in all honesty - "if it does the job", then great.


So's victimising up the weaker members of the group, fearing and hating those different and "might makes right".

Blind hatred is never a good thing.


----------



## Thora (May 25, 2007)

Bob_the_lost said:
			
		

> So's victimising up the weaker members of the group, fearing and hating those different and "might makes right".
> 
> Blind hatred is never a good thing.


Liberal.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

Bob_the_lost said:
			
		

> So's victimising up the weaker members of the group, fearing and hating those different and "might makes right".
> 
> Blind hatred is never a good thing.


i can't see how such could lead to good consequences. i have some sympathy tbh, as i'm not violent and am a little bit of a liberal at heart, see.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

pre-empted


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 25, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> Liberal.


And yet i'd still have gotten rid of the woman described by rubbershoes. Damn, it's _such_ a trial being slightly more complicated than a cartoon caricature.


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

Bob_the_lost said:
			
		

> And yet i'd still have gotten rid of the woman described by rubbershoes. Damn, it's _such_ a trial being slightly more complicated than a cartoon caricature.



smug.wanker.


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.  Workers and bosses share the same class interests these days?



um, who are we talking about...the chairman of a multinational, or a team leader on a salary... or the manager of a dept in the civil service or local govt, or a superviser in a charity... which is also a limited company....


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> I've really got fuck all pleasant to say to you I'm afraid.



I do admire the reasoned marxist analyst....

... in the same way I 'admire' the teletubbies...


----------



## Mrs Miggins (May 25, 2007)

Bob_the_lost said:
			
		

> And yet i'd still have gotten rid of the woman described by rubbershoes.



Me too.
Christ knows why it's wrong to fire someone who isn't doing their job.
During their probation as well
When they have an equal right to say "fuck this for a lark, I'm off"


----------



## A Dashing Blade (May 25, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> um, who are we talking about...the chairman of a multinational, or a team leader on a salary... or the manager of a dept in the civil service or local govt, or a superviser in a charity... which is also a limited company....



You see, there you go again, asking the class warriors direct questions and to define their terms . . . sheesh, kids today.


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

Bob_the_lost said:
			
		

> And yet i'd still have gotten rid of the woman described by rubbershoes. Damn, it's _such_ a trial being slightly more complicated than a cartoon caricature.


And when you don't fit into their (embarrassingly) simplistic world view they resort to:



			
				chegrimandi said:
			
		

> smug.wanker.



It's like trying to debate with militant zionists or born again christians.


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

A Dashing Blade said:
			
		

> You see, there you go again, asking the class warriors direct questions and to define their terms . . . sheesh, kids today.




sorry... silly me... never learn...


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> And when you don't fit into their (embarrassingly) simplistic world view they resort to:
> 
> 
> It's like trying to debate with militant zionists or born again christians.



oh yes idaho very good however - you've forgotten that you and many others have been banging on about armchair revolutionaries, wevolutionaries, running off to mummy and daddy, keyboard warriors etc so you're rather shit point falls down at the first.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (May 25, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> sorry... silly me... never learn...



personally its up there with squeezing zits, you know you shouldn't but you can't help it because, bottom line, it's fun!


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> It's like trying to debate with militant zionists or born again christians.


not at all! Marx is well know as a bastion of "rationality", and he is a very well respected philosopher. explain?


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

idaho bang to rights:

_me: so you don't know what level of engagement he has in active politics - you're just using a lazy slur against him because it suits you to do so?

Idaho: Yeah that's about the size of it._


----------



## revol68 (May 25, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> What's the difference between salary and wage then? What did revol69 mean when he said on a wage?



i meant paid for your labour clearly you muppet.


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> oh yes idaho very good however - you've forgotten that you and many others have been banging on about armchair revolutionaries, wevolutionaries, running off to mummy and daddy, keyboard warriors etc so you're rather shit point falls down at the first.


You mean there's actually a point to all this? Not just two camps of:

Someone who is shit at a job should expect to get sacked, or
Don't sack anyone or supervise/manage anyone and their workload because somehow this makes you better.

As far as I can see that's it. There are people with some sense (and probably a variety of political opinions) on one side, and people spouting shite on the other side with very little grounding in this cosmos.


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> idaho bang to rights:
> 
> _me: so you don't know what level of engagement he has in active politics - you're just using a lazy slur against him because it suits you to do so?
> 
> Idaho: Yeah that's about the size of it._


Yeah that's it. You win


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> and people spouting shite on the other side with very little grounding in this cosmos.





but they're happy, don't forget they're *happy*.....


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> Yeah that's it. You win



um - I'm just illustrating to people the infantile level you argue at and how dishonest you are.

In fact - perfect management material.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> i meant paid for your labour clearly you muppet.


Who isn't?


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> but they're happy, don't forget they're *happy*.....


Reflected, you spineless piece of dirt. Has anyone even said that a revolution is even possible. 'Deluded' because we don't value the same things as you? Technically that is not massively badly defined, but I think you'll find that the Leninist hordes have a much better understanding of philosophy that you, sire.


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> um - I'm just illustrating to people the infantile level you argue at and how dishonest you are.
> 
> In fact - perfect management material.



Hmm ...name calling & missing the point...

You are a *manager* & I claim my £5...


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

Jografer: come here and say that you spineless piece of garbage 

At least I am capable of emotions that are not determined by my position in the management heirachy


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 25, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> You mean there's actually a point to all this? Not just two camps of:
> 
> Someone who is shit at a job should expect to get sacked, or
> Don't sack anyone or supervise/manage anyone and their workload because somehow this makes you better.
> ...



Yes that's exactly what's been going on in this thread. For a start some pages back we had at least come to an acknowledgement that there are different class interests between the managed and the managers, and that class far from stopping in 1979 still matters today. Or have I been reading and contributing to some other discussion?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. which camp do my posts put me in me?


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> but I think you'll find that the Leninist hordes have a much better understanding of philosophy that you, sire.



of course, of course....

<pat> <pat>


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> Hmm ...name calling & missing the point...
> 
> You are a *manager* & I claim my £5...


exactly what she accused you of   got a fully grounded and thurough (-sp?) philosophy yet "jog-on"


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> Hmm ...name calling & missing the point...
> 
> You are a *manager* & I claim my £5...



thats not name calling you oddball.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> of course, of course....
> 
> <pat> <pat>


eh? you would get a fucking hiding if you did that to anyone in reallife you internet freak  

what philosophers do you read?


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

I <3 jog-on's passion for his/her management position


----------



## Mrs Miggins (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> At least I am capable of emotions that are not determined by my position in the management heirachy



 I'm sorry but that really is a piece of prize bollocks!


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> Jografer: come here and say that you spineless piece of garbage
> 
> At least I am capable of emotions that are not determined by my position in the management heirachy




take a deep breath... and relax..... deep breath... relax..... 

now, off you go and play with your proleteriat ....


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

are you saying that socialists are thick. cos they do seem to read ALOT of philosophy for non-philosohers. of course you wouldn't know, being cyber scum.


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> I <3 jog-on's passion for his/her management position



I wish...


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> eh? you would get a fucking hiding if you did that to anyone in reallife you internet freak


My anger just makes me hate you more jog-on.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

Mrs Miggins said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but that really is a piece of prize bollocks!


your ignorance is fuckin' astounding. well done


----------



## Belushi (May 25, 2007)

Did someone call 118118's philosophical position a pouf?


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> are you saying that socialists are thick. cos they do seem to read ALOT of philosophy for non-philosohers. of course you wouldn't know, being cyber scum.



calm down, you'll spoil your half-term.....


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> take a deep breath... and relax..... deep breath... relax.....
> 
> now, off you go and play with your proleteriat ....



do you do anything other than try, really badly, to patronise people? Have you got an argument? Do you know what this thread is about?


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

go off and play with your maps, jog-on  thinks he/she is a geographer, yet thinks Marx is off the wall crazy barmy delusional fellow. I bet you get loads of respec' mate.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

jog-on: yeah, cos marxism/post-structuralism/egalitarianism is not a viable intellectual current is it?

and ffs, already using such tired attacks on students to try and "hold your own"! what have you got against students, anyway?


----------



## Mrs Miggins (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> your ignorance is fuckin' astounding. well done


OK - go on then - explain what it means


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

i don't like being patted on the head mate, somethinng to do with not sucking. if you did that irl you know you would get your arm broken  

(^^ this however is robust debate)


----------



## sparkling (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> so you don't know what level of engagement he has in active politics - you're just using a lazy slur against him because it suits you to do so?




but but isn't that what he has just done to most of the people he disagrees with on here.  He has no idea of what work most people do and just because he may be in they type of work that feels like it fuels the capitalist machine doesn't mean to say we all do.

My turn to be generalistic now but it sounds like he is cross with himself for not living up to his own high ideals?


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

only if you ask nicely <censored>


----------



## Mrs Miggins (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> only if you ask nicely <censored>



OK - go on then - _please _explain what it means


----------



## A Dashing Blade (May 25, 2007)

Looks like a few people round here have been down the Uni Bar at lunchtime . . .


----------



## Idaho (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> um - I'm just illustrating to people the infantile level you argue at and how dishonest you are.
> 
> In fact - perfect management material.


Yeah I'm very dishonest. I lie all the time.

(steeples fingers while reclining in sumptuous executive chair)

Mwahahahahahahaha!





oooh... toys...


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> jog-on: yeah, cos marxism/post-structuralism/egalitarianism is not a viable intellectual current is it?



... and what has this got to do with the price of eggs.....

My entertainment is watching victorian 'so-say' marxist dogma being applied to the present day when it doesn't fit ... however you try to dress it up with oh-so trendy jargon.......


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

christ sake, it's not jargon at all. Seriously, are you a geographer: not a qualified one, I bet: or you'd be rationally trying to demonstrate your ideas, as if to a friend.

it's true, as a very wise man said "they read alot, but are a little old fashioned". Close enough. I don't know if it's a bad thing.

Egalitarianism: a viable intellectual current  (when did you go to uni ffs )

Anyway, I've got reading to do, but i'll probs be back to shout at whoever.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 25, 2007)

Surprised I've not been sacked for my attitude.

Hope nobody's implying all temps are vacuous  

although having had the temp next to me that I've had all week, I'm starting to wonder myself  

I explained to her a dozen times that the word she was hearing on audio was MONITOREE.  I spelled it out for her half a dozen times and said lawyers have "these silly made-up words".  Even after I spelled it out for her, she still didn't believe me as an hour later, she was asking everyone else in the office if they'd heard of the word, and then she was looking in the dictionary.

She I again told her it was a term used here and told her it was MONITOR with EE at the end.  I did this at least 3 times and then wrote it down.

I went to lunch.  On my return, one of the other temps said she'd come up to her floor asking everyone if they knew the word.

DO I LOOK LIKE A LIAR


----------



## Mrs Miggins (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> christ sake, it's not jargon at all. Seriously, are you a geographer: not a qualified one, I bet: or you'd be rationally trying to demonstrate your ideas, as if to a friend.
> 
> it's true, as a very wise man said "they read alot, but are a little old fashioned". Close enough. I don't know if it's a bad thing.
> 
> ...


Err....what? 
And I'm still waiting for my explanation.....


----------



## EastEnder (May 25, 2007)

Minnie_the_Minx said:
			
		

> DO I LOOK LIKE A LIAR


More of a LIAREE.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

i mean to say that there aren't may intellectuals that don't pay lip service to the idea od egalitarianism. surely 

miggins: i'll get back to that later if that's ok.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 25, 2007)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> More of a LIAREE.





Exactly, but I'm sure if I told her that she'd only spend the next two hours looking at dictionaries, the internet, asking everybody in the office if they've heard of such a word


----------



## Mrs Miggins (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> miggins: i'll get back to that later if that's ok.



Well....not really because I'm going to have to spend my afternoon having only emotions that are determined by my place in the management heirarchy (seeing as I'm at work) and I don't know if I can carry on with that state of affairs much longer


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> christ sake, it's not jargon at all. Seriously, are you a geographer: not a qualified one, I bet: or you'd be rationally trying to demonstrate your ideas, as if to a friend.
> 
> it's true, as a very wise man said "they read alot, but are a little old fashioned". Close enough. I don't know if it's a bad thing.
> 
> ...



Not a geographer, no, liked it at school, but can't remember why I came up with the name... sure it was a good reason tho....  

never been to uni, altho an ambiton at some point when I can afford it..   thank you for assuming I had (I think)..  

My problem is not with egalitarianism, or socialism, but with the well over simplistic view of some on this thread that worker = good, and manager = bad... 

I just don't get what I see as an out-dated view of society being divided into owners of the means of production & the expolited horny handed sons of toil... where does the public sector fit into this, or charities & the whole 3rd sector ???? Never mind that you can be a wage slave & also be crap at your job, and deserve to get the push... not that the woman in post #1 deserved to get the push IMHO... oh so long ago.....

... but of course it's the friday before a long weekend at the end of a long week, so am also guilty of winding-up... sorry...


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

no shit. don't pat proletarians, they won't like it 

mrs miggins: you talk the same way an old friend of mine used to about her ld sister. Ffs, you can't be that DELUDED!


----------



## Mrs Miggins (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> mrs miggins: you talk the same way an old friend of mine used to about her ld sister. Ffs, you can't be that DELUDED!



Ah well, you can't explain your statements so that makes me deluded


----------



## EarlyWorm (May 25, 2007)

A cunt is a cunt is a cunt.

The rest of us try to rub along in the real world.  The basic choice presented to most people living in modern Britain is to try and earn money in a socially conscious way or to let greed rule our lives.  Which ever path is chosen the first line applies.

Back to the OP, if you had been able demonstrate offering support to the sackee then tell her to walk.  From what I have read you didn't do this.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

'course I can explain. for now i'll just say that 1) It's commonly thought that one's understanding and knowledge is a production of social relations of capital (-i never know when to use this term and *ism ). It is also quite common to think enlightened working class people (not saying that these really exist on 'net) actually are communism, so it follows that you would not have your views dictated by your position in capital if you saw The Truth.

Besides which, it seems intuitively plausible to us.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

Greed for me mate


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

nah. course if it really did make a difference then sure i'd put loads into making my lifestyle better. but i can't see it doing so tbh.


----------



## Belushi (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> 1) It's commonly thought that one's understanding and knowledge is a production of social relations of capital (-i never know when to use this term and *ism ).



Commonly thought by whom?   its a marxist position but not one shared by the majority of people.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> 'course I can explain. for now i'll just say that 1) It's commonly thought that one's understanding and knowledge is a production of social relations of capital (-i never know when to use this term and *ism ). It is also quite common to think enlightened working class people (not saying that these really exist on 'net) actually are communism, so it follows that you would not have your views dictated by your position in capital if you saw The Truth.
> 
> Besides which, it seems intuitively plausible to us.



Finally! Unfortunately, I disagree with the main thrust of your point i.e. being enlightened only when one sees "The Truth" - which is only the truth as you, and the people you've been influenced by, see it. I do however agree with your starting point of us all being a product of our environment.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Commonly thought by whom?   its a marxist position but not one shared by the majority of people.


yeah. but its not a belief that is well described by 'deluded'. Yeah, and i know i'm may be slipping into spouting an ideology of false consciousness. but it seems like a fine a v important line. if you are a geeky philosophy student that is. which i am.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

Some of that was tongue in cheek, Miggins - obviously 

And fwiw, you're coming across as a relativist wrt to truth. Which is not only stupid, but laugable <3


----------



## A Dashing Blade (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> . . .  cos marxism/post-structuralism/egalitarianism is not a viable intellectual current is it? . . .






			
				Jografer said:
			
		

> ...  however you try to dress it up with oh-so trendy jargon.......






			
				118118 said:
			
		

> christ sake, it's not jargon at all.  . . .



You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried. Encore, encore!


----------



## Jografer (May 25, 2007)

A Dashing Blade said:
			
		

> You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried. Encore, encore!



Encore ?? we're trying.....

.... very trying...


----------



## Mrs Miggins (May 25, 2007)

> Some of that was tongue in cheek, Miggins - obviously



Oh - _obviously!_



> And fwiw, you're coming across as a relativist wrt to truth. Which is not only stupid, but laugable <3



ORLY?!   
Oh well then I'll just sit here being laughable and stupid then.
That's me told eh?


----------



## Crispy (May 25, 2007)

I've just had to suck someone, and I wish they'd washed first


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> smug.wanker.


Often, but please, don't try to engage with any of my posts about the topic matter. I know it can be scary and i understand your aversion.

Just as a point : I have been down the uni bar (Morrisons) for a short period of today and then a much longer spell at the lake imbibing the fruits of that labour, yet i still make more sense than some. Learning difficulties? Genetic predisposition for alcoholism? Hah!

*falls over and throws up*


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

^^ too true. Wrt philosophy jargon, yeah that's alright, but tbh you have to exercise and i do bollocks all writing. (i'm failing my phillosophy degree btw. tho i feel great atm tho: almost as if it's just because i innovate too much )


----------



## chegrimandi (May 25, 2007)

Bob_the_lost said:
			
		

> Just as a point : I have been down the uni bar (Morrisons) for a short period of today and then a much longer spell at the lake imbibing the fruits of that labour, yet i still make more sense than some. Learning difficulties? Genetic predisposition for alcoholism? Hah!
> 
> *falls over and throws up*



why would anyone care if you were pissed or not you irrelevant fuck? Why would I want to engage with some pissed up no mark off the internet?


----------



## Pingu (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> why would anyone care if you were pissed or not you irrelevant fuck? Why would I want to engage with some pissed up no mark off the internet?




you gotta love urban

its stuff like this that makes people want to engage in reasoned debate on the benfits of one soci economic system over another.

I am convinced


----------



## marshall (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> why would anyone care if you were pissed or not you irrelevant fuck? Why would I want to engage with some pissed up no mark off the internet?




i too am upset they're selling ces, chegs.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

nah, tbh, and with respec': i'm beginning to think that however intelligent people are here, or elsewhere, the difference between me an them is not on the same planet as the difference between me and my lecturers. and these people are _paid_ to be nice to me 

there just is no excuse for you mortals to treat me like i'm thick, is what i'm getting at. and yeah, i do suck some uni lecturers, regular like. but fuck it, they got what i want and treat it well.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> you gotta love urban
> 
> its stuff like this that makes people want to engage in reasoned debate on the benfits of one soci economic system over another.
> 
> I am convinced


bully (for you). nah, i finnd anarchists overly agressive, and i've said that: no people are beyond criticism and that. but tbf i don't know where i was going with this.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 25, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> why would anyone care if you were pissed or not you irrelevant fuck? Why would I want to engage with some pissed up no mark off the internet?


Well you've failed to even attempt to do so while i was stone cold sober, so i've no i-fucking-dea why you'd put the effort in when i'm slightly tipsy.


----------



## Pingu (May 25, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> bully (for you). nah, i finnd anarchists overly agressive, and i've said that: no people are beyond criticism and that. but tbf i don't know where i was going with this.




lol

tbh me neither

the thread kinda lost me a few pages back but.. is friday.. beer has been consumed and ..well y'know. Parts of this thread read like a scene from Life of brian. you know the bit where they are in the ampitheatre?.. dunno why that came to mind but for some reason I can see bits of this thread being read out pythonesque...


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 25, 2007)

But maybe you were questioning why i thought it was at all relevant? Just amused that people thought that:

a) Students are all incapable of making coherent sentences, or rather anyone who can't is obviously a student who's been hitting the snakebites a bit too hard.
b) Alcohol seems to make you into a complete idiot, which it does, but not instantly.
c) Students haven't worked out that beer is cheaper from supermarkets

I could take offense about being refered to as an arrogant wanker, or something to that effect, but why get worked up about it?


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

nah, like, glanced at op. and i have to say i am a coward and would have sacked the <censored> if a few anxious timid words to my coworkers had not worked towards a greater conviction on my part. that is to say i am a cunt. but i wouldn't have done anything so to advance my career, and would fuckin' relish the chance to spearhead an attack on working conditions.

say what you will, but i am a coward <3


----------



## magnifico (May 25, 2007)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> they hadn't done anything wrong. it was just their attitude that was off.



I remember when i used to work at toys r us there was a manager a lot like you. there was a woman there working her first day, unloading boxes of toys from a lorry in the loading bay. One of the toys had a free pack of skittles attached to it, which had split and was clearly unsellable. She was caught on camera eating one of these skittles, and was immediately called in and sacked. It was the same petty manager who was in charge of me, he said he didn't like it, it was just 'the principle', regardless of the affect it would have had on this woman. Never mind i use the memory to hone my class hatred - you people will get yours.


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

not as butch as the button tho ^^

hi magnifico btw. you have a secret admirer btw (-not me). i could have mixed up names tho


----------



## fucthest8 (May 25, 2007)

27 pages, blimey. If this is anything to go by ...




			
				magnifico said:
			
		

> I remember when i used to work at toys r us there was a manager a lot like you. there was a woman there working her first day, unloading boxes of toys from a lorry in the loading bay. One of the toys had a free pack of skittles attached to it, which had split and was clearly unsellable. She was caught on camera eating one of these skittles, and was immediately called in and sacked. It was the same petty manager who was in charge of me, he said he didn't like it, it was just 'the principle', regardless of the affect it would have had on this woman. Never mind i use the memory to hone my class hatred - you people will get yours.




... almost none of it worth reading. Don't get me wrong, the example above is shocking, but the way the straight line is drawn between rubbershoes post and this example is quite stunning. And the final sentence is just brilliant. Let's just quote it again "Never mind i use the memory to hone my class hatred - you people will get yours."

So far, with a few notable examples, history shows us that when "you people" get theirs, they are immediately replaced by more "you people" who used to be "our people" and the cycle continues.

Still, don't let the real world distract you from your really useful and constructive class hatred.


----------



## Tank Girl (May 26, 2007)

I'm an utter cunt of a manager, I had to tell one of my staff today not to look at anal fisting websites at work.

off with my head


----------



## fucthest8 (May 26, 2007)

You're just trying to squeeze excess out of the workers, you fucking middle class cunt.  

Really Tanky, I'm _so_ disappointed.


----------



## Tank Girl (May 26, 2007)

I'm a fucking success fuct, dole scum to middle class management cunt in four years 

I'm what all the lazy cunts should aspire to be


----------



## fucthest8 (May 26, 2007)

squirrel posting:

I LOVE you tanky  xxx


----------



## Tank Girl (May 26, 2007)

I love you too squirrel


----------



## EarlyWorm (May 26, 2007)

I give up u treats ur staff nice and they think u's a cunt or you think anyone who works is a cunt or you are working only for cunts.  Is anyone not a cunt???

Not aimed at anyone inparticular...Revolv61

I just like saying cunt and this thread seems a good reason to all round with a few well grounded exceptions.

Blow it out.


----------



## Tank Girl (May 26, 2007)

EarlyWorm said:
			
		

> Is anyone not a cunt???


nope, we're all cunts.


----------



## fucthest8 (May 26, 2007)

You certainly are Tanky. Dangerous cunt. Eh.  



squirrel says:

I love my cunt.  



Class.


----------



## Tank Girl (May 26, 2007)

I love her cunt too


----------



## Tank Girl (May 26, 2007)

I think I should go to bed now


----------



## fucthest8 (May 26, 2007)

No! STAY!


----------



## chegrimandi (May 26, 2007)

_a male sexual assault by a supervisor on a young station assistant in the staff toilet. He was too frightened to report it at first but eventually broke down in tears in the manager's office who then promptly suspended him _

what would you brittas cunts say to  that?


----------



## Pingu (May 26, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> _a male sexual assault by a supervisor on a young station assistant in the staff toilet. He was too frightened to report it at first but eventually broke down in tears in the manager's office who then promptly suspended him _
> 
> what would you brittas cunts say to  that?




thats its got fuck all to do with class and everything to do with the supervisor being a fuckturd twaty bollocky cunt. The manager being the same x2


----------



## bmd (May 26, 2007)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> _a male sexual assault by a supervisor on a young station assistant in the staff toilet. He was too frightened to report it at first but eventually broke down in tears in the manager's office who then promptly suspended him _
> 
> what would you brittas cunts say to  that?



You're saying that this kind of behaviour is what makes management a bane to every working woman and man across the world, are you?


----------



## treelover (May 28, 2007)

They sacked her just for that?   


then again, i suppose it was the 'principle'


----------



## magnifico (May 28, 2007)

118118 said:
			
		

> hi magnifico btw. you have a secret admirer btw (-not me). i could have mixed up names tho



Hi. I could understand it since i am pretty sexy, though I don't post on here much so you may have your names mixed up  




			
				fucthest8 said:
			
		

> So far, with a few notable examples, history shows us that when "you people" get theirs, they are immediately replaced by more "you people" who used to be "our people" and the cycle continues.



yeah there's no point getting angry, just let those who rule over us do whatever they want cos nothing can ever change  you've got a strange username for a liberal democrat


----------

