bikeperson45 Posted April 15, 2015 Report Share Posted April 15, 2015 Yep Two injuries though, it's the months of waiting in between to get a scan or results that add it up, or being referred to physio which is pointless most of the time. I've started video 4 and then had to stop four times now which is a fun fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isitafox Posted April 15, 2015 Report Share Posted April 15, 2015 f**king payroll cocked up my wages last week so I've been waiting to see my additional payslip for this week with the bit they missed and they've cocked up again and still not paid me for 4 days work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogre Posted April 15, 2015 Report Share Posted April 15, 2015 halfords are twats. the only way to progress into management is to go through their 'aspire' scheme. i applied for said scheme and passed the first two stages of the assessment. this was the final stage to be 'in' and get the training etc. so i drove toKendal (160 miles each way, and for those of you who don't know me i really don't do cars so this wasn't my favorite task). Every other candidate there is either full time or already a duty manager; i'm on a 12 hour contract so i have limited opportunity to develop any Halfords skill-set outside of selling and building bikes. i presumed that since this was for training to be a manager all of this stuff would be covered as part of the training but all the tasks were based around manager functions that i'm completely unfamiliar with (i had to ask what all the acronyms were on the documents) i'm annoyed that they didn't work out what my current level of Halfords actually was. I felt like such a twat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bing Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 (edited) It was my lads 7th birthday on Tuesday, i'd arranged with his mum on Sunday night when I dropped him back off to go round and see him about half 4 before I went to work, so I could see him on the actual day. Got a text at half 3 Tuesday saying she wasn't going to be in and that I would have to pick him up from school weds if I wanted to see him. She said she felt bad for not been in and me not seeing him, but part of me thinks she did it on purpose just to piss me off, which worked purely because she's a twat and it's the first time I've not seen him on the actual day. f**ked off was the understatement of the year. What is it with ex's and kids. There is no need for the awkwardness. It's twattery of the highest order Edited April 16, 2015 by bing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isitafox Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 So unbelievably bollocksed, a night of not much sleep followed by riding to work for the first time in over a month with harder gearing than normal, panniers that weighed an absolute f**king tonne and then walking into a world of shit at work which I've only just been able to sit down from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted April 17, 2015 Report Share Posted April 17, 2015 News outlets endlessly parroting about record unemployment figures, yet none of them - or their "analysts" - point out that part of this is because people on zero hours contracts who may not even be given work are classed as employed, as are people on the various DWP workfare schemes where they're forced to work but aren't actually paid to do so. It's not hard to set record unemployment figures when forcing people to work for nothing is a matter of government policy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted April 17, 2015 Report Share Posted April 17, 2015 Not necessarily a completely bad thing in all aspects though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted April 17, 2015 Report Share Posted April 17, 2015 No, but there are massive flaws with the workfare scheme and with zero hours contracts, yet they're used to mask the fact that people are kind of just getting f**ked over. There were quite a few big name companies who dumped their staff only to then re-hire people through workfare so essentially the same people who were previously gainfully employed then had to work for free, only to claim various benefits instead. That doesn't benefit those people involved and it doesn't benefit the country as a whole. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted April 17, 2015 Report Share Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) I was on benefits for quite a while while my old business wasn't making anything, ended up in one of those agencies that force people into work (despite not having time to do so, as I explained to them at excruciating length, not as bad as it sounds) and the kinds of jobs they were finding me were just so utterly retarded, not suitable in the slightest. My favourite was one where they wanted me to drive a team of 4 other people up and down the country to fit out shops, because I had a car, which I'd already explained only had 2 seats... Best of it is, when these people get people into work, no matter how unsuitable, or how few hours or how much worse off they are, they (the agency) get a substantial sum from the government for doing so. Having caught wind if how they operate I signed off and found my own part time job to fit around the business, they (my assigned twat of a job finder) then continued to chase me to ask if I'd got a job or not so they could claim their fee. I don't think I've ever given anyone such a round of f**ks in a letter before! Edited April 19, 2015 by Jolfa 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted April 17, 2015 Report Share Posted April 17, 2015 Don't want a zero hour contract? Don't sign one. Someone else will. They'll be the ones paying their tax when the abstainers need their pay packets from the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted April 17, 2015 Report Share Posted April 17, 2015 So if you're currently on benefits but get offered a zero-hour contract that includes an exclusivity clause (i.e. if you work for anyone else your contract is instantly void, even if the company aren't providing work for you at that time and have given you no time-frame of when they will give you work) you get the option of either going for it and having a fairly substantial risk of getting totally f**ked over (if you quit or get fired, benefits sanctions...) or not going for it and having your benefits cut off for at least a month because you turned down a job*. You think that's a good situation? There's a reason that all of the main parties have said they're either going to ban zero hours contracts or at least reform the laws regarding them. To quote Unite: "Employers use the contracts to cut wages, avoid holiday pay, pensions, and other benefits enjoyed by employees and agency staff. Workers are also unable to take on other work, as they are obliged to be available for work at the whim of the employer." Similarly, it's not like people on zero hours contracts won't need support from the government anyway - you only need to look at the fact that in the supermarket industry alone the government had to effectively top-up workers salaries to the tune of £11bn because what they were being paid (the minimum wage) isn't actually enough to live on. That's including people on 'real' contracts too, so where do you think that'd leave people on zero hours contracts? There's no benefit to them apart from to the employer, which is who the current government have been trying to win over the whole time. That's why zero hours were allowed, why Workfare basically meant that companies could fire their workforce then get paid to re-hire their workforce without having to pay them, why the minimum wage isn't even set at being level with the living wage at a minimum, etc. *Bear in mind that a lot of benefits sanctions were so draconian and unfair that the Department for Work and Pension's actions were deemed illegal by the high court, forcing Iain Duncan Smith to be a total fanny and retrospectively change the law to make it so what his department had done was magically legal again and they wouldn't be liable to pay millions in benefits to people who lawfully should have had them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted April 17, 2015 Report Share Posted April 17, 2015 Quote all you like. The facts stay the same. We don't make the rules. Neither you nor I have any power, our job as human beings is to make the most of what we have. If I was offered a zero hour contract I'd weigh up the pros and cons and make a decision. If that decision happened to end with me being on a zero hour contract with zero hours work then I'd have to give myself a bit of a slap. You have to wonder what sort of idiot would sign a zero hour contract. I don't offer them, I never will. Some people do, and they'll get monkeys working for them because only monkeys will sign them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Well no, as Mark said, by not signing one you could lose your benefits, by signing one you may or may not have work so you may or may not pay income tax/still require benefits on top to survive, it is complete horse shit whichever way you slice it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 So if you're currently on benefits but get offered a zero-hour contract... you get the option of either going for it and having a fairly substantial risk of getting totally f**ked over (if you quit or get fired, benefits sanctions...) or not going for it and having your benefits cut off for at least a month because you turned down a job*. You have to wonder what sort of idiot would sign a zero hour contract. I've tried simplifying that as much as possible - imagine if you were in that situation. You're on benefits and get offered a job with a zero-hours contract. You weigh up the pros and cons and decide there are too many cons. Do you then turn it down and consequently get a benefits sanction so you end up with no money anyway? This kind of thing is pretty important at the moment with the general election around the corner. The only company who really want to maintain the status quo are the Conversatives who basically just want to rename it (similar to how they just renamed their other failing and/or illegal 'projects'), albeit with some minor concessions. In fairness you'd have to be a total subhuman cunt to vote for them (unless you happen to enjoy the NHS being further privatised and f**ked up, having £billions of social housing sold at a loss just to try and win votes, reneging all the rights that as a country we have through willfully signing things like the TTIP, etc.), but voting for other people can actually make a difference to this sort of thing. I assume at this point you'll just say you don't give a shit about what happens to other people or something, but that's not really enough 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 I get that it can be shit in that position but it's all a case of supply and demand. If you can get yourself into a position where your skills are harder to find elsewhere for less money (whatever that may mean in legal terms of benefits and contacts) then you'll come out on top. At the end of the day it's all a big mess in one way or another, so it's about finding the best way to get by with the system in place. There will always be someone better/worse off no matter who's in power, but if you can make yourself a valuable asset then you'll reap the benefit (not benefitS). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Harrison Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 You have to wonder what sort of idiot would sign a zero hour contract. The point is that people end up in a lose-lose situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 I think JD's counter point was more that people need to think about these things themselves and improve their own situation rather than expecting the government to do it for them. Don't get me wrong, I agree that there are a huge number of ridiculous policies/legislation that screw people over left, right and centre, but it's all about working out how to work things out within that system as best possible or (as I'm sure you'll understand) find another system that suits better. To put it another way: if people didn't sign up to zero hours contacts then they wouldn't be in a position to be screwed over by them. Nobody taking the positions would mean the employers would have to find a way to entice people in and the situation starts to improve. Obviously for some people the zero hours contacts are appealing enough to sign up for, so this doesn't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikeperson45 Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 The point is that people end up in a lose-lose situation. Not completely lose-lose though, they'll have something to put on a CV at least. Money and something to talk about in an interview is definitely something gained even if else where there's more to gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 The government is not responsible for your decisions, good or bad. Luke's assumed correctly on my supply and demand thoughts, so there's no point in me expanding on it. It's not that I don't care about other people Mark, and I assume you just said that to be needlessly harsh. It's that I care about people caring for themselves. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 Lolz at this shit. It's a very very simple problem to grasp. If you have no work, you go on benefits so you can eat. If you get offered a zero hour contract (so you are not guaranteed any work at all), but refuse it as there is no reliable source of income and therefore you can't do the basic things in life, like rent a f**king house, then you risk losing your benefits and therefore food and home. You're right, it isn't the governments job to make our decisions, but it is their job to offer us decisions, provide medical care and income support when shit hits the fan. That is what we pay them to do! By forcing people into situations where they are not guaranteed any work, they are not doing their job and it's a f**king disgrace. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnthebiker Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 Having a nightmare of a day today :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 Lolz at this shit. It's a very very simple problem to grasp. If you have no work, you go on benefits so you can eat. If you get offered a zero hour contract (so you are not guaranteed any work at all), but refuse it as there is no reliable source of income and therefore you can't do the basic things in life, like rent a f**king house, then you risk losing your benefits and therefore food and home. To quote you, "it's a very very simple problem". If you have no work, go and get some. It's all well and good putting it across as if those are the only 2 options but I'm struggling to think of many situations in which there isn't a single other option at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnthebiker Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 I don't think this day could get any worse... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) To quote you, "it's a very very simple problem". If you have no work, go and get some. It's all well and good putting it across as if those are the only 2 options but I'm struggling to think of many situations in which there isn't a single other option at all. But if all you get offered is zero hour contracts, then you may very well end up with no money coming in at all. It also causes issues with proving your income, which is very important. I've known a lot of people get shafted by these contracts, they're f**king evil and totally unethical IMO. It's alright for people like you and me who have proper careers and intelligence and shit, but what about the decent, genuine but slightly dim people who can only stack shelves or clean floors? They still need to rent/buy somewhere to live, and they cannot do that if they cannot prove their income, simple as that. to be honest a lot of my rage about this is coming from the number of right wing arseholes out there at the moment claiming that the government doesn't owe the public anything, as if all the tax we pay is just a present. They owe us the right to a steady job, a livable wage and a home, and for a massive number of the population they're failing to deliver that. Obviously some are just "dole scum" who don't want to work. I've never known any of them personally but do know at least 15 people in their 20s struggling to get by who are decent people who can neither find work in their desired profession nor get temporary work to get by. Edited April 19, 2015 by Muel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dann2707 Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 I don't think this day could get any worse... Begging for someone to ask I'll be that guy what's up?? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.