Latest posts:
Rate this!
David Price
Member - 8 posts
Not True, Pregnant women have no more right to use the loo in a public building than anyone else does. However if the toilet is available to the Public then I cannot see why you would not let a pregnant woman use them.
If it is a staff only loo it would be up to the indevidual staff to decide, if a pregnant woman entered your building and asked to use the loo I cannot see why she would be refused, as for those of us who are parents know only too well that pregnant women may need to use the loo at anytime, and unfortunatly they are not always in control of where and when that might happen.
Rate this!
David Price
Member - 8 posts
Michelle, I fully agree that you should be sacked if you acted in the manner you discribe, however your boss is not related to you and you may then feel as lesley does if she was.
Lesley only offered the lift because the person in question was her Mother In Law and she was her Daughter In Law, now it has gone wrong she want's to be the boss, neither you or I are aware of all the facts in this case, and as lesley previously mentioned she has has many run in's with her Mother In Law prior to this incident.
This is a case of personel life affecting work, and her Mother In Law perhaps thinking she will not be sacked because of who she is, and Lesley now trying to be her boss and not her daughter In Law as was perhaps their relationship before. This is just a case of two prople being stubborn as each other, and until one of them backs down, or takes action to resolve this, then they are stuck. It goes to prove never work employ friends or family as it is very hard to take action against someone you are close to.
Rate this!
David Price
Member - 8 posts
Firstly you need to detach the personal side of things ie she is your Mother In Law, and concentrate on the Worker side of things, which she is as well.
I have no doubt that the reason you gave this woman a lift was because she is your Mother In Law, and you do not offer this service to everyone that works for you?
if so, then what was convient for you and her for the past 3 years is no longer convient to you. Could you not have arranged for a taxi to collect her and take her home as it is only for one week? That way you could have avioded all this stress, and the worry of being taken to an employment tribunal. I would say that this innocent lift has now become custom and practice, and through you not thinking long term as to the possible effects this could have in you or your business.
Why don't you simply talk to her letters are so informal and sometimes insulting, she is your Mother In Law after all, and the Grandmother of your children. Stop playing the big I am, and you must do what i say, kind of boss as that will get you knowhere fast.
If you really need her that much then you will have to accept that the lifts will have to continue if you are on holiday or off sick, if you don't why not simply get a temp in for the week concerned, and try and give your Mother In Law a date after your holiday when you can both sit down and sort out this mess.
Rate this!
David Price
Member - 8 posts
Re: question 1 - why would you need to see the email, if you were aware that an email had been sent that would imply that you therefore know who sent it? Would it not be possible to then get the same person to re send it to the person wishing to check its contents.
Re: question 2 - If you are concerned than an employee is misusing the email system say to talk to friends rather than for work, you can clearly state that all email usage will be monitored, you cannot however use this against them without first telling them that you are intending to do so.
They are coverd by the Data Protection Act as are you, and if you allow staff to use the email system for personal use you cannot then complain when they do, unless you have set out clear guidlines as to usage before hand.
Rate this!
David Price
Member - 8 posts
You should under No circumstances allow any contractor to work in your premises without a Risk assessment or Method Statement. This is your proof that they know what they are doing and how they intend to carry it out, and the risks involved.
The problem starts when anyone allows a contractor to fob them off as to why they don't have the nessessary paperwork, also it is no good if a good contractor supplies the RA & MS but the person checking them doesn't know what to look for when reading them.
I have come across so many so called Facilities Managers who are really just normal office staff who were given the role because no one else wanted to do it, and they don't know what to ask for from the contractor or in fact don't even read paperwork when they are given it.
Small contractors don't tend to have the nessessary RA or MS simply because they don't have the time to put pen to paper and provide one, furthermore even some larger companys are just as bad, and fail to keep theirs up to date.
Most people these days just want the job done, as they know that the paperwork takes longer than the job to complete. But if we don't stick to our guns then slowly but surely the Cowboy element will slip back into the workplace, and an accident is sure to follow.
Rate this!
David Price
Member - 8 posts
I think that the ladder manifacturers should also be taken to task, when I started out in the good old days, I had to lug around a pair of Wooden Steps which were very heavy.
They were of course replaced by aliminum ladders, which I have to say appeard to be made out of better thicker aliminum that the ones that the trades use today. because people who have to carry ladders as part of their job prefer weight to safety, they will go for the lightest steps they an find.
It is worth pointing out that even brand new aliminum steps can twist and move because there simply isn't the weight in them to stop them from doing so, and a accident can be the result of the steps moving or twisting and the user doing anything wrong.
Rate this!
David Price
Member - 8 posts
I don't think it is because it is cumbersome, I feel it is because it is cheeper to add updates than it is to reprint the whole document correctly. There is no reason that it could not have references to both male and female.
It's stops any confusion of staff thinking that a section only applies to just a woman, when it applies to both sexes.
Rate this!
David Price
Member - 8 posts
Surley The Sex Discrimination Act 1975, is Guilty of Sexual Discrimination it'self.
Why does the ammended section assume that the harrassed person is a woman and not a man?
So it should read "A person subjects a Man or a woman to harrassment if he or she engages in unwanted conduct that is related to his or her sex or that of another person and that has the purpose or effect of violating his or her dignity, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him or her.
We need to see that it is not just women who can be sexually harrassed, so why is it still looked upon that if it happens to a man he won't complain, he will enjoy it?
Why are we still living in the dark ages in relation to this kind of thing. Before you know it the Govenment will be telling us that all Disabled people go around in wheel chairs.......
0 (0)
