Latest posts:
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
Mr Gordon. I am one of the imbeciles you refer to in your most recent comments, most of which seem to emanate from an attic room in whichever ivory tower you currently occupy. In case you were speculating, my whole career has been spent in service industries - hotels, leisure, catering, FM - so I am familiar with the kind of derogatory treatment to which workers in those sectors are sometimes subjected. I would never condone such behaviour and, indeed, have ejected guests and customers for stepping beyond the boundaries that common decency would dictate.
In my stupidity, I was labouring under the misapprehension that, as in Mr Brown's message above, voicing an opinion of incredulity at what is obviously a piece of sensationalist tosh published in the toshiest newspaper around, was one of the objectives of this feature of the website. How naive of me! Perhaps I should have prefaced my remarks with 'tongue in cheek' - but then I'm probably too ignorant to realise that you're too ignorant to have realised that in the first place - moron!
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
Unworkable, unwise, unwanted...and that applies to Harriet Hormone as well as this ill-considered piece of blunderbuss legislation. Along with smoking, why not ban conversation altogether...the only sure way of protecting yourself from spurious harassment claims!
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
If the agency worker did indeed scratch their name into the car, I'd say you're using the wrong agency!
Seriously, lack of detail prevents a diagnosis of the worker's position with regard to their employment status but my initial reaction would be to put pressure on the agency to stump up for repairs with the implication that you would take the case to the police if there was no co-operation. Most reputable agencies would be relieved to have the chance to repair the damage and try to salvage what's left of the relationship you have with them. This way, you will save an increase in your insurance premium and involvement in a potentially time-costly court case.
If the agency is unwilling to co-operate, then you should involve the police. Criminal damage is not confined to the public highway.
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
And you needed a survey to tell you this? That constitutes a criminal waste of energy in itself!
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
I heartily agree with Les, the smoking ban is a breath of fresh air, even for smokers. It really sorts the men from the boys because, if you're committed to enjoying the weed, you now have to put up with some fairly dreadful conditions to get your fix. If the government had really thought this thing through, they would have annexed Devon and Cornwall and forcibly moved all the remaining smokers there to puff away to their hearts' content and the rest of you can have London and other cities to yourselves...pull in another lungful of diesel fumes, free of charge. And while I'm at it (it is Friday, after all) the standard of spelling and punctuation in some of these threads is verging on the abysmal! That's it, rant over...just popping out for an oily rag!
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
Agency workers would not generally be considered where TUPE is concerned because they are not directly employed by the client. If an agency were to lose a contract because of such a situation then the continued use of workers would be subject to agreement between agencies for their transfer to another supplier. If the new company decided to dispense with agency services and employ the agency workers direct, the tranfer would be subject to current employment agency regulation on the amount of compensation due for each individual agency worker.
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
What looks worse, a fag end on the floor or a dollop of the gum we're encouraged to chew in order to kick the smoking habit? Which is the easier to clean up? Which is the more anti-social habit? So where is the tax that deters people from depositing their oral detritus on our pavements, shoes and carpets?
I think the Treasury has missed a trick...they could have it every way!
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
Every agency will ask the question about what duties their temps will be expected to perform (or they should) as this will have a bearing on who they send to fill the assignment. If the client has been less than honest or has innocently tried to fill the temp's time on site usefully, then that should be communicated to the agency before that activity is undertaken. All agencies will claim that H&S responsibilities lie with the client, although this is shaky ground, so the client should issue the relevant PPE for such tasks. To answer the original question...yes it happens, it's (in theory) allowed however the possible consequences could be far-reaching for all parties concerned in terms of injury and the subsequent legal and financial implications.
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
Why not herd them into an electrified corral using tazers...oh and while you're at it you could round up anyone who's overweight or drinks too much or drops chewing gum in the street and pop them in there as well. That'd save the NHS a fortune and your rooms would still smell wonderful.
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
Dave - good points! The enforcement in those less salubrious establishments you mention (not that I would know where to find one...) will probably end up being a note through the door and continuous prosecution of the owner - a little like the traffic warden lurking round the corner, waiting for your meter to tick into penalty time. Presumably the licensing bench will have the discretion to refuse future applications for liquor licenses if the the applicants have a history of breaching the regulations. However, the thought of a paid spy getting a bop on the nose from a recalcitrant smoker who's had a few scoops will no doubt provide fodder for future cartoons in the less highbrow press.
So who pays for the loss in duty? Easy, claw it back on booze...that's the safe option...just like the APD on flights, charge people to enter a pub or hotel or shebeen! I'm sure Gordon B has that one already sussed!
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
I was pretty sure that DEFRA was nothing to do with John Prescott but it looks like I'm mistaken!
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
The matter of who is the employer and therefore responsible is tricky enough when the cleaner is paid by the agency! Recent case law proves what a grey area this is. However, should the business or householder undertake to pay the cleaner directly, rather than pay the agency and let them payroll the cleaner, then the words 'leg' 'stand on' and 'no' spring readily to mind! The fact that the business or householder pays a fee to the agency is not material - and quite frankly it would be considered as a placement fee in this instance, with the end user deemed to be the employer.
If anon wants advice on choosing a reputable agency for the supply of support staff, I'm more than happy to give some pointers!!
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
Dear Anon
Presumably you are more than one person because the standard of spelling varies so much! As a smoker, I am conscious of the discomfort caused to those who do not indulge. However, the issue here is about freedom of choice. What we are seeing is the inexorable crawl towards a form of apartheid that will inevitably alienate more than a quarter of society. Should the government decide to band (sic) smoking and the selling of tobacco products, it will not stop people smoking, rather it will strengthen the resolve of many to resist the insidious infiltration of government into our daily lives.
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
Come on guys! It's not all doom and gloom. FMs over the years have hoisted the sack of jobs that nobody wants onto their shoulders and turned (most) of them into a science for which they are immensely valued in (most) organisations. We are no longer Betty the Office Manager or Bert the Bogs and Boilers Bloke, we have professional standards to aspire to and achieve. We are responsible for huge slices of any company's budget and charged with ensuring the money earners can perform under optimum conditions. If that doesn't merit some pride in your achievements, then perhaps you landed in FM by mistake. I'm sure there's a psychiatric term that covers low self-esteem and being undervalued - perhaps a consultant might help! Chin up... we as a profession are getting there so don't give up the fight just yet!
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
.... I feel I am duty bound to take exception to one or two of the comments made in David's piece in issue 2 entitled 'Money for Nothing' or 'Let's have a cheap dig at recruitment agencies because they're all no good parasites.' As an exponent of the black art of recruitment for more than 10 years, I am the first to admit that our industry has more than its fair share of Billem, Grabbit and Runn's. Such experiences are unpleasant and opinion-forming. But, to steal a phrase from the legal profession 'caveat emptor' - let the buyer beware. If you need to use a recruitment agency - and most of us do at some stage - then don't be any less demanding than you would be if you were making a four (or five!) figure purchase elsewhere. If you don't get on with a recruiter as a person, chances are you won't like any of the candidates they send you. So invest some time in building a relationship, after all we're in a people business! I could rant on but perhaps better if I put a letter together to David for the next excellent issue!!
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
My congratulations to David and the team for providing a real value-added aspect to the workplacelaw service. Let's face it, some of the subjects that need tackling will never be sexy in a million years but they impinge greatly on our ability to operate as facilities managers and the like. The immediacy and freshness of the website is now underpinned by a tangible, well-balanced and enlightening organ that will supplement our access to the knowledge we need to do our jobs. However.......
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
Nigel H picks up the point of the workers' employment status quite correctly. If they are working as self employed, then the agency can require them to fund their own PPE, without which they will not be able to go on site. It seems a little penny-pinching to me - perhaps the agency could purchase the safety shoes and loan them to the workers, stipulating that they must work for a specific period at the site. If they leave before that time is up, then the cost of the footwear could be deducted from their final pay. If they work beyond the period, then no charge is made... it works!
My advice to Nigel T is to ask to see copies of the agreements they have with their workers and verify their work status - the agency should be willing to provide this to you on demand. Satisfy yourself that they are genuinely self employed. Your duty of care is quite clear. You have identified the risk and you must not allow people on site without the necessary PPE - full stop.
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
The fact is that the vast majority of agency workers work under a 'contract for services' rather than a contract of employment, which allows far more flexibility for the end user. The problem arises when agency workers are assigned to the same client at the same site for an extended period, which Heather highlights above.
The new Employment Agencies Act, to answer Richard's question, makes it illegal to withhold an agency worker's pay just because they haven't produced a timesheet. The onus is now firmly on the agency to verify the hours worked with the client - but that does not mean that either are the employer!!
Rate this!
Don Searle
Member - 19 posts
The agency's workers may well be supplied under a contract for services rather than a direct employment contract... in which case you need to read the small print in their terms of business. It is possible that they would be considered as your employees, with the consequent liabilities. Good agencies will retain copies of documentary proof of a temporary worker's legal right to work in the country and should have no qualms in making this available to you on request. As in most cases, it boils down to the strength of your business relationship with them... do you trust their verbal confirmations?
0 (0)
