Jump to content

MY JSA SUSPENDED AGAIN


FORTUNATA

Featured Posts

So to summarise; the OP has been lawfully penalised for something that he accepts he screwed up on. He has not been particularly harshly penalised considering the way the scheme operates.

 

He has chosen (again) to complain (on here as well as to "the powers that be") rather than engage the statutory dispute procedure which has been previously suggested.

 

He blames the people rather than the scheme that has compelled said people to enforce said scheme.

 

Some sympathise yet show little consideration of the history of the issue which goes back for some years and is founded on the OPs refusal to toe the statutory line until his family compelled him to ask for some money, yet he has repeatedly failed to satisfy the requirements to obtain that money and now says "maybe I should see a doctor!" in light of that failure; motivated by a low paid civil servant who has no medical knowledge and reinforced by this eminently medically qualified forum.

 

I am now doomed to be a sociopath for the sake of diluting the issue to it's critical elements...

 

Where's Gibbo when you need him?

 

I have another tub; it is available for thumping and is not as worn as some... Applicants are invited by PM.

 

Maybe my work has turned me into a sociopath but I hear this crap day in day out. Best I expose it where I needn't be impartial.

 

Edit... coz I spelled Gibbo wrong

 

 

 

 

Well said I read a very lucid story well written, sometimes it's not the fault of others and we need to take responsibility for our actions. Unfortunately I suspect things will get worse before they get better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to summarise; the OP has been lawfully penalised for something that he accepts he screwed up on. He has not been particularly harshly penalised considering the way the scheme operates.

 

He has chosen (again) to complain (on here as well as to "the powers that be") rather than engage the statutory dispute procedure which has been previously suggested.

 

He blames the people rather than the scheme that has compelled said people to enforce said scheme.

 

Some sympathise yet show little consideration of the history of the issue which goes back for some years and is founded on the OPs refusal to toe the statutory line until his family compelled him to ask for some money, yet he has repeatedly failed to satisfy the requirements to obtain that money and now says "maybe I should see a doctor!" in light of that failure; motivated by a low paid civil servant who has no medical knowledge and reinforced by this eminently medically qualified forum.

 

I am now doomed to be a sociopath for the sake of diluting the issue to it's critical elements...

 

Where's Gibbo when you need him?

 

I have another tub; it is available for thumping and is not as worn as some... Applicants are invited by PM.

 

Maybe my work has turned me into a sociopath but I hear this crap day in day out. Best I expose it where I needn't be impartial.

 

Edit... coz I spelled Gibbo wrong

 

At long last, someone who sees the FACTS not the spin!!

Greenie!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, my word perception is mega strong. I'm also multilingual but need to look at words to pronounce them in foreign language. Yet oral perception is so weak I was a backward kid at school. This was because classes were orally transmitted. Once I switched to written learning methods, I rocketed onwards.

I guess many of us have weird handicaps. My best friend was a super talented rock guitarist who could play just like John McClaughlin. Yet he was autistic. I think he had high level autism which meant he was very inteligent but unable to relate to normal people in terms of social skills.

 

Just go and get tested and see.

It just means you digest information differently to other people so public services need to be aware of this so you can be better served.

I can read music and play the piano but cant spell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a security guard leaving your 'post' early would be grounds for being accused of 'gross misconduct' and a justifiable grounds for summary dismissal.

 

What does the person then do if they then need a reference?.

 

At least taking the issue to an employment tribunal and proving the dismissal unfair gives you a fighting chance of getting another job.

 

 

 

Do you think that a potential employer would look at a potential employee who has taken a previous employer to tribunal in a favourable way?

 

I know it shouldnt work like that but it does.

 

And do you think that an employer who has been taken to tribunal would give a good reference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to summarise; the OP has been lawfully penalised for something that he accepts he screwed up on. He has not been particularly harshly penalised considering the way the scheme operates.

 

He has chosen (again) to complain (on here as well as to "the powers that be") rather than engage the statutory dispute procedure which has been previously suggested.

 

He blames the people rather than the scheme that has compelled said people to enforce said scheme.

 

Some sympathise yet show little consideration of the history of the issue which goes back for some years and is founded on the OPs refusal to toe the statutory line until his family compelled him to ask for some money, yet he has repeatedly failed to satisfy the requirements to obtain that money and now says "maybe I should see a doctor!" in light of that failure; motivated by a low paid civil servant who has no medical knowledge and reinforced by this eminently medically qualified forum.

 

I am now doomed to be a sociopath for the sake of diluting the issue to it's critical elements...

 

Where's Gibbo when you need him?

 

I have another tub; it is available for thumping and is not as worn as some... Applicants are invited by PM.

 

Maybe my work has turned me into a sociopath but I hear this crap day in day out. Best I expose it where I needn't be impartial.

 

Edit... coz I spelled Gibbo wrong

LMFAO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that a potential employer would look at a potential employee who has taken a previous employer to tribunal in a favourable way?

 

I know it shouldnt work like that but it does.

 

And do you think that an employer who has been taken to tribunal would give a good reference?

 

Yes certainly -

 

I can only speak from personal experience where we employed staff (I can certainly think of one nurse in particular) who had a malicious allegation made against her by a colleague but resulted in her dismissal from that employer.

 

She instigated unfair dismissal proceedings against them and they settled before the matter got to a full tribunal.

 

She was open and honest with us at interview and she got the job.

 

Ed to add - it's not about getting a reference from the dismissing employer BTW it's about being in a position to be able to explain why your previous employer is either unwilling to give one or if they give one stating your were summarily dismissed for gross misconduct you can be in a position to refute it. Giving of a 'fair' reference can also be part of any 'compromise agreement' reached between an employee who has been unfairly dismissed and the offending employer.

Edited by MJG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that a potential employer would look at a potential employee who has taken a previous employer to tribunal in a favourable way?

 

I know it shouldnt work like that but it does.

 

And do you think that an employer who has been taken to tribunal would give a good reference?

So should all errant employers get away with unlawful behavior because you wont get a good reference if you take him to tribunal?

It is possible to enforce the wording of subsequent references either as part of a compromise agreement or via the courts if it goes that far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that a potential employer would look at a potential employee who has taken a previous employer to tribunal in a favourable way?

 

I know it shouldnt work like that but it does.

 

And do you think that an employer who has been taken to tribunal would give a good reference?

 

 

I don't think one should let bad employers off the hook for fear of more expected bad behaviour from the same boss. Or, worry about how it may appear to future employers.

 

Why should abuse go by without a way to counter it. What else can you do to help modify future bad practises.

 

May be some claims are not valid, but the genuine claims should be encouraged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

 

I have another tub; it is available for thumping and is not as worn as some... Applicants are invited by PM.

 

<snip>

 

I have a soapbox you could stand on

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know. Phylis's argument is bizarre. If we all took that view we'd be reduced to servile, docile serfs to be trodden under foot. Might as well argue Muhammad Ali was wrong to refuse to be inducted to fight in Vietnam or Ghandi and so on.

If you don't agree, make a stand but combine the stand with common sense and it may work out o.k. Not just for yourself but for younger folks who lack the courage.

 

So should all errant employers get away with unlawful behavior because you wont get a good reference if you take him to tribunal?

It is possible to enforce the wording of subsequent references either as part of a compromise agreement or via the courts if it goes that far.

 

You're misunderstanding that no worker anywhere loses pay on account of alleged misconduct if it's, say, forgetting something or screwing up. Employers have to issue verbal then written warnings. No employer will say, "O.K., you forgot to pass that message onto me yesterday so no salary for you this week!"

If not then you discriminate between classes of individuals.

 

So to summarise; the OP has been lawfully penalised for something that he accepts he screwed up on. He has not been particularly harshly penalised considering the way the scheme operates.

 

He has chosen (again) to complain (on here as well as to "the powers that be") rather than engage the statutory dispute procedure which has been previously suggested.

 

He blames the people rather than the scheme that has compelled said people to enforce said scheme.

 

Some sympathise yet show little consideration of the history of the issue which goes back for some years and is founded on the OPs refusal to toe the statutory line until his family compelled him to ask for some money, yet he has repeatedly failed to satisfy the requirements to obtain that money and now says "maybe I should see a doctor!" in light of that failure; motivated by a low paid civil servant who has no medical knowledge and reinforced by this eminently medically qualified forum.

 

I am now doomed to be a sociopath for the sake of diluting the issue to it's critical elements...

 

Where's Gibbo when you need him?

 

I have another tub; it is available for thumping and is not as worn as some... Applicants are invited by PM.

 

Maybe my work has turned me into a sociopath but I hear this crap day in day out. Best I expose it where I needn't be impartial.

 

Edit... coz I spelled Gibbo wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smelly, on 30 May 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

So to summarise; the OP has been lawfully penalised for something that he accepts he screwed up on. He has not been particularly harshly penalised considering the way the scheme operates.

 

I think it is harsh if JSA is the only income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might as well argue Muhammad Ali was wrong to refuse to be inducted to fight in Vietnam or Ghandi and so on.

Muhammad Ali was wrong to dodge the draft, in the eyes of US law, and was fined and sentenced to 5 years in prison.

 

3 years of expensive lawyering later and the sentence was overturned on appeal.

 

Ghandi was imprisoned 5 times and assassinated for his beliefs and actions.

 

If you don't agree, make a stand but be prepared to face the consequences of your actions, just like Ghandi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know. Phylis's argument is bizarre. If we all took that view we'd be reduced to servile, docile serfs to be trodden under foot. Might as well argue Muhammad Ali was wrong to refuse to be inducted to fight in Vietnam or Ghandi and so on.

If you don't agree, make a stand but combine the stand with common sense and it may work out o.k. Not just for yourself but for younger folks who lack the courage.

 

 

Not bizarre no.

 

But I see no point in attempting to make a stand when the end result is just pointless and potentially expensive.

 

Live and let live. What goes around always ends up coming back around in the end :rolleyes:

 

 

ETA: It is nothing to do about a lack of courage and everything to do with a healthy dose of common sense.

Edited by Phylis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that a potential employer would look at a potential employee who has taken a previous employer to tribunal in a favourable way?

 

I know it shouldnt work like that but it does.

 

And do you think that an employer who has been taken to tribunal would give a good reference?

EBBOM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't agree, make a stand but be prepared to face the consequences of your actions, just like Ghandi.

 

I know the DW&P can be a bit harsh sometimes but .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Muhammad Ali was wrong to dodge the draft, in the eyes of US law, and was fined and sentenced to 5 years in prison.

 

3 years of expensive lawyering later and the sentence was overturned on appeal.

 

Ghandi was imprisoned 5 times and assassinated for his beliefs and actions.

 

If you don't agree, make a stand but be prepared to face the consequences of your actions, just like Ghandi.

 

I am loving the way that the OP is now comparing the fact that he failed through his own lack of attention to attend an interview with Ghandi and Ali. Unfortunately sometimes if you think the world owes you a living it has nasty habit of letting you know it doesn't.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EBBOM

I refer you to a post Phylis gave in another thread:

 

I work on the policy if im thinking it type (or say) it. Dont point beating about the bush.

 

Call a spade a spade and all that......

 

I had to google it....bet you did too.... :P

Me too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to google it....bet you did too.... :P

 

Indeed I did.

 

I hate text speak it is just lazy. If you have something to say at least have the decency to write it :angry:

 

I am loving the way that the OP is now comparing the fact that he failed through his own lack of attention to attend an interview with Ghandi and Ali. Unfortunately sometimes if you think the world owes you a living it has nasty habit of letting you know it doesn't.

 

Well said. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am loving the way that the OP is now comparing the fact that he failed through his own lack of attention to attend an interview with Ghandi and Ali. Unfortunately sometimes if you think the world owes you a living it has nasty habit of letting you know it doesn't.

The OP was supposed to attend an interview with Ghandi and Ali? They down at the job Club then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.