The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
English_what where've you been
Page:
Combined all post in here. I won't wade in as it appears you both know far more than the mortal body I possess :)
Posts may seem a bit strange, and its starts a bit randomly but I don't think that really matters.
Posts may seem a bit strange, and its starts a bit randomly but I don't think that really matters.
Pandemic wrote:
you have no idea what you are talking about...
Then stop talking to me ;)
If it was as simple as you just said I would be working anything they wanted.
It's not simple in any sense because of employment laws restricting variour things. If they tried to do what you said, they'd find themselves in court arbitration so quickly they wouldn't know what hit them and they'd lose. Essentially they have to make a reasonable offer and back it up with a budget plan of why they need to restructure.
I don't know the specifics of this law that's allowing them to renegotiate but I would imagine they're not allowed to simply tear up your contract but they would be allowed to shuffle things around within reason. What "within reason" means in this case I don't know but from what you've said, I would imagine they've got a pretty solid case or you'd be in court already.
Constructive dismissal was the words I was looking for. They're not allowed to change the job in a way that makes it impossible for you.
What it all boils down to is this
The Fire Service faces budget cuts
They're forced to restructure quite strictly or face closing
Section 188 says they can renege on contracts within reason, in order to keep from closing
Now if your union thought that legally these cuts weren't within reason, they'd already have gone to court. The fact that they haven't should tell you everything you need to know
you have no idea what you are talking about...
Then stop talking to me ;)
If it was as simple as you just said I would be working anything they wanted.
It's not simple in any sense because of employment laws restricting variour things. If they tried to do what you said, they'd find themselves in court arbitration so quickly they wouldn't know what hit them and they'd lose. Essentially they have to make a reasonable offer and back it up with a budget plan of why they need to restructure.
I don't know the specifics of this law that's allowing them to renegotiate but I would imagine they're not allowed to simply tear up your contract but they would be allowed to shuffle things around within reason. What "within reason" means in this case I don't know but from what you've said, I would imagine they've got a pretty solid case or you'd be in court already.
Constructive dismissal was the words I was looking for. They're not allowed to change the job in a way that makes it impossible for you.
What it all boils down to is this
The Fire Service faces budget cuts
They're forced to restructure quite strictly or face closing
Section 188 says they can renege on contracts within reason, in order to keep from closing
Now if your union thought that legally these cuts weren't within reason, they'd already have gone to court. The fact that they haven't should tell you everything you need to know
I assume you are talking about section 188?
you have no idea what you are talking about...
If it was as simple as you just said I would be working anything they wanted.
If it was as simple as you just said I would be working anything they wanted.
Pandemic wrote:
No because I already have a contract... is that not important?
In terms of goodwill it should be but basically no, it's not important. As you've already said, your employers are in a position where they're "forced" to renegotiate and legally they're perfectly within their rights unless you can prove that this law doesn't apply.
No because I already have a contract... is that not important?
In terms of goodwill it should be but basically no, it's not important. As you've already said, your employers are in a position where they're "forced" to renegotiate and legally they're perfectly within their rights unless you can prove that this law doesn't apply.
Nin wrote:
Pandemic wrote:
[i]I do adapt and except changes.What I do not take kindly to is being threatened with the sack when I have done nothing wrong.
There's a difference between sacking someone and releasing them. You were offered a contract, the job was yours. At that moment it's up to you.[/i]
No because I already have a contract... is that not important?
Pandemic wrote:
[i]I do adapt and except changes.What I do not take kindly to is being threatened with the sack when I have done nothing wrong.
There's a difference between sacking someone and releasing them. You were offered a contract, the job was yours. At that moment it's up to you.[/i]
No because I already have a contract... is that not important?
Pandemic wrote:
I do adapt and except changes.What I do not take kindly to is being threatened with the sack when I have done nothing wrong.
There's a difference between sacking someone and releasing them. You were offered a contract, the job was yours. At that moment it's up to you.
I do adapt and except changes.What I do not take kindly to is being threatened with the sack when I have done nothing wrong.
There's a difference between sacking someone and releasing them. You were offered a contract, the job was yours. At that moment it's up to you.
Pandemic wrote:
Are you even listening to what I am saying? No, I don't. I didn't want stike. How about the brigade risking peoples lives by saying they can cover with 27 machines and that we aren't needed?
It was more of a general question because as you've said, plenty of people were willing to go ahead with it.
The brigade riskings lives is an issue, but you're going about fixing it in entirely the wrong way if you thinking the threat of risking more lives is the way to go.
It's not acceptable to say "This is bad, so we're going to make it worse to expose the problem". It's such a negative way of doing things and like I said, it crosses the line from negotiating into blackmail.
Are you even listening to what I am saying? No, I don't. I didn't want stike. How about the brigade risking peoples lives by saying they can cover with 27 machines and that we aren't needed?
It was more of a general question because as you've said, plenty of people were willing to go ahead with it.
The brigade riskings lives is an issue, but you're going about fixing it in entirely the wrong way if you thinking the threat of risking more lives is the way to go.
It's not acceptable to say "This is bad, so we're going to make it worse to expose the problem". It's such a negative way of doing things and like I said, it crosses the line from negotiating into blackmail.
Nin wrote:
Pandemic wrote:
[i]Yeah..damn me for wanting to be a fireman for life. To help people. To serve...damn me.
You can still be a fireman for life but you've got to adapt with the job. That's the bottom line..[/i]
I do adapt and except changes.What I do not take kindly to is being threatened with the sack when I have done nothing wrong.
Pandemic wrote:
[i]Yeah..damn me for wanting to be a fireman for life. To help people. To serve...damn me.
You can still be a fireman for life but you've got to adapt with the job. That's the bottom line..[/i]
I do adapt and except changes.What I do not take kindly to is being threatened with the sack when I have done nothing wrong.
Pandemic wrote:
Yeah..damn me for wanting to be a fireman for life. To help people. To serve...damn me.
You can still be a fireman for life but you've got to adapt with the job. That's the bottom line.
And I will mention this just because the timing is interesting.
"Considering becoming a fireman because I want to do something of value"
From my Twitter account only 2 days ago. Part of me possibly taking that job will require me to accept that the job comes with conditions like the ones we're talking about. It is what it is, I accept it until it becomes unacceptable.
Yeah..damn me for wanting to be a fireman for life. To help people. To serve...damn me.
You can still be a fireman for life but you've got to adapt with the job. That's the bottom line.
And I will mention this just because the timing is interesting.
"Considering becoming a fireman because I want to do something of value"
From my Twitter account only 2 days ago. Part of me possibly taking that job will require me to accept that the job comes with conditions like the ones we're talking about. It is what it is, I accept it until it becomes unacceptable.
Page: