Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
observer

Cheap Clothes?

Recommended Posts

Hey Mary, believe me I would love to be able to cut my labour costs especially the extortionate amount I have to pay the taxman (who in turn gives it to our MP's to spend on tv's and second homes. Unfortunately there is such a thing as a minimum wage which means if you are a UK based and operating company who need to work in the UK on various sites; you have no chance of ever becoming rich; unless of course you want to employ cheap Eastern Europeans... (I would rather shut down and go on the dole first.)

 

If however you can farm out expensive parts of your overheads such as telephone sales and support etc..... no problem. Farm it all off to India and such places and you make a fortune and everyone praises your success while slagging off the companies who actually stay here and try to make a go of things just because they have the cheek to employ some 17 year old kid on minimum wage who thinks he should be earning ?20.00 an hour.

 

A prominent Warrington Business man once told me a tory of how things tend to go when he employs someone. (He is in the entertainment business and is very good at it too)

 

The interview goes well and he tells prospective employee what he will be doing as a job.

Employee nods and agrees.

 

He tells prospective employee what his breaks will be on the job.

Employee nods and agrees

 

He tells prospective employee what his holiday entitlements will be.

Employee nods and agrees

 

He tells prospective employee what his hourly rate will be and how much he will earn per week.

Employee nods and agrees

 

He gives employee the job and hands him the uniform

 

Employee starts work and immediately looks for ways to do as little as possible

 

So begins the long employment struggle.

 

That is how things are. I battled with it for years. Fitting tracker devices in 5 of my vans to find out where lads are. Tracker says van is outside pub in Warrington. Employee tells me on the phone that he is on site in Salford....

 

Or the time one of my lads had a row with his girlfriend and drove my brand new Mercedes van into her parked car. Wrote off her car and smashed up my van. Whose insurance did it have to come out of?

 

5 Brand new Mercedes vans we had and after 12 months; every one had damage that required serious garage attention. Can I stop the costs for the damage out of someones wages? can I heck as like. ?19,000.00 a year for vehicle insurance we were paying at one time! so don't go whinging about minimum bloody wages!

 

I hate employing people but it is the only way I have to pay my mortgage! :lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baz J far be it for me to tell you how to run a business because, to be honest, I wouldn't know where to start. But I don't really think you can claim that having to provide your workforce with vans and tools come under employment costs. Thats like my employer claiming that he only bought the ship so that I had transportation from one port to another!! :wink::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol::lol: Not necessarily Asp. When I first started in my industry as an engineer and before that as an electrician, I used my own transport to get around and occasionally my employer paid me back some expenses to cover fuel costs. Never did I get expenses to cover the thousands of miles of excess wear and tear on the old Sierra! Tools I had to buy myself and to that end I still have a garage load of them!

 

My main point was though that it doesn't just cost an employer the amount of the minimum wage to employ someone it costs a heck of a lot more than that. Costs which have to be paid for up front before any potential gain from the new employee is realised.

 

You did point out about the costs of renting the vans but what comments would you make about the inept idiots who smash them up? What would happen to your captain if he beached the ship like that one did a few years ago down south or the warship around the same time?

 

The problem is, not one employee will ever take the can for doing something wrong and never in a million years would I see one actually offering to pay for any damage they have caused.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baz,

Stop taking things personally.

Most employers pay the least that they can to keep their costs down.

 

I worked for a local company who employed a few hundred, and one day they decided to employ temps to fill in at times. They started on 3 month contracts and then if suitable a rolling contract.

 

They were paid at a lower rate than the full time employees for doing the same job.

 

Do you think that is right?

 

I am NOT bleating about anything. Just suggesting that people in this country can be exploited as well.

People on minimum wage tend to have less ownership of their job than those who think they are getting a decent rate for the job.

 

By the way, what did you do about the lad who was outside the pub?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, what did you do about the lad who was outside the pub?

 

Well....

 

his van was outside the pub from the night before and he was supposed to be in Salford doing a job. The tracker told us where the van was so we sent one of the other guys in the office; with the spare keys to collect the van (It was outside Chevys on Manchester Road)

 

A while later, same employee phones in to say his van has been stolen from outside the site in Salford!!

 

Needless to say we informed him that he had been rumbled and that it was better for his future job prospects if he left with immediate effect rather than have us sack him!

 

The same lad did actually phone me a few eeks ago to see if there were any jobs going because he had just been made redundant!

 

True Story Peter.... you really couldn't make it up :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I worked for a local company who employed a few hundred, and one day they decided to employ temps to fill in at times. They started on 3 month contracts and then if suitable a rolling contract.

 

They were paid at a lower rate than the full time employees for doing the same job.

 

Do you think that is right?

 

 

Surely that all depends on wether the temporary staff are as productive as the full time staff? I personally would have paid them the same but I can understand there may be reasons why the weren't

 

One of the big issues with comparative pay rates is when people start comparing jobs and stating that the jobs are the same. I always get visions of the way more of our taxpayers money is being given in backdated awards because some union or other has won a case by comparing a dinner lady to a dustman or a kitchen assistant to a fireman.

 

Age an experience also comes into pay scales. I have often found that young lads spend about 10 minutes every hour texting or talking on mobiles. Smokers would never get a job with me because they spend about 10 minutes an hour outside having a fag. A young smoker would have absolutely no chance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the Captain (Master is the correct term actually) of the ship, and if I ran her aground without good reason I would expect to be shown the door!! Unfortunately there are a lot of people, and I include many crew members that I sail with, who treat other people's property with little or no respect. In fact the way some people act on board ship you wonder whether they treat their own homes the same way and if so what these homes are like! Perhaps you could make it a contract provision that your employees are responsible for any damage, other than fair wear and tear, they sustain to the vehicles. But perhaps employment law forbids this, I don't know. :roll::roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember the law as such, but isn't everyone entitled to 5 mins/hour R and R? (Rest and relaxation.)

 

And the cases I am referring to, they were doing exactly the same amount of work, using the same skills.

 

Baz,

any particular reason why you take on young lads as opposed to someone with responsibilities who needs the job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baz he must have a harder face than the man in the iron mask :D

 

You better believe it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baz he must have a harder face than the man in the iron mask :D

 

You better believe it!!

 

I know. :x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't remember the law as such, but isn't everyone entitled to 5 mins/hour R and R? (Rest and relaxation.)

 

And the cases I am referring to, they were doing exactly the same amount of work, using the same skills.

 

Baz,

any particular reason why you take on young lads as opposed to someone with responsibilities who needs the job?

 

Not really Peter. but then again everyone needs a job don't they? my youngest employee at the moment has a car and insurance to pay for as well as bottles of diamond white and hoodies to buy (he is 18) so he needs a job!

 

I have employed lads out of the Army with families and mortgages, I have employed experienced engineers with families and mortgages and I am about to take on another experienced lad in the next few weeks.

 

I do find that a lot of the experienced lads tend to think they know it all and try and do things "their way" My business partner and I tend to like to take on younger guys and train them up through the ranks so to speak. That way they know the whole spectrum of what is involved.

 

As I said before, we still take personel who are leaving the forces in the coming months and give them practical on site experience for their chosen trades

 

Why do you ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as breaks are concerned there are NO legal requirements for an employer to give a 5 minute break every hour

 

Working time Regulations- Regulation 12(1) says "where a workers daily working time is more than 6 hours he is entitled to a rest break". Regulation 12(2) says that this rest break must be "an uninterrupted period of not less that 20 minutes...".

 

Remember that a worker is also entitled to daily rest of 11 consecutive hours in each 24 hour period.

 

Note that the worker does not have to work 6 hours BEFORE he gets the break. If he is scheduled to work for 6 hours then the rest break is to be taken in the 6 hour period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was between the 4th and 5th hour were I worked.

 

As for the other, no reason, just curiosity.

Yes, when young you get to train them, but when older, they might value the job more.

At the end of the day, I would imagine getting someone with the right mind set, would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different rules apply at sea. We are entitled to a minimum of 10 hours rest in any 24 hour period to be taken in no more than 2 periods, one of which must be at least 6 hours. However we should have a minimum of 77 hours rest in a 7 day period. Thats a 91 hour week then boys!! :wink::wink::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...