JoeLeg

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > East Dulwich will never attract large chain shops, > simple as that. Also, I see no evidence of Costa > trying to relocate to the Londis site, and I > monitor the planning portal daily. Daily? Seriously? I genuinely wish I had that kind of spare time... > > Any attempt to remove Londis will be met with > strong opposition. Lots of elderly people rely on > this shop. > > Louisa. As I understand it (and of course I could be wrong), it's Londis that are thinking of vacating because the site is no longer profitable enough for them? The opening of M+S has had an effect on their business, and though many people do use it, the overheads of running a 24 hour store must be considerable.

Again, an important point about big chains is that they will support loss-making sites on an individual basis in order to have a presence in an area, sometimes purely to deny the site to a competitor. Their financial calculations move to a very different beat than those of independents and even small chains, so while we might (quite reasonably) question whether an area can support it, the company concerned may have a very different definition of success.

A lot of the big coffee chains have been known to open up in defiance of licensing regulations, and continue to pay the fines while they fight for change is use. The Starbucks in Blackheath village is a prime example; they simply opened in a building that was not licenced for it, because the continual fines they incurred were a costcthe company as a whole was willing to pay. Eventually the council relented and granted change of use. Now, if I were cynical I might comment on the link between a council receiving a load of money from the fines for a fight it knows it will eventually lose anyway but stringing it put as long as possible...The point is that Costa may be willing to chance their arm, in the hope that the council grants permission retrospectively.

That?s a terrible idea. For starters, have you any idea what it would do to traffic on those roads you mentioned, plus do you imclude buses and delivery vehicles in that? There are so many things wrong with that idea it?s hard to know where to start?!

Don?t worry mate, there?s enough clues in your posting history for anyone to work out exactly which one your house is! 😉

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?Just a guy? What?s your point?

Wow, never had UG down as such a snowflake...

Classy as ever Foxy...

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a load of bollocks. We are talking 4cm. The > poor guy seems to have gone out of his way to try > to resolve things, and the neighbour has refused > mediation. > > Having been involved in a disagreement with a > "builder" who also refused mediation, I have every > sympathy. > > Why would somebody who thought they were in the > right refuse mediation? Playing ?Devils Advocate? for a moment, it could be argued that this is like IP law - if you don?t defend something consistently and continuously you may lose the right to it. The neighbour may feel that whether it is 4cm, 4m or 4mm, it matters not - an encroachment has taken place on their land and they want it rectified. Technically (and I stress the word technically) they are correct; you really, really are not supposed to do that, even slightly. All that said, I agree that refusal to attend any mediation is the best path to everyone else thinking you?re a grade A plonker, to put it mildly.

PM?d you. Twice. Because I got the first one wrong...

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Discussion- with rude people making personal > insults just like last year when Brexit was > accomplished- At which point you started to insult Remain voters quote merrily, so take a look at yourself. why should I waste my time. This > just proves your predictability. From the guy who regularly links anything from the continent with everything wrong with the UK...does it never occur to you that we may have created some of these problems ourselves, and that populism always blames others for its own failings? > If the WTD is so great why are there so many > French people working in the UK then?- Link please? How many French people are here. As you?ve so often been asked on the past, please back up your assertions. So that > THEY themselves can work when THEY want. I heard a > youngster boasting about how he had notched up 75 > hours of work and now can afford to get something > he wants. Right. So you?ve missed the point. Anyone can drop OUT of the WTD if they wish to, and go back into it again with (I think) 12 weeks notice to their employer, and the employer cannot tell them no. The point I was trying to make is that their are certain rights under the WTD which are now at in place, such as paid breaks, minimum time between shifts, cannot be forced to do more than 48 hours if they don?t want to and so on. It is NOTHING to do people working more if they want to, and your strawman argument is plain. I myself worked 2 jobs when I was single > after all- why sit and drink in the pub when you > can work behind the bar? > The only reason wages are low is because we are IN > the EU and the europeans here are keeping the > wages low- whilst they dispatch ALL the money they > earn OUT of the UK Again, please provide links to sources that prove this. Are you an economist? How do you know this? Can I you prove this assertion? You believe that wages will rise when we leave the EU, because British people will not tolerate lower wages. This will require British people to do the jobs that immigrants are doing now, and consumers to pay higher prices that businesses will charge when the wage bills go up. Personally I?m ok with that, are you?

KrackersMaracas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Joe leg - agreed - but how many interviews have > people done that essentially involved you doing > the work of a (paid) member of staff? For me - > none, and I wouldn?t respond well to the > suggestion. I?m starting to sound like a stuck record, but please understand that the nature of the industry is such that the trial shift *is* the interview, in real terms. If you can?t get on board with that concept - and I don?t think any less of anyone who still disagrees - then fair enough. It?s a unique industry in many ways, and things are expected of us throughout our careers that people in different jobs would not tolerate. > I agree that it?s hard to see if someone is a good > fit until you see them working - but the same > applies for office work, and that is why we have > probation periods - for which we receive full pay. > You cannot tell if someone can make a coffee, prep > food, or interact with customers - but you also > cannot tell if an IT person has experience of the > systems he claims to be proficient in, an > accountant can balance accounts, or a scheduler > can book trades until you actually see them doing > it. They are paid for this. Why not a hospitality > worker? Well, firstly let me refer the honourable poster to the points I made some moments ago, but let me also say that at the higher levels - executive chef, general managers, all manner of top level appointments, no, there is no trial shift, as the skills involved are very different. But at the lower levels what matters is your ability to perform under pressure, so we put people out there and tell them to show us what they have; and whether others like it or not there is simply no better substitute than watching someone for a couple of hours and making a judgement. Should we pay for all of it? Well, as I said before, I pay for anything over two hours and won?t kick up a fuss if the government says I have to do all of it. I don?t feel anger towards anybody who thinks I?m incorrect about any of it, but I would invite them to try running a restaurant first.

It may be incorporated into British law, but it?s the EU law which keeps it there. I do not believe big business will miss the opportunity to increase profits at the expense of workers rights. I hope I am proved wrong.

Burbage Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Work trials are essentially the ?actual > interview? > > for a position in the hospitality industry. > > As so many of my childhood heroes are discovering, > a long tradition of exploitative behaviour is no > defence. Er, sorry, but no. No no no no no.... In the hospitality industry, you can sit and talk to people all you like, but until you watch them prep food or interact with customers or make a coffee or carry plates you simply have no idea if the person is a good potential employee. You?re welcome to disagree with me, but you?ll be very wrong. Sorry, but it is not exploitative to ask people to demonstrate skills. I?m not Spacey or Weinstein and I don?t appreciate being compared to them. Asking someone to give two hours of their time for what is basically an interview is not unreasonable, and as I say I pay for anything more. How many interviews have you had in your life that you were paid for by a company that had not yet hired you?

I?m not saying IT staff are less likely to be problematic, simply pointing out that most jobs do not require people to work a trial shift to demonstrate basic competence for the position on offer - hospitality is different because you get a ?feel? very quickly (or at least you should if you know what you?re doing) for whether an individual is right for your establishment by observing how they work. You only need a couple of hours for this, which is why, if further analysis is needed, I always pay people if I require more of their time for any reason.

Yes, but what did you have to do to get the job in the first place? Were you interviewed at all? The same probationary periods exist in hospitality, but you can?t hire someone in the first place unless they know what they?re doing, and the only reliable way to demonstrate that is by physically doing the job for a couple of hours.

With the caveat that I don?t have an inherent problem with what Stewart McDonald proposes, let me just mention something. Work trials are essentially the ?actual interview? for a position in the hospitality industry. An applicant in any other job would not necessarily expect to be paid for the timer they spend in front of an interview panel, and in a role where you can only really demonstrate competence by doing the job, it could be argued that the work is the interview, because it basically is. I appreciate this is an issue with sincerely held feelings on both sides, and as I said before, I don?t think asking someone to give up two hours of their time is unreasonable. Any more than that I believe should be paid - which is what I do. That said, if the govt legislate that we have to pay all of it then I?m not going to argue.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Just wait until they move on to food hygiene, > > safety, environment, animal welfare, > The health and Safety at work act 1974 is ours. But the Working Time Directive is not, you ignoramus. > France STILL force feeds geese for its crappy > food. Ah yes, foie gras, that so widely consumed food delicacy! Got any more badly constructed straw man arguments? you doom-mongers are ridiculous- but so > predictable. Well quite a few people predicted that people like Dyson would start lobbying for Brexit to eradicate workers rights post-Brexit and this is a worrying early indicator. I?ve asked you this before but strangely got no answer - do you believe that we should incorporate the protections employees currently enjoy into British law post-Brexit? Or are you going to be predictable and not engage in discussion?

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm with smn143 and no-one can taint my review > with accusations of limited posts. > > A delightful place with just the most friendly > staff who are unashamedly child-friendly. Take > your screaming babies, every one. Hmmm, now...I wonder what on earth you could be trying to allude to!

Knowing what I do of the people who run the Begging Bowl, I?m sadly not at all surprised. Not a place I would ever give money to. On the general topic, I personally feel it?s not unreasonable to ask someone to spend up to two hours in a restaurant on a simple trial to establish basic competence. I see it essentially as a sign of good faith on both parties that they are serious about the application process; many people don?t turn up for interview, trial shift or even to start work after being offered a job. This short session should be about both sides getting to know each other, as the job application process goes both ways. Anything over two hours should be paid at a respectable rate, relative to the position in question. It?s certainly what I do.

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah, the time limit makes sense, but I don't see > how that disproves the practice in a caf?? > > I'm not saying that's what they do here though, of > course. Just saying that I think it would be > possible, in theory, to do it! > > I should add that the scrambled eggs at my work > are rubbery and disgusting, and I am sure they are > made with those nasty cartons of pasteurised > liquid egg. Bleugh. Your comment about your work eggs is probably why the cafe concerned don?t do it - I?d bet money the catering operation at your job make them with a pretreated egg product, and as you say they can be pretty bad. If people are liking what that cafe does then I?m sure they make them fresh. There is no hygienic way to do it ?en masse? without compromising flavour and texture.

Penguin68 essentially gets it. Eggs are classed as ?high-risk?; if you?re hot-holding them you need to adhere to a strict regime of timings and temperature. Most places use pre-treated egg products to minimise the risk, which isn?t noticeable once they?ve been cooked well done.

Hey Foxy, Ridiculous you say? Really? As I have no wish to derail the thread further, I?ve contacted you by PM to explain in detail why you are wrong.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DovertheRoad Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > With Scrambled Eggs, you can make a big pan of it > and keep it warm. (easy) > Then just put a dollop of it on toast and you are > done. I cannot begin to describe the multiplicity of ways in which doing that in a serving kitchen is an invitation to cross-contamination and general bacterial infection. Never seen it done, would not eat anywhere that does it. I?m not saying that?s what this place does; I have no idea why they only serve scrambled. > > Fried eggs need to be done individually. > Poached eggs are a little more tricky and chefy to > get them right. Poached eggs are the easiest of all, they aren?t ?cheffy? at all, and I speak as someone who runs a kitchen where we cook eggs fried, scrambled or poached to order for brunch, which on the weekend is a lot of eggs. All that being said, it?s good to hear people like the place.

PM?d you Local, thanks.