Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A trusted friend of mine gives up some free time to act as a mentor assisting refugees to settle in London - and I don't mean Lauren Hill in case anyone was wondering.

The woman who's receiving assistance from my friend works at a (a supermarket), not the ED one but that doesn't matter for the sake of this tale.

Occasionally she turns up for work work to find out they need her to work in a different branch that day. (this supermarket) don't pay her whilst she's travelling to their other shop so she earns less that day and (the supermarket) save themselves an hours wages even though they asked her to travel.

Nasty (supermarket)!

I was never a fan but now I'll steer clear.

ap


(apologies, the supermarket's name has been removed, just in case. We are awaiting a reply from the supermarket involved to see what they say - the Administrator)

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/1126-afore-ye-shop-in-shop/
Share on other sites

Crikey!


AP I have just finished a bit of a contre temps with the Administrator about accusations of illegal behaviour on the part of shopkeepers.


What is alleged here is definately illegal; the company should be paying for both the time and the expenses, and if the journey covers a lunch break then probably food too.


Over to you Mark


UC

alachlan a company can no more have a policy of asking you to travel out of hours, than could a pub have a policy of not providing toilets. The law takes precedence; and as I understand it employees have a responsibility to travel and report to their normal site of work; everything else must be reimbursed.

a job with the level of compensation, responsibility and challenge which requires the odd short-notice trip abroad is surely one which factors in the need to do so - ie you're already paid good money in a decent job


People (temporary or not) on bare minimum wage should surely not be expected to do the same - that ?6 makes a big difference to your weekly budget if you are on minimum wage. PLus the reason they are being treated so badly is so that the likes of us on good money can enjoy our luxury juice/soap/whatever at lower prices.... doesn't make me feel good anyway...

Ultraconsultancy - it's even worse for people who are here and not allowed to work or get any benefits because of their immigration or asylum status, they still need to eat, and are ruthlessly exploited by unscrupulous bosses earning as little as ?20 per day for 10 - 12 hours.

alachlan -


dunno what you do but i also have to travel for work a lot and get similarly shafted re: travelling on Sundays etc - in fact, they even once made me stay in Houston for three extra days after a conference to save money on "stay-Saturday-night-discount" airfare (i naturally did my best to eradicate any savings to the company by going to the most expensive restaurants I could find and putting it on expenses)


however in my contract, it is made explicit that I will sometimes have to work outside of the normal office hours. So I can't really complain. I imagine this might be the same for you? Whereas it won't be for a supermarket worker.

Indeed it is contractual... Maybe you work at the same place! That said, I think most contracts, as well as the outside of office hours on an "occasional" basis clause, will have a place of work clause which will states a place within a certain mile radius of your central office/original hire location as being allowable... so maybe the supermarket worker does have a similar condition, if not necessarily covering the travel time part?

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
  • Latest Discussions

    • Girls In Your City - No Selfie - Anonymous Casual Dating https://SecreLocal.com [url=https://SecreLocal.com] Girls In Your City [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Selfie New Girls [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/molly-15.html]Molly[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/cheryl-blossom-48.html]Cheryl Blossom[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/carola-conymegan-116.html]Carola Conymegan[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/pupa-41.html]Pupa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/mia-candy-43.html]Mia Candy[/url]
    • This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez: The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution. This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".
    • @Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒
    • Revealing of what, exactly? I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events. The thread is about Mandelson. I knew he was a wrong ‘un all along, we all did; the Epstein shit just proves it. In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. As did a large proportion of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs who were personally vetted and approved by Mandelson.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...