Hassle in the workplace

[TonyGosling]

[Emmanuel]

Sorry to reply so late. But int he response to the initial story. It is not just descrimination, it is censorship.
I do understand choosing to work where you work is privelge, but at the end of teh day we all have a choice where we put and earn our money.
Some people are so proud that they are paying their taxes.
Yet an alful amount of tax payers money is being placed in DEFENCE. To destroy peoples homes, kill children (both in the place of invasion and the soldiers)
Our refusal to submit starts with where we place our energies, our money and our general communications with those around us.
I suppose the more we keep silent about these pressing matters wherever we are the more people will continue to go along with the lies.
I actually start debates off about 911, in which many people happily want tot express how they feel about it, some prefer not to investigate as it upsets teh equilibrium of their lives, others are quite curious. Keep askign questions. I am not so good at being subtle, but by questioning the media, authority in general in a light handed way is the only way people will begin to step out of the prisions they are so heavily attatched to.
The cities are our prisons, as long as we keep working for and in those places of slavery , we cant complain when the walls become stronger and the shackles become tighter.

[gareth]

*Update*

The recruitment agency have (finally after some persistence) informed me that they or the employer won't be putting the reason for my dismissal in writing as they don't have to.

I will be attending my local CAB at the next available opportunity.

[Eckyboy]

Thats a new one gareth I have never heard of that one before. Even if you have worked in a company for under a year you are entitled to know why you have been dismissed. When you make a claim with the benefits agency they ask why you left your last employment. They then check this with the employer before deciding if you should get any money. This is from the ACAS website that spiv mentioned you should check:

"Right to receive a written statement of reasons for dismissal
The legislation gives most employees (with some exceptions - see Those who are not covered by the provisions relating to a written statement of reasons for dismissal, below) whose employment is terminated with or without notice, or whose limited-term contracts expire without being renewed, the right to receive from their employers, on request, a written statement of the reasons for dismissal or the non-renewal of their limited-term contracts. A limited-term contract is a contract for a fixed term or the performance of a specific task, or one which ends when a specified event does or does not occur. It is important to note that an employee who has been dismissed has no right to receive such a written statement unless he or she asks for one. The request can be oral or in writing. Employers are required to comply with an employee’s request for a written statement within 14 days of the request being made.

Employees dismissed at any time during pregnancy or statutory maternity or adoption leave are entitled to receive from their employer a written statement of the reasons for their dismissal, regardless of whether or not they have requested one, and regardless of their length of service.

The written statement can be used in evidence in any subsequent proceedings, for example in relation to a complaint of unfair dismissal.

Those who are not covered by the provisions relating to a written statement of reasons for dismissal
The right to a written statement of reasons for dismissal does not apply to:

anyone who is not an employee, for example an independent contractor or free-lance agent;
generally those who have not completed one year's continuous employment at the time of their effective date of termination (generally the last day on which the employee worked). For a fuller explanation of how to calculate the effective date of termination, see the document Unfairly dismissed?
masters and crew members engaged in share fishing who are paid solely by a share in the profits or gross earning of a fishing vessel;
members of the police service and the armed forces."

The law at the moment is a total joke and with all these stories of human rights cases you would think it would apply with employees as well.

[blackcat]

[scubadiver]

I myself am currently a temp and I wrote an email to Gareth saying that the agency were well within their rights to terminate his employment. After all, they have a reputation to look after and so does the business he worked for however passionate he (or the rest of us) may feel about speaking about it.

I told a couple of members of staff in my office about William's talk and I also went up to London for the Aug 11 demo in London. I said I was going to London but refused to say why only because I don't want to upset the apple cart.

I won't jeopardise my position when there is a time and place for everything. I will speak about 9/11 when I am not doing it on company time or as their representative.

But when I say I want a day off for Sept 11th people may start putting two and two together.

My 2p

PS Having said all that, Gareth's reply to my email did have a certain logic to it so we shall wait and see!

[telecasterisation]

Under UK law, temporary workers have no right to redundancy pay, to claim unfair dismissal or to take maternity leave.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4338656.stm


I view this that Gareth said something in the work environment that sparked controversy, this just happended to be about 911. This later culminated in two fellow workers having an argument in a semi-connected type of way. The company saw Gareth as being provocative and asked he be removed by contacting the agency he was hired through.

As nice as it would be to get 'free publicity' from championing Gareth's plight via a tabloid route, this is about a temp worker who got the boot for speaking out about a subject in the workplace which people didn't like.

I realise some view my comments as being trivial, which is cool, however, he has no right of redress, this is a legal cul-de-sac, consequently game over.

[marky 54]

[telecasterisation]

[marky 54]

[Disco_Destroyer]

Wow the DTI has had a name change???
http://www.berr.gov.uk/
But here is some interesting info, seems to hinge on the contract you signed!

[Disco_Destroyer]

and from the same DTI how about this for 'Newspeak'