Somewhere (contract of employment) it should be written exactly what an “absence” is.
If it is all absences, then it looks like the OP is out of luck.
Yeah, a nasty term of employment, and probably better off elsewhere anyway.
If it is only certain “absences” that count? Like days off for your budgie`s birthday? Then that looks fair enough to me. Some companies would sack you for the first one!
Is the office guy doing his job correctly and applying the company rules? Or being an officious arse?
We don`t know.
We don`t know if the OP is being treated badly for summat out of his control, or if he has been on the skive twice already and now feels hard done by because he has genuine reason for being off!
Dont take this post too personally "bluesfan", I think Ive offended everyone equally.
Common do you know all the details about this case or are you like rest of us
but comments like put him on his back and calling the lad a turd and pointy shoes dont help
but they do show our industry in a bad lite to the rest of the country that already think
we are all Mr Angry with attitude and aggresion
SHYTOT:
Common do you know all the details about this case or are you like rest of us
but comments like put him on his back and calling the lad a turd and pointy shoes dont help
but they do show our industry in a bad lite to the rest of the country that already think
we are all Mr Angry with attitude and aggresion
My mother god bless her told me
believe nothing you are told
and only half of what you see
This driver may be a decent honest person
but likewise he may be a complete …
SHYTOT:
My mother god bless her told me
believe nothing you are told
and only half of what you see
This driver may be a decent honest person
but likewise he may be a complete …
By that convention is it not also possible that the office are being a tad unreasonable?
The best thing for my career was getting myself into a position where I dont need vast amounts of money because right now I have the power of knowing that I can just walk away if I dislike something and pop up in something else tomorrow. My old place (a two bit general haulage cram as many hours into a day outfit) were forever trying to push me but they couldn’t because I didn’t need the extra hours or favours off them, they’d threaten allsorts and I used to say no. They never followed through. I was never unreasonable, happy doing 12hrs but don’t push me more than that was all I looked for so far from unreasonable.
In this particular instance taking the OP at face value I’d say its unreasonable and borderline dangerous to have expected you in. That’s why I love my place right now - they are reasonable so long as you’re doing what you should be doing and leave you alone. I slightly overslept a few weeks back so I’d have ended up maybe 15 mins late for my work and the answer when I phoned up was “just take your time and get in safely” and I’d argue the ‘safely’ part of being ignored in this instance.
Totaly agree with you
but if what we are being told is true then the company were unreasonable
i would have taken their warning letter writen my notice on the flip side
and left after working my notice and wished them all the luck in the world
if you end up getting finished you should sing like a canary about the firm,name them anywhere and everywhere-you should be able to get the twit whose been warning you a lot of hate locally too. put the word out hes a kiddy fiddler
Sounds like they’re starting the disciplinary procedures route, think of it as a recorded warning shot across your bows to keep up a better attendance record, remember you might be counting on a decent reference from this lot if you get the offer of a plum job in the future, the same applies if former collegues at another job are asked unofficially about you, if the job’s a top tier number is your former colleague going to give you a glowing ref if it might bite him in the arse?..i mention this because exactly the latter good report from a trusted employee who i’d previously worked with helped me into what was at the time a dead man’s shoes position, those already in such jobs if they have an ounce of common tend to do their best to see it lasts forever.
Having worked at various places over the years, the current is the first/only job i’ve had where full salary applies from day 1, we have the odd spate of sickies and always from the same people, others have decades of never missing a day, other places i’ve worked where sick pay was the bare min and probably (i have no idea cos never claimed sick) not paid for the the first so many days anyway absenteeism simply didn’t happen.
By all means speak to the union, but it might serve you better to just accept the warning and move on into the new year hoping to improve your attendance record.
Conor:
It’s a written warning, literally a non-event. I’d take it off them then in front of them wipe my arse with it (obviously not dropping your keks but you get what I mean), slap it back on the desk and tell them if that’s how they treat employees who’ve just been in a car vs HGV accident they can shove their written warning and the job where the sun don’t shine.
I wouldn’t want to be working for a company like that and nobody else should either. Spread the word good and wide about them, people need to know. And then when they’re finding it hard to recruit as a result then things may change.
Firstly don’t underestimate the implications of written warnings.They are the final steps required for termination of employment.
Also bearing in mind that being sacked from a job can remove any claim for benefits.Problem employers are a bit like problem neighbours with the difference that unlike problem neighbours you can’t be held accountable for ditching the problem and leaving someone else to take it over.
This is one of those occasions when it is ( was ) probably better to jump before you’re pushed by running away from any such draconian employment clause before it inevitably bites you at some point.
Just as with hindsight I should have run a mile as soon as my former employers imposed an untenable duties regime with the help of their union stooges.Ironically with previous commendations for my driving and attendance record.
As in my case at the time it’s probably too late in this case for the OP.His options are catastrophically limited once ensnared in the disciplinary protocols which will follow him regardless whether he’s looking for a new job and/or entering a claim for benefits.
The question why did you leave your previous job applies in either case.That question would obviously have been better and easier answered before and without leaving under the cloud of, waiting until it turns into a disciplinary dispute.
As I tried ( unsuccessfully) to explain to Switchlogic numerous times.But with hindsight ironically he was right I should have run and not look back as soon as I got wind of the unacceptable terms and conditions which the union foisted on me.Rather than waiting for the issue to go nuclear and having to back down.
It’s an awful catch 22 and all the bravado in the world ain’t going to fix it more like just make it worse.
Franglais:
Somewhere (contract of employment) it should be written exactly what an “absence” is.
If it is all absences, then it looks like the OP is out of luck.
Yeah, a nasty term of employment, and probably better off elsewhere anyway.
If it is only certain “absences” that count? Like days off for your budgie`s birthday? Then that looks fair enough to me. Some companies would sack you for the first one!
Is the office guy doing his job correctly and applying the company rules? Or being an officious arse?
We don`t know.
We don`t know if the OP is being treated badly for summat out of his control, or if he has been on the skive twice already and now feels hard done by because he has genuine reason for being off!
Dont take this post too personally "bluesfan", I think Ive offended everyone equally.
I could quite believe that the union would be stupid, or worse, enough to buy such a clause.
Basically in the case of terms and conditions imposed by collective agreement you’re stuffed.The OPs problem is with the union not the employer.As he’ll find out when he’s at the wrong end of a disciplinary with the union taking the side of the employer.
Obviously the union negotiating a sick pay regime and the employers then wanting to minimise payouts might explain such a toxic environment.
In my experience road transport unions specifically are more trouble than they are worth more likely to sign up for retrograde t’s and c’s than anything worthwhile.
My guess is that train drivers ain’t under a 3 absences and out regime.
Franglais:
Somewhere (contract of employment) it should be written exactly what an “absence” is.
If it is all absences, then it looks like the OP is out of luck.
Yeah, a nasty term of employment, and probably better off elsewhere anyway.
If it is only certain “absences” that count? Like days off for your budgie`s birthday? Then that looks fair enough to me. Some companies would sack you for the first one!
Is the office guy doing his job correctly and applying the company rules? Or being an officious arse?
We don`t know.
We don`t know if the OP is being treated badly for summat out of his control, or if he has been on the skive twice already and now feels hard done by because he has genuine reason for being off!
Dont take this post too personally "bluesfan", I think Ive offended everyone equally.
I could quite believe that the union would be stupid, or worse, enough to buy such a clause.
Basically in the case of terms and conditions imposed by collective agreement you’re stuffed.The OPs problem is with the union not the employer.As he’ll find out when he’s at the wrong end of a disciplinary with the union taking the side of the employer.
Obviously the union negotiating a sick pay regime and the employers then wanting to minimise payouts might explain such a toxic environment.
In my experience road transport unions specifically are more trouble than they are worth more likely to sign up for retrograde t’s and c’s than anything worthwhile.
My guess is that train drivers ain’t under a 3 absences and out regime.
What makes you assume that “the union” negotiated and agreed to any contract of employment?
Many companies set up C of E on a “like it or lump it” basis.
The OP suggests he is a member of a union. That doesnt mean the union has a seat in the boardroom. This isnt Germany or Sweden!
Franglais:
Somewhere (contract of employment) it should be written exactly what an “absence” is.
If it is all absences, then it looks like the OP is out of luck.
Yeah, a nasty term of employment, and probably better off elsewhere anyway.
If it is only certain “absences” that count? Like days off for your budgie`s birthday? Then that looks fair enough to me. Some companies would sack you for the first one!
Is the office guy doing his job correctly and applying the company rules? Or being an officious arse?
We don`t know.
We don`t know if the OP is being treated badly for summat out of his control, or if he has been on the skive twice already and now feels hard done by because he has genuine reason for being off!
Dont take this post too personally "bluesfan", I think Ive offended everyone equally.
I could quite believe that the union would be stupid, or worse, enough to buy such a clause.
Basically in the case of terms and conditions imposed by collective agreement you’re stuffed.The OPs problem is with the union not the employer.As he’ll find out when he’s at the wrong end of a disciplinary with the union taking the side of the employer.
Obviously the union negotiating a sick pay regime and the employers then wanting to minimise payouts might explain such a toxic environment.
In my experience road transport unions specifically are more trouble than they are worth more likely to sign up for retrograde t’s and c’s than anything worthwhile.
My guess is that train drivers ain’t under a 3 absences and out regime.
What makes you assume that “the union” negotiated and agreed to any contract of employment?
Many companies set up C of E on a “like it or lump it” basis.
The OP suggests he is a member of a union. That doesnt mean the union has a seat in the boardroom. This isnt Germany or Sweden!
It’s reasonable to assume that membership equates with union recognition for collective bargaining purposes in the particular workplace or what would be the point.
Experience tells me that road transport unions are more likely to agree to and thereby impose retrograde t and c’s on truck drivers than rail unions on train drivers
Conor:
It’s a written warning, literally a non-event. I’d take it off them then in front of them wipe my arse with it (obviously not dropping your keks but you get what I mean), slap it back on the desk and tell them if that’s how they treat employees who’ve just been in a car vs HGV accident they can shove their written warning and the job where the sun don’t shine.
I wouldn’t want to be working for a company like that and nobody else should either. Spread the word good and wide about them, people need to know. And then when they’re finding it hard to recruit as a result then things may change.
Firstly don’t underestimate the implications of written warnings.They are the final steps required for termination of employment.
Also bearing in mind that being sacked from a job can remove any claim for benefits.Problem employers are a bit like problem neighbours with the difference that unlike problem neighbours you can’t be held accountable for ditching the problem and leaving someone else to take it over.
This is one of those occasions when it is ( was ) probably better to jump before you’re pushed by running away from any such draconian employment clause before it inevitably bites you at some point.
Just as with hindsight I should have run a mile as soon as my former employers imposed an untenable duties regime with the help of their union stooges.Ironically with previous commendations for my driving and attendance record.
As in my case at the time it’s probably too late in this case for the OP.His options are catastrophically limited once ensnared in the disciplinary protocols which will follow him regardless whether he’s looking for a new job and/or entering a claim for benefits.
The question why did you leave your previous job applies in either case.That question would obviously have been better and easier answered before and without leaving under the cloud of, waiting until it turns into a disciplinary dispute.
As I tried ( unsuccessfully) to explain to Switchlogic numerous times.But with hindsight ironically he was right I should have run and not look back as soon as I got wind of the unacceptable terms and conditions which the union foisted on me.Rather than waiting for the issue to go nuclear and having to back down.
It’s an awful catch 22 and all the bravado in the world ain’t going to fix it more like just make it worse.
This reply is based on your vast experience in the industry, during the past quarter of a century.
Gawd I hope the new forum has a sarcastic emoji.
Carryfast:
It’s reasonable to assume that membership equates with union recognition for collective bargaining purposes in the particular workplace
Why?
Carryfast:
or what would be the point.
Unions, whether they have a large or small presence in any particular workplace, are able to give legal advice, employment law, and support to members.
It might be beneficial to be a union member even if you are the only one in your company.
Carryfast:
Experience tells me that road transport unions are more likely to agree to and thereby impose retrograde t and c’s on truck drivers than rail unions on train drivers
When did you last attend a union meeting to put forward your point of view?
What experience do you have of membership of rail unions?
Carryfast:
It’s reasonable to assume that membership equates with union recognition for collective bargaining purposes in the particular workplace
Why?
Carryfast:
or what would be the point.
Unions, whether they have a large or small presence in any particular workplace, are able to give legal advice, employment law, and support to members.
It might be beneficial to be a union member even if you are the only one in your company.
Carryfast:
Experience tells me that road transport unions are more likely to agree to and thereby impose retrograde t and c’s on truck drivers than rail unions on train drivers
When did you last attend a union meeting to put forward your point of view?
What experience do you have of membership of rail unions?
When did knowledge or experience become a prerequisite for Carryfast mouthing of and considering himself an expert?
Carryfast:
It’s reasonable to assume that membership equates with union recognition for collective bargaining purposes in the particular workplace
Why?
Carryfast:
or what would be the point.
Unions, whether they have a large or small presence in any particular workplace, are able to give legal advice, employment law, and support to members.
It might be beneficial to be a union member even if you are the only one in your company.
Carryfast:
Experience tells me that road transport unions are more likely to agree to and thereby impose retrograde t and c’s on truck drivers than rail unions on train drivers
When did you last attend a union meeting to put forward your point of view?
What experience do you have of membership of rail unions?
You’re saying that I need experience of being a train driver to know that ASLEF or RMT would never agree to freight train drivers being used for loading and tipping containers let alone handball.
Or a 3 absences in a year and you’re out regime.
The OP can clarify the exact level of union involvement and powers in the particular workplace he’s referring to.
Having said that I’ve got my doubts regarding a truck driver getting into a sideswipe situation v a predictably lane changing truck.IE was lane 3 clear to move to or just back off having anticipated such a problem at an entry slip road ?.
Carryfast:
You’re saying that I need experience of being a train driver to know that ASLEF or RMT would never agree to freight train drivers being used for loading and tipping containers let alone handball.
No, I`m not saying that.
You said you had experience of road and rail unions.
Carryfast:
Experience tells me that road transport unions are more likely to agree to and thereby impose retrograde t and c’s on truck drivers than rail unions on train drivers
I was challenging that.
And I`ll repeat the question, what experience have you had of road and/or rail unions in the past 10 years? Past 20 years?
You want to tell us what you have read, or seen on YouTube? Wanna pass on opinions? Fine, but dont kid on its “experience”.
Carryfast:
You’re saying that I need experience of being a train driver to know that ASLEF or RMT would never agree to freight train drivers being used for loading and tipping containers let alone handball.
No, I`m not saying that.
You said you had experience of road and rail unions.
Carryfast:
Experience tells me that road transport unions are more likely to agree to and thereby impose retrograde t and c’s on truck drivers than rail unions on train drivers
I was challenging that.
And I`ll repeat the question, what experience have you had of road and/or rail unions in the past 10 years? Past 20 years?
You want to tell us what you have read, or seen on YouTube? Wanna pass on opinions? Fine, but dont kid on its “experience”.
I didn’t say I’ve got experience of rail unions but even you obviously agree that my conclusions regarding t and c’s for their members are correct ?.
I have got experience of being sold down the river by scumbag road transport unions to the point of it directly wrecking my back.
Why ask me about the OPs situation regarding the/his ‘union’ when the OP is obviously able to clarify that for himself.Ive only asked the question.
My experience of the union TGWU/Unite is over many decades, at the places i’ve worked with collective bargaining a degree of common sense applies from not only most of the union members but also the union reps…ie when a decent pay offer arrives they’ll often advise acceptance when some of the more shall we say challenged colleagues (typically the wingers) seems to think there’s a bottomless well of money can be drawn from…without the effort of providing some value for money for the company
Its not the union or the drivers capitulating or bending over its a case of getting the job done to make sure the customers requirements are met, what many people forget is that its not the chairman or the directors or the managers or the staff or the union who’s the most important person or group there, its the customer because without them none of the above will have their nice job they currently enjoy for much longer.
I’ve known union stewards to have quiet words with ■■■■ takers, some things are best dealt with like this and kept away from management, once things become official they get entered on personell files.
