In comparison, they offered her furlough with a 50% pay cut on returning. When she asked for some time to think about it, they just sacked her. She’d been there less than 2 years so obvs that was fine.She was EA to an insanely wealthy guy - the company was a boutique law firm.
Sounds like bollocks. Its probably legal but its definitely a shitty way to treat staff.
Quote from: spidermonkey09 on April 30, 2020, 04:58:47 pmSounds like bollocks. Its probably legal but its definitely a shitty way to treat staff. Exactly. Pisses me off when big companies take advantage of the law and give their staff the shitty end of the stick. Just because they can doesn’t mean they should.
Quote from: Camo on April 30, 2020, 05:20:46 pmQuote from: spidermonkey09 on April 30, 2020, 04:58:47 pmSounds like bollocks. Its probably legal but its definitely a shitty way to treat staff. Exactly. Pisses me off when big companies take advantage of the law and give their staff the shitty end of the stick. Just because they can doesn’t mean they should.Don’t work for them then? I’m sure there are benefits in the good times that people are happy to enjoy.It’s so easy to knock big companies but for many people they offer a career path and opportunities.
Don’t work for them then? I’m sure there are benefits in the good times that people are happy to enjoy.It’s so easy to knock big companies but for many people they offer a career path and opportunities.
Quote from: T_B on April 30, 2020, 05:52:31 pmQuote from: Camo on April 30, 2020, 05:20:46 pmQuote from: spidermonkey09 on April 30, 2020, 04:58:47 pmSounds like bollocks. Its probably legal but its definitely a shitty way to treat staff. Exactly. Pisses me off when big companies take advantage of the law and give their staff the shitty end of the stick. Just because they can doesn’t mean they should.Don’t work for them then? I’m sure there are benefits in the good times that people are happy to enjoy.It’s so easy to knock big companies but for many people they offer a career path and opportunities.Offering a career path and opportunities is not justification for acting like a twat at other times though is it? No reason why a sensible conversation couldn't be had to avoid the scenario GME mentions. Or allow the employees to spread the leave they have accrued over the next few years. Forcing them to take any is poor. Forcing them to take next year's is the behaviour of wankers.As GME said its all about reciprocity. Unilaterally imposing forced leave is not a good start is it?
I took a couple of days leave and didn’t realise how much I actually needed the time off from the intensity of the day job. I’ll be taking a full week in May and intend to spend it sitting in the backyard with books and a well stocked beer fridge.
I was asked to accept a 1/3 pay cut as soon as the crisis hit before being furloughed, which obviously reduced the cut to 20%. I reluctantly accepted it for precisely the reasons you describe, but to be honest I don't see that forcing people to take holiday is motivated by a lot other than companies trying to pull a fast one on their staff. A better solution would have been to send an email around explaining that obviously they can't have everyone taking holiday at the same time and stating how many can be off at any one time.
intend to spend it sitting in the backyard with books and a well stocked beer fridge.
Quote from: spidermonkey09 on May 01, 2020, 01:33:07 pmI was asked to accept a 1/3 pay cut as soon as the crisis hit before being furloughed, which obviously reduced the cut to 20%. I reluctantly accepted it for precisely the reasons you describe, but to be honest I don't see that forcing people to take holiday is motivated by a lot other than companies trying to pull a fast one on their staff. A better solution would have been to send an email around explaining that obviously they can't have everyone taking holiday at the same time and stating how many can be off at any one time.But at any point in the year the overall 'output' (in whatever form) will be less as there's X% of staff on leave. Having two weeks where that's not the case may have a significant benefit? This is pretty marked at our place as there's only a handful of us and you really feel it when others are on leave. However, right now, I imagine that I could take two weeks off and the remainder of the staff could likely manage output as 'normal'.
I'm pretty sure the government at some point said that people could carry leave over?
The new rules apply where at the end of the holiday year it has been “not reasonably practicable” for a worker to take some or all of this leave “as a result of the effects of coronavirus (including on the worker, the employer or the wider economy or society)”.It is not clear what threshold must be met for it to be "not reasonably practicable" to take some or all of the holiday within the holiday year. The Acas: Coronavirus: advice for employers and employees suggests that, in their view, this could apply where a worker:is self-isolating and too sick to take holiday before the end of their leave yearhas been put on lay-off or furloughhas been required to continue working and could not take paid holiday.
That’s the thing though Tom. It’s all so ruthlessly efficient. I miss my inefficient downtime travelling between meetings and clients. On my bike or the tube or train reading and reflecting. I’ve been scheduling my own meetings or working sessions for 25 or 50 minutes so at least I have ten minutes between them. It’s still so draining.
I take the same registers and teach the same lessons at exactly the same times as my timetable from September.
That’s the thing though Tom. It’s all so ruthlessly efficient. I miss my inefficient downtime travelling between meetings and clients.
Does this actually work? I'm not teaching at the moment, but former colleagues are doing the same as you. It seems a really demoralising and unproductive way to work (they aren't being told to keep registers and mostly no kids are showing up).
I work in the independent sector.
What lecturing I’ve done so far on Zoom has been pretty unsatisfying- none of the instant feedback or feel of the room you get from doing it face to face.
This isn’t impacting myself but a friend’s work are enforcing a policy which seems a bit draconian. I wondered if anyone knew the legalities (though I’m assuming it’s all above board due to the size of the company...).