Sexual discrimination/equal pay issue

woody01

Pete111 wrote: »

Don't be sorry Woody.

You posts are ever more amusing for their increasingly childlike content. What are you going to post about me next? That my degrees are worthless? that my last performance related bonus was an illusion? Frankly it's all getting rather silly, but in response to your blatant troll I will endeavour to respond in a vaguely grown up fashion. (though yes, I should know better)

Experience. Hmmmmm let me think.....

Over a decade in HR mate - which is basically 100% relevant. I deal with employment law each and every day and over the years have thoroughly enjoyed the fun and games ever changing legislation creates. I've also helped several friends expand their redundancy packages quite significantly due to overly confident management types thinking they know best and employment law is just flim flam - ring any bells old chap?

We HR bods are probably one of the best sounding boards re these type of questions. Simply put, we know what makes companies worry in the real world (ie not the world according to over opinionated and faceless plonkers on internet forums) and how to identify, mitigate or play on risk factors - it's what we do.

As such it's interesting and in some ways rewarding for me to cross the fence to try and give my opinion to an individual in a dispute against a company whilst laying out the pros and cons of a given approach. I know I have been helpful to others on this board as they have followed my advice and got positive results and/or enhanced pay outs which they have then posted about.

What I don't do is claim I know everything (I don't) not that my opinion is fact (it isn't and FYI nor is yours despite you really really wanting it to be) or draw wide ranging and ridiculous conclusions of a posters abilities/qualifications/experience from a couple of posts that I disagree with.

Finally, A shortlist of some of the relevant 'Stupid' companies I have worked for prior to my current role who have made pay offs in similar situations to that posted by Hedger

Arriva.
BP.
Virgin.

All small insignificant firms with absolutely no access to lawyers I'm sure. In fact I imagine they have all gone bust by now due to their policy of not taking every single claim against them all the way to tribunal....




P
PS Damn! I wasn't posting on this thread again was I?

How on earth can you have over a decade in HR when you so clearly have your facts wrong?

Firstly:
Arriva
Virgin
They are hardly shining lights are they now.

BP - Did you make the tea in the HR department?

I am just stunned at how inaccurate your advice has been (especially looking at your last 'claim to fame').

Basically, if Hedger follows your advice, he will spend alot of money on legal fees and get absolutely nowhere.

I don't care if Hedger decides to follow the HR God you procalim to be. In fact, i will find it amusing if he does.
We will then see how little you really know.

hedger

woody01 wrote: »

How on earth can you have over a decade in HR when you so clearly have your facts wrong?

Firstly:
Arriva
Virgin
They are hardly shining lights are they now.

BP - Did you make the tea in the HR department?

I am just stunned at how inaccurate your advice has been (especially looking at your last 'claim to fame').

Basically, if Hedger follows your advice, he will spend alot of money on legal fees and get absolutely nowhere.

I don't care if Hedger decides to follow the HR God you procalim to be. In fact, i will find it amusing if he does.
We will then see how little you really know.

we will be following the advice of the Eq comm and a solicitor not a guy off the internet. anyway Pete hasnt offered any advice - he has sensibly commented on the issue and agreed with the way we are approaching it. you seem to think that you know everything and to you equal pay and unfair dismissal cases have never happened in the UK.

Spirit_2

hedger wrote: »

another question. what are the laws regarding replacing a position in a company? the H&S manager left about 1 year ago and wasnt immediately replaced. a few months later the company put a H&S advisor into his place without interviews or selection process. no-one else given the opportunity to apply for it (despite being as well qualified and experienced). im just curious, is this allowed?

Yes, it is allowed. It might irritate existing staff, and there may be better practice, but its not legislated against.

Pete111

Morning Woody - how are you on this lovely day?

Re your last post I'm a bit concerned, the level of uninformed bile fell far short of your usual standards. However I was pleased to note that you also cannot spell simple words....

I don't care if Hedger decides to follow the HR God you procalim to be.

....though I quite like the idea of being an 'HR God'. I can see it now
"I smite thee with an 18 page recruitment spreadsheet" etc etc

As for your instant dismissal of the aforementioned companies I have worked for

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

That bit was quality to be fair. Oh and I'm sure I did make some tea at BP at some point. I like tea.

Right must dash old sport. I have a queue of people forming outside my office and they are all no doubt in need of some shockingly bad HR advice. Mustn't disappoint the masses!

Toodles.

P

bendix

hedger wrote: »

another question. what are the laws regarding replacing a position in a company? the H&S manager left about 1 year ago and wasnt immediately replaced. a few months later the company put a H&S advisor into his place without interviews or selection process. no-one else given the opportunity to apply for it (despite being as well qualified and experienced). im just curious, is this allowed?

Yes, it is.

In fact, there is nothing to stop a company making a role redundant, and then deciding a month later that they now need the role and to hire someone completely new into it.

And there is certainly no legal obligation for any company to interview anyone before giving them a job, or opening it up to others. If a firm decides they want someone, they can hire them at their will.

Philosophically, you seem to be coming at this from the wrong viewpoint. Your questions suggest that because someone has the skills and experience for a job, then they automatically have a right to get that job or have a chance to apply for it. They don't. The employer can pick and choose who they like - it is, after all, their money.

Pete111

Fraid so Hedger.

Many firms will open vacancies to existing staff as a matter of policy but they don't have to do this by law.

bendix

Not just existing staff members either. It can be anyone at all. Like I said before, there is no obligation of any firm to hire anyone, to interview hirees or whatever. They can do what they want.

Caveat - there may be some different rules around this issue in the public sector. In fact, I suspect there is. When I read the free papers in London each morning I'm struck by the fact that the only jobs advertised are public sector who, I believe, have to advertise vacancies by law, thus wasting even more public money.

bendix

wasnt hedger and his wife meant to be meeting the bosses yesterday (monday).

I'm surprised there has been no report back on that meeting.

Or am I?

woody01

Once again Pete shows his lack of worth.
Even someone such as you can surely differentiate between a typo and a spelling mistake. (or not)

1984ReturnsForReal_2

bendix wrote: »

wasnt hedger and his wife meant to be meeting the bosses yesterday (monday).

Yep.


Maybe they found out she spent all her time at work building a case instead of working???


:rotfl:



(joke)