My dodgy boss is trying every trick to get rid of me!!

liney

vaporate wrote: »

Cut the mickey mouse crap. It is obvious that the employer wants to employ someone in his own family, rather than a employee.

So lets cut the crap and lets get to the point.

His Nephew already works there. He is not trying to sack the OP in order to give his nephew a job. We have no idea how long the Nephew has worked there; longer than the OP for all we know.

The point is simply that an employer can be rid of an employee with relative ease and still work within the rules regardless of what the OP thinks. The employer is more likely to want to be rid of an employee with an attitude like yours, erm I mean hers.;)

juliescot

vaporate - your debating skills leave much to be desired.

I find your posts abusive - hence I have reported them.

mikey72

Be fair to Vaporate.
He had to insult me in two separate postings.
That is the true meaning of "can't string together two sentences"
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

vaporate wrote: »

Cut the mickey mouse crap. It is obvious that the employer wants to employ someone in his own family, rather than a employee.

So lets cut the crap and lets get to the point.

vaporate wrote: »

Oh come on you amateur. The OP really wants to work for a pratt who would cover his own backside for his nephew rather han a hard working worker.

Take a sniff of reality.

Zazen999

I've always wanted to han a hard working worker. Where do I sign?

vaporate

mikey72 wrote: »

Be fair to Vaporate.
He had to insult me in two separate postings.
That is the true meaning of "can't string together two sentences"
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Talking crap still? (p.s your post was doubly stupid so needed the attention of two head strong comments ;0)

vaporate

liney wrote: »

His Nephew already works there. He is not trying to sack the OP in order to give his nephew a job. We have no idea how long the Nephew has worked there; longer than the OP for all we know.

The point is simply that an employer can be rid of an employee with relative ease and still work within the rules regardless of what the OP thinks. The employer is more likely to want to be rid of an employee with an attitude like yours, erm I mean hers.;)

lol, Yeh right, I wouldnt work for a mickey mouse idiot employer like this my friend

Dave101t

hmm, the OP registered just to post this vent, and hasnt been back on since?
it seems they are female, with the male boss, perhaps there is more here as a professional woman with 9 years employment simply wouldnt post like that unless there was more to it.
still, on the face of it, let him do what he wants, if he wants you to change jobs slightly, let him put a new contract in front of you. then decline it. but keep copies of all documents and whatever happens, you have a great case for tribunal. forget ACAS, tribunals will pay compensation which he will want to avoid at all costs. (get it?!)

1984ReturnsForReal_2

yawnnnnn


troll post.......

bendix

Pete111 wrote: »

With you on the latter bit Bendix but out of interest why the issue with WFH? Some roles can genuinely allow for this these days and as long as the work is done well and on time I can't see an issue.

IT based roles especially can attract personality types who work best alone and on the plus side, the employer doesn't have to fork out for the office space!

P

You work in HR, Pete, so you know that there are some employees who just try to take the p**s all the time. Everything is their right, yet assume very little responsibility in turn.

I just can't help thinking that a role that has entailed working from home for just two days a week - presumably for the last few years by the sound of the OP - is one of those. It's so easy to sit under the radar of normal management, and in this case at least it has manifested into the attitude displayed by the OP.

The OP even seems resentful that they have to come to the office for their meeting.

Occasional WFH arrangements are fine. Some of my staff have them, but to institutionalise as an almost permanent arrangement is a big mistake. It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer works from home after deliberately gaining weight.

Let's read between the lines here. It sounds like some small or mid-sized enterprise, and the OP's job is marginal to it. She/he has somehow concocted this cushy number and, while things have been going good for the company, she/he has got away with it because - at two days a week - it's hardly worth dealing with as a business issue.

But now times are tougher, and the business owner has to deal with it, and the OP is resentful that they are going to be pushed off the gravy train.

THAT is what we talking about here.

Pete111

bendix wrote: »

You work in HR, Pete, so you know that there are some employees who just try to take the p**s all the time. Everything is their right, yet assume very little responsibility in turn.

I just can't help thinking that a role that has entailed working from home for just two days a week - presumably for the last few years by the sound of the OP - is one of those. It's so easy to sit under the radar of normal management, and in this case at least it has manifested into the attitude displayed by the OP.

The OP even seems resentful that they have to come to the office for their meeting.

Occasional WFH arrangements are fine. Some of my staff have them, but to institutionalise as an almost permanent arrangement is a big mistake. It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer works from home after deliberately gaining weight.

Let's read between the lines here. It sounds like some small or mid-sized enterprise, and the OP's job is marginal to it. She/he has somehow concocted this cushy number and, while things have been going good for the company, she/he has got away with it because - at two days a week - it's hardly worth dealing with as a business issue.

But now times are tougher, and the business owner has to deal with it, and the OP is resentful that they are going to be pushed off the gravy train.

THAT is what we talking about here.

Fair enough Bendix

Your orginal comment seemed to imply that all WFH arrangements were fundamentally bad thats all - Totally with you on some people taking the mickey re this, as you say I deal with it reguarly.

On the flip side, and in a previous role, we moved some field based staff from officially being based in the office to operating from home - ie they did office work there and could drive to clients etc using their home as a formal base. We put in company paid for broadband etc too.

We thought, as the main office was many miles away from where most of them lived, that they would be absolutely over the moon but it was incredible, we got a list of demands from these guys demanding amongst other things, tea and coffee allowances, subsidised electricity, lightbulb allowances and (and this was my favorite) a 'carpet wearing out' subsidy.

You couldn't make it up!!
P