Should this be reported?

Zazen999

jamespir wrote: »

i wouldnt do it no but is reporting it gonna make the situatuon any better?

not only has the childs father got to be culprable the employers are too
so surely the employers have taken this into account before agreeing unless there as thick as you !!


why cant this "freind " keep his nose on the job instead of worrying whose bringing their kids to work

As thick as me - oh dear, is that the best you can come up with. At least, I think that is what you have written, in amongst all those spelling 'issues' that you have.

The employer is breaking several laws; ergo it needs reporting. Hiding under a blankie isn't going to change anything in life. Fortunately, the OP and their chum have identified this and are hopefully going to do something about it.

p.s.....they ARE trying to keep their nose on the job; their proper job - which isn't being a care assistant.

jamespir

wuckfit wrote: »

Believe it or not, most employers DO NOT know what they can and cannot do. The smart employers usually contact an employment-speciality lawyer, or have one on the payroll to advise them of employment issues. I've worked for some absolute numbskulls, who know absolutely nothing about employment law, hence they consulted their 'legal team' before doing anything suspect.

In this case:
1.There's Health and Safety from the POV of gettting her out in the event of an emergency
2. Then there's the other Health and Safety issues of risk assessment and management for dealing with her specialist care, including toileting needs.
Plus, 3, the requirement for CRB checking.
I also suspect there may be a possible case for this being a substative alteration to contracts with respect to variation of duties.

So that's at least three areas of concern.

how do we know thye havent weve only got the "freinds" account as given to us by the op

WASHER

jamespir wrote: »

i wouldnt do it no but is reporting it gonna make the situatuon any better?

not only has the childs father got to be culprable the employers are too
so surely the employers have taken this into account before agreeing unless there as thick as you !!




why cant this "freind " keep his nose on the job instead of worrying whose bringing their kids to work

The friend is expected to look after this person, not asked but expected.

I would expect you to adhere to Martins forum etiquette, no need to call anyone thick. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but because people are disagreeing you with, doesn't give you the right to be rude.

SandC

As far as I can see it the issues are that the management have agreed to something that is non work related without involving the staff who have to deal with the situation all day long. They are relying on the good nature that most people have that nobody will say anything about this unsatisfactory position without looking nasty.

I presume that the OP's friend is worried about upsetting the applecart and making an enemy of management who are, quite frankly, expecting above and beyond of their staff. Just how does she broach the subject that it isn't in her job description to look after a disabled person whether they work there or not? It's an impossible imposition. I won't even get started on the legalities of the young adult not being an employee and all the problems that come with that.

I honestly don't know how it should be dealt with aside from a quiet word with the managers in question. They are not to know it's not acceptable unless someone tells them - though how they ever thought it was I don't know.

There is always the chance that they have been so accommodating to this man that they didn't know how to say no and they are perhaps waiting for someone to bring it up so they can do something about it.

jamespir

Zazen999 wrote: »

As thick as me - oh dear, is that the best you can come up with. At least, I think that is what you have written, in amongst all those spelling 'issues' that you have.

The employer is breaking several laws; ergo it needs reporting. Hiding under a blankie isn't going to change anything in life. Fortunately, the OP and their chum have identified this and are hopefully going to do something about it.

having spelling issues doesn't make me thick neither does it make me an idiot


the op and the so called "freind" have only one side of the argument the op should carry on doing what she's doing and the "freind" should report it to his line manager .......

wuckfit

jamespir wrote: »

i wouldnt do it no but is reporting it gonna make the situatuon any better?

Possibly, Social work might intervene and stop what is a wholly unneccessary intrusion on the rest of the office.

jamespir wrote: »

not only has the childs father got to be culprable the employers are too
so surely the employers have taken this into account before agreeing unless there as thick as you !!

You're assuming that they've taken it into account. Given that they wouldn't agree to a fire drill makes me suspect that they haven't. by the way it's "they're" not "there" for the contraction of "they are"

jamespir wrote: »

why cant this "freind " keep his nose on the job instead of worrying whose bringing their kids to work

oh, the inverted commas trick meaning : "I think this friend is imaginary, it's really you isn't it"

What if an unsubstatiated allegation of abuse was to be made against this friend? That is one reason why this friend could be concerned. Maybe their productivity is suffering as a result of the interruptions and they're worried about there being a chance of a poor appraisal.
(also please note "their", "there" and "they're" and correct useage thereof.)

misgrace

olias wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by WASHER
Who deals with the personal care whilst the carer isn't in the office.

I would feel very uncomfortable leaving my children in the company of my work colleagues, and they are abled bodied.

A friend of the worker, who works in the same building comes at dinner time to help with her food. Other than that the department has to help if she needs anything.

To the OP, sorry to be blunt, but what about when she needs her backside wiping after her toilet? Or a tampon changing?
Are any of you covered by insurance if you were to slip a disc whilst helping her onto the loo? Does her disability cause any other health problems or require her to take medication, who knows about/deals with this.

I think the whole situation is wrong and the management (and your colleague) have been completely in the wrong in putting you into this uncomfortable situation.

At the end of the day, what is your colleague doing whilst they are off work? Just having a break? If so, then they should be going through the proper channels to get some official respite care and not expecting a free service from their work colleagues when they are trying to get on with their own work.

Olias

Excellent post and excellent points.

I cannot believe that the staff are expected to look after the daughter, and do thier own work, not just that, its a bl00dy cheek expecting the staff to do this.
What if there was a fire, who would be responsible getting her out of the building?
Ok, if dad is allowed to bring DD and he is there as her main carer thats one thing, but to expect others whilst he's not even there.

Did the daughter do any work, or pretend to do any work, as in keeping her occupied, or is she just stuck there doing nothing?

Maybe a phone call is in order to the proper channels just find out if this is legal, you wouldnt have to mention the company, just find out first what the score is.

jamespir

WASHER wrote: »

The friend is expected to look after this person, not asked but expected.

I would expect you to adhere to Martins forum etiquette, no need to call anyone thick. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but because people are disagreeing you with, doesn't give you the right to be rude.

true they shouldn't call me an "weapons grade idiot" then they should treat me the way that they would like to be treated

MrsAnnie

jamespir wrote: »

i wouldnt do it no but is reporting it gonna make the situatuon any better?

not only has the childs father got to be culprable the employers are too
so surely the employers have taken this into account before agreeing unless there as thick as you !!




why cant this "freind " keep his nose on the job instead of worrying whose bringing their kids to work

My point exactly!!!! How can my friend keep his nose on the job when he is expected to supervise his colleagues child while at work?

If he and his two other colleagues did keep their noses on the job, then who would care for the young woman? Or haven't you thought that far?

jamespir

wuckfit wrote: »

Possibly, Social work might intervene and stop what is a wholly unneccessary intrusion on the rest of the office.


You're assuming that they've taken it into account. Given that they wouldn't agree to a fire drill makes me suspect that they haven't. by the way it's "they're" not "there" for the contraction of "they are"



oh, the inverted commas trick meaning : "I think this friend is imaginary, it's really you isn't it"

What if an unsubstatiated allegation of abuse was to be made against this friend? That is one reason why this friend could be concerned. Maybe their productivity is suffering as a result of the interruptions and they're worried about there being a chance of a poor appraisal.
(also please note "their", "there" and "they're" and correct useage thereof.)

why would they need to agree to a fire drill ? surely if they did they would handle it correctly as stated by their saftey officer