garden leave from handing in mynotice

Jinx

Uncertain wrote: »

You can't normally do that on garden leave (unless the old employer agrees) as, in theory, you could be called in to work at a moment's notice.

I agree its perhaps not ideal- however in my experiences of others garden leave they have never been called in. A phone call re a project, occasionally but never asked to actually come to work....

I guess it may depend on how much the OP needs the money!

suited-aces

Just a quick observation, sarel is trained in law so can very easily profit from giving over time to provide advice, but instead comes on here and gives it for free to those who need it, and subsequently is criticised for being too accurate, or too prompt, with that advice.

That is a bit warped imho.

DVardysShadow

suited-aces wrote: »

Just a quick observation, sarel is trained in law so can very easily profit from giving over time to provide advice, but instead comes on here and gives it for free to those who need it, and subsequently is criticised for being too accurate, or too prompt, with that advice.

That is a bit warped imho.

You are dead right. Only if the legal side is all there is to it.

SarEl

DVardysShadow wrote: »

You are dead right. Only if the legal side is all there is to it.

You have totally ignored the fact that I did not give a legal answer. I gave an opinion that consisted of advising the OP that telling their employer was not the best approach to this (because it causes confrontation), and asking would be more conducive to getting an an answer. Are you suggesting that going in with both barrels blazing telling the employer that they want commission (which is discretionary in the contractual terms) is actually the best approach to getting some sort of agreement with the employer.

I did not notice, either, that my response in any way ended a debate - lots of people posted their own opinions after me. In what way did this close down any debate?

As for the suggestion by another poster that the OP lodge a tribunal claim, I actually have no problem with that. Well, apart from the fact that the employer has not yet refused the request, because no request has been made. Perhaps the OP should ask... oh wait, I suggested that already! And, of course, the OP is prepared to take the consequences of lodging a tribunal claim, which may not work out in quite the way anticipated.

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

I imagine Sally is a she !!

Easy to overlook the basics from a lofty perch on a high horse.;)

No I did notice the signature. But then that does not change the advice in any way does it?

DVardysShadow

SarEl wrote: »

You have totally ignored the fact that I did not give a legal answer. I gave an opinion that consisted of advising the OP that telling their employer was not the best approach to this (because it causes confrontation), and asking would be more conducive to getting an an answer. Are you suggesting that going in with both barrels blazing telling the employer that they want commission (which is discretionary in the contractual terms) is actually the best approach to getting some sort of agreement with the employer.

Whatever. On these forums, you are beneath your league. On many issues you are on the wrong field of play. And fighting me, you are punching below your weight.

SarEl

DVardysShadow wrote: »

... On these forums, you are beneath your league .....

I have never and would never make such an arrogant statement. This is a public forum and anyone can respond with their views and opinions on any post. That is why people are advised never to take any posts at face value and seek professional advice if they need to. My opinions are no more or less valid than those of anyone else who posts on a public forum, and people can take them or leave them. I am not the one who is ranking what professions or experience or knowledge is more or less "valuable" here - that would be you. And I don't notice any forum rules which say that certain professions or types of people aren't allowed to post their opinions because the forums are "beneath their league". Perhaps if there is one, you could point me to it?

DVardysShadow wrote: »

On many issues you are on the wrong field of play. .

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to hold it. I respond only to those posts on which I have an opinion or can offer some advice, based on personal experience, viewpoint or professional experience - just like anyone else. In fact this is a minority of threads - I confine myself to only two boards and to a selection of posts on those. You know very very little about me and so what I know about, or have experience of, is your assumption based on what you think I know about. A difference of opinion does not make me, or anyone else wrong - or right.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

. And fighting me, you are punching below your weight.

Mixing our metaphors somewhat here aren't you? But again - yjis is your opinion. You launched a completely unprovoked attack on me (and not for the first time) based on the fact that you disagreed with what I said. You didn't give any explanation of what you thought was wrong about what I said, or offer an alternative viewpoint about what I said - you launched a completely personal attack based on a dislike of me, with some spurious argument about why I wasn't entitled to have an opinion or a view on things, and should "butt out"; wholly ignoring the fact that other posters had expressed views with which you must have also disagreed and so, presumably, ought o have included in your diatribe agaist people who disagree with you. So it was personal and vindictive. And wholly uncalled for.

If you believe that certain types of people should not be allowed to post on these boards because of who or what they are, perhaps you should make up a list and submit it to Martin - then he could consider adding it to the forum rules. Obviously, it should include no employment law barristers or solicitors. Should that be extended to include legal executives do you think? Or all people in the legal profession? Perhaps you should also suggest that people in banks and financial institutions shouldn't be allowed to to post to any of the boards on finances in case their experience and knowledge intimidates you. No debt counsellors on the debt free boards maybe?

I really do not understand what your personal attcaks on me are motivated by, but since this isn't the first time, I am guessing it won't be the last - since I have no intention of "butting out" until Martin amends his rules along the lines that you would obviously be more comfortable with. You have obviously been posting to these forums for a long time and have made many comments and expressed many opinions of your own. I am sure that these have helped many people, even if what you had to say wasn't what they wanted to hear, or within your field of "experience and expertise". But not all of which will have been positive or helpful or even polite - witness the case in point. Kindly extend the same courtesy to others that you appear to expect for yourself.

DVardysShadow

SarEl wrote: »

I have never and would never make such an arrogant statement. This is a public forum and anyone can respond with their views and opinions on any post. That is why people are advised never to take any posts at face value and seek professional advice if they need to. My opinions are no more or less valid than those of anyone else who posts on a public forum, and people can take them or leave them. I am not the one who is ranking what professions or experience or knowledge is more or less "valuable" here - that would be you. And I don't notice any forum rules which say that certain professions or types of people aren't allowed to post their opinions because the forums are "beneath their league". Perhaps if there is one, you could point me to it?



That is your opinion, and you are entitled to hold it. I respond only to those posts on which I have an opinion or can offer some advice, based on personal experience, viewpoint or professional experience - just like anyone else. In fact this is a minority of threads - I confine myself to only two boards and to a selection of posts on those. You know very very little about me and so what I know about, or have experience of, is your assumption based on what you think I know about. A difference of opinion does not make me, or anyone else wrong - or right.



Mixing our metaphors somewhat here aren't you? But again - yjis is your opinion. You launched a completely unprovoked attack on me (and not for the first time) based on the fact that you disagreed with what I said. You didn't give any explanation of what you thought was wrong about what I said, or offer an alternative viewpoint about what I said - you launched a completely personal attack based on a dislike of me, with some spurious argument about why I wasn't entitled to have an opinion or a view on things, and should "butt out"; wholly ignoring the fact that other posters had expressed views with which you must have also disagreed and so, presumably, ought o have included in your diatribe agaist people who disagree with you. So it was personal and vindictive. And wholly uncalled for.

If you believe that certain types of people should not be allowed to post on these boards because of who or what they are, perhaps you should make up a list and submit it to Martin - then he could consider adding it to the forum rules. Obviously, it should include no employment law barristers or solicitors. Should that be extended to include legal executives do you think? Or all people in the legal profession? Perhaps you should also suggest that people in banks and financial institutions shouldn't be allowed to to post to any of the boards on finances in case their experience and knowledge intimidates you. No debt counsellors on the debt free boards maybe?

I really do not understand what your personal attcaks on me are motivated by, but since this isn't the first time, I am guessing it won't be the last - since I have no intention of "butting out" until Martin amends his rules along the lines that you would obviously be more comfortable with. You have obviously been posting to these forums for a long time and have made many comments and expressed many opinions of your own. I am sure that these have helped many people, even if what you had to say wasn't what they wanted to hear, or within your field of "experience and expertise". But not all of which will have been positive or helpful or even polite - witness the case in point. Kindly extend the same courtesy to others that you appear to expect for yourself.

OK, you have spent the night going through my posts.

You are a barrister - I don't doubt that. It just compounds the problem. You are a whale in a pond full of minnows. I am finding it very difficult to express this in a way which is anything other than blunt. I have been feeling this for weeks. Sorry, I have snapped, I have said stuff in a less than gracious way. But overall, I feel it is better said than not said.

Frankly, I don't understand why a professional such as yourself should stoop to having this sort of argument with an amateur such as myself or even waste time on me. I don't know what a barrister is doing here anyway. Why you are motivated to carry on your day job on the forums.

When I say 'but tout', I don't mean 'go away'. i do mean tone it down and leave room. You are like the loud person in the bar who generates silence from others. I don't deny that I am like a loud person in a bar myself, but in my defence, I think that when I am loud, others get loud too.

Obviously your input is correct, legally. But when I look at your posts where a legal intervention has been declared a non starter by you, it sucks all hope from the situation. It is ironic, I am a Trades Unionist, you take employee cases, we ought to get on.

Go to the Housing Boards and look at how Richard Webster posts. He is a model of how a professional person should post in a board full of amateurs. His topic is conveyancing. But he manages not to let conveyancing dominate the house buying topic.

It would help if you managed not to let Employment Tribunals dominate the employment topic.

SarEl

DVardysShadow wrote: »

OK, you have spent the night going through my posts.

You are a barrister - I don't doubt that. It just compounds the problem. You are a whale in a pond full of minnows. I am finding it very difficult to express this in a way which is anything other than blunt. I have been feeling this for weeks. Sorry, I have snapped, I have said stuff in a less than gracious way. But overall, I feel it is better said than not said.

Frankly, I don't understand why a professional such as yourself should stoop to having this sort of argument with an amateur such as myself or even waste time on me. I don't know what a barrister is doing here anyway. Why you are motivated to carry on your day job on the forums.

When I say 'but tout', I don't mean 'go away'. i do mean tone it down and leave room. You are like the loud person in the bar who generates silence from others. I don't deny that I am like a loud person in a bar myself, but in my defence, I think that when I am loud, others get loud too.

Obviously your input is correct, legally. But when I look at your posts where a legal intervention has been declared a non starter by you, it sucks all hope from the situation. It is ironic, I am a Trades Unionist, you take employee cases, we ought to get on.

Go to the Housing Boards and look at how Richard Webster posts. He is a model of how a professional person should post in a board full of amateurs. His topic is conveyancing. But he manages not to let conveyancing dominate the house buying topic.

It would help if you managed not to let Employment Tribunals dominate the employment topic.

Thank you for your opinion. I shall, as I have advised others to do if they do not like an opinion, ignore it since it is clearly based on personal bias. In my original - and all other - replies on this thread, I have neither mentioned employment law not tribunals. I limit myself to answering only a few therads out of many - this is hardly dominating with Employment Tribunals!

As for you comments on my professionalism or anything else - I have no intention of further defending myself or justifying anything that I say or do to you. I shall continue to post in whatever way i, as a preivate citizen, see fit to do so. I fyou wish to continue your highly personalised and subjective attacks on me I suiggest you do so on your own - you are not worth my time.

DVardysShadow

SarEl wrote: »

Thank you for your opinion. I shall, as I have advised others to do if they do not like an opinion, ignore it since it is clearly based on personal bias. In my original - and all other - replies on this thread, I have neither mentioned employment law not tribunals. I limit myself to answering only a few therads out of many - this is hardly dominating with Employment Tribunals!

As for you comments on my professionalism or anything else - I have no intention of further defending myself or justifying anything that I say or do to you. I shall continue to post in whatever way i, as a preivate citizen, see fit to do so. I fyou wish to continue your highly personalised and subjective attacks on me I suiggest you do so on your own - you are not worth my time.

Shirty with it. I'm thinking that your presence here is personally identifiable and stuff like taking on minnows like me will be professionally damaging. I think I have made my point even though you are putting on front about it. If you take out all of your posts on this thread, I'll do the same.