Exploitation and no lunch hour.

GotToChange

ILW wrote: »

In the sense of obsessing over food.

I think it is the nature if the world we live in - and bear in mind the OP is on a limited budget and probably wants to also avoid the c**p that may well be all he can afford.

There are a lot more factors that contribute to eating disorders; one bloke being concerned about the content and timing of his meals should be his concern if he wants it to be, without his having to think that he plays a part in the next wave of bulimia, anorexia or even orthorexia.

scheming_gypsy

GotToChange wrote: »

one bloke being concerned about the content and timing of his meals should be his concern if he wants it to be, .

its true, but in the context of this thread it was just silliness from the OP. The more he posted the more ridiculous it started to become; if we cut it down.
didn't get a lunch hour
only worked 5 hours
finished at one.

So if he was to have a lunch hour he'd go for lunch at 12pm and then go home as soon as he came back from lunch. So in reality he'd only work 4 hours.

GotToChange

Maybe so - but from the outset, some of the replies were mean-spirited and unhelpful.

For interest, I did once have a part-time position in which I had a full cooked lunch with my colleagues and the bouse residents at 12:30 (I was admin, not a support worker) - then I left for the day at 1:00, which was my finish time.

Mind you, it was a home for young adults with Autism so sometimes, danger money, protective clothing and a broad mind were needed.
Oh - and I was paid, not working for nothing.

scheming_gypsy

i think most of us who were having a dig had read this thread.... https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3586207

jm2926

And along with the 5 hour shift today, how many days will involve this level of hard work? Obviously shops do reshuffle, but it's not as if every day would involve moving lots of shelving.

Just as well he didn't get a warehouse job, especially if multiple loads/trucks need to go out!

ceridwen

dark_lady wrote: »

Ceridwen thank the Lord for your common sense.
As just one example on the Slimming World plan you HAVE to eat and eat proper food regularly. Obviously you have to eat the right things.
E.g. The people who eat at regular intervals are the ones who are losing weight.
The ones who are restricted on how often they can eat are the ones who either stay the same or even gain a little weight yes thats right,gain it
There was a theatre nurse who was coming to class. However she had two weeks of upheaval at work and she and her colleauges didnt have time to eat during the day. They were moving operating theatres from one end of the hospital to another so had to move and organise a lot of medical equipment.
So even though she was doing plenty of excersise she did NOT lose any weight (in fact one week she gained a pound) This is because the body hangs on to any food it gets if you are not eating regularly because it doesnt know when you can eat again.

I am sorely tempted to print off this thread and give a copy to my Slimmng World consultant. So she can see what people are sometimes up against.
She is also attending the annual SW awards later this month. There will be more than a smattering of journalists present at these awards some of whom have written about the causes of obesity in the past. Some of the attitudes on here could certainly be used in an article especially as one particular poster has given the opposite advice to an overweight woman in another thread.
Because hes obviously too thick to realise that following the advice he gave in this thread is what would make someone overweight in the first place.
This site has become absolutely ridiculous.

I think it would be a good idea actually for you to do just that - ie print this thread off and show it to your S.W. consultant.

There is another recent thread where someone who does receptionist work is often told by her boss to work straight through their lunchbreak (ie as no-one is made available to relieve her) and she is thus struggling to be able to eat some lunch whilst still working dealing with customers. One gets the impression, from that thread, that it's not that uncommon for some staff to be faced with this situation. On that thread - I believe I am right in recalling that she was given the frequent advice these days of "Put up and shut up - because if you don't then your employer has plenty more where you came from to choose from (ie on the Dole Queue)".

It does seem to be a trend for some employers to expect staff to do without a proper lunchbreak these days (even in the type of jobs where there wasnt previously a problem).

It would be useful for organisations like Slimming World to try and help people work out how to deal with it if they are in this sort of situation.

ceridwen

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

i think most of us who were having a dig had read this thread.... https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3586207

That's as maybe - and I got the impression that this was the case sometimes.

I always understood that the "rules of debate" include staying on topic. On MSE - "staying on topic" would mean "stick to THIS thread and THIS thread only as regards commenting" (ie don't bring up conversations on other threads - as they are not relevant - even if by the same person/people).

I have seen quite a few references recently on the Employment Board to things posters have said on other threads and thought "Isnt it obvious this ISNT the other thread - so why is the other thread being referred to? I guess a lot of posters havent had a Debating Society there in their school during their secondary schooling years - because they would have learnt that fact there". But - come to think of it - even if people didnt have a Debating Society at school - they will almost certainly have had one at University (if they attended one).....

Emmzi

Ceridwen, show me where that rule is written down? In real debate you can draw on the real world.

Sometimes I think you will defend anyone as opposed to the worthy causes. So I can't tell when you really support a belief or are doing it for the fun.

It does change my perception of you; that you are in it for a good debate as opposed to the merits of the case. Some people really benefit and deserve someone like you sticking up for them, but some wind up merchannts are not worth the bother.

scheming_gypsy

On all forums, a posters other threads will get referred to if it's relevant it's impossible not to really. You shouldn't take in thread arguing to other threads but you can't avoid bringing valid comments into it..
I'd say that it is on topic as well; the other thread is the OP complaining that he's being expected to work for his JSA and as soon as he does his first 5 hours work he's complaining about something else, so the two threads are linked.

ceridwen

Emmzi wrote: »

Ceridwen, show me where that rule is written down? In real debate you can draw on the real world.

Sometimes I think you will defend anyone as opposed to the worthy causes. So I can't tell when you really support a belief or are doing it for the fun.

It does change my perception of you; that you are in it for a good debate as opposed to the merits of the case. Some people really benefit and deserve someone like you sticking up for them, but some wind up merchannts are not worth the bother.

Errrmmm..if you knew me ITRW you would know I dont basically do ANYTHING just "for fun" (my mother would tell you that she brought up one "serious" type person.....). I'm way too serious a type of person for "fun":). Much more likely if someone proposes doing something "just for fun" to ask "Whats the point of that?" and leave them to get on with it on their own....:rotfl: