Preparedness for when

Frugalsod

Softstuff wrote: »

The idea of being microchipped doesn't freak me out, not saying I'd sign up for it, but it's not high on my fear list. Companies already want so much of your soul for very little in return, it strikes me as being the thin end of the wedge. Over here you're expected to sign non-compete clauses, work unpaid overtime, have your social media censored and attend compulsory social events in your own time. And all this for minimum wage.

And many people are alright with this. Given that the choice is often to suck it up or leave. Chances are, plenty of them would bend over to give the company somewhere convenient to shove the chip.

Well non-compete really should only apply to executives or very senior people and you need to be compensated for that. If they were to make me redundant then the law should block such non-compete clauses. If you were to resign then they should apply and only for a limited period.

If they wanted me to attend a compulsory event then I would expect to be paid for it regardless. Obviously the higher up you are then these are part of the job and pay.

If such chipping were imposed on staff it should be treated as redundancy if they refused to be chipped, rather than resignation. The problem is that governments allow companies to ride roughshod over employee rights so they can use it as justification to do the same for the publics rights.

moneyistooshorttomention

If you check out the website right now of the "Daily Mail" they are currently running an article about this Swedish firm and their microchipping. Loads of comments being posted on this, with the vast majority of the commenters being heavily against it.

One of the comments though is one that bears investigation and I do hope it gets followed up on. That comment is by someone who said its already happening in Britain and that he is currently unemployed and got sent along to a "well known" firm and taken on by them. This firm then proceeded to send him off to get "chipped" as part of his induction. He hadn't known anything about this and refused. At which point, he got chucked straight out back onto the Dole Queue and sanctioned by the Job Centre from getting his dole money.

It sounded to me like this commenter was speaking the truth when he said that:eek: and I do hope some reporter gets onto that to find out if he is and, if so, does an expose on that firm and an expose on the Jobcentre concerned to boot.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that that particular commenter was telling a lie when he said that...but it didn't sound like it to me...

moneyistooshorttomention

jk0 wrote: »

I think the real reason for this is in the first sentence of the article, isn't it?:



http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/30/whistleblower-doctor-sacked-text-mod-tribunal-stephen-frost-david-kelly

Also read an article just now about him and it prominently mentioned his role in the questioning about David Kelly.

I recall a course I did many years back now (personal....not sent by an employer:rotfl:) in which we were being taught on one occasion about the way the media operate. I distinctly recall the journalist giving us that particular talk telling us that it was commonplace for newspapers that wanted to convey a message without being at risk of libel (or worse) to juxtapose what they were saying "on the face of it" with what they were actually "really" trying to tell people (but without getting in trouble for it).

It was usually done by "careful" positioning of a linked article right beside it on the same page, but would sometimes be done by just mentioning the relevant fact within the article (but without saying why and apparently just by coincidence) and expecting their readers to "read between the lines" to see what the newspaper was really trying to say to the reader.

This article is a classic case of exactly what we were taught about.

Frugalsod

mardatha wrote: »

Just typed out a long post then the power went off and I lost it - was thinking today about cold, since the wind is whistling right from the Greenland ice cap into the back of my house. It's soo cold. Was thinking of all those Rambo wannabees who talk about bugging out to the hills. I just wish they would try it now lol.

Generally I would completely agree that to think you could bug out in this weather is foolish and dangerous. Though prepping means planning and training for any such potential events. You never know when you might actually have to do it for real.

Though if you have this weather in your back yard then it does give you the opportunity to test your cold weather set up and camp outside for a few nights within reach of your warm home. If your kit or training is not up to it then you can retreat indoors back to safety.

Then once that is working you could do short day hikes to local areas to do a winter tinder collecting exercise during the day when it might be sunny but bitterly cold. Again this would be relatively safe.

MrsCD

DD is a teacher, and I received a text from her on Sunday night, at 10.15 which said, " I am going to bed now. I've worked from 4pm and just finished. Didn't bother with tea, and the first person who says that teachers only work 9-4 during term time.....I won't be responsible for the consequences!" She had already worked for some time on the Saturday as well.
I know she shouldn't have to work as many hours at the weekend, but I also know she wants things ready for Monday morning, so she can give the planning to the rest of the staff and get on with the job.
When I first started work when I left school, in the 70's, I could just go to work and forget about it once I'd left for the day. Nowadays, it seems that the boundaries are much more blurred, but like others have said, there are so many people looking for a job they will put up with almost anything to be in work.

Softstuff

Moneyistooshort... contracts I've had state that you're not allowed to comment at all about the company on social media, the company someone here I know worked for forced you to friend the manager to double check (there are ways around this, but there shouldn't have to be). Social events are quite often compulsory, woe betide the person who ends up sick for that one. And as for not having a smartphone, I've seen jobs adverts here state that you must have one for the job... and of course you'll be paying for that yourself.

The biggest bugbear of mine workwise was emails. You're expected to read and respond to work email, fair enough you might think. Except for the fact there was no computer at the place of work, so you had to do that at home in your own time on your own computer.

And I'd agree with GQ about there being "jobs" and "careers" Mrs LW. If I were in a career earning more than minimum wage, I could live with many things (I'm not saying it's right to work so many hours, but "salary" implies a job done, whereas "hourly wage" should mean as it says).

Frugalsod, non-compete also applies to low-level retail management over here.

moneyistooshorttomention

MrsCD wrote: »

When I first started work when I left school, in the 70's, I could just go to work and forget about it once I'd left for the day. Nowadays, it seems that the boundaries are much more blurred, but like others have said, there are so many people looking for a job they will put up with almost anything to be in work.

That is exactly what I meant. I've only ever had jobs. In the main, they have been office jobs in my case, but there were some of us in my agegroup (now 50s/60s) that were well aware that our employer would be only too glad when the last of us to remember the Normal Way for work to be retired and they only had younger people (ie who didn't remember from personal experience about the strong demarcation line between Work Time and Leisure Time and the equally strong demarcation line between Work Expenses and OUR Expenses).

There have always been employers who would "try it on" to get staff to cover Work Expenses for them and I can certainly recall a few attempts to get me to do so, which were instantly refused and I made sure they knew very well that the only Work Expense I would ever cover was the cost of my transport to and from work (if it was too far for me to walk) and that was that. Any other expenses to do with the job were the employers and I wouldn't be covering them out of my money.

That was the norm for people in jobs (rather than careers). You only started being a bit more "flexible" about how much of your time and money were your own if it was a career and then you might sacrifice a bit of "your own" in order to get on. But for a job = no way would most of us have done so.

I was basically a personal secretary and there was an occasion where I was told I wasn't dressing in accordance with the grade and I soon replied that I wasn't being paid in accordance with the grade either. That soon shut them up...because it was true:cool:. I remained quite firm in my stance throughout that I would never buy clothes specially for work whilst it was only a job I was doing (I did buy a couple of smart items when I briefly thought about retraining for a career instead, but that was the only exception I ever made to that "They aren't going to spend MY money for me" rule I had in my head).:rotfl:

That was how many of us were in that era. I bet many employers are delighted my agegroup are now retiring:rotfl:- though some of us were bolshier than others (who? me? LOL). I'm quite bolshy enough to lie to an employer and say I haven't got a home computer if need be personally...or that its broken and I cant afford to replace it.

I do sympathise with the extra pressures people of working age have these days, from just how much Dole Money has been cut since "my day". Back then we were able to feel quite secure that we could manage, if need be, even on Dole Money (ie because it was enough to do so, but it certainly isn't any more). I could afford to have Principles and did so, but honestly don't know whether I could manage to on Today's money, though I'd certainly be trying to still.

thriftwizard

Actually, at the risk of starting off a storm in a tea-cup, I find it quite alarming how far worker's rights have been eroded in the last 30-odd years. Not just worker's rights, either; our right to be seen to protest about all sorts of things has just about vanished. Internet petitions are just a safety valve; you think you're doing something positive, and they'll look or sound as if they're responding, then sneak the thing through as soon as public opinion's looking the other way.

I started to be really concerned when they put members of the National Trust & RSPB on the "watch" list for terrorism, over the airport business - we've been members of these "dodgy" organisations for many years. Him Indoors was until recently an upholder of the law & I was, at least briefly, a Whitehall civil servant - clearly highly suspect people! (But even we don't automatically think that profit should come above every other consideration.) Our legal system has almost invisibly swung hugely in favour of landowners, landlords & employers; I'm not saying that they shouldn't have rights, but that there should be a right to reasonable debate, & a right to protest when things clearly are unfair, unwise or being imposed with no knowledge of local conditions or other considerations.

As for being chipped - no thanks. Far too easy for it to be mis-used... If information is available, it will be used for purposes that the original designers had never intended.

GreyQueen

I have this debate with my Dad (early seventies, retired at 65 after 50 years in the workforce). He's incredulous at what modern workers put up with. I explain to him that the nature of the job market is effectively my way or the highway from the employers' POV. If you won't do it, there are plenty who will.

He expresses sorrow at how hard things are now for the youngsters in particular. There was never any doubt for him and his peers that they would find work. There was always work, it was a given. Often didn't pay very well, but it was there, and you moved on when you got a better opportunity or just fancied a change of scene.

Today my allotment plans look like being scuppered as it's raining quite heavily and looks like it's set in for the next few hours. I really should get off my arris and on with a few things around the homestead which need my attention.

One of those will be to bring the sack of HG spuds up from the bike shed (have it permanantly on the newspaper trolley to make that easy) and tip them out and rub the shoots off. I'm needing to do this every second week at this time of year. And I will be buying the seed spuds in a couple of weeks and encouraging them to shoot indoors; the silliness is not wasted on me at this time of year.

[Deleted User]

Softstuff wrote: »

the company someone here I know worked for forced you to friend the manager to double check

What if you don't do social media?