Getting closer to minimum wage

[albion]

sammym:

albion:
Unfortunately I’m old enough to remember the 70s.

And I don’t like unions. Didn’t like them when I was an employee, don’t Luke them now. Absolutely pointless in my place.

Wonder how many employers feel the same… Don’t like unions and pointless at my business.

You may be the best employer in the world. And you might be the highest payer in the industry. But when something happens you will throw your employee under the bus just like every other business.

You have previously posted about how one employee took you to an employment tribunal. And won. That doesn’t sound like the best place to work to me…

A good employer has nothing to fear from unions. And they certainly don’t see them as ‘pointless’.

Rather than repeatedly telling us about how much your highest grossing driver earnt last year… How about telling us how you supported your weakest driver. You have also told us you don’t bother to pay sick pay. Again sounds delightful.

Frankly, I’m sure you are a good employer… Compared to all the really rubbish ones. But I don’t like people who blow their own trumpet too much. A wage of under £50k is not amazing. My partner earns far more than that and is younger than me. The level of self-promotion is similar to that I’d expect from Donald Trump. And it’s nauseating.

Quite mystified as to what causes the level of vitriol from you, but if it makes you happy.

To answer your points.

I doubt I’d throw my employees under a bus, one of the reasons they stay is that I back them up…I’d list a few, but then again that would be self promotion…

Driver came to me with a grievance about being bullied. We investigated and agreed that he had been verbally abused and physically threatened. We were aware of the bullys reputation beforehand, but until someone raised a grievance, it was difficult to do anything. The bully took it to court looking for over 40k, he got 2k, and he got that because in the tribunals opinion, we should have involved a fourth manager as part of the appeals process, instead of only three managers. So we got taken to court for defending a member of staff, which sounds like something a good company would do, and the tribunal didn’t uphold his claim.

I don’t fear unions and my lads are welcome to join one, but they don’t seem to bother, possibly because they know they have a sweet deal and realistically as a small company, there’s a finite amount of cash.

By weakest driver, I take it you mean lowest paid… Lowest paid arctic driver earned in the low 30s, but then he said he wanted to come off Euro work and we were in a position to change his work to a split between yard man and fairly local, he averages one night out in the UK a fortnight. He’s as integral to the business as those who want to head abroad all the time. No, I don’t pay sick pay, lots of small firms don’t and we take a commercial decision on that. Given the many things that we do pay, I think it’s something they can live with. I only get SSP as well.

I’ve never said a wage of under 50k is amazing in the big scheme of things, and said before that I think generally truck drivers are undervalued. However, if someone posts that all jobs are rubbish paid, then comparatively speaking as opposed to across the whole labour market, it’s reasonable to point out that there are better paid jobs available.

As for self promotion, similar to Trump…I think if I was interested in self promotion, I might try LinkedIn rather than the small outpost of the internet that is Trucknet.

May I suggest that if you find me nauseating, then you put me on ignore, then you can remain nausea free.

[albion]

This isn’t self promotion, this is expanding on one of your points. Whilst we don’t have anything more than SSP, we do carry insurance for when they are abroad, so if they fall I’ll their medical bills are covered, including travel for a spouse, and should it be necessary, repatriation. It also covers, as one of them found out last year, 75% of wages if you manage to climb out of the cab, miss the kerb and break your leg. So we get part way there.

[juddian]

I do agree with unions, and have put my money (which together with conditions is and has been above average for years) where my mouth is and been in the union, T@G now Unite, for many years and i see no reason to stop.

Not everyone wants to be in a union, that’s fair enough and no one is forcing them, but there is a lot of hypocrisy among the anti union crew and not just because they don’t want to spend around £14 a month when that might mean they could buy another trinket from their class leading pay, but the anti union workers are often the most outspoken but are absolute hypocrites because they have no trouble trousering the much improved benefits that years of union membership and decent fair minded collective bargaining have wrought, the jobs they enjoy simply would not be as they are without the union, these types tend to use those conditions to an unfair advantage yet still don’t want to do their bit to keep the status quo.

What non union workers, and some employers, won’t see or maybe don’t want to see is that almost to a man (and women) union members are far and away the backbone of these companies, the ones who you can absolutely rely on to turn up and go and do the job to the best of their ability and whose work records are among the best.

As for sick pay the irony is that our own union members are the least likely to take advantage of the full sick pay we enjoy, whilst some of the non union members are notable by not only their grabbing greed re overtime etc, but by their scheming and ■■■■■■■■ excuses to do as little actual work as possible for that money, regular sick notes and ready to file a claim if there’s a chance of more free dosh.

For the record, whilst i am happy that we have a full sick pay scheme, its something i personally would like to see curbed a bit to stop the usual ■■■■ takers from doing their thing…in almost every case it’s those non union staff that take unfair advantage.
Also for the record i have never taken a sick day and i hope to see my time out without doing so, but that sick pay is a comforting back up should the worst happen.

See, many union members appreciate what they have and do more than their fair share to make sure the job lasts, by going above and beyond.

[albion]

I think Juddian, that only one of ours is in a union, I don’t go around asking, but there’s no difference between him and the other drivers, they are all flipping good lads and lass.

[rjan]

newmercman:
If Labour where genuinely going to tackle the agencies, outlaw zero hour contracts and generally live up to their name and their reason for being, I would consider putting an X in their box on election day. I’m a fan of small government, which labour are not, but taking some of the power away from big business would be a great start to getting the politicians back to working for the people, rather than the dynasties they currently answer to. There’s a better chance of a loony lefty standing up for their principles than a right winger.

The thing is, “small government” is a right-wing trope. They are never truly in favour of small police forces, small armies, small judiciaries, even small marketplaces, they are only in favour of small public healthcare, small social security, small employment rights, small and regressive public taxation, and so on - “small” on all the things that serve workers’ interests and which hand unfettered power to big business.

But I agree, with almost all of the unions clearly behind Labour, and with a pledge from McDonnell to outlaw ZHCs, you can bet something is going to be done on employees’ rights if Labour get into power.

[rjan]

albion:
No, I don’t pay sick pay, lots of small firms don’t and we take a commercial decision on that. Given the many things that we do pay, I think it’s something they can live with. I only get SSP as well.

And that’s exactly an example of why workers need unions, to ensure that they have a say over “commercial decisions”.

The role of unions is not just limited to bargaining in individual workplaces - in very small workplaces, it is often (but certainly not always) the case that bosses and workers stand on relatively equal terms, and workers are capable of having their voices heard.

The role of unions is (when workers are properly organised) to regulate the entire marketplace. As a small business owner, you can probably say quite rightly that there’s only so much you can afford to do for workers within the prices set by your customers - there’s no point them bargaining you into bankruptcy.

Unions are there to ensure that pressure is put on your customers to pay enough to meet the demands of your workforce, and to protect you against competition from undercutters who try to deviate from policies that workers have collectively determined will be in force across the marketplace.

Free markets are a place where bosses have one-pound-one-vote and workers are thus powerless to set policy. Unions, like national democracies, are places where workers have one-head-one-vote, to ensure that their interests are properly represented.

[rjan]

Juddian:
As for sick pay the irony is that our own union members are the least likely to take advantage of the full sick pay we enjoy, whilst some of the non union members are notable by not only their grabbing greed re overtime etc, but by their scheming and ■■■■■■■■ excuses to do as little actual work as possible for that money, regular sick notes and ready to file a claim if there’s a chance of more free dosh.

For the record, whilst i am happy that we have a full sick pay scheme, its something i personally would like to see curbed a bit to stop the usual ■■■■ takers from doing their thing…in almost every case it’s those non union staff that take unfair advantage.
Also for the record i have never taken a sick day and i hope to see my time out without doing so, but that sick pay is a comforting back up should the worst happen.

Agreed. The difference is that if you’re an active union member, you tend to have some integrity and moral backbone, some sense of responsibility - although of course I’m not speaking for every union man that ever lived. It’s a source of confidence and gravitas to have a moral backbone, and a way of commanding others’ trust and support.

A way to control abuses of sick pay is to force people to turn up to work so that you can look them up and down or put them on light duty - they’re still getting paid after all, not every illness entitles a person to spend the day in carpet slippers - or if they are truly incapacitated then visit them at home. Obviously, it takes time to make such visits, but the corollary is that abuses are limited.

The other side of the coin of course is not to get into being a detective or disciplinarian - there are always those willing to fiddle (just as often found in management as on the shop floor), and always those who think that the sniffles make them unfit for a day’s work, but the ceiling is not going to come crashing in simply because a minority have (or are suspected of having) gained a few days’ extra holiday a year under the pretense of being ill, and it is usually the bosses who have made a judgment about a person’s character before taking them on and who have the power to control abuses, not the union members.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Your words were ‘’ the workers basically refused to pay a single penny of the increased oil cost flexed their muscle to make it so which is why inflation took off ‘’.

And I stand by that as a fair explanation of the situation, but I also said a lot more than that, including that I hardly blamed workers who’d had to fight tooth and nail for the pay they had, for not allowing it to be forced down which, if oil prices dropped 6 months later, they’d have to fight all over again to get their pay back up. British bosses, then and now, are inveterate opportunists with a sense of entitlement.

You’ve admitted to blaming the workers for refusing to ‘pay’ for oil price led inflation increases ( and Callaghan’s desperate unnecessary IMF deal ) in the form of below inflation wage ‘rises’ ( wage cuts ).Then you say you don’t blame them for not allowing pay to be ‘‘forced down’’.Make your bleedin mind up which is it.

While your ( Callaghan’s ) stupid idea of wage cuts,to fix oil price led inflation when we were floating on a sea of our own oil,is just another way of saying that your priority is maintaining the profits of the oil companies over the wages of the working class.

[carryfast]

albion:
Unfortunately I’m old enough to remember the 70s.

Assuming that your wages were being eroded by the price led inflation caused by the world market increase in oil prices like the rest of us.When we were floating on a sea of our own oil with the government adding to the situation by allowing UK oil to be sold at world market prices,while imposing below inflation wage rises,why would you choose to accept that situation by accepting such wage cuts ?.

On that note which sector of unionised industry were you working in at that time ?.Bearing in mind that the only strike that I was ever involved with between 1975-1980 was actually admitted as being justified by our own managers and who tacitly supported us.Including actually thanking me for refusing to cross the picket line as a supposedly exempt from union activeties trainee worker.

[albion]

Ryan, it’s a quirk of my personality that I prefer not to belong anything, join anything, be part of anything; I’m struggling to think of anything on a personal level I’m part of.

Carryfast, oil and all that gubbins, you and Rjan fight it out. Oil goes up and oil goes down, bit out of my hands. No, I’ve never been in a union as I said before.

I never really understand why people get het up about people who aren’t comfortable with those of us who don’t like unions; I have no desire to be indignant about anyone that doesn’t belong to one. Do what you want on that subject, I just don’t care one way or the other.

[kcrussell25]

Rjan:

Juddian:
As for sick pay the irony is that our own union members are the least likely to take advantage of the full sick pay we enjoy, whilst some of the non union members are notable by not only their grabbing greed re overtime etc, but by their scheming and ■■■■■■■■ excuses to do as little actual work as possible for that money, regular sick notes and ready to file a claim if there’s a chance of more free dosh.

For the record, whilst i am happy that we have a full sick pay scheme, its something i personally would like to see curbed a bit to stop the usual ■■■■ takers from doing their thing…in almost every case it’s those non union staff that take unfair advantage.
Also for the record i have never taken a sick day and i hope to see my time out without doing so, but that sick pay is a comforting back up should the worst happen.

Agreed. The difference is that if you’re an active union member, you tend to have some integrity and moral backbone, some sense of responsibility - although of course I’m not speaking for every union man that ever lived. It’s a source of confidence and gravitas to have a moral backbone, and a way of commanding others’ trust and support.

A way to control abuses of sick pay is to force people to turn up to work so that you can look them up and down or put them on light duty )- they’re still getting paid after all, not every illness entitles a person to spend the day in carpet slippers - or if they are truly incapacitated then visit them at home. Obviously, it takes time to make such visits, but the corollary is that abuses are limited.

The other side of the coin of course is not to get into being a detective or disciplinarian - there are always those willing to fiddle (just as often found in management as on the shop floor), and always those who think that the sniffles make them unfit for a day’s work, but the ceiling is not going to come crashing in simply because a minority have (or are suspected of having) gained a few days’ extra holiday a year under the pretense of being ill, and it is usually the bosses who have made a judgment about a person’s character before taking them on and who have the power to control abuses, not the union members.

When I was in retail one of the few benefits was a good sick pay scheme. However some seemed to view it as extra holiday when the sun was out.

Personally I don’t think sick pay should be paid for the first week. Both so you require a doctor’s note and it is more than a “sniffle”. You have to have something fairly seriously wrong with you to need more than a week off.

Regards attending work to be checked. I say I am dizzy but am told to drive in. Whole takes responsibility for an accident on the way in?

How long before someone is told to stay at work and keels over because something is seriously wrong with them. I used to be a manager but am not medically qualified to say if someone is fit to work. All I used to say is if you’re telling me that your unfit to work you need to go home. If you want to go have a glass of water and see how you feel do that but the choice is yours.

[newmercman]

Rjan, when I say small government, I mean just that, they don’t need to interfere in half of the stuff they do.

Our income taxes should pay for Police, Fire Brigade, Ambulances, NHS, Military, Coastguard, Customs and Excise and that’s about it, a top up to the NHS, Police and Ambulance service from tobacco and alcohol tax as they use a significant amount dealing with the effects of both. Roads and the upkeep of should be (and they are and then some before it gets diverted) taken care of by VED and fuel duty.

NI should take care of sick pay, unemployment benefits and pensions, with all three linked to how much you pay in, a graduating scale according to earnings and how long you’ve been paying in.

Leave the rest of it to the free market, no need for all the bureaucracy and the corresponding gravy train. Socialism does not work as they will always run out of other people’s money to spend. Keep business out of government hands and then business influence over government is removed, so it isn’t just the rich getting richer.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

[carryfast]

albion:
Carryfast, oil and all that gubbins, you and Rjan fight it out. Oil goes up and oil goes down, bit out of my hands. No, I’ve never been in a union as I said before.

I never really understand why people get het up about people who aren’t comfortable with those of us who don’t like unions; I have no desire to be indignant about anyone that doesn’t belong to one. Do what you want on that subject, I just don’t care one way or the other.

What happened in the ‘70’s’ wasn’t just a case of oil just ‘going up’.It was a deliberately manufactured weaponised economic sanction imposed by the Middle East that had more than the desired effect of creating inflationary havoc to the western economies.Although obviously no need to have caused the slightest problem to any country that had its own significant oil resources like ours.

With inflation having the ability to reduce wages and living standards if wages aren’t kept ahead of it,as is happening now across many employment sectors.

As for unions they are just a type of workers’ cooperative who’s main job is to do exactly that by ensuring that workers don’t compete with each other regarding wage levels nor allow their employers to use employees’ wages as a bargaining tool in the tendering process with customers.The fact that the unions are now,by comparison with then,just a weakened paper tiger obviously shows in that regard with continuous topics like this.

The job of truck driving having its own seperate problems of being a more attractive option to work in than others at any wage.Together with a hostile political climate which abhorrs road transport and too many operators in the resulting restricted market looking for too few customers and subject to deliberately punitive unnecessary costs and imposed inefficiency.Let alone the lose lose of ridiculous low cost,especially wage cost,based foreign competition carrying out cabotage or third country international operations at the expense of the domestic haulage industry.

Anyone,whether unionised or not,asking for higher wages before and without first sorting out those structural political issues,which are crippling the industry,being a pointless case of putting the cart before the horse.In which case unions in ‘that’ specific hostile climate are obviously an irrelevance in having no more power than the individual.

Ironically ,as in the case of Rjan,the ‘unions’ in question actually being supportive of those punitive political sanctions on the industry and free European markets for their own political motives.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Your words were ‘’ the workers basically refused to pay a single penny of the increased oil cost flexed their muscle to make it so which is why inflation took off ‘’.

And I stand by that as a fair explanation of the situation, but I also said a lot more than that, including that I hardly blamed workers who’d had to fight tooth and nail for the pay they had, for not allowing it to be forced down which, if oil prices dropped 6 months later, they’d have to fight all over again to get their pay back up. British bosses, then and now, are inveterate opportunists with a sense of entitlement.

You’ve admitted to blaming the workers for refusing to ‘pay’ for oil price led inflation increases ( and Callaghan’s desperate unnecessary IMF deal ) in the form of below inflation wage ‘rises’ ( wage cuts ).Then you say you don’t blame them for not allowing pay to be ‘‘forced down’’.Make your bleedin mind up which is it.

I don’t see why it can’t be both. There’s no point me going over all the subtle details of my position again, but in summary it is this: workers had to accept a cut, and the reason they wouldn’t was because of a long history beforehand of poor management and the rich waging class war at every opportunity they had, and as far as the average worker was concerned, if there were increased costs for oil then the rich should pay. It’s that simple, there is no contradiction.

And there is nothing in here that says unions were to blame for causing the inflation, there is nothing in here to say unions were too strong - the simple problem was that management were too stroppy, and workers had thus been worked into a position, through a prolonged period of industrial conflict, where they wouldn’t give an inch even when an exogenous shock meant that they had to, because to have ceded wages in the short term would have required them to fight management again to get them back once the oil price dropped.

It’s not so different to how the ruling class is behaving with Corbyn, with Brexit, and with radical reform in general. They are fighting dirty and spending every bit of credit that the institutions of society have with the public in order to stop the juggernauts, all to maintain the status quo against the forces of democratic change, and you can see the effect in terms of how Corbyn walks on water amongst his supporters and how ordinary Brexiteers see treachery all around them, and in the process the judges have been thrown under the bus, the mainstream media has gone under the bus, now the House of Lords is being thrown under the bus, and the government is frequently telling bare faced lies (including trying to yoke us into war), and one day the powers that be are going to wish these institutions still had credibility, because there will be an issue one day on which they go to the British public on a complex issue asking simply for trust, and they’re not going to have it.

While your ( Callaghan’s ) stupid idea of wage cuts,to fix oil price led inflation when we were floating on a sea of our own oil,is just another way of saying that your priority is maintaining the profits of the oil companies over the wages of the working class.

I’m not prioritising the profits of the oil companies. I’m simply saying that any approach to the issue would have had adverse consequences for workers’ bottom line - at least up-front and in the short term.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Your words were ‘’ the workers basically refused to pay a single penny of the increased oil cost flexed their muscle to make it so which is why inflation took off ‘’.

And I stand by that as a fair explanation of the situation, but I also said a lot more than that, including that I hardly blamed workers who’d had to fight tooth and nail for the pay they had, for not allowing it to be forced down which, if oil prices dropped 6 months later, they’d have to fight all over again to get their pay back up. British bosses, then and now, are inveterate opportunists with a sense of entitlement.

You’ve admitted to blaming the workers for refusing to ‘pay’ for oil price led inflation increases ( and Callaghan’s desperate unnecessary IMF deal ) in the form of below inflation wage ‘rises’ ( wage cuts ).Then you say you don’t blame them for not allowing pay to be ‘‘forced down’’.Make your bleedin mind up which is it.

I don’t see why it can’t be both. There’s no point me going over all the subtle details of my position again, but in summary it is this: workers had to accept a cut, and the reason they wouldn’t was because of a long history beforehand of poor management and the rich waging class war at every opportunity they had, and as far as the average worker was concerned, if there were increased costs for oil then the rich should pay. It’s that simple, there is no contradiction

Why did the workers have to accept any cut when the issue was inflationary pressures caused by the massive oil price increase.Which could/should have been fixed by selling our own oil at home at a well below world market price.Also how can you selectively apply wage cuts supposedly being good for the economy at any time especially when price rises are what’s eroding them.While then saying exactly the opposite.

While I can’t believe that you really don’t see the contradiction in what your saying.In that the workers were rightly trying to defend wages in real terms v price increases.While you’re saying that they should have accepted wage cuts obviously to maintain the profits of the oil companies in selling UK oil at Arab imposed prices on the domestic market.Which is what was causing the inflation not wages.Then you say that the rich should pay.Then you say there is no contradiction when the contradiction is obvious.

Oh wait you think that it’s ok to screw the working class in favour of the chosen Party elite just so long as its in the name of Socialism.Just like your commy Chinese comrades.

[franglais]

albion:
Ryan, it’s a quirk of my personality that I prefer not to belong anything, join anything, be part of anything; I’m struggling to think of anything on a personal level I’m part of

Albion or Albion ?

[rjan]

kcrussell25:
When I was in retail one of the few benefits was a good sick pay scheme. However some seemed to view it as extra holiday when the sun was out.

Personally I don’t think sick pay should be paid for the first week. Both so you require a doctor’s note and it is more than a “sniffle”. You have to have something fairly seriously wrong with you to need more than a week off.

Indeed, although even some serious illnesses like flu or bouts of diarrhoea can be both serious and recoverable within a week.

Regards attending work to be checked. I say I am dizzy but am told to drive in. Whole takes responsibility for an accident on the way in?

You don’t need to be told to drive in. You simply have a sick pay scheme where you are expected to turn up to see if there are light or part-day duties available, or alternatively if you cannot make it in then you can ring in and request a home visit. If you don’t do either, then you don’t get the sick pay. It doesn’t entirely stop people feigning illness, but it does prevent impromptu holidays on hot days or using the day for shopping trips rather than home rest.

Provided bosses and workers understand that they’re not going there to play amateur detective or to make a judgment on whether the illness is genuine, but that the mere habit of someone attending (perhaps with a token bottle of water or packet of Anadin, and a wry smile) is there to discourage abuses in general and to focus minds and put people’s consciences into gear when they know that they’re going to have to look someone in the eye and go through the charade of a home visit. Of course, it takes managers with good attitudes to workers to do this without creating bad feelings over such visits in what will normally be genuine cases.

I think most firms don’t consider the issue serious enough to justify the hassles of these controls though, which is why I say workers shouldn’t get too worked up about supposed abuses. Even in very mild cases of cold or flu which wouldn’t prevent a person performing their duties, it can be in companies’ best interests to let workers stay off, simply so that they are not spreading it around and striking down more people (some of whom may then suffer a more serious bout).

How long before someone is told to stay at work and keels over because something is seriously wrong with them. I used to be a manager but am not medically qualified to say if someone is fit to work. All I used to say is if you’re telling me that your unfit to work you need to go home. If you want to go have a glass of water and see how you feel do that but the choice is yours.

Indeed, and I think overall that is the most sensible approach - let people have some freedom to decide for themselves whether they are sick or not, and let it be on their consciences if they fiddle the odd extra day’s holiday. Workers shouldn’t buy into the narrative that because there are a small number of petty abuses, that it undermines the principle of the scheme that is there to insure people both from occasional small illnesses and from substantial ones that might mean weeks or months off work.

[rjan]

newmercman:
Rjan, when I say small government, I mean just that, they don’t need to interfere in half of the stuff they do.

Our income taxes should pay for Police, Fire Brigade, Ambulances, NHS, Military, Coastguard, Customs and Excise and that’s about it, a top up to the NHS, Police and Ambulance service from tobacco and alcohol tax as they use a significant amount dealing with the effects of both. Roads and the upkeep of should be (and they are and then some before it gets diverted) taken care of by VED and fuel duty.

NI should take care of sick pay, unemployment benefits and pensions, with all three linked to how much you pay in, a graduating scale according to earnings and how long you’ve been paying in.

What about factory inspectors? What about trading standards? What about food and kitchen inspectors? What about minimum wage enforcement? What about social services and social work? What about banking regulation? Tax inspectors? Building planning officials? Given that you broadly support public services, I suspect in the scheme of things you’ll find very little of what the government does to argue with.

Most of what people argue about is either a vague sense of “bureaucracy and red tape”, which is just a right-wing trope pedalled in the Murdoch press, or because they have encountered a government service that is simply underfunded and poorly organised.

Leave the rest of it to the free market, no need for all the bureaucracy and the corresponding gravy train. Socialism does not work as they will always run out of other people’s money to spend. Keep business out of government hands and then business influence over government is removed, so it isn’t just the rich getting richer.

Running out of other people’s money seems to be the problem with capitalism too, which is why they are constantly attacking wages and pensions, and why the deregulated private sector banking system went bust. And moving things to the free market simply means handing your democratic vote to bosses, because they then own and control all aspects of the economy and have the power to set policy amongst themselves, and you don’t get a say on how things are done.

And free markets don’t prevent business lobbying over government, because not only does it cede more resources to them to engage in lobbying, but the government always ultimately controls something that businessmen are opposed to, and businessmen are always up to something that causes popular outrage and provokes calls via the ballot box for government controls over their activities. The law itself is always political in nature.

States where the central government is truly small and weak are not havens of popular freedom, but hives of corruption, lawlessness, and gross inequalities.

[albion]

Franglais:

albion:
Ryan, it’s a quirk of my personality that I prefer not to belong anything, join anything, be part of anything; I’m struggling to think of anything on a personal level I’m part of

Albion or Albion ?

Part of a dastardly plan to overtake trucknet and become Supreme Leader. I’ll make. Kim Jong Un look like a daytime telly presenter

[windrush]

Regarding sick pay, the last firm I worked for didn’t pay it but I was the only employee anyway. I wasn’t paid for Bank Holidays either at first but I did sort that out after a few months. My wife’s carers have just been told that they will no longer get sick pay until they have been off for a week or more and seem to have accepted the fact so there are still many companies not paying it. It wouldn’t be a major factor to me in either accepting or rejecting a prospective employer though.

Pete.