ChatterBank0 min ago
Uk Mail Driver Who Was Unable To Work After Car Accident Charged £800
https:/ /www.th eguardi an.com/ busines s/2017/ mar/19/ uk-mail -driver -unable -to-wor k-car-a ccident -charge d-800-p ounds
Does anybody think this is just and fair ? This chap was injured as a result of a car accident while on duty.
But his employer charged him £800 for the injury !
Does anybody think this is just and fair ? This chap was injured as a result of a car accident while on duty.
But his employer charged him £800 for the injury !
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Er, yes. Provided they are operated properly zero hours contarcts are an excellent idea as they suit those who like flexibility (eg students who want to work when it suits them). Would I have taken one when i was bringinging up a family and paying a big mortgage-probably not. Does it suit me now- certainly does. It frees me from the slavery of a permanent full time job-maybe having to work even when i have other things I need to do
Zero hours is a particular type of contract and should be illegal. It's requirement that you're on call to the company only, who won't pay you until they have something, is abuse. If people want flexible working then that's what temp agencies are for. Zero hours is comparable to the time when employees were not considered worthy of value, and employers could simply choose on whim from those desperate for work at the company gate, each morning. Society is supposed to have got past that sort of attitude.
-- answer removed --
Well if people misunderstand it I can't do much about that. I am talking about the type where I can have several employers, There are many who do want the flexibility that some would want to deny us. Doesn't suit everyone- those it doesn't suit can look for an employed job. There is room for agencies, zero hours contacts, part time and full time roles
Surely "temping" is zero hours contract OG? When my wife was temping she only got paid when they found her a company to go and work for for a short period.
My grandson has a zero-hours contract with a company - if he wants work he rings them; if they have work they ring him. It suits him fine as he's in a music group and can work when there's no gigs on.
My grandson has a zero-hours contract with a company - if he wants work he rings them; if they have work they ring him. It suits him fine as he's in a music group and can work when there's no gigs on.
“UK Mail could just as easily employ this man themselves, but they choose not to do so for financial gain.”
And presumably he chose to provide his services to them for a similar reason.
“What if his injury was life-threatening and/or long term ?”
As has been said, self-employed people should make their own arrangements to ensure they are covered for such eventualities.
“Am I right in thinking that you can't work for only one company and be classed as self-employed? How can they work for any other company when they are on call most of the time? Surely this company is in effect their employer?”
It’s not quite that straightforward, lb. HMRC publishes plenty of guidance on the matter if you want to look it up but I believe that many firms are using “self-employed” people when they should be employees. The Pimlico Plumbers case I mentioned may be the first of many.
So to address the “just and fair” question which I apparently did not do. Yes it is just and fair. The gentleman entered into a contract (which presumably he did not do under duress). He was (or should have been) aware of its terms and conditions. Had he not had an accident he presumably would have been perfectly happy to continue providing his services for UK Mail. It hardly just or fair that he should seek to ignore the terms of the contract just because something happens which puts him at a disadvantage.
And presumably he chose to provide his services to them for a similar reason.
“What if his injury was life-threatening and/or long term ?”
As has been said, self-employed people should make their own arrangements to ensure they are covered for such eventualities.
“Am I right in thinking that you can't work for only one company and be classed as self-employed? How can they work for any other company when they are on call most of the time? Surely this company is in effect their employer?”
It’s not quite that straightforward, lb. HMRC publishes plenty of guidance on the matter if you want to look it up but I believe that many firms are using “self-employed” people when they should be employees. The Pimlico Plumbers case I mentioned may be the first of many.
So to address the “just and fair” question which I apparently did not do. Yes it is just and fair. The gentleman entered into a contract (which presumably he did not do under duress). He was (or should have been) aware of its terms and conditions. Had he not had an accident he presumably would have been perfectly happy to continue providing his services for UK Mail. It hardly just or fair that he should seek to ignore the terms of the contract just because something happens which puts him at a disadvantage.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.