Commuting and the '40% tax bracket'
Comments
-
DonDaddyD wrote:OK maybe I'm over analysing the whole cycling thing. .....!
Are you sure you need to restrict that to cycling? :-)
Cheers,
W.0 -
WGWarburton wrote:Mark Elvin wrote:What the hell does it matter what others think? If they look down on you due to you riding a bike, stuff em.
It matters if their view of you results in your being less effective in your job. It's hard to lead/manage/inspire/etc people who think you are a fool. Whether they are right or wrong is, in practice, irrelevant.
Well, I wouldn't stop commuting by bike just because someone else thought I shouldn't. But then again, I'd have more respect for a manager (or similar) who cycled to work, rather than less. Especially compared to one who roars around in a single-occupancy gas guzzler status symbol of a company car.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.
Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."
I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...0 -
Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.
Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."
I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...
her reply?
nomnomnomwhat?Purveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.
Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."
I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...
Oh don't tell me I'd have actually got away with it? Damn it. Would have saved me a whole lot of hassle and 'we need someone who fits in with our corporate image'-ing.
I could have just moved the desk further back. How would the tribunal have felt about that?0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.
Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."
I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...
Oh don't tell me I'd have actually got away with it? Damn it. Would have saved me a whole lot of hassle and 'we need someone who fits in with our corporate image'-ing.
I could have just moved the desk further back. How would the tribunal have felt about that?
See, it's a false economy not to take legal advice before you act.
However, had you implemented that solution, the tribunal would have found you had discriminated against her short (fat) arms.
They can be real apologists sometimes.0 -
Clever Pun wrote:Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.
Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."
I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...
her reply?
nomnomnomwhat?0 -
Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.
Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."
I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...
Oh don't tell me I'd have actually got away with it? Damn it. Would have saved me a whole lot of hassle and 'we need someone who fits in with our corporate image'-ing.
I could have just moved the desk further back. How would the tribunal have felt about that?
They would have found you had discriminated against her short (fat) arms.
By 'further back' I meant 'closer'.
Hilarious joke bold-ed for prosperity. :P0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.
Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."
I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...
Oh don't tell me I'd have actually got away with it? Damn it. Would have saved me a whole lot of hassle and 'we need someone who fits in with our corporate image'-ing.
I could have just moved the desk further back. How would the tribunal have felt about that?
They would have found you had discriminated against her short (fat) arms.
By 'further back' I meant 'closer'.
Hilarious joke bold-ed for prosperity. :P0 -
JonGinge wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.
Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."
I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...
Oh don't tell me I'd have actually got away with it? Damn it. Would have saved me a whole lot of hassle and 'we need someone who fits in with our corporate image'-ing.
I could have just moved the desk further back. How would the tribunal have felt about that?
They would have found you had discriminated against her short (fat) arms.
By 'further back' I meant 'closer'.
Hilarious joke bold-ed for prosperity. :P
I've always used 'for prosperity' as an idiom that has nothing to do with wealth... but can't find evidence online, only in my idiom english-german dictionary! Dammit, google, you've let me down.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:JonGinge wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.
Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."
I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...
Oh don't tell me I'd have actually got away with it? Damn it. Would have saved me a whole lot of hassle and 'we need someone who fits in with our corporate image'-ing.
I could have just moved the desk further back. How would the tribunal have felt about that?
They would have found you had discriminated against her short (fat) arms.
By 'further back' I meant 'closer'.
Hilarious joke bold-ed for prosperity. :P
I've always used 'for prosperity' as an idiom that has nothing to do with wealth... but can't find evidence online, only in my idiom english-german dictionary! Dammit, google, you've let me down.0 -
JonGinge wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:JonGinge wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:For god's sake man. Do you actually think I said 'we're getting a new temp because you barely fit behind the desk, fatty'? For starters, do you have any clue just how against the law that would be? Evidently not.
Quite. The equivocation in that statement ("barely") would have left you wide open in an industrial tribunal. Any fuhl would realise that you can only have said "We're getting a new temp because you don't fit behind the desk, fatty."
I bet you threw in the "And we have you on video stealing biscuits and cake". Pilfering is just he most awesome banker in the tribunal...
Oh don't tell me I'd have actually got away with it? Damn it. Would have saved me a whole lot of hassle and 'we need someone who fits in with our corporate image'-ing.
I could have just moved the desk further back. How would the tribunal have felt about that?
They would have found you had discriminated against her short (fat) arms.
By 'further back' I meant 'closer'.
Hilarious joke bold-ed for prosperity. :P
I've always used 'for prosperity' as an idiom that has nothing to do with wealth... but can't find evidence online, only in my idiom english-german dictionary! Dammit, google, you've let me down.
Hahaha! It's also entirely possible that I've always said it wrong, and the german dictionary people made the same error... it is odd that I can't find it on the google.
ETA: Having consulted 2 other idiom dictionaries, it would seem that this is may in fact be the case...0 -
Agent57 wrote:WGWarburton wrote:Mark Elvin wrote:What the hell does it matter what others think? If they look down on you due to you riding a bike, stuff em.
It matters if their view of you results in your being less effective in your job. It's hard to lead/manage/inspire/etc people who think you are a fool. Whether they are right or wrong is, in practice, irrelevant.
Well, I wouldn't stop commuting by bike just because someone else thought I shouldn't. But then again, I'd have more respect for a manager (or similar) who cycled to work, rather than less. Especially compared to one who roars around in a single-occupancy gas guzzler status symbol of a company car.
*sigh*, Yes, you would. What if you are trying to tell a bunch of guys who spend their weekends hooning around in modded Hondas that you need them to turn up sharp on Monday, 'cos there's a big job starting and the company needs them on-time and on top of their game, and they start sniggering at the back of the room that you would be better at getting the job done if you "wern' worn out from ridin' your effin' bike in ev'ry day!"...
Turn up, instead, in a supercharged Jaguar, looking trim in your snazzy suit and these guys can see straightaway that you must be doing something right.
Cheers,
W.0 -
*sigh* :roll:0
-
lost_in_thought wrote:JonGinge wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:JonGinge wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:
By 'further back' I meant 'closer'.
Hilarious joke bold-ed for prosperity. :P
I've always used 'for prosperity' as an idiom that has nothing to do with wealth... but can't find evidence online, only in my idiom english-german dictionary! Dammit, google, you've let me down.
Hahaha! It's also entirely possible that I've always said it wrong, and the german dictionary people made the same error... it is odd that I can't find it on the google.
Edit: Ah, you were misled0 -
JonGinge wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:JonGinge wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:JonGinge wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:
By 'further back' I meant 'closer'.
Hilarious joke bold-ed for prosperity. :P
I've always used 'for prosperity' as an idiom that has nothing to do with wealth... but can't find evidence online, only in my idiom english-german dictionary! Dammit, google, you've let me down.
Hahaha! It's also entirely possible that I've always said it wrong, and the german dictionary people made the same error... it is odd that I can't find it on the google.
Edit: Ah, you were misled
Misled, perhaps, but also mistaken!0 -
JonGinge wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:JonGinge wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:JonGinge wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:
By 'further back' I meant 'closer'.
Hilarious joke bold-ed for prosperity. :P
I've always used 'for prosperity' as an idiom that has nothing to do with wealth... but can't find evidence online, only in my idiom english-german dictionary! Dammit, google, you've let me down.
Hahaha! It's also entirely possible that I've always said it wrong, and the german dictionary people made the same error... it is odd that I can't find it on the google.
Edit: Ah, you were misled
As umpire, I'm going to call JG as correct on this one.
Because he is.0 -
Greg66 wrote:JonGinge wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:JonGinge wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:JonGinge wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:
By 'further back' I meant 'closer'.
Hilarious joke bold-ed for prosperity. :P
I've always used 'for prosperity' as an idiom that has nothing to do with wealth... but can't find evidence online, only in my idiom english-german dictionary! Dammit, google, you've let me down.
Hahaha! It's also entirely possible that I've always said it wrong, and the german dictionary people made the same error... it is odd that I can't find it on the google.
Edit: Ah, you were misled
As umpire, I'm going to call JG as correct on this one.
Because he is.
It may bounce0 -
Greg66 wrote:
As umpire, I'm going to call JG as correct on this one.
Because he is.
Too right! I stand corrected and my vocab is duly edited.
See, Lozza, that's how you do it.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:
Olivia,
In answer to your questions:
Laurence spelt with a 'u'. Carries weight, yes.
Also
I do have a full and proper understanding of equal opportunities and discrimination. So there
As I said before it is entirely reasonable and appropriate for an organisation to operate a dresscode. However, insisting that women wear heels when it is not a requirement of the job and such a rule or similar is not imposed on men, could be argued as sexual discrimination. It is the same as insisting women wear pencil skirts (MMMMmmmmm) as part of their suits.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:As I said before it is entirely reasonable and appropriate for an organisation to operate a dresscode. However, insisting that women wear heels when it is not a requirement of the job and such a rule or similar is not imposed on men, could be argued as sexual discrimination. It is the same as insisting women wear pencil skirts (MMMMmmmmm) as part of their suits.
Men also had to wear work shoes which were considered smart. Several men were politely asked to get smarter shoes.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:As I said before it is entirely reasonable and appropriate for an organisation to operate a dresscode. However, insisting that women wear heels when it is not a requirement of the job and such a rule or similar is not imposed on men, could be argued as sexual discrimination. It is the same as insisting women wear pencil skirts (MMMMmmmmm) as part of their suits.
Men also had to wear work shoes which were considered smart. Several men were politely asked to get smarter shoes.
Yes but you're not getting the point.
The point is that the men were asked to wear smarter shoes. However you, a woman, was asked specifically to wear heels.
Its like saying men can wear any suit they want but women can only wear ones with skirts.
Anyway, this is going off the point. The more and more I think about it, the more I may not cycle in until I've established myself in the role and amongst staff properly.
I'm not happy about all this tax, that sucks. Aren't the Conservatives supposed to be making me richer?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:As I said before it is entirely reasonable and appropriate for an organisation to operate a dresscode. However, insisting that women wear heels when it is not a requirement of the job and such a rule or similar is not imposed on men, could be argued as sexual discrimination. It is the same as insisting women wear pencil skirts (MMMMmmmmm) as part of their suits.
Men also had to wear work shoes which were considered smart. Several men were politely asked to get smarter shoes.
Yes but you're not getting the point.
The point is that the men were asked to wear smarter shoes. However you, a woman, was asked specifically to wear heels.
Its like saying men can wear any suit they want but women can only wear ones with skirts.
You try showing up in a skirt :twisted:None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:As I said before it is entirely reasonable and appropriate for an organisation to operate a dresscode. However, insisting that women wear heels when it is not a requirement of the job and such a rule or similar is not imposed on men, could be argued as sexual discrimination. It is the same as insisting women wear pencil skirts (MMMMmmmmm) as part of their suits.
Men also had to wear work shoes which were considered smart. Several men were politely asked to get smarter shoes.
Yes but you're not getting the point.
The point is that the men were asked to wear smarter shoes. However you, a woman, was asked specifically to wear heels.
Its like saying men can wear any suit they want but women can only wear ones with skirts.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:I do have a full and proper understanding of equal opportunities and discrimination.
So, why did you think the temp was in counselling? Hmmmmmmmmmm?
Also, see my post at the top of this page.
A similar rule is imposed on men. See above, I can explain again if you like. With pictures, if that helps.
What's more, men had to wear a tie and jacket. Women didn't. Men were also told to wear a t-shirt style undershirt, women weren't.
Everyone understood how much their image mattered. And personally I wouldn't wear flats if I wanted to look smart.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:Men were also told to wear a t-shirt style undershirt
That is v poor style.
Whatever next? Slip on shoes? Jackets (coats, in fact) with no vents?
Surely not belt loops <shudder> and belts, with balckberries clipped to waistbands <bigger shudder>...0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:I do have a full and proper understanding of equal opportunities and discrimination.
So, why did you think the temp was in counselling? Hmmmmmmmmmm?
Also, see my post at the top of this page.
A similar rule is imposed on men. See above, I can explain again if you like. With pictures, if that helps.
What's more, men had to wear a tie and jacket. Women didn't. Men were also told to wear a t-shirt style undershirt, women weren't.
Everyone understood how much their image mattered. And personally I wouldn't wear flats if I wanted to look smart.
Pictures please. Definitely pictures. I've got the 'men' bit, so you don't need to worry about that, but I'm really struggling with the rest. Honest!0 -
Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:Men were also told to wear a t-shirt style undershirt
That is v poor style.
Whatever next? Slip on shoes? Jackets (coats, in fact) with no vents?
Surely not belt loops <shudder> and belts, with balckberries clipped to waistbands <bigger shudder>...
It was to prevent pit-stains (to borrow an americanism).0