Lets have, why do people hate the public sector?
Comments
-
Just a thought, but Public and Private both begin with P, so PS is a rather ambiguous acronym.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Monkeypump wrote:
I do, in fact, acknowledge that very point in my next sentence.DonDaddyD wrote:People don't become carers to have their jobs incentivised. Also you are not considering that knowing the job might not be permanent the carer may react in a way that stops them engaging fully with the patient.Monkeypump wrote:
I'm afraid you're wrong there.DonDaddyD wrote:I take it you never worked along side carers or medical staff who look after those who are mentally or physically unwell?
You're sarcasm is astounding and needlessly hostile to what could be a sensible conversation.
I've worked alongside Carers of mentally and physically ill people for five years, I know the job to be extremely time consuming and there is very little reward beyond the desire to help. It is stressful the demands are high and they do not do it for material or financial reward. They do the job to care about a person and want to enrich that person life. That is not a productivity you can increase through an incentive. it is cold and callous to even suggest it and would be an insult to the both the Carer and the person being cared for.
You can tell me I'm wrong but it smacks full of an inability not to admit that I amy have a point or am right. I mean after all who wants to lose face on the Internet... "keyboard warrior" and all that. :roll:Monkeypump wrote:
Your "statement of fact" is nothing more than you're own opinion. There will be examples of both contractors and FTEs doing excellent work and very poor work, with a range of motivations and performance indicators.DonDaddyD wrote:This is an example of private sector incentive logic not being able to work effectively in a public sector service based environment. (Whether you agree with it or not).
Ah the old 'In your opinion and then state your own opinion as more valid' discussion technique. The tried and tested Internet Forum rebuff. :roll: Totally ignoring that almost everything said on a forum is largely an opinion.
You can see the irony can't you? It's not the first time you've tried to shoot down what I've said as my invalid opinion to reinforce your seemingly more valid opinion.
Seriously stunted method of debating, that. But of course even that is 'in my opinion'.
Also amazing that you seem to ignore my very plausible justification for my opinion and given none yourself.DDD previously wrote:Slightly editted
This would be unethical, patient care is paramount and there are other things such as training to be offered as an incentive to perform. People don't become carers to have their jobs incentivised. Also you are not considering that knowing the job might not be permanent the carer may react in a way that stops them engaging fully with the patient. I take it you never worked along side carers or medical staff who look after those who are mentally or physically unwell where stability is part of the care being given?
The above is a very real, very justifiable reason of why some jobs need the stability of not being on a fixed term contract. It is a very real and very justifiable reason of why putting all public sector staff on a contract simply wouldn't work.
That's blinkered at best. Here's why, you said it youself:Monkeypump wrote:
I'm not saying anything other than good contractors can potentially do a better job than bad FTEs.DonDaddyD wrote:...finding the right incentive to match the right job is important but then in acknowledging that surely you can being to see that making all jobs fixed term contracts has a limiting effect.
Mokeypump wrote
"There will be examples of both contractors and FTEs doing excellent work and very poor work, with a range of motivations and performance indicators."
You've mooted your own point.
I think this thread is done.
No sarcasm intended in fact (and certainly no hostility beyond the joy of winding you up), but you clearly missed that. I certainly don't think my opinion is more valid than yours*, but where you make assumptions and appear to state opinion as fact, I'm not going to accept that you know best.
Anyway, since you still haven't put your handbag away, let's just agree that the thread is done. There was, after all, a reasonable summary a couple of pages back. I'll even wind my neck in for you. Happy now?
After all, we'll all have your next thread to look forward to, and plenty more of the same.
* Except where you make the faintly absurd claim that steak should be well done. On that, you are clearly wrong.0 -
Any thoughts on the following:
Why don't private sector workers go on strike?0 -
Clever Pun wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:what can I say I'm part chav
you eat in burger kings and mcdonalds don't you... *looks dejectedly away*
Yeah right - much more likely to be a sneery snob look than a dejected one.0 -
andyrm wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:WTF, do my eyes deceive me.
You're the one who claimed all public sector employees should be put on 12month fixed term contracts! WTF. You came online to post at 7 in the morning on a weekend. Don't now try to portray yourself as some self righteous bunny who is by miracle of a higher power the pillar of rational debate.
And no my title, followed by very reasonable first post, did not cause you to respond with such extreme views.
The site has gone downhill ever since Always Tyred left...
Why so much anger DDD?
I'm capable of posting angry without being angry. I did so because your post is highly hypocritical. You spent days posting your extremist views and now complain about the (entirely plausible) thread title as being too provacative and emotive.Seems like yet another example of the anger from the pro-PS people. Just like with Bob Crow and his cronies, what is it with public servants and confrontationalism?
:shock:
Really. You are actually trying to link this with an attack on the public sector. Really.
Wow.
:shock: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 -
Sewinman wrote:Clever Pun wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:what can I say I'm part chav
you eat in burger kings and mcdonalds don't you... *looks dejectedly away*
Yeah right - much more likely to be a sneary snob look than a dejected one.
nothing snobbish about saying the above food "eateries" are shithouse.. that's just cold hard facts... check out the food nutrition info if you will, you'd be better off eating out of a supermarket dumpster...
<snob>The company you'd keep would be about equal too</snob>Purveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
Clever Pun wrote:Sewinman wrote:Clever Pun wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:what can I say I'm part chav
you eat in burger kings and mcdonalds don't you... *looks dejectedly away*
Yeah right - much more likely to be a sneary snob look than a dejected one.
nothing snobbish about saying the above food "eateries" are shithouse.. that's just cold hard facts... check out the food nutrition info if you will, you'd be better off eating out of a supermarket dumpster...
<snob>The company you'd keep would be about equal too</snob>
Declaring someone's choice of restaraunt as 'f'ing gross' smacks of snobbery to me, but anyway....0 -
andyrm wrote:Giant Jon wrote:Any thoughts on the following:
Why don't private sector workers go on strike?
Because we understand the link between doing the job we are paid to do, and getting paid at the end of the month.
So if, for example, the company decided that all workers would have to work an average 9 hours extra per week and receive no extra on your monthly pay, would the same still apply?
Why not go on strike, and defend yourself?0 -
Sewinman wrote:Clever Pun wrote:Sewinman wrote:Clever Pun wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:what can I say I'm part chav
you eat in burger kings and mcdonalds don't you... *looks dejectedly away*
Yeah right - much more likely to be a sneary snob look than a dejected one.
nothing snobbish about saying the above food "eateries" are shithouse.. that's just cold hard facts... check out the food nutrition info if you will, you'd be better off eating out of a supermarket dumpster...
<snob>The company you'd keep would be about equal too</snob>
Declaring someone's choice of restaraunt as 'f'ing gross' smacks of snobbery to me, but anyway....
didn't say gross though did I.. I said shit...
Having spoken to people who have reheated stuff for a living(sorry, cooked) at spoonies I know what I'm talking about..Purveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
Sewinman wrote:
BA's cabin crew are very much in the minority in the private sector and are sadly an example of what happens when a workforce falls under the influence of a militant union. Before long, I expect to see BA taking firm action against them. Can't say I disagree either. They keep going on about their "rights" but forget their obligations to their employer.0 -
Giant Jon wrote:andyrm wrote:Giant Jon wrote:Any thoughts on the following:
Why don't private sector workers go on strike?
Because we understand the link between doing the job we are paid to do, and getting paid at the end of the month.
So if, for example, the company decided that all workers would have to work an average 9 hours extra per week and receive no extra on your monthly pay, would the same still apply?
Why not go on strike, and defend yourself?
Why not negotiate like adults and reach a compromise solution rather than throwing toys out of the pram and issuing ultimatums and demands for money that isn't there?0 -
Sewinman wrote:Clever Pun wrote:Sewinman wrote:Clever Pun wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:what can I say I'm part chav
you eat in burger kings and mcdonalds don't you... *looks dejectedly away*
Yeah right - much more likely to be a sneary snob look than a dejected one.
nothing snobbish about saying the above food "eateries" are shithouse.. that's just cold hard facts... check out the food nutrition info if you will, you'd be better off eating out of a supermarket dumpster...
<snob>The company you'd keep would be about equal too</snob>
Declaring someone's choice of restaraunt as 'f'ing gross' smacks of snobbery to me, but anyway....
God I love this thread, my greatest and my worst work EVER
Sewinman, when I worked in McDonalds we threw some out of date dounuts in the red/food bin. The manager told us to take them (effing) out and re-label them with a new sell by date. The McMuffin egg comes out of a milk carton and is completely liquid like milk until fried. I have eaten there and may continue to do so. but even I have to accept that McDonalds i's f*cking wrong. Burger King is worse to be honest I'm sure they microwave their burgers and the flame grill is just a flavor and done prior to ariving in the store and being frozen.CP wrote:didn't say gross though did I.. I said shoot...
Having spoken to people who have reheated stuff for a living(sorry, cooked) at spoonies I know what I'm talking about..
On spoonies, I've worked there as well. The curries are microwaved. The steak and steak like items like gammon is cooked on a grill but you can question the quality of the meat.
I won't defend the quality but then I'm no hardnosed foodie - Ms DDD is and is constantly trying to get me to stop eating sh*t. I'm trying but its like smoking, hard to quit.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 -
andyrm wrote:Giant Jon wrote:andyrm wrote:Giant Jon wrote:Any thoughts on the following:
Why don't private sector workers go on strike?
Because we understand the link between doing the job we are paid to do, and getting paid at the end of the month.
So if, for example, the company decided that all workers would have to work an average 9 hours extra per week and receive no extra on your monthly pay, would the same still apply?
Why not go on strike, and defend yourself?
Why not negotiate like adults and reach a compromise solution rather than throwing toys out of the pram and issuing ultimatums and demands for money that isn't there?
On the other side of the coin: 'Why not negotiate like adults and reach a compromise solution rather than throwing toys out of the pram and issuing ultimatums that there is no longer any money and so you all have to work harder because we say so'0 -
Giant Jon wrote:On the other side of the coin: 'Why not negotiate like adults and reach a compromise solution rather than throwing toys out of the pram and issuing ultimatums that there is no longer any money and so you all have to work harder because we say so'
Good point well raised Jon - must admit I have worked on the assumption that we are talking about companies in crisis where there isn't extra money in the pot and the extra work is a necessity to ensure survival and so protect those jobs.
If on the other hand, it is some company that thinks it's still the 1800s and tried to force people to do more for no extra just to feed margins, that is undeniably wrong. I still don't ever agree with strike action until all avenues have been exhausted.
Nice to have just had a sensible exchange on this thread - thanks!0 -
andyrm wrote:Giant Jon wrote:On the other side of the coin: 'Why not negotiate like adults and reach a compromise solution rather than throwing toys out of the pram and issuing ultimatums that there is no longer any money and so you all have to work harder because we say so'
Good point well raised Jon - must admit I have worked on the assumption that we are talking about companies in crisis where there isn't extra money in the pot and the extra work is a necessity to ensure survival and so protect those jobs.
If on the other hand, it is some company that thinks it's still the 1800s and tried to force people to do more for no extra just to feed margins, that is undeniably wrong. I still don't ever agree with strike action until all avenues have been exhausted.
Nice to have just had a sensible exchange on this thread - thanks!
By all means find a solution first, but it's a two way thing. The example I gave was based on my former employers - a police force - so not as relevant as I would have liked, but we're all trying to earn a crust afterall. Cheers anyway, I'm off to find a job now...0 -
Just to stoke the embers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8003324/Myth-of-the-underpaid-public-sector-worker.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8003478/The-trouble-with-the-public-sector-is-bone-idle-staff.html- 2023 Vielo V+1
- 2022 Canyon Aeroad CFR
- 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
- Strava
- On the Strand
- Crown Stables
0 -
Il Principe wrote:
Oh dear. So public sector workers are paid more than the private sector?
Any public sector apologists want to revoke any of their comments?0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:W1 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:W1 wrote:So, what's the problem with a 12 month contract then? Gives some employees maybe 11
more months of job securtiy than they currently have....
Well, firstly the two are a completely different aspects of employment.
Notice is the period you must work/serve when leaving an organisation
A contract is the length of your employment.
You could be on a 12 month contract and have either one month or three months notice period at the end of the contract. This means that as the contract ends the employer has to tell you one or three months before the end of the contract that they want you to leave or renew the contract.
As an employee should you find another job you have to work for either one or three months (meaning you can't start the new job for one or three months), depending on your notice period.
Obviously three months notice is more desirable if your employment is about to end, you technically have more time employed to find another job.
As I said most jobs only offer one month notice and senior positions tend to give three months.
Thanks for the lesson but I can assure you I know the difference between a notice period and a contract period. You're supposing that the contract will carry any notice period at all (which it most likely will do, but by it's definition is otherwise a fixed period).
But you haven't answered the question. A 12 month contract is an incentive to perform.
Well clearly you don't or you wouldn't have written this:W1 wrote:Being asked to be on a 12 month contract actually gives more job securtiy than being subject to 3 months notice!
It (what you have written) actually doesn't make any literal sense. You wouldn't be on a 12month contract or have 3 months notice. You would likely have a 12months contract and * months notice.
The two, as I said before, are two different employment concepts that often work together. A notice period is often part of the contract.
A contracts shouldl state (not all do) the existence of a notice period (whether there is one or not). What happens if the employer or employee wants to terminate the contract early? Any stated notice period and money for work down must be upheld unless a mutual agreement to adjust or simply ignore the notice period is agreed by both parties.
Oh and:
Full time contract's do carry notice periods, it's different for temporary cover.
But you haven't answered the question. A 12 month contract is an incentive to perform.
That's not a question its a statement. One, which is too simplistic to answer. Being able to perform isn't not solely based on a job secruity there are other factors that could hinder or support the supposed incentive.
Oh andThanks for the lesson
You're welcome.
I would suggest that you re-read the Ladybird Book of Contract Law or Armchair Legal Advice For Dummies or whatever your source is.
A 12 month contract is a 12 month contract. That's 12 months job security. A three month notice period provides three months of job security. 12 is bigger than 3. Whilst the 12 month contract may also have a notice period that's not what I said. Excluding your various presumptions and qualifications (and your contradictory post above) a 12 month contract provides for 12 months work at a minimum. An unlimited contract with three months notice provides for three months work at a minimum.
It's pretty simple, I would hope.0 -
I would imagine that most short term contracts are a little more subtle than that, and may include terms by which they can be terminated before the end of the intended contract period. If a company went under, those on fixed term contracts would be out of a job, the same as those on permanent contracts.
There is also the fact that a permanent contract (albeit with a 3 month notice period) will usually run indefinitely, and whilst it is possible that your boss might come in one morning and hand you your notice without warning, there is usually some advance notice of whether redundancies are likely. There is a presumption of continued employment unless the position becomes redundant. In contrast, a 12 month contract WILL end at the end of 12 months, there is no presumption of continued employment, or even any requirement for the employer to consider you for the post, if it still exists.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
"At his Merseyside branch, he said he had managed to become more efficient by cutting the number of firemen from 1,550 to 850 since 1991.
At the same time, fire-related deaths had dropped by 60 per cent, and injuries by 70 per cent as a result of running a fire prevention programme alongside the cuts.
He told a seminar: "We've got some bone-idle people in the public sector – there I said it, bone-idle people.""
What a remarkable thing to say at a seminar organised by Reform who (in their words) is "A policy institute promoting new directions for public policy based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, and individual liberty."0 -
W1, I'm not going rise to your petty insults they are frankly beneath me. It is easy to hurl insults from behind a PC and play the keyboard warrior. :roll:
Yes.W1 wrote:A 12 month contract is a 12 month contract.
Yes as long as the contract isn't terminated or cancelled. Should the contract end early it is likely that a notice period will need to be served - this is the corner stone of my entire point.That's 12 months job security.A three month notice period provides three months of job security.
Well yes, but not really. It’s the period you have to serve should you or the employer choose to end the contract and no serious breaches of the contract agreement have occurred meaning the contract could be terminated.
Yes, but the length of a contract and the notice period served are not directly comparable.12 is bigger than 3.
You are employed to work the length of a contract
You aren’t employed to serve a notice period.
You cannot compare length of a contract with the length of the notice period in an effort to determine job security in the way that you are doing. You could compare the length of the contract combined with the notice period to determine job security. - But that would be subjective to the individual probably based on their life, dependants and responsibilities etc.Whilst the 12 month contract may also have a notice period that's not what I said.
No, you said something that doesn't make any literal sense. See below:W1 wrote:Being asked to be on a 12 month contract actually gives more job securtiy than being subject to 3 months notice!
As I said: You are employed to work the length of a contract. You aren’t employed to serve a notice period. So I do not see how you can compare the job security of employment against the notice period that leads up to the end of employment.
I wasn't aware that my experience and knowledge of contracts were presumptions. I wasn't aware I contradicted myself and I certainly am not aware I stated any qualifications. I think these are merely figments of your own assumptions. But ho hum.Excluding your various presumptions and qualifications (and your contradictory post above)
Yes.a 12 month contract provides for 12 months work at a minimum.
Well not really, it provides continuous employment and the agreement that three months notice will have to served should the contract of employment be terminated and no serious breaches have occurerd where the contract can be terminated immediately without consideration of the notice.An unlimited contract with three months notice provides for three months work at a minimum.It's pretty simple, I would hope.
Well not really, read on....
As I said before. A fixed term contract and a permantent contract (having had both in my time) may have a notice period. Should the employer want to terminate the contract or should the employee seek other employment they would have to give and serve any stated notice period. There are circumstances where a contract can be terminated without having to serve notice.
At the end of the fixed contract a notice period does not need to be served as the contract itself states the end date of employment. Good practice would see the employer and employee meet before the contract is over to dicuss the end date and or any possibilities of an extension.
You'll also find that a one month notice period is standard for most employees and those who are in either senior or operationally crucial positions tend to have 3 months notice, which is in fact quite good.
On the subject of job secruity,
A permanent contract offer more job security than a fixed term contract
A three month notice period offers more security than one month.
You cannot directly compare the impression of job secruity between notice period and length of contract. They are almost completely different functions that make up the terms of employment.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 -
And in the Torygraph. Who'd have thought. I'm sure I can find an article in the Socialist Worker (if I knew where to look) that is equally one-sided.
Mind you, daft quote from the TUC Conference: not sure which delegate, but it was along the lines of, "this is not an economic crisis, it's a bankers' crisis!" Err, what?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:W1, I'm not going rise to your petty insults they are frankly beneath me. It is easy to hurl insults from behind a PC and play the keyboard warrior. :roll:
Like threatening two posters on here to wind their necks in? Or is OK if you do it?
And there was nothing insulting - your understanding of contract law is evidently poor.DonDaddyD wrote:
Yes.W1 wrote:A 12 month contract is a 12 month contract.
Yes as long as the contract isn't terminated or cancelled. Should the contract end early it is likely that a notice period will need to be served - this is the corner stone of my entire point.That's 12 months job security.
And my entire point is that you've just added this presumption that a notice period will need to be included. Yet you're the only one who has mentioned it.DonDaddyD wrote:A three month notice period provides three months of job security.
Well yes, but not really. It’s the period you have to serve should you or the employer choose to end the contract and no serious breaches of the contract agreement have occurred meaning the contract could be terminated.
Indeed, so you know you will have a job for three months. You are "secure" in your "job".DonDaddyD wrote:
Yes, but the length of a contract and the notice period served are not directly comparable.12 is bigger than 3.
You are employed to work the length of a contract
You aren’t employed to serve a notice period.
You cannot compare length of a contract with the length of the notice period in an effort to determine job security in the way that you are doing. You could compare the length of the contract combined with the notice period to determine job security. - But that would be subjective to the individual probably based on their life, dependants and responsibilities etc.
Of course you can - they are both periods of time under which you know (to the extent possible) that you have work/income. You have added ("presumed") a notice period into the contract, and undertaken your analysis on that basis. But that is your own presumption and taits the remainder of your post.DonDaddyD wrote:
I wasn't aware that my experience and knowledge of contracts were presumptions. I wasn't aware I contradicted myself and I certainly am not aware I stated any qualifications. I think these are merely figments of your own assumptions. But ho hum.Excluding your various presumptions and qualifications (and your contradictory post above)
You made various qualifications such as "may" or "should". You continue do so. No wonder you're confused.0 -
I just want to know whether DDD is at work today, or posting between other mysterious assignments.0
-
W1 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:W1, I'm not going rise to your petty insults they are frankly beneath me. It is easy to hurl insults from behind a PC and play the keyboard warrior. :roll:
Like threatening two posters on here to wind their necks in? Or is OK if you do it?
And there was nothing insulting - your understanding of contract law is evidently poor.
Oh please, that's just ridiculous. There are far worse things that could be said or done to imply threat than to tell someone to wind their neck in when they have clearly overstepped the mark and crossed the line.
Lets try to keep our feet on the ground here.
Needless to say that I don't believe my understanding of employment is poor. A contract fixed term may have written into it a notice period. This is seperate to the end date of the contract.W1 wrote:And my entire point is that you've just added this presumption that a notice period will need to be included. Yet you're the only one who has mentioned it.
No, your point was that 12months contract offered more security that 3 months notice. I am arguing that the two are not comparable (see below).W1 wrote:Being asked to be on a 12 month contract actually gives more job securtiy than being subject to 3 months notice!
I haven't added any presumption, I have always implied that a contract may or may not have written into a notice period. I have also pointed out that notice and length of contract aren't directly comparable when wieghing up job security. I have also stated that a contract when ended isn't subject to a notice period but during the contract any stated notice period does apply.W1 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:A three month notice period provides three months of job security.
Well yes, but not really. It’s the period you have to serve should you or the employer choose to end the contract and no serious breaches of the contract agreement have occurred meaning the contract could be terminated.
Indeed, so you know you will have a job for three months. You are "secure" in your "job".
Yes, should the period of employment end early and it is written into the contract that there is a notice period then yes. Assuming of course, that there are no serious breaches of the contract.W1 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
Yes, but the length of a contract and the notice period served are not directly comparable.12 is bigger than 3.
You are employed to work the length of a contract
You aren’t employed to serve a notice period.
You cannot compare length of a contract with the length of the notice period in an effort to determine job security in the way that you are doing. You could compare the length of the contract combined with the notice period to determine job security. - But that would be subjective to the individual probably based on their life, dependants and responsibilities etc.
Of course you can - they are both periods of time under which you know (to the extent possible) that you have work/income. You have added ("presumed") a notice period into the contract, and undertaken your analysis on that basis. But that is your own presumption and taits the remainder of your post.
But they are completely different entities. As I said earlier, a person isn't employed to work 3 months notice they are employed to work a length of a contract that may or may not contain a notice period. They are not direct comparisons because they are not two different forms of employment.
You can directly compare the virtues of a fixed term contract and a permanent one as they are two forms of employment. You can compare those against temporary work and part time work. You cannot compare it to a notice period. You can compare different lengths of notice period against one another.W1 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
I wasn't aware that my experience and knowledge of contracts were presumptions. I wasn't aware I contradicted myself and I certainly am not aware I stated any qualifications. I think these are merely figments of your own assumptions. But ho hum.Excluding your various presumptions and qualifications (and your contradictory post above)
You made various qualifications such as "may" or "should". You continue do so. No wonder you're confused.
I have done so because nothing is absolute. You may have a problem with it but it is simply a fact that there may be or may not be a notice period written into a contract. There is nothing wrong in writing in this manner.
When you wrote qualifications I actually thought you meant qualificiations and not qualifier - within a sentence. Still there is nothing wrong with the inclusion of these irrespective of whether you like them or not.
But back to the point.
This:W1 wrote:Being asked to be on a 12 month contract actually gives more job securtiy than being subject to 3 months notice!
Makes no sense.
If you have 3 months notice and are on a permanent contract you have more job security than a person on a fixed term contract regardless of their notice period. Why? Because the person on the fixed term contract understands that it is going to end. Hence less security.
You wouldn't compare the period of notice against the length of the contract.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:Needless to say that I don't believe my understanding of anything and everything is poor.
Fixed that for you.0 -
Monkeypump and DDD - please feel free to keep arguing but can you please do it without trading personal insults.
The alternative is that we delete the entire thread, and start banning people.
ta0
