I see Boris apologists have moved on from yesterday’s insistence that there is no issue because Boris got the money from Tory HQ.
Well I’m not an apologist and have not voted Tory in my life but I am failing to see anything of any substance here merely opponents throwing as much mud as possible in the hope some sticks. There may be something to it but at the moment there isn’t. Like the Dyson story and other stories they are pretty much non events. Labour equating the Dyson call with 90s Tory sleaze is absurd.
Tory sleaze of the 90s was pretty mild compared to this.
None of these events in isolation - with the possible exception of "bodies piled high" are enough to sink Liar. But pile them all up and the smell eventually permeates even the most corked-up nostrils.
The decorations thing is straightforward - in not declaring a loan the PM broke the ministerial code and in any other time would have to resign. So the issue is less about what brand of wallpaper NutNut used and more about the collapse in standards and propriety at the heart of government.
From what I see on social media people get proper het up about their money being "wasted" and under the table agreements when its a Labour council, yet apply the exact opposite standards when its a Tory mayor or Tory government. Double standards may be easy to live with for partisan hypocrites but normal punters eventually take notice and say "hang on".
The rot has set in. It gets you in the end. What has been most striking about this episode is how Tory supporters are totally fine with it and have repeatedly gone on the record saying so.
The judgment will be made on the 6th May across the UK
And then conclusions may be drawn
I know that you’re spinning that line for all it’s worth but it’s total bullshit.
Of course it is not
Thought experiment, in your view did Labour winning the 2005 GE represent a final judgement on everything that went before? Will you suddenly accept Mark Drakeford is doing a great job if he wins?
I've commented a couple of times recently, not exactly in defence of Johnson, but in saying that the Dyson affair was fluff and that "bodies piled high" dedpended very much on context, but may well be defensible.
On the flat payments, I'm less sure. One of the defences being put forward here seems to be that Johnson doesn't own the flat, so where's the scandal? But if a donor offered services in kind, say the use of a luxury holiday apartment, we might ask questions about what the donor was getting in return, even though the recipient would not own the thing given. Johnson will benefit from use of the upgraded flat. From what I've seen of the planned changes, there's no tangible improvement for whoever comes next if they have taste This one has the potential to be, at least, quite embarassing.
The simplest way to determine if this is bad, is to pretend it was Keir Starmer in Downing Street.
Would the Tories be calling this out, absolutely they would. And rightfully so, it's all we would hear here day after day.
So yes, it's bad.
Naah.
Jeremy Corbyn is Prime Minister (stop sniggering). He decided to do up Downing Street and having said he didn't have the money to do so managed to throw absurd monies at hammer and sickle wallpaper and little busts of Lenin. The money to pay for all this was generously donated by Unite. After some unpatriotic tittle-tattle the monies were repaid (from a source that Jeremy refuses to disclose) and the required declaration made months after the legal deadline.
None of the PB Tories would have a problem with this. Obviously.
So what. Politicians in double standards shock. The same politicians who refused to accept the result of the Brexit vote were demanding Trump accept the result of the US election. Politicians are hypocrites. People aren’t blind.
Can’t you find something edgy and pithy from Marina Hyde to post now ?
It’s a problem for Labour. People can remember Labour sleaze so are less likely to care. In the mid-90s, I reckon people genuinely believed New Labour would be different.
It’s bit of a shame for Starmer, as I think he and a lot of his front bench would probably be pretty sound in this regard. But Blair et al have poisoned the well.
Didn't Rayner make an expenses claim for Airpods she wasn't using for Zoom calls literally a few months ago?
Yep, and Guido’s intern spent half a day picking up screenshots of her in every public online call she’d done in weeks - with no sign of said AirPods. Their use for online work meetings was the justification on the expenses claim form.
“@sailorrooscout This is wonderful! Real-world data out of the UK shows delaying the second dose of Pfizer’s or AstraZeneca’s vaccine to 12 weeks DOES NOT compromise effectiveness!
In addition, there were NO significant declines in antibody levels in ALL adults (including the elderly) during the 10-12 week interval between the first and second dose.”
My advice is for you to throw yourself into the role and not mention anything until you've been in the job for a few months.
Make sure you're noted for the quality of the work you do not for being the one who complains about the salary.
My first job straight out of university worked out at lower per hour than a paper boy/girl and as a 21/22 year old I also had a mortgage so if I were you just drop that hint to your boss about your rent/mortgage.
If they are good employers they will have processes in place to note you're being in paid sub NMW/plans for reviews, if not, leave after a few months if the situation isn't rectified.
One of the issues in the profession is when you apply for jobs, other than graduate training schemes, is that they always insist on 'experience', so you'll have that from this job.
On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.
And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.
It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
Judging by some of the evidence which has come out of the inquiry a number of the builders and developers did not follow the law and/ or built properties in ways which they knew or ought to have known were unsafe. So they should be held financially responsible. Of course, if they have disappeared that is a big problem. But making a lot of voters either bankrupt or homeless or both is a brave policy. Those people have votes. Disappearing developers do not.
The Tories simultaneously here credit the vaccine rollout as a major Tory success hence their poll boost but if Labour wins again in Wales, it's got nothing to do with the vaccines there and is not an endorsement Drakeford has done a good job
In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.
What do I do? Nothing?
I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?
I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.
Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.
Thoughts?
Work the hours you’re paid for? You aren’t a charity, they should pay you overtime or hours for extra holiday etc
Yes but I’m realistic. Long hours for little pay are expected of someone early in their legal career, but I cant imagine a law firm would intentionally open themselves up to an unlawful deduction from wages claim unless the calculation is that it’s worth the liability.
My initial thoughts are to just keep good records going forwards with the understanding I’ve agreed to make this sacrifice and be thankful i’m in the financial position to make such a sacrifice...
Good plan. Work your bollocks off, make an impression, record it all vs your contract.
Then either you will progress making this an amusing anecdote told from your chateau in years to come or move somewhere else having made an impression as a hard worker who gets things done.
If the employer can’t get the legal basics right, it’s not a well run business and you have to question what opportunities it truly offers the hard working employee.
That is true. But every month is experience in the bank. Not 100% sure making such a stand is the right move at this stage of his career. But yes, if he wants to leave he should leave and find another job. If he can.
Working long hours , wagging your tail like a puppy and hoping for love is a high risk strategy in some firms. In the end you just waste precious time. Eyes open and and be prepared to move. There are some truly shit employers out there.
The best thing you can do for your career is to work for someone who treats you well, gives you opportunities and is prepared to invest time and money in you.
Not paying the NMW is a bad sign IMO.
The NMW should be being paid for the hours expected to be worked - were Gallowgate to work beyond those hours (because he thinks he is being slow or could do better) that would be a different matter.
There would however be an issue were Gallowgate was working beyond X hours and there was a paper trail with signed off timesheets involved and given where he will be working timesheets will exist.
But basically it comes down to two things - do enough to prove your worth and watch out for imposter syndrome
I've commented a couple of times recently, not exactly in defence of Johnson, but in saying that the Dyson affair was fluff and that "bodies piled high" dedpended very much on context, but may well be defensible.
On the flat payments, I'm less sure. One of the defences being put forward here seems to be that Johnson doesn't own the flat, so where's the scandal? But if a donor offered services in kind, say the use of a luxury holiday apartment, we might ask questions about what the donor was getting in return, even though the recipient would not own the thing given. Johnson will benefit from use of the upgraded flat. From what I've seen of the planned changes, there's no tangible improvement for whoever comes next if they have taste This one has the potential to be, at least, quite embarassing.
The simplest way to determine if this is bad, is to pretend it was Keir Starmer in Downing Street.
Would the Tories be calling this out, absolutely they would. And rightfully so, it's all we would hear here day after day.
So yes, it's bad.
Naah.
Jeremy Corbyn is Prime Minister (stop sniggering). He decided to do up Downing Street and having said he didn't have the money to do so managed to throw absurd monies at hammer and sickle wallpaper and little busts of Lenin. The money to pay for all this was generously donated by Unite. After some unpatriotic tittle-tattle the monies were repaid (from a source that Jeremy refuses to disclose) and the required declaration made months after the legal deadline.
None of the PB Tories would have a problem with this. Obviously.
As it's a State owned property, being no personal asset to whomever the PM happens to be, who gives a flying-fuck who pays for it?
I've commented a couple of times recently, not exactly in defence of Johnson, but in saying that the Dyson affair was fluff and that "bodies piled high" dedpended very much on context, but may well be defensible.
On the flat payments, I'm less sure. One of the defences being put forward here seems to be that Johnson doesn't own the flat, so where's the scandal? But if a donor offered services in kind, say the use of a luxury holiday apartment, we might ask questions about what the donor was getting in return, even though the recipient would not own the thing given. Johnson will benefit from use of the upgraded flat. From what I've seen of the planned changes, there's no tangible improvement for whoever comes next if they have taste This one has the potential to be, at least, quite embarassing.
The simplest way to determine if this is bad, is to pretend it was Keir Starmer in Downing Street.
Would the Tories be calling this out, absolutely they would. And rightfully so, it's all we would hear here day after day.
So yes, it's bad.
I’d be saying the same if it was starmer in number 10. It’s currently a bit of a non story. There may be one but it isn’t there.
Oh and my first job was in McDonalds in Wembley with me, I noticed a couple of weeks afterwards, as the only white guy working there out of around 40 staff. Don't cancel me for noticing; this was over 30 years ago.
McDonalds was my second job as a student and I noticed that the team at the front on the tills where I worked were all white, the team in the kitchen were not. Half the time the kitchen weren't speaking English either.
I got a major pay rise when I went from working on the tills at the Co-op to working on the tills at McDonalds. While the Co-op were paying minimum wage (and just £2 per hour for 16/17 year olds), McDonalds were then paying above minimum wage as a starting rate and did performance review pay rises too.
Still makes me laugh when people act like McDonalds is unethical and the Co-op is fantastic. My personal view of the companies, even now twenty years later, is very much the other way around.
I've commented a couple of times recently, not exactly in defence of Johnson, but in saying that the Dyson affair was fluff and that "bodies piled high" dedpended very much on context, but may well be defensible.
On the flat payments, I'm less sure. One of the defences being put forward here seems to be that Johnson doesn't own the flat, so where's the scandal? But if a donor offered services in kind, say the use of a luxury holiday apartment, we might ask questions about what the donor was getting in return, even though the recipient would not own the thing given. Johnson will benefit from use of the upgraded flat. From what I've seen of the planned changes, there's no tangible improvement for whoever comes next if they have taste This one has the potential to be, at least, quite embarassing.
The simplest way to determine if this is bad, is to pretend it was Keir Starmer in Downing Street.
Would the Tories be calling this out, absolutely they would. And rightfully so, it's all we would hear here day after day.
So yes, it's bad.
Naah.
Jeremy Corbyn is Prime Minister (stop sniggering). He decided to do up Downing Street and having said he didn't have the money to do so managed to throw absurd monies at hammer and sickle wallpaper and little busts of Lenin. The money to pay for all this was generously donated by Unite. After some unpatriotic tittle-tattle the monies were repaid (from a source that Jeremy refuses to disclose) and the required declaration made months after the legal deadline.
None of the PB Tories would have a problem with this. Obviously.
As it's a State owned property, being no personal asset to whomever the PM happens to be, who gives a flying-fuck who pays for it?
Boris Johnson cares. In the forward of the Ministerial Code where he says that Boris Johnson can't do what he has done.
The Tories simultaneously here credit the vaccine rollout as a major Tory success hence their poll boost but if Labour wins again in Wales, it's got nothing to do with the vaccines there and is not an endorsement Drakeford has done a good job
"Good job" by doing what exactly? Taking the vaccines sourced by and allocated to him by the UK central government and dishing them out. Well done that delivery boy - for that's what he is.
I've commented a couple of times recently, not exactly in defence of Johnson, but in saying that the Dyson affair was fluff and that "bodies piled high" dedpended very much on context, but may well be defensible.
On the flat payments, I'm less sure. One of the defences being put forward here seems to be that Johnson doesn't own the flat, so where's the scandal? But if a donor offered services in kind, say the use of a luxury holiday apartment, we might ask questions about what the donor was getting in return, even though the recipient would not own the thing given. Johnson will benefit from use of the upgraded flat. From what I've seen of the planned changes, there's no tangible improvement for whoever comes next if they have taste This one has the potential to be, at least, quite embarassing.
The simplest way to determine if this is bad, is to pretend it was Keir Starmer in Downing Street.
Would the Tories be calling this out, absolutely they would. And rightfully so, it's all we would hear here day after day.
So yes, it's bad.
Naah.
Jeremy Corbyn is Prime Minister (stop sniggering). He decided to do up Downing Street and having said he didn't have the money to do so managed to throw absurd monies at hammer and sickle wallpaper and little busts of Lenin. The money to pay for all this was generously donated by Unite. After some unpatriotic tittle-tattle the monies were repaid (from a source that Jeremy refuses to disclose) and the required declaration made months after the legal deadline.
None of the PB Tories would have a problem with this. Obviously.
As it's a State owned property, being no personal asset to whomever the PM happens to be, who gives a flying-fuck who pays for it?
Boris Johnson cares. In the forward of the Ministerial Code where he says that Boris Johnson can't do what he has done.
Oh really?
When was the deadline for declaring anything relevant to this?
On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.
And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.
It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
Judging by some of the evidence which has come out of the inquiry a number of the builders and developers did not follow the law and/ or built properties in ways which they knew or ought to have known were unsafe. So they should be held financially responsible. Of course, if they have disappeared that is a big problem. But making a lot of voters either bankrupt or homeless or both is a brave policy. Those people have votes. Disappearing developers do not.
Surely the blame goes in order:-
Builders / Developers NHBC (for signing things off) Building Control (often private firms that are insured) The Freeholders (who are often the directors of the building firms, nice secondary pension fund there) The leaseholders
As a lot of Developers / Builders made significant (and excess) profits from Help to Buy it seems only fair that they should be the first to be asked to contribute.
In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.
What do I do? Nothing?
I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?
I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.
Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.
Thoughts?
You don’t raise it
Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.
Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere
Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.
But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.
Thank you.
I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra
My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
Yes, but for less than NMW ?
My first job in the 1990s I was paid £27,000 per year + bonus. Assuming an 80 hour work week that’s 4,000 hours a year so about £6.75 per hour in salary (I think my bonus was about £11,000 from memory).
A long time ago - and pre NMW - but probably not too far off what it would have been.
LOL - That's ~ £50k in today's money depending on how late in the 90s this was.
Probably closer to £40-45k
And then halve it to adjust for the hours worked.
My first job after school before I went to University in 1978 paid £23 a week. It was an excellent investment though because my wife gets a laugh about me working in a DIY shop to this day.
My first job was working behind the till at a cheesemonger. Paid £140 per week.
The discrepancy does remind you that there used to be something called inflation. Whatever happened to it?
In 1983 I started as a trainee solicitor at £3800 a year which after a month went up to the giddy heights of £4,000 which, given the hours we worked, probably worked out about £1.40 an hour. I didn't feel particularly exploited, it was just the system, but fairly rapidly I was putting my annual salary through in fees each week. The profit margins were just mind blowing for professionals in those days.
On the fees/pay discrepancy, I worked at the Patent Office for a time, first job out of uni in early 2000s, about £20k per year (although that was more or less a training contract and you could get up to £40k within five years or so). But one of their wheezes at the time was to bring money in through commercial search, i.e. doing the kind of thing patent attorneys will do, surveillance of what other companies are doing, looking at whether your idea has been done before you craft the patent application. But it was agreed that they mustn't undercut patent attorneys. So there I was, working for £20k while billing £200/hour or so to the customer.
My advice is for you to throw yourself into the role and not mention anything until you've been in the job for a few months.
Make sure you're noted for the quality of the work you do not for being the one who complains about the salary.
My first job straight out of university worked out at lower per hour than a paper boy/girl and as a 21/22 year old I also had a mortgage so if I were you just drop that hint to your boss about your rent/mortgage.
If they are good employers they will have processes in place to note you're being in paid sub NMW/plans for reviews, if not, leave after a few months if the situation isn't rectified.
One of the issues in the profession is when you apply for jobs, other than graduate training schemes, is that they always insist on 'experience', so you'll have that from this job.
That's good advice.
FWIW my wife did a career change into law 8 years ago. She was a paralegal on £18k for the first 18 months, then she got a training contract at £22k - qualified two years after that then up to about £35-40k.
Now, she's an in-house commercial lawyer on £68k + bonus.
How? She's worked very hard and been very good all the time, and coupled this with adroit diplomacy and people skills (don't forget that bit: crucial).
Also, she's not a mug. When she worked out she wasn't going anywhere in her previous firm (and her boss wasn't interested in pushing her forwards) she found another position, and left. If you do leave, always left politely and gracefully too - you can give feedback but it needs to be measured.
In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.
What do I do? Nothing?
I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?
I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.
Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.
Thoughts?
You don’t raise it
Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.
Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere
Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.
But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.
Thank you.
I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra
My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
Yes, but for less than NMW ?
My first job in the 1990s I was paid £27,000 per year + bonus. Assuming an 80 hour work week that’s 4,000 hours a year so about £6.75 per hour in salary (I think my bonus was about £11,000 from memory).
A long time ago - and pre NMW - but probably not too far off what it would have been.
LOL - That's ~ £50k in today's money depending on how late in the 90s this was.
Probably closer to £40-45k
And then halve it to adjust for the hours worked.
My first job after school before I went to University in 1978 paid £23 a week. It was an excellent investment though because my wife gets a laugh about me working in a DIY shop to this day.
My first job was working behind the till at a cheesemonger. Paid £140 per week.
The discrepancy does remind you that there used to be something called inflation. Whatever happened to it?
In 1983 I started as a trainee solicitor at £3800 a year which after a month went up to the giddy heights of £4,000 which, given the hours we worked, probably worked out about £1.40 an hour. I didn't feel particularly exploited, it was just the system, but fairly rapidly I was putting my annual salary through in fees each week. The profit margins were just mind blowing for professionals in those days.
On the fees/pay discrepancy, I worked at the Patent Office for a time, first job out of uni in early 2000s, about £20k per year (although that was more or less a training contract and you could get up to £40k within five years or so). But one of their wheezes at the time was to bring money in through commercial search, i.e. doing the kind of thing patent attorneys will do, surveillance of what other companies are doing, looking at whether your idea has been done before you craft the patent application. But it was agreed that they mustn't undercut patent attorneys. So there I was, working for £20k while billing £200/hour or so to the customer.
I didn't stay very long
Ouch!
Seen that often enough - it's common for IT consultants to be on £30/40k while being billed out at £2k+ a day...
I am sure someone will be along shortly to explain this is insightful irony not homophobia. I don't actually remember anyone wearing tank tops in the ministry, but I may have been too half cut to notice.
Oh and my first job was in McDonalds in Wembley with me, I noticed a couple of weeks afterwards, as the only white guy working there out of around 40 staff. Don't cancel me for noticing; this was over 30 years ago.
McDonalds was my second job as a student and I noticed that the team at the front on the tills where I worked were all white, the team in the kitchen were not. Half the time the kitchen weren't speaking English either.
I got a major pay rise when I went from working on the tills at the Co-op to working on the tills at McDonalds. While the Co-op were paying minimum wage (and just £2 per hour for 16/17 year olds), McDonalds were then paying above minimum wage as a starting rate and did performance review pay rises too.
Still makes me laugh when people act like McDonalds is unethical and the Co-op is fantastic. My personal view of the companies, even now twenty years later, is very much the other way around.
I loved working there - real sense of teamwork and learned a lot of lessons (I was a callow teenager between studies (actually can't remember if it was school hols or gap year).
I see Boris apologists have moved on from yesterday’s insistence that there is no issue because Boris got the money from Tory HQ.
Well I’m not an apologist and have not voted Tory in my life but I am failing to see anything of any substance here merely opponents throwing as much mud as possible in the hope some sticks. There may be something to it but at the moment there isn’t. Like the Dyson story and other stories they are pretty much non events. Labour equating the Dyson call with 90s Tory sleaze is absurd.
Tory sleaze of the 90s was pretty mild compared to this.
None of these events in isolation - with the possible exception of "bodies piled high" are enough to sink Liar. But pile them all up and the smell eventually permeates even the most corked-up nostrils.
The decorations thing is straightforward - in not declaring a loan the PM broke the ministerial code and in any other time would have to resign. So the issue is less about what brand of wallpaper NutNut used and more about the collapse in standards and propriety at the heart of government.
From what I see on social media people get proper het up about their money being "wasted" and under the table agreements when its a Labour council, yet apply the exact opposite standards when its a Tory mayor or Tory government. Double standards may be easy to live with for partisan hypocrites but normal punters eventually take notice and say "hang on".
The rot has set in. It gets you in the end. What has been most striking about this episode is how Tory supporters are totally fine with it and have repeatedly gone on the record saying so.
The judgment will be made on the 6th May across the UK
And then conclusions may be drawn
I know that you’re spinning that line for all it’s worth but it’s total bullshit.
Of course it is not
Thought experiment, in your view did Labour winning the 2005 GE represent a final judgement on everything that went before? Will you suddenly accept Mark Drakeford is doing a great job if he wins?
This furore has broken out just as postal votes are dropping on kitchen tables and if it has cut through then evidence of that should show in the results
You have not had the experience of living under labour in Wales for the last 22 years of abject failure on health, education and poverty.
Drakeford has only been able to roll out the vaccine due to Boris and the UK government pioneering the investment and enabling the world's leading vaccination programme
Labour will be at the very least the largest party in the Senedd, but are expected to lose seats and may depend on Plaid to govern.
Oh and my first job was in McDonalds in Wembley with me, I noticed a couple of weeks afterwards, as the only white guy working there out of around 40 staff. Don't cancel me for noticing; this was over 30 years ago.
McDonalds was my second job as a student and I noticed that the team at the front on the tills where I worked were all white, the team in the kitchen were not. Half the time the kitchen weren't speaking English either.
I got a major pay rise when I went from working on the tills at the Co-op to working on the tills at McDonalds. While the Co-op were paying minimum wage (and just £2 per hour for 16/17 year olds), McDonalds were then paying above minimum wage as a starting rate and did performance review pay rises too.
Still makes me laugh when people act like McDonalds is unethical and the Co-op is fantastic. My personal view of the companies, even now twenty years later, is very much the other way around.
I loved working there - real sense of teamwork and learned a lot of lessons (I was a callow teenager between studies (actually can't remember if it was school hols or gap year).
I've commented a couple of times recently, not exactly in defence of Johnson, but in saying that the Dyson affair was fluff and that "bodies piled high" dedpended very much on context, but may well be defensible.
On the flat payments, I'm less sure. One of the defences being put forward here seems to be that Johnson doesn't own the flat, so where's the scandal? But if a donor offered services in kind, say the use of a luxury holiday apartment, we might ask questions about what the donor was getting in return, even though the recipient would not own the thing given. Johnson will benefit from use of the upgraded flat. From what I've seen of the planned changes, there's no tangible improvement for whoever comes next if they have taste This one has the potential to be, at least, quite embarassing.
The simplest way to determine if this is bad, is to pretend it was Keir Starmer in Downing Street.
Would the Tories be calling this out, absolutely they would. And rightfully so, it's all we would hear here day after day.
So yes, it's bad.
Naah.
Jeremy Corbyn is Prime Minister (stop sniggering). He decided to do up Downing Street and having said he didn't have the money to do so managed to throw absurd monies at hammer and sickle wallpaper and little busts of Lenin. The money to pay for all this was generously donated by Unite. After some unpatriotic tittle-tattle the monies were repaid (from a source that Jeremy refuses to disclose) and the required declaration made months after the legal deadline.
None of the PB Tories would have a problem with this. Obviously.
As it's a State owned property, being no personal asset to whomever the PM happens to be, who gives a flying-fuck who pays for it?
Boris Johnson cares. In the forward of the Ministerial Code where he says that Boris Johnson can't do what he has done.
But at least one, arguably more, of Johnson's Cabinet Ministers broke the code, and they didn't resign. Why should he?
I've commented a couple of times recently, not exactly in defence of Johnson, but in saying that the Dyson affair was fluff and that "bodies piled high" dedpended very much on context, but may well be defensible.
On the flat payments, I'm less sure. One of the defences being put forward here seems to be that Johnson doesn't own the flat, so where's the scandal? But if a donor offered services in kind, say the use of a luxury holiday apartment, we might ask questions about what the donor was getting in return, even though the recipient would not own the thing given. Johnson will benefit from use of the upgraded flat. From what I've seen of the planned changes, there's no tangible improvement for whoever comes next if they have taste This one has the potential to be, at least, quite embarassing.
The simplest way to determine if this is bad, is to pretend it was Keir Starmer in Downing Street.
Would the Tories be calling this out, absolutely they would. And rightfully so, it's all we would hear here day after day.
So yes, it's bad.
Naah.
Jeremy Corbyn is Prime Minister (stop sniggering). He decided to do up Downing Street and having said he didn't have the money to do so managed to throw absurd monies at hammer and sickle wallpaper and little busts of Lenin. The money to pay for all this was generously donated by Unite. After some unpatriotic tittle-tattle the monies were repaid (from a source that Jeremy refuses to disclose) and the required declaration made months after the legal deadline.
None of the PB Tories would have a problem with this. Obviously.
As it's a State owned property, being no personal asset to whomever the PM happens to be, who gives a flying-fuck who pays for it?
Boris Johnson cares. In the forward of the Ministerial Code where he says that Boris Johnson can't do what he has done.
Oh really?
When was the deadline for declaring anything relevant to this?
Because he had 28 days to legally declare the loan and didn't.
I've commented a couple of times recently, not exactly in defence of Johnson, but in saying that the Dyson affair was fluff and that "bodies piled high" dedpended very much on context, but may well be defensible.
On the flat payments, I'm less sure. One of the defences being put forward here seems to be that Johnson doesn't own the flat, so where's the scandal? But if a donor offered services in kind, say the use of a luxury holiday apartment, we might ask questions about what the donor was getting in return, even though the recipient would not own the thing given. Johnson will benefit from use of the upgraded flat. From what I've seen of the planned changes, there's no tangible improvement for whoever comes next if they have taste This one has the potential to be, at least, quite embarassing.
The simplest way to determine if this is bad, is to pretend it was Keir Starmer in Downing Street.
Would the Tories be calling this out, absolutely they would. And rightfully so, it's all we would hear here day after day.
So yes, it's bad.
Naah.
Jeremy Corbyn is Prime Minister (stop sniggering). He decided to do up Downing Street and having said he didn't have the money to do so managed to throw absurd monies at hammer and sickle wallpaper and little busts of Lenin. The money to pay for all this was generously donated by Unite. After some unpatriotic tittle-tattle the monies were repaid (from a source that Jeremy refuses to disclose) and the required declaration made months after the legal deadline.
None of the PB Tories would have a problem with this. Obviously.
As it's a State owned property, being no personal asset to whomever the PM happens to be, who gives a flying-fuck who pays for it?
Boris Johnson cares. In the forward of the Ministerial Code where he says that Boris Johnson can't do what he has done.
There is no conflict of interest. He gets no financial advantage whatsoever. If it was HIS flat maybe. But it's not. When he eventually leaves, as he will, someone else will either enjoy or despise the make-over. And then, under your evident pious approach, it will be eminently better for the tax-payer to spend similar sums in redecorating the place to the tastes of the next incumbent.
In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.
What do I do? Nothing?
I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?
I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.
Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.
Thoughts?
Work the hours you’re paid for? You aren’t a charity, they should pay you overtime or hours for extra holiday etc
Yes but I’m realistic. Long hours for little pay are expected of someone early in their legal career, but I cant imagine a law firm would intentionally open themselves up to an unlawful deduction from wages claim unless the calculation is that it’s worth the liability.
My initial thoughts are to just keep good records going forwards with the understanding I’ve agreed to make this sacrifice and be thankful i’m in the financial position to make such a sacrifice...
Good plan. Work your bollocks off, make an impression, record it all vs your contract.
Then either you will progress making this an amusing anecdote told from your chateau in years to come or move somewhere else having made an impression as a hard worker who gets things done.
If the employer can’t get the legal basics right, it’s not a well run business and you have to question what opportunities it truly offers the hard working employee.
That is true. But every month is experience in the bank. Not 100% sure making such a stand is the right move at this stage of his career. But yes, if he wants to leave he should leave and find another job. If he can.
Working long hours , wagging your tail like a puppy and hoping for love is a high risk strategy in some firms. In the end you just waste precious time. Eyes open and and be prepared to move. There are some truly shit employers out there.
The best thing you can do for your career is to work for someone who treats you well, gives you opportunities and is prepared to invest time and money in you.
Not paying the NMW is a bad sign IMO.
The NMW should be being paid for the hours expected to be worked - were Gallowgate to work beyond those hours (because he thinks he is being slow or could do better) that would be a different matter.
There would however be an issue were Gallowgate was working beyond X hours and there was a paper trail with signed off timesheets involved and given where he will be working timesheets will exist.
But basically it comes down to two things - do enough to prove your worth and watch out for imposter syndrome
NMW should be being paid for hours worked, including excess of contracted hours for salaried workers. The company not tracking the hours worked is not a good defence aiui? Otherwise it is trivial to avoid the intent of the legislation by reducing contracted hours.
On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.
And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.
It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
Judging by some of the evidence which has come out of the inquiry a number of the builders and developers did not follow the law and/ or built properties in ways which they knew or ought to have known were unsafe. So they should be held financially responsible. Of course, if they have disappeared that is a big problem. But making a lot of voters either bankrupt or homeless or both is a brave policy. Those people have votes. Disappearing developers do not.
Surely the blame goes in order:-
Builders / Developers NHBC (for signing things off) Building Control (often private firms that are insured) The Freeholders (who are often the directors of the building firms, nice secondary pension fund there) The leaseholders
As a lot of Developers / Builders made significant (and excess) profits from Help to Buy it seems only fair that they should be the first to be asked to contribute.
Yes. But as with many other situations at what point does the taxpayer say - well they were ripped off so we'll pay.
It's a super difficult one. If I buy a car from a dealer's and it is not as described indeed they have broken some law or other and they fuck off, should the govt pay?
I am sure someone will be along shortly to explain this is insightful irony not homophobia. I don't actually remember anyone wearing tank tops in the ministry, but I may have been too half cut to notice.
True, but Shagger had no idea that was the case - he was being his usual tactful self and "accidentally" said something homophobic.
My advice is for you to throw yourself into the role and not mention anything until you've been in the job for a few months.
Make sure you're noted for the quality of the work you do not for being the one who complains about the salary.
My first job straight out of university worked out at lower per hour than a paper boy/girl and as a 21/22 year old I also had a mortgage so if I were you just drop that hint to your boss about your rent/mortgage.
If they are good employers they will have processes in place to note you're being in paid sub NMW/plans for reviews, if not, leave after a few months if the situation isn't rectified.
One of the issues in the profession is when you apply for jobs, other than graduate training schemes, is that they always insist on 'experience', so you'll have that from this job.
As I continually point out
GCSEs take you to your A Levels A levels take you to your degree Degree to first job After that the only thing people care about is your previous jobs
Which means when you work out exactly what you want to do and go next ensure you get some experience at your current place so it at least looks like you know how to do it.
The Tories simultaneously here credit the vaccine rollout as a major Tory success hence their poll boost but if Labour wins again in Wales, it's got nothing to do with the vaccines there and is not an endorsement Drakeford has done a good job
It’s absurd. Drakeford and his team have clearly done an excellent job. Party politics shouldn’t enter into it.
The Tories simultaneously here credit the vaccine rollout as a major Tory success hence their poll boost but if Labour wins again in Wales, it's got nothing to do with the vaccines there and is not an endorsement Drakeford has done a good job
Polite question.
Why has Labour in Wales been able to rollout the vaccine if the UK government hadn't invested in it and provided it to the whole UK
“@sailorrooscout This is wonderful! Real-world data out of the UK shows delaying the second dose of Pfizer’s or AstraZeneca’s vaccine to 12 weeks DOES NOT compromise effectiveness!
In addition, there were NO significant declines in antibody levels in ALL adults (including the elderly) during the 10-12 week interval between the first and second dose.”
So the Government made the correct decision despite all the criticism at the time.
It was not a decision without risk, but given the circumstances it was a risk overwhelmingly worth taking and not a risk without justification in its reasoning. I'm astonished more have not followed suit.
My advice is for you to throw yourself into the role and not mention anything until you've been in the job for a few months.
Make sure you're noted for the quality of the work you do not for being the one who complains about the salary.
My first job straight out of university worked out at lower per hour than a paper boy/girl and as a 21/22 year old I also had a mortgage so if I were you just drop that hint to your boss about your rent/mortgage.
If they are good employers they will have processes in place to note you're being in paid sub NMW/plans for reviews, if not, leave after a few months if the situation isn't rectified.
One of the issues in the profession is when you apply for jobs, other than graduate training schemes, is that they always insist on 'experience', so you'll have that from this job.
As I continually point out
GCSEs take you to your A Levels A levels take you to your degree Degree to first job After that the only thing people care about is your previous jobs
Which means when you work out exactly what you want to do and go next ensure you get some experience at your current place so it at least looks like you know how to do it.
Your CV needs to tell a story - about where you're going and why.
It doesn't need to be entirely consistent or "normal", but you do need to know what that "story" is so you can sell it to hiring managers at interview.
My advice is for you to throw yourself into the role and not mention anything until you've been in the job for a few months.
Make sure you're noted for the quality of the work you do not for being the one who complains about the salary.
My first job straight out of university worked out at lower per hour than a paper boy/girl and as a 21/22 year old I also had a mortgage so if I were you just drop that hint to your boss about your rent/mortgage.
If they are good employers they will have processes in place to note you're being in paid sub NMW/plans for reviews, if not, leave after a few months if the situation isn't rectified.
One of the issues in the profession is when you apply for jobs, other than graduate training schemes, is that they always insist on 'experience', so you'll have that from this job.
That's good advice.
FWIW my wife did a career change into law 8 years ago. She was a paralegal on £18k for the first 18 months, then she got a training contract at £22k - qualified two years after that then up to about £35-40k.
Now, she's an in-house commercial lawyer on £68k + bonus.
How? She's worked very hard and been very good all the time, and coupled this with adroit diplomacy and people skills (don't forget that bit: crucial).
Also, she's not a mug. When she worked out she wasn't going anywhere in her previous firm (and her boss wasn't interested in pushing her forwards) she found another position, and left. If you do leave, always left politely and gracefully too - you can give feedback but it needs to be measured.
Great advice.
I think all those ( @Jonathan looking at you) saying make a stand, don't put up with it, etc are using @Gallowgate to fight their moral crusade against the way business works. But that's how it works.
Get your head down, work your bollocks off, act as though 20 people interviewed for your job that morning, and make your way in the world. Until you are in a position to change things on your terms (ie leave as your wife did) for a better job.
Oh and my first job was in McDonalds in Wembley with me, I noticed a couple of weeks afterwards, as the only white guy working there out of around 40 staff. Don't cancel me for noticing; this was over 30 years ago.
McDonalds was my second job as a student and I noticed that the team at the front on the tills where I worked were all white, the team in the kitchen were not. Half the time the kitchen weren't speaking English either.
I got a major pay rise when I went from working on the tills at the Co-op to working on the tills at McDonalds. While the Co-op were paying minimum wage (and just £2 per hour for 16/17 year olds), McDonalds were then paying above minimum wage as a starting rate and did performance review pay rises too.
Still makes me laugh when people act like McDonalds is unethical and the Co-op is fantastic. My personal view of the companies, even now twenty years later, is very much the other way around.
For all that’s thrown at them, McDonalds as a company spend a awful lot of time and resources on staff training. As a company they’re great to work for, they have restaurant managers who started on the till, and regional managers who were sponsored by the company to externally study business and finance. Even a lot of their head office are long-time employees who worked their way up.
My brother works in the food retail industry, and says they have a really good reputation.
I am sure someone will be along shortly to explain this is insightful irony not homophobia. I don't actually remember anyone wearing tank tops in the ministry, but I may have been too half cut to notice.
True, but Shagger had no idea that was the case - he was being his usual tactful self and "accidentally" said something homophobic.
Phew, glad you cleared that up. Saves Thommo having to do so later.
On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.
And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.
It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
Judging by some of the evidence which has come out of the inquiry a number of the builders and developers did not follow the law and/ or built properties in ways which they knew or ought to have known were unsafe. So they should be held financially responsible. Of course, if they have disappeared that is a big problem. But making a lot of voters either bankrupt or homeless or both is a brave policy. Those people have votes. Disappearing developers do not.
Surely the blame goes in order:-
Builders / Developers NHBC (for signing things off) Building Control (often private firms that are insured) The Freeholders (who are often the directors of the building firms, nice secondary pension fund there) The leaseholders
As a lot of Developers / Builders made significant (and excess) profits from Help to Buy it seems only fair that they should be the first to be asked to contribute.
Yes. But as with many other situations at what point does the taxpayer say - well they were ripped off so we'll pay.
It's a super difficult one. If I buy a car from a dealer's and it is not as described indeed they have broken some law or other and they fuck off, should the govt pay?
My final paragraph gives you my solution - if the flat was sold under Help to Buy (or Help to Buy was used when selling the scheme) the Builders / Developers should be paying the bill.
The Government really shouldn't be paying here - it has a 80 seat majority and using the words excess profits while pointing at Persimmons should be enough to get an act of Parliament (if required) through Parliament and get the developers to pay.
Oh and my first job was in McDonalds in Wembley with me, I noticed a couple of weeks afterwards, as the only white guy working there out of around 40 staff. Don't cancel me for noticing; this was over 30 years ago.
McDonalds was my second job as a student and I noticed that the team at the front on the tills where I worked were all white, the team in the kitchen were not. Half the time the kitchen weren't speaking English either.
I got a major pay rise when I went from working on the tills at the Co-op to working on the tills at McDonalds. While the Co-op were paying minimum wage (and just £2 per hour for 16/17 year olds), McDonalds were then paying above minimum wage as a starting rate and did performance review pay rises too.
Still makes me laugh when people act like McDonalds is unethical and the Co-op is fantastic. My personal view of the companies, even now twenty years later, is very much the other way around.
My brother works at a McDonalds - the only determinator of who works the tills at the front at his is if they are the more attractive employees. (He laments that leaves him in the kitchen).
Very happy with his job, he has no GCSEs or technical training and has worked some awful ones.
In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.
What do I do? Nothing?
I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?
I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.
Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.
Thoughts?
You don’t raise it
Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.
Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere
Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.
But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.
Thank you.
I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra
My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
Yes, but for less than NMW ?
My first job in the 1990s I was paid £27,000 per year + bonus. Assuming an 80 hour work week that’s 4,000 hours a year so about £6.75 per hour in salary (I think my bonus was about £11,000 from memory).
A long time ago - and pre NMW - but probably not too far off what it would have been.
LOL - That's ~ £50k in today's money depending on how late in the 90s this was.
Probably closer to £40-45k
And then halve it to adjust for the hours worked.
My first job after school before I went to University in 1978 paid £23 a week. It was an excellent investment though because my wife gets a laugh about me working in a DIY shop to this day.
My first job was working behind the till at a cheesemonger. Paid £140 per week.
The discrepancy does remind you that there used to be something called inflation. Whatever happened to it?
In 1983 I started as a trainee solicitor at £3800 a year which after a month went up to the giddy heights of £4,000 which, given the hours we worked, probably worked out about £1.40 an hour. I didn't feel particularly exploited, it was just the system, but fairly rapidly I was putting my annual salary through in fees each week. The profit margins were just mind blowing for professionals in those days.
On the fees/pay discrepancy, I worked at the Patent Office for a time, first job out of uni in early 2000s, about £20k per year (although that was more or less a training contract and you could get up to £40k within five years or so). But one of their wheezes at the time was to bring money in through commercial search, i.e. doing the kind of thing patent attorneys will do, surveillance of what other companies are doing, looking at whether your idea has been done before you craft the patent application. But it was agreed that they mustn't undercut patent attorneys. So there I was, working for £20k while billing £200/hour or so to the customer.
I didn't stay very long
Ouch!
Seen that often enough - it's common for IT consultants to be on £30/40k while being billed out at £2k+ a day...
Which is why so many of us work for ourselves! My first IT job I was on £18k (plus overtime), and billed out at £500 a day three or four days a week.
A question for PB Brains Trust on TVs. Just got a replacement TV, first 4k HDR one. Despite 4k being around for a while, don't hear about it discussed much, not like the switch from SD to HD.
What are the best sources of 4k shows or movies? And not that I watch much linear broadcast TV anymore, but are any channels 4k now? Also do any streaming etc services need to be activated to a 4k mode or should it happen automatically.
Got Sky Q, Netflix, Prime (but don't use it much) and Disney+ as services for what its worth.
In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.
What do I do? Nothing?
I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?
I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.
Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.
Thoughts?
You don’t raise it
Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.
Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere
Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.
But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.
Thank you.
I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra
My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
Yes, but for less than NMW ?
My first job in the 1990s I was paid £27,000 per year + bonus. Assuming an 80 hour work week that’s 4,000 hours a year so about £6.75 per hour in salary (I think my bonus was about £11,000 from memory).
A long time ago - and pre NMW - but probably not too far off what it would have been.
Astoundingly out of touch. The minimum wage in 1999 was £3.60
That’s offensive.
How many people know what the national minimum wage was 20 years ago without checking?
Trying to do a "I worked 72 hours a day for half a shilling and I like it" act when you were earning 187% of the minimum wage on a base salary in the 90s that would still have been above the national average 20 years later is pretty out of touch.
How could anyone have been unaware the an annual salary of 27k in the 90s (with a five figure bonus!) was not a big wedge?
It was well paid in absolute terms and less well paid in hourly terms.
I took today’s NMW and adjusted back for inflation forgetting that it had - for political reasons - been introduced at a derisory rate
You are still wrong.
£6.75 in 1999 is the equivalent of £12 now. So still a large percentage over the current NMW of £8.91.
As it's a State owned property, being no personal asset to whomever the PM happens to be, who gives a flying-fuck who pays for it?
Anyone who cares about corruption.
Not the BoZo fanbois, obviously...
Corruption? LOL. State-owned flat redecorated for no-cost-to tax payer shocker. Now - accepting money from an F1 Billionaire to change the law to allow Tobacco advertising to continue in a sport which heavily relied on it. That's corruption.
You're displaying almost Meeksian hysteria. The amusing thing is that deep down you know this will make sod-all difference to anything, hence your frantic spinning of anything you find in the bowels of Twitter to convince yourself it will make a difference.
And I feel for you. I really do. It must be painful.
Oh and my first job was in McDonalds in Wembley with me, I noticed a couple of weeks afterwards, as the only white guy working there out of around 40 staff. Don't cancel me for noticing; this was over 30 years ago.
McDonalds was my second job as a student and I noticed that the team at the front on the tills where I worked were all white, the team in the kitchen were not. Half the time the kitchen weren't speaking English either.
I got a major pay rise when I went from working on the tills at the Co-op to working on the tills at McDonalds. While the Co-op were paying minimum wage (and just £2 per hour for 16/17 year olds), McDonalds were then paying above minimum wage as a starting rate and did performance review pay rises too.
Still makes me laugh when people act like McDonalds is unethical and the Co-op is fantastic. My personal view of the companies, even now twenty years later, is very much the other way around.
My brother works at a McDonalds - the only determinator of who works the tills at the front at his is if they are the more attractive employees.
I wasn't sure they even had tills anymore. It's all via the computer with a couple of people hanging around to hand you your order?
In my day (pulls out pipe and slippers) there was a line of 10 tills and attractiveness didn't come into it. Thank goodness or I'd have been stuck on the tills the whole time.
My advice is for you to throw yourself into the role and not mention anything until you've been in the job for a few months.
Make sure you're noted for the quality of the work you do not for being the one who complains about the salary.
My first job straight out of university worked out at lower per hour than a paper boy/girl and as a 21/22 year old I also had a mortgage so if I were you just drop that hint to your boss about your rent/mortgage.
If they are good employers they will have processes in place to note you're being in paid sub NMW/plans for reviews, if not, leave after a few months if the situation isn't rectified.
One of the issues in the profession is when you apply for jobs, other than graduate training schemes, is that they always insist on 'experience', so you'll have that from this job.
As I continually point out
GCSEs take you to your A Levels A levels take you to your degree Degree to first job After that the only thing people care about is your previous jobs
Which means when you work out exactly what you want to do and go next ensure you get some experience at your current place so it at least looks like you know how to do it.
Thanks for that, I'm showing your post to my children this evening.
My first job was in Little Chef and my second in a sports centre cafe and restaurant.
No, didn't pay much but I learnt a lot about people and a little bit about business - I remember how important cleanliness was, and spent most of my time doing that, but I quite enjoying using the till and taking customer orders.
Oh and my first job was in McDonalds in Wembley with me, I noticed a couple of weeks afterwards, as the only white guy working there out of around 40 staff. Don't cancel me for noticing; this was over 30 years ago.
McDonalds was my second job as a student and I noticed that the team at the front on the tills where I worked were all white, the team in the kitchen were not. Half the time the kitchen weren't speaking English either.
I got a major pay rise when I went from working on the tills at the Co-op to working on the tills at McDonalds. While the Co-op were paying minimum wage (and just £2 per hour for 16/17 year olds), McDonalds were then paying above minimum wage as a starting rate and did performance review pay rises too.
Still makes me laugh when people act like McDonalds is unethical and the Co-op is fantastic. My personal view of the companies, even now twenty years later, is very much the other way around.
My brother works at a McDonalds - the only determinator of who works the tills at the front at his is if they are the more attractive employees.
I wasn't sure they even had tills anymore. It's all via the computer with a couple of people hanging around to hand you your order? .
My advice is for you to throw yourself into the role and not mention anything until you've been in the job for a few months.
Make sure you're noted for the quality of the work you do not for being the one who complains about the salary.
My first job straight out of university worked out at lower per hour than a paper boy/girl and as a 21/22 year old I also had a mortgage so if I were you just drop that hint to your boss about your rent/mortgage.
If they are good employers they will have processes in place to note you're being in paid sub NMW/plans for reviews, if not, leave after a few months if the situation isn't rectified.
One of the issues in the profession is when you apply for jobs, other than graduate training schemes, is that they always insist on 'experience', so you'll have that from this job.
That's good advice.
FWIW my wife did a career change into law 8 years ago. She was a paralegal on £18k for the first 18 months, then she got a training contract at £22k - qualified two years after that then up to about £35-40k.
Now, she's an in-house commercial lawyer on £68k + bonus.
How? She's worked very hard and been very good all the time, and coupled this with adroit diplomacy and people skills (don't forget that bit: crucial).
Also, she's not a mug. When she worked out she wasn't going anywhere in her previous firm (and her boss wasn't interested in pushing her forwards) she found another position, and left. If you do leave, always left politely and gracefully too - you can give feedback but it needs to be measured.
Great advice.
I think all those ( @Jonathan looking at you) saying make a stand, don't put up with it, etc are using @Gallowgate to fight their moral crusade against the way business works. But that's how it works.
Get your head down, work your bollocks off, act as though 20 people interviewed for your job that morning, and make your way in the world. Until you are in a position to change things on your terms (ie leave as your wife did) for a better job.
You have 3 months after you've left to bring the employment tribunal claim - don't do it while you are there.
Were I being paid below NMW against signed timesheets though I would be pointing it out, merely because I don't think any law firm is so cowboyish that they would be that stupid to be doing it deliberately.
Basically it's work until you've got the experience to be paid properly (and if not being paid that) move to somewhere who will pay the correct amount.
I would like to point out that I have 6+ years of experience in a salaried professional role that arose from an initial graduate role so I do know these things work. I've just never been in a position where my salaried role was so close to minimum wage, especially if there's an expectation to work many more hours than the contract stipulates.
Of course I did do the cost/benefit analysis when I accepted the role so the actual value isn't the issue — I just hadn't done the calculation in relation to minimum wage, which was quite the shock!
I've commented a couple of times recently, not exactly in defence of Johnson, but in saying that the Dyson affair was fluff and that "bodies piled high" dedpended very much on context, but may well be defensible.
On the flat payments, I'm less sure. One of the defences being put forward here seems to be that Johnson doesn't own the flat, so where's the scandal? But if a donor offered services in kind, say the use of a luxury holiday apartment, we might ask questions about what the donor was getting in return, even though the recipient would not own the thing given. Johnson will benefit from use of the upgraded flat. From what I've seen of the planned changes, there's no tangible improvement for whoever comes next if they have taste This one has the potential to be, at least, quite embarassing.
The simplest way to determine if this is bad, is to pretend it was Keir Starmer in Downing Street.
Would the Tories be calling this out, absolutely they would. And rightfully so, it's all we would hear here day after day.
So yes, it's bad.
I’d be saying the same if it was starmer in number 10. It’s currently a bit of a non story. There may be one but it isn’t there.
No, it is a concerning story, and if Starmer gets involved in this level of financial impropriety he should be removed from office, and more besides if necessary
Liverpool is an interesting parallel case. Quite rightly, in this instance the letter of the law is being taken to its ultimate conclusion.
I guess all this sleaze stuff is well timed for the traditional on the day Welsh reversion to Labour. "Oh I almost didn't vote Labour, they've done awful, but...well, seen that stuff in the news?"
My advice is for you to throw yourself into the role and not mention anything until you've been in the job for a few months.
Make sure you're noted for the quality of the work you do not for being the one who complains about the salary.
My first job straight out of university worked out at lower per hour than a paper boy/girl and as a 21/22 year old I also had a mortgage so if I were you just drop that hint to your boss about your rent/mortgage.
If they are good employers they will have processes in place to note you're being in paid sub NMW/plans for reviews, if not, leave after a few months if the situation isn't rectified.
One of the issues in the profession is when you apply for jobs, other than graduate training schemes, is that they always insist on 'experience', so you'll have that from this job.
That's good advice.
FWIW my wife did a career change into law 8 years ago. She was a paralegal on £18k for the first 18 months, then she got a training contract at £22k - qualified two years after that then up to about £35-40k.
Now, she's an in-house commercial lawyer on £68k + bonus.
How? She's worked very hard and been very good all the time, and coupled this with adroit diplomacy and people skills (don't forget that bit: crucial).
Also, she's not a mug. When she worked out she wasn't going anywhere in her previous firm (and her boss wasn't interested in pushing her forwards) she found another position, and left. If you do leave, always left politely and gracefully too - you can give feedback but it needs to be measured.
Great advice.
I think all those ( @Jonathan looking at you) saying make a stand, don't put up with it, etc are using @Gallowgate to fight their moral crusade against the way business works. But that's how it works.
Get your head down, work your bollocks off, act as though 20 people interviewed for your job that morning, and make your way in the world. Until you are in a position to change things on your terms (ie leave as your wife did) for a better job.
You have 3 months after you've left to bring the employment tribunal claim - don't do it while you are there.
Were I being paid below NMW against signed timesheets though I would be pointing it out, merely because I don't think any law firm is so cowboyish that they would be that stupid to be doing it deliberately.
Becausely it's work until you've got the experience to be paid properly (and if not being paid that) move to somewhere who will pay the correct amount.
I have an exam on this in exactly 2 weeks so this is good revision.
A question for PB Brains Trust on TVs. Just got a replacement TV, first 4k HDR one. Despite 4k being around for a while, don't hear about it discussed much, not like the switch from SD to HD.
What are the best sources of 4k shows or movies? And not that I watch much linear broadcast TV anymore, but are any channels 4k now? Also do any streaming etc services need to be activated to a 4k mode or should it happen automatically.
Got Sky Q, Netflix, Prime (but don't use it much) and Disney+ as services for what its worth.
My advice is for you to throw yourself into the role and not mention anything until you've been in the job for a few months.
Make sure you're noted for the quality of the work you do not for being the one who complains about the salary.
My first job straight out of university worked out at lower per hour than a paper boy/girl and as a 21/22 year old I also had a mortgage so if I were you just drop that hint to your boss about your rent/mortgage.
If they are good employers they will have processes in place to note you're being in paid sub NMW/plans for reviews, if not, leave after a few months if the situation isn't rectified.
One of the issues in the profession is when you apply for jobs, other than graduate training schemes, is that they always insist on 'experience', so you'll have that from this job.
As I continually point out
GCSEs take you to your A Levels A levels take you to your degree Degree to first job After that the only thing people care about is your previous jobs
Which means when you work out exactly what you want to do and go next ensure you get some experience at your current place so it at least looks like you know how to do it.
Thanks for that, I'm showing your post to my children this evening.
The pressure society puts on kids for their exams does more harm than good. It is sold to them as if their entire future rests of GCSEs and A levels when that is absolutely not the case. With that pressure and social media, on top of normal life and growing up, no wonder the mental health of teenagers is so troubled.
Oh and my first job was in McDonalds in Wembley with me, I noticed a couple of weeks afterwards, as the only white guy working there out of around 40 staff. Don't cancel me for noticing; this was over 30 years ago.
McDonalds was my second job as a student and I noticed that the team at the front on the tills where I worked were all white, the team in the kitchen were not. Half the time the kitchen weren't speaking English either.
I got a major pay rise when I went from working on the tills at the Co-op to working on the tills at McDonalds. While the Co-op were paying minimum wage (and just £2 per hour for 16/17 year olds), McDonalds were then paying above minimum wage as a starting rate and did performance review pay rises too.
Still makes me laugh when people act like McDonalds is unethical and the Co-op is fantastic. My personal view of the companies, even now twenty years later, is very much the other way around.
I also worked in a Co-Op, similar era, I guess. I confirm the £2/hour, which shocked me (I was 18, pre-uni job and had transferred from a Sainsbury store that was closing, the local Co-Op matched our wages to take us on, not very fair on the other staff). Don't think we got pay rises, think the plan was to gradualy erode our pay while other staff caught up.
The standards at the Co-Op were nothing compared to Sainsburys; I was encouraged to do things at Co-Op relating to sell by dates and storage of perishable goods that would have got me sacked at Sainsburys. I put that down to it being a local Co-Op society rather than the national operation, but perhaps it was more universal.
They did however forget to stop paying me for a couple of months after I went off to uni, so it wasn't all bad.
As it's a State owned property, being no personal asset to whomever the PM happens to be, who gives a flying-fuck who pays for it?
Anyone who cares about corruption.
Not the BoZo fanbois, obviously...
Corruption? LOL. State-owned flat redecorated for no-cost-to tax payer shocker. Now - accepting money from an F1 Billionaire to change the law to allow Tobacco advertising to continue in a sport which heavily relied on it. That's corruption.
You're displaying almost Meeksian hysteria. The amusing thing is that deep down you know this will make sod-all difference to anything, hence your frantic spinning of anything you find in the bowels of Twitter to convince yourself it will make a difference.
And I feel for you. I really do. It must be painful.
I'm with you, but it could make a difference. The story is being spun to create the impression that it is their own flat and so cementing the false understanding in the lumpen that Boris and that evil Carrie are benefiting financially. The Mail is on board.
5 live broadcast from Aberdeen this morning and Rachel Burden asked a guest who she was voting for
She said SNP and Rachel followed up by saying that she wanted a referendum then
Her response was that the SNP have done well but she is not seeking a referendum at this time
Rachel also said that the Greens, while in favour of indyref2, do nor want if for some years
Oh course the Greens want HMG to pay the huge cost of decommissioning the oil fields as independence would pass those billions straight to Scotland to fund
The more this goes on, independence is the dream of some, but is unlikely to see the light of day for quite a long time
And I assume this is the reason Salmond wants into the Parliament as he wants it 'now'
My advice is for you to throw yourself into the role and not mention anything until you've been in the job for a few months.
Make sure you're noted for the quality of the work you do not for being the one who complains about the salary.
My first job straight out of university worked out at lower per hour than a paper boy/girl and as a 21/22 year old I also had a mortgage so if I were you just drop that hint to your boss about your rent/mortgage.
If they are good employers they will have processes in place to note you're being in paid sub NMW/plans for reviews, if not, leave after a few months if the situation isn't rectified.
One of the issues in the profession is when you apply for jobs, other than graduate training schemes, is that they always insist on 'experience', so you'll have that from this job.
That's good advice.
FWIW my wife did a career change into law 8 years ago. She was a paralegal on £18k for the first 18 months, then she got a training contract at £22k - qualified two years after that then up to about £35-40k.
Now, she's an in-house commercial lawyer on £68k + bonus.
How? She's worked very hard and been very good all the time, and coupled this with adroit diplomacy and people skills (don't forget that bit: crucial).
Also, she's not a mug. When she worked out she wasn't going anywhere in her previous firm (and her boss wasn't interested in pushing her forwards) she found another position, and left. If you do leave, always left politely and gracefully too - you can give feedback but it needs to be measured.
Great advice.
I think all those ( @Jonathan looking at you) saying make a stand, don't put up with it, etc are using @Gallowgate to fight their moral crusade against the way business works. But that's how it works.
Get your head down, work your bollocks off, act as though 20 people interviewed for your job that morning, and make your way in the world. Until you are in a position to change things on your terms (ie leave as your wife did) for a better job.
You have 3 months after you've left to bring the employment tribunal claim - don't do it while you are there.
Were I being paid below NMW against signed timesheets though I would be pointing it out, merely because I don't think any law firm is so cowboyish that they would be that stupid to be doing it deliberately.
Becausely it's work until you've got the experience to be paid properly (and if not being paid that) move to somewhere who will pay the correct amount.
Sorry, I'm going to jump straight in here: unless you have been seriously abused or maltreated NEVER bring an employment tribunal claim.
It will be a matter of public record, you'll be marked as a troublemaker and you'll never work in that industry again.
If there's a problem you give feedback, you leave, and you tell others about it - discreetly. Everyone knows each other and who the arseholes are, and they all get found out eventually, but going for a ET is very high risk.
A question for PB Brains Trust on TVs. Just got a replacement TV, first 4k HDR one. Despite 4k being around for a while, don't hear about it discussed much, not like the switch from SD to HD.
What are the best sources of 4k shows or movies? And not that I watch much linear broadcast TV anymore, but are any channels 4k now? Also do any streaming etc services need to be activated to a 4k mode or should it happen automatically.
Got Sky Q, Netflix, Prime (but don't use it much) and Disney+ as services for what its worth.
You've got all the sources then as the only way to get 4k tv is via streaming services.
I actually use an Apple TV for a lot of things as that seems to have a better upscaler than a lot of TVs do.
I would like to point out that I have 6+ years of experience in a salaried professional role that arose from an initial graduate role so I do know these things work. I've just never been in a position where my salaried role was so close to minimum wage, especially if there's an expectation to work many more hours than the contract stipulates.
Of course I did do the cost/benefit analysis when I accepted the role so the actual value isn't the issue — I just hadn't done the calculation in relation to minimum wage, which was quite the shock!
Wife did the same mate. She went down from £45k in a commercial audit role down to £18k and is now up to £68k. Sometimes you have to go one step back to go two steps forward.
You're doing the right thing and you're going to be ace!
Oh and my first job was in McDonalds in Wembley with me, I noticed a couple of weeks afterwards, as the only white guy working there out of around 40 staff. Don't cancel me for noticing; this was over 30 years ago.
McDonalds was my second job as a student and I noticed that the team at the front on the tills where I worked were all white, the team in the kitchen were not. Half the time the kitchen weren't speaking English either.
I got a major pay rise when I went from working on the tills at the Co-op to working on the tills at McDonalds. While the Co-op were paying minimum wage (and just £2 per hour for 16/17 year olds), McDonalds were then paying above minimum wage as a starting rate and did performance review pay rises too.
Still makes me laugh when people act like McDonalds is unethical and the Co-op is fantastic. My personal view of the companies, even now twenty years later, is very much the other way around.
It was that kind of thinking that drove my Workers Charter thread last weekend. One insight I got from these very badly paid jobs is that a very small difference in wages can make all the difference in the world to your quality of living. They are the difference between life being a total grind and having enough to enjoy a couple of pints with your mates after work on a Friday or take your girl to the pictures and yet are barely noticeable to those further up the food chain.
The other insight I got was that there was all the difference in the world between doing those sort of jobs, as @Gallowgate is, for a short time in the confident expectation that you will move on to better things and being stuck in that job for the next 20 years.
My advice is for you to throw yourself into the role and not mention anything until you've been in the job for a few months.
Make sure you're noted for the quality of the work you do not for being the one who complains about the salary.
My first job straight out of university worked out at lower per hour than a paper boy/girl and as a 21/22 year old I also had a mortgage so if I were you just drop that hint to your boss about your rent/mortgage.
If they are good employers they will have processes in place to note you're being in paid sub NMW/plans for reviews, if not, leave after a few months if the situation isn't rectified.
One of the issues in the profession is when you apply for jobs, other than graduate training schemes, is that they always insist on 'experience', so you'll have that from this job.
That's good advice.
FWIW my wife did a career change into law 8 years ago. She was a paralegal on £18k for the first 18 months, then she got a training contract at £22k - qualified two years after that then up to about £35-40k.
Now, she's an in-house commercial lawyer on £68k + bonus.
How? She's worked very hard and been very good all the time, and coupled this with adroit diplomacy and people skills (don't forget that bit: crucial).
Also, she's not a mug. When she worked out she wasn't going anywhere in her previous firm (and her boss wasn't interested in pushing her forwards) she found another position, and left. If you do leave, always left politely and gracefully too - you can give feedback but it needs to be measured.
Great advice.
I think all those ( @Jonathan looking at you) saying make a stand, don't put up with it, etc are using @Gallowgate to fight their moral crusade against the way business works. But that's how it works.
Get your head down, work your bollocks off, act as though 20 people interviewed for your job that morning, and make your way in the world. Until you are in a position to change things on your terms (ie leave as your wife did) for a better job.
I did not say make a stand, I said go into this with your eyes open and be prepared to move on if things do not play out. In some firms working you bollocks off is not rewarded.
A question for PB Brains Trust on TVs. Just got a replacement TV, first 4k HDR one. Despite 4k being around for a while, don't hear about it discussed much, not like the switch from SD to HD.
What are the best sources of 4k shows or movies? And not that I watch much linear broadcast TV anymore, but are any channels 4k now? Also do any streaming etc services need to be activated to a 4k mode or should it happen automatically.
Got Sky Q, Netflix, Prime (but don't use it much) and Disney+ as services for what its worth.
Bought an LG OLED set when we moved. Even on standard HD upscaled it looks almost 3d, watching something like For All Mankind on Apple TV in native 4k its absolutely astonishing.
As it's a State owned property, being no personal asset to whomever the PM happens to be, who gives a flying-fuck who pays for it?
Anyone who cares about corruption.
Not the BoZo fanbois, obviously...
Corruption? LOL. State-owned flat redecorated for no-cost-to tax payer shocker. Now - accepting money from an F1 Billionaire to change the law to allow Tobacco advertising to continue in a sport which heavily relied on it. That's corruption.
You're displaying almost Meeksian hysteria. The amusing thing is that deep down you know this will make sod-all difference to anything, hence your frantic spinning of anything you find in the bowels of Twitter to convince yourself it will make a difference.
And I feel for you. I really do. It must be painful.
I'm with you, but it could make a difference. The story is being spun to create the impression that it is their own flat and so cementing the false understanding in the lumpen that Boris and that evil Carrie are benefiting financially. The Mail is on board.
They ARE benefiting financially. They are not having to pay the spend over the allowance out of their own pockets like previous residents all did. Yes they don't own the place but that is no different to everyone else who lives in rented accommodation and has to fund the decorations.
My advice is for you to throw yourself into the role and not mention anything until you've been in the job for a few months.
Make sure you're noted for the quality of the work you do not for being the one who complains about the salary.
My first job straight out of university worked out at lower per hour than a paper boy/girl and as a 21/22 year old I also had a mortgage so if I were you just drop that hint to your boss about your rent/mortgage.
If they are good employers they will have processes in place to note you're being in paid sub NMW/plans for reviews, if not, leave after a few months if the situation isn't rectified.
One of the issues in the profession is when you apply for jobs, other than graduate training schemes, is that they always insist on 'experience', so you'll have that from this job.
That's good advice.
FWIW my wife did a career change into law 8 years ago. She was a paralegal on £18k for the first 18 months, then she got a training contract at £22k - qualified two years after that then up to about £35-40k.
Now, she's an in-house commercial lawyer on £68k + bonus.
How? She's worked very hard and been very good all the time, and coupled this with adroit diplomacy and people skills (don't forget that bit: crucial).
Also, she's not a mug. When she worked out she wasn't going anywhere in her previous firm (and her boss wasn't interested in pushing her forwards) she found another position, and left. If you do leave, always left politely and gracefully too - you can give feedback but it needs to be measured.
Great advice.
I think all those ( @Jonathan looking at you) saying make a stand, don't put up with it, etc are using @Gallowgate to fight their moral crusade against the way business works. But that's how it works.
Get your head down, work your bollocks off, act as though 20 people interviewed for your job that morning, and make your way in the world. Until you are in a position to change things on your terms (ie leave as your wife did) for a better job.
You have 3 months after you've left to bring the employment tribunal claim - don't do it while you are there.
Were I being paid below NMW against signed timesheets though I would be pointing it out, merely because I don't think any law firm is so cowboyish that they would be that stupid to be doing it deliberately.
Becausely it's work until you've got the experience to be paid properly (and if not being paid that) move to somewhere who will pay the correct amount.
Sorry, I'm going to jump straight in here: unless you have been seriously abused or maltreated NEVER bring an employment tribunal claim.
It will be a matter of public record, you'll be marked as a troublemaker and you'll never work in that industry again.
If there's a problem you give feedback, you leave, and you tell others about it - discreetly. Everyone knows each other and who the arseholes are, and they all get found out eventually, but going for a ET is very high risk.
Yep - sadly I'm currently doing work in a world full of the biggest bunch of crooks and cowboys you've ever met (agencies using umbrellas to keep rates as low as possible while using Agency Regulations to avoid such things as pay parity while passing employment costs on to the worker, which the agency then gets a kickback from). So my current logic is more one of you need to use the Tribunals as otherwise the problem will never be sorted and publicised.
And equally my second paragraph covers the scenario where something could be done and that's unlikely to actually exist.
BoZo and Carrie benefitted personally financially to the tune of £58k
Only when he got caught did he agree to pay it back
He can’t take the Downing Street flat with him or put it on the market.
Pretty sure the BJ ex PM hooring for money brochure will have lots of pics of him in No 10 scattered throughout. He’ll want the place to look nice (though not ghastly oikish John Lewis nice).
Oh and my first job was in McDonalds in Wembley with me, I noticed a couple of weeks afterwards, as the only white guy working there out of around 40 staff. Don't cancel me for noticing; this was over 30 years ago.
McDonalds was my second job as a student and I noticed that the team at the front on the tills where I worked were all white, the team in the kitchen were not. Half the time the kitchen weren't speaking English either.
I got a major pay rise when I went from working on the tills at the Co-op to working on the tills at McDonalds. While the Co-op were paying minimum wage (and just £2 per hour for 16/17 year olds), McDonalds were then paying above minimum wage as a starting rate and did performance review pay rises too.
Still makes me laugh when people act like McDonalds is unethical and the Co-op is fantastic. My personal view of the companies, even now twenty years later, is very much the other way around.
I also worked in a Co-Op, similar era, I guess. I confirm the £2/hour, which shocked me (I was 18, pre-uni job and had transferred from a Sainsbury store that was closing, the local Co-Op matched our wages to take us on, not very fair on the other staff). Don't think we got pay rises, think the plan was to gradualy erode our pay while other staff caught up.
The standards at the Co-Op were nothing compared to Sainsburys; I was encouraged to do things at Co-Op relating to sell by dates and storage of perishable goods that would have got me sacked at Sainsburys. I put that down to it being a local Co-Op society rather than the national operation, but perhaps it was more universal.
They did however forget to stop paying me for a couple of months after I went off to uni, so it wasn't all bad.
McDonalds are one of the places where you can work your way from the bottom to be senior, or perhaps own a branch.
Here, our three corkingly busy local franchises are owned by a local lady, and one of them has a site bang across from the entrance to MacArthur Glen.
I would like to point out that I have 6+ years of experience in a salaried professional role that arose from an initial graduate role so I do know these things work. I've just never been in a position where my salaried role was so close to minimum wage, especially if there's an expectation to work many more hours than the contract stipulates.
Of course I did do the cost/benefit analysis when I accepted the role so the actual value isn't the issue — I just hadn't done the calculation in relation to minimum wage, which was quite the shock!
Ha! Next session we will be covering shoelace tying.
As you are well aware this is investment time for you. Per hr calcs are irrelevant. I'm sure a Goldman junior would be working at or below NMW but has all the benefits (or not!) of a career at GS to look forward to.
As it's a State owned property, being no personal asset to whomever the PM happens to be, who gives a flying-fuck who pays for it?
Anyone who cares about corruption.
Not the BoZo fanbois, obviously...
Corruption? LOL. State-owned flat redecorated for no-cost-to tax payer shocker. Now - accepting money from an F1 Billionaire to change the law to allow Tobacco advertising to continue in a sport which heavily relied on it. That's corruption.
You're displaying almost Meeksian hysteria. The amusing thing is that deep down you know this will make sod-all difference to anything, hence your frantic spinning of anything you find in the bowels of Twitter to convince yourself it will make a difference.
And I feel for you. I really do. It must be painful.
I'm with you, but it could make a difference. The story is being spun to create the impression that it is their own flat and so cementing the false understanding in the lumpen that Boris and that evil Carrie are benefiting financially. The Mail is on board.
They ARE benefiting financially. They are not having to pay the spend over the allowance out of their own pockets like previous residents all did. Yes they don't own the place but that is no different to everyone else who lives in rented accommodation and has to fund the decorations.
If they were to die their estate has not increased.
It is a national asset. Grade One listed to boot. There is no requirement for a PM to pay out of own funds. They could have kept to £30k pa at taxpayer expense. A third party has in effect paid a voluntary tax to upgrade a national asset that is not adequately being preserved at the ordinary budget.
Perhaps we have more things to worry about at this time. I'm no Johnson fan but this is political mischief-making in a pandemic.
BoZo and Carrie benefitted personally financially to the tune of £58k
Only when he got caught did he agree to pay it back
He can’t take the Downing Street flat with him or put it on the market.
Pretty sure the BJ ex PM hooring for money brochure will have lots of pics of him in No 10 scattered throughout. He’ll want the place to look nice (though not ghastly oikish John Lewis nice).
I said could be, it is a term associated with LGBTQ+ community. Depends on the context but as the user freely admits posting just to wind people up I wouldn’t rule it out.
Do you understand the concept of owning property? Or rather the difference between owning and not owning something?
Do you understand buying things you can't afford with other peoples' money?
And the thing you "buy" isn't your asset.
I live in a rented flat. If I ask someone to lend me £10k to redecorate it, when I leave the landlord has the benefit of it. Not me. I haven't benefitted financially at all. I don't have the money in the bank to spend on anything else. I'm in the same position when I leave as when I arrived. The landlord has been "enriched".
As it's a State owned property, being no personal asset to whomever the PM happens to be, who gives a flying-fuck who pays for it?
Anyone who cares about corruption.
Not the BoZo fanbois, obviously...
Corruption? LOL. State-owned flat redecorated for no-cost-to tax payer shocker. Now - accepting money from an F1 Billionaire to change the law to allow Tobacco advertising to continue in a sport which heavily relied on it. That's corruption.
You're displaying almost Meeksian hysteria. The amusing thing is that deep down you know this will make sod-all difference to anything, hence your frantic spinning of anything you find in the bowels of Twitter to convince yourself it will make a difference.
And I feel for you. I really do. It must be painful.
"Corruption" may be a bit melodramatic. But this example reminds me that there are just as many silly women as silly men. And that sometimes they are attracted to each other.
My advice is for you to throw yourself into the role and not mention anything until you've been in the job for a few months.
Make sure you're noted for the quality of the work you do not for being the one who complains about the salary.
My first job straight out of university worked out at lower per hour than a paper boy/girl and as a 21/22 year old I also had a mortgage so if I were you just drop that hint to your boss about your rent/mortgage.
If they are good employers they will have processes in place to note you're being in paid sub NMW/plans for reviews, if not, leave after a few months if the situation isn't rectified.
One of the issues in the profession is when you apply for jobs, other than graduate training schemes, is that they always insist on 'experience', so you'll have that from this job.
That's good advice.
FWIW my wife did a career change into law 8 years ago. She was a paralegal on £18k for the first 18 months, then she got a training contract at £22k - qualified two years after that then up to about £35-40k.
Now, she's an in-house commercial lawyer on £68k + bonus.
How? She's worked very hard and been very good all the time, and coupled this with adroit diplomacy and people skills (don't forget that bit: crucial).
Also, she's not a mug. When she worked out she wasn't going anywhere in her previous firm (and her boss wasn't interested in pushing her forwards) she found another position, and left. If you do leave, always left politely and gracefully too - you can give feedback but it needs to be measured.
Great advice.
I think all those ( @Jonathan looking at you) saying make a stand, don't put up with it, etc are using @Gallowgate to fight their moral crusade against the way business works. But that's how it works.
Get your head down, work your bollocks off, act as though 20 people interviewed for your job that morning, and make your way in the world. Until you are in a position to change things on your terms (ie leave as your wife did) for a better job.
You have 3 months after you've left to bring the employment tribunal claim - don't do it while you are there.
Were I being paid below NMW against signed timesheets though I would be pointing it out, merely because I don't think any law firm is so cowboyish that they would be that stupid to be doing it deliberately.
Becausely it's work until you've got the experience to be paid properly (and if not being paid that) move to somewhere who will pay the correct amount.
Sorry, I'm going to jump straight in here: unless you have been seriously abused or maltreated NEVER bring an employment tribunal claim.
It will be a matter of public record, you'll be marked as a troublemaker and you'll never work in that industry again.
If there's a problem you give feedback, you leave, and you tell others about it - discreetly. Everyone knows each other and who the arseholes are, and they all get found out eventually, but going for a ET is very high risk.
Yep - sadly I'm currently doing work in a world full of the biggest bunch of crooks and cowboys you've ever met (agencies using umbrellas to keep rates as low as possible while using Agency Regulations to avoid such things as pay parity while passing employment costs on to the worker, which the agency then gets a kickback from). So my current logic is more one of you need to use the Tribunals as otherwise the problem will never be sorted and publicised.
And equally my second paragraph covers the scenario where something could be done and that's unlikely to actually exist.
Doesn’t much of the blame for this lie with companies too who want the workforce but don’t want to have them on the books.
My advice is for you to throw yourself into the role and not mention anything until you've been in the job for a few months.
Make sure you're noted for the quality of the work you do not for being the one who complains about the salary.
My first job straight out of university worked out at lower per hour than a paper boy/girl and as a 21/22 year old I also had a mortgage so if I were you just drop that hint to your boss about your rent/mortgage.
If they are good employers they will have processes in place to note you're being in paid sub NMW/plans for reviews, if not, leave after a few months if the situation isn't rectified.
One of the issues in the profession is when you apply for jobs, other than graduate training schemes, is that they always insist on 'experience', so you'll have that from this job.
As I continually point out
GCSEs take you to your A Levels A levels take you to your degree Degree to first job After that the only thing people care about is your previous jobs
Which means when you work out exactly what you want to do and go next ensure you get some experience at your current place so it at least looks like you know how to do it.
Thanks for that, I'm showing your post to my children this evening.
The pressure society puts on kids for their exams does more harm than good. It is sold to them as if their entire future rests of GCSEs and A levels when that is absolutely not the case. With that pressure and social media, on top of normal life and growing up, no wonder the mental health of teenagers is so troubled.
For that Gove has an awful lot to answer for.
GCSEs and A levels prepare people for the world of the 1940s/50s not the 21st century.
Being blunt the important bit is the degree and a good personal statement will give you way better Degree options than the grades. While Oxford and Cambridge no longer have the sit an exam / interview and 2 Es are enough - a good personal statement with outside interests can knock 24+ points off the UCAS offer (child A has an BCC offer for an AAB advertised course).
BoZo and Carrie benefitted personally financially to the tune of £58k
Only when he got caught did he agree to pay it back
He can’t take the Downing Street flat with him or put it on the market.
Pretty sure the BJ ex PM hooring for money brochure will have lots of pics of him in No 10 scattered throughout. He’ll want the place to look nice (though not ghastly oikish John Lewis nice).
I said could be, it is a term associated with LGBTQ+ community. Depends on the context but as the user freely admits posting just to wind people up I wouldn’t rule it out.
Ah, sorry, I’d replied to 2 posts by mistake. Genuinely wasn’t aware that Bois could have a homophobic slant, will check my woke privilege!
Do you understand the concept of owning property? Or rather the difference between owning and not owning something?
Do you understand buying things you can't afford with other peoples' money?
And the thing you "buy" isn't your asset.
I live in a rented flat. If I ask someone to lend me £10k to redecorate it, when I leave the landlord has the benefit of it. Not me. I haven't benefitted financially at all. I don't have the money in the bank to spend on anything else. I'm in the same position when I leave as when I arrived. The landlord has been "enriched".
What is it you're not understanding?
You benefit from (a) the decor you have enjoyed as a tenant and (b) from keeping £10k in the bank which you would otherwise have spent.
Of all the nothing to see here, move along arguments on here, this one is the silliest.
My advice is for you to throw yourself into the role and not mention anything until you've been in the job for a few months.
Make sure you're noted for the quality of the work you do not for being the one who complains about the salary.
My first job straight out of university worked out at lower per hour than a paper boy/girl and as a 21/22 year old I also had a mortgage so if I were you just drop that hint to your boss about your rent/mortgage.
If they are good employers they will have processes in place to note you're being in paid sub NMW/plans for reviews, if not, leave after a few months if the situation isn't rectified.
One of the issues in the profession is when you apply for jobs, other than graduate training schemes, is that they always insist on 'experience', so you'll have that from this job.
As I continually point out
GCSEs take you to your A Levels A levels take you to your degree Degree to first job After that the only thing people care about is your previous jobs
Which means when you work out exactly what you want to do and go next ensure you get some experience at your current place so it at least looks like you know how to do it.
Thanks for that, I'm showing your post to my children this evening.
The pressure society puts on kids for their exams does more harm than good. It is sold to them as if their entire future rests of GCSEs and A levels when that is absolutely not the case. With that pressure and social media, on top of normal life and growing up, no wonder the mental health of teenagers is so troubled.
For that Gove has an awful lot to answer for.
GCSEs and A levels prepare people for the world of the 1940s/50s not the 21st century.
Being blunt the important bit is the degree and a good personal statement will give you way better Degree options than the grades. While Oxford and Cambridge no longer have the sit an exam / interview and 2 Es are enough - a good personal statement with outside interests can knock 24+ points off the UCAS offer (child A has an BCC offer for an AAB advertised course).
My son did sit the TSA exam for Oxford and had 3 interviews. Their position was that they were not at all interested in the personal statement that he sweated buckets over but in fairness the other Universities that he applied to who did not do interviews were and he got offers from them.
On outside interests the best comments were from LSE who said, "we really like geeks. A lot of our students haven't seen a playing field for years and we are perfectly ok with that." The interest in "rounded" individuals has definitely waned since I was applying more than 40 years ago now.
My advice is for you to throw yourself into the role and not mention anything until you've been in the job for a few months.
Make sure you're noted for the quality of the work you do not for being the one who complains about the salary.
My first job straight out of university worked out at lower per hour than a paper boy/girl and as a 21/22 year old I also had a mortgage so if I were you just drop that hint to your boss about your rent/mortgage.
If they are good employers they will have processes in place to note you're being in paid sub NMW/plans for reviews, if not, leave after a few months if the situation isn't rectified.
One of the issues in the profession is when you apply for jobs, other than graduate training schemes, is that they always insist on 'experience', so you'll have that from this job.
That's good advice.
FWIW my wife did a career change into law 8 years ago. She was a paralegal on £18k for the first 18 months, then she got a training contract at £22k - qualified two years after that then up to about £35-40k.
Now, she's an in-house commercial lawyer on £68k + bonus.
How? She's worked very hard and been very good all the time, and coupled this with adroit diplomacy and people skills (don't forget that bit: crucial).
Also, she's not a mug. When she worked out she wasn't going anywhere in her previous firm (and her boss wasn't interested in pushing her forwards) she found another position, and left. If you do leave, always left politely and gracefully too - you can give feedback but it needs to be measured.
Great advice.
I think all those ( @Jonathan looking at you) saying make a stand, don't put up with it, etc are using @Gallowgate to fight their moral crusade against the way business works. But that's how it works.
Get your head down, work your bollocks off, act as though 20 people interviewed for your job that morning, and make your way in the world. Until you are in a position to change things on your terms (ie leave as your wife did) for a better job.
You have 3 months after you've left to bring the employment tribunal claim - don't do it while you are there.
Were I being paid below NMW against signed timesheets though I would be pointing it out, merely because I don't think any law firm is so cowboyish that they would be that stupid to be doing it deliberately.
Becausely it's work until you've got the experience to be paid properly (and if not being paid that) move to somewhere who will pay the correct amount.
Sorry, I'm going to jump straight in here: unless you have been seriously abused or maltreated NEVER bring an employment tribunal claim.
It will be a matter of public record, you'll be marked as a troublemaker and you'll never work in that industry again.
If there's a problem you give feedback, you leave, and you tell others about it - discreetly. Everyone knows each other and who the arseholes are, and they all get found out eventually, but going for a ET is very high risk.
Yep - sadly I'm currently doing work in a world full of the biggest bunch of crooks and cowboys you've ever met (agencies using umbrellas to keep rates as low as possible while using Agency Regulations to avoid such things as pay parity while passing employment costs on to the worker, which the agency then gets a kickback from). So my current logic is more one of you need to use the Tribunals as otherwise the problem will never be sorted and publicised.
And equally my second paragraph covers the scenario where something could be done and that's unlikely to actually exist.
Doesn’t much of the blame for this lie with companies too who want the workforce but don’t want to have them on the books.
A lot of companies see (agency) staff as instantly substitutable and wish to keep costs as low as possible.
Until the IR35 changes on April 6th that was possible in many areas by forcing people to use Limited Companies (I wasn't even aware that Delivery Drivers were using Limited Companies). The impact of that is going to take a while to play out but until recently an employed driver might have been on £12.50 an hour while an agency was accepting £15-16 to supply a driver.
And you can't do that when employer NI and holiday pay alone means the agency needs £16 to just pay Employer NI, Holiday pay and pension contributions.
And you can pick almost any low cost (substitute teachers, social care) industry and see the exact same issue
Comments
Jeremy Corbyn is Prime Minister (stop sniggering). He decided to do up Downing Street and having said he didn't have the money to do so managed to throw absurd monies at hammer and sickle wallpaper and little busts of Lenin. The money to pay for all this was generously donated by Unite. After some unpatriotic tittle-tattle the monies were repaid (from a source that Jeremy refuses to disclose) and the required declaration made months after the legal deadline.
None of the PB Tories would have a problem with this. Obviously.
https://twitter.com/MarinaHyde/status/1387323960606482434
.@WestminsterWAG tells @bbcnickrobinson: "The prime minister can't be expected to live in a skip"
Says Boris Johnson needs "decent furnishings".
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1387315333833371652
An improvement over Corbyn, at least
My advice is for you to throw yourself into the role and not mention anything until you've been in the job for a few months.
Make sure you're noted for the quality of the work you do not for being the one who complains about the salary.
My first job straight out of university worked out at lower per hour than a paper boy/girl and as a 21/22 year old I also had a mortgage so if I were you just drop that hint to your boss about your rent/mortgage.
If they are good employers they will have processes in place to note you're being in paid sub NMW/plans for reviews, if not, leave after a few months if the situation isn't rectified.
One of the issues in the profession is when you apply for jobs, other than graduate training schemes, is that they always insist on 'experience', so you'll have that from this job.
There would however be an issue were Gallowgate was working beyond X hours and there was a paper trail with signed off timesheets involved and given where he will be working timesheets will exist.
But basically it comes down to two things - do enough to prove your worth and watch out for imposter syndrome
Smart boy that Govey. Has anyone asked Akshata Murthy what she thinks of the decor...?
Not the BoZo fanbois, obviously...
I got a major pay rise when I went from working on the tills at the Co-op to working on the tills at McDonalds. While the Co-op were paying minimum wage (and just £2 per hour for 16/17 year olds), McDonalds were then paying above minimum wage as a starting rate and did performance review pay rises too.
Still makes me laugh when people act like McDonalds is unethical and the Co-op is fantastic. My personal view of the companies, even now twenty years later, is very much the other way around.
When was the deadline for declaring anything relevant to this?
Builders / Developers
NHBC (for signing things off)
Building Control (often private firms that are insured)
The Freeholders (who are often the directors of the building firms, nice secondary pension fund there)
The leaseholders
As a lot of Developers / Builders made significant (and excess) profits from Help to Buy it seems only fair that they should be the first to be asked to contribute.
FWIW my wife did a career change into law 8 years ago. She was a paralegal on £18k for the first 18 months, then she got a training contract at £22k - qualified two years after that then up to about £35-40k.
Now, she's an in-house commercial lawyer on £68k + bonus.
How? She's worked very hard and been very good all the time, and coupled this with adroit diplomacy and people skills (don't forget that bit: crucial).
Also, she's not a mug. When she worked out she wasn't going anywhere in her previous firm (and her boss wasn't interested in pushing her forwards) she found another position, and left. If you do leave, always left politely and gracefully too - you can give feedback but it needs to be measured.
https://twitter.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1387322460408893441?s=21
https://twitter.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1387322461763653632?s=21
You have not had the experience of living under labour in Wales for the last 22 years of abject failure on health, education and poverty.
Drakeford has only been able to roll out the vaccine due to Boris and the UK government pioneering the investment and enabling the world's leading vaccination programme
Labour will be at the very least the largest party in the Senedd, but are expected to lose seats and may depend on Plaid to govern.
Plaid may require Adam Price as first minister
It's a super difficult one. If I buy a car from a dealer's and it is not as described indeed they have broken some law or other and they fuck off, should the govt pay?
GCSEs take you to your A Levels
A levels take you to your degree
Degree to first job
After that the only thing people care about is your previous jobs
Which means when you work out exactly what you want to do and go next ensure you get some experience at your current place so it at least looks like you know how to do it.
Why has Labour in Wales been able to rollout the vaccine if the UK government hadn't invested in it and provided it to the whole UK
It doesn't need to be entirely consistent or "normal", but you do need to know what that "story" is so you can sell it to hiring managers at interview.
I think all those ( @Jonathan looking at you) saying make a stand, don't put up with it, etc are using @Gallowgate to fight their moral crusade against the way business works. But that's how it works.
Get your head down, work your bollocks off, act as though 20 people interviewed for your job that morning, and make your way in the world. Until you are in a position to change things on your terms (ie leave as your wife did) for a better job.
My brother works in the food retail industry, and says they have a really good reputation.
The Government really shouldn't be paying here - it has a 80 seat majority and using the words excess profits while pointing at Persimmons should be enough to get an act of Parliament (if required) through Parliament and get the developers to pay.
Very happy with his job, he has no GCSEs or technical training and has worked some awful ones.
What are the best sources of 4k shows or movies? And not that I watch much linear broadcast TV anymore, but are any channels 4k now? Also do any streaming etc services need to be activated to a 4k mode or should it happen automatically.
Got Sky Q, Netflix, Prime (but don't use it much) and Disney+ as services for what its worth.
£6.75 in 1999 is the equivalent of £12 now. So still a large percentage over the current NMW of £8.91.
You're displaying almost Meeksian hysteria. The amusing thing is that deep down you know this will make sod-all difference to anything, hence your frantic spinning of anything you find in the bowels of Twitter to convince yourself it will make a difference.
And I feel for you. I really do. It must be painful.
In my day (pulls out pipe and slippers) there was a line of 10 tills and attractiveness didn't come into it. Thank goodness or I'd have been stuck on the tills the whole time.
No, didn't pay much but I learnt a lot about people and a little bit about business - I remember how important cleanliness was, and spent most of my time doing that, but I quite enjoying using the till and taking customer orders.
Always worth doing for the experience.
Were I being paid below NMW against signed timesheets though I would be pointing it out, merely because I don't think any law firm is so cowboyish that they would be that stupid to be doing it deliberately.
Basically it's work until you've got the experience to be paid properly (and if not being paid that) move to somewhere who will pay the correct amount.
I would like to point out that I have 6+ years of experience in a salaried professional role that arose from an initial graduate role so I do know these things work. I've just never been in a position where my salaried role was so close to minimum wage, especially if there's an expectation to work many more hours than the contract stipulates.
Of course I did do the cost/benefit analysis when I accepted the role so the actual value isn't the issue — I just hadn't done the calculation in relation to minimum wage, which was quite the shock!
(Updated with correct link)
Genuinely interesting piece from Jillian Deutsch at Politico.
How Belgium was advised of weaknesses in the EU-AZ contract and chose not to tell anyone.
https://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-was-warned-eus-astrazeneca-contract-lacked-teeth-documents/
Shortly, another Belgian will be becoming famous.
The tortured ramblings of the BoZo fanbois are my reward.
Liverpool is an interesting parallel case. Quite rightly, in this instance the letter of the law is being taken to its ultimate conclusion.
The standards at the Co-Op were nothing compared to Sainsburys; I was encouraged to do things at Co-Op relating to sell by dates and storage of perishable goods that would have got me sacked at Sainsburys. I put that down to it being a local Co-Op society rather than the national operation, but perhaps it was more universal.
They did however forget to stop paying me for a couple of months after I went off to uni, so it wasn't all bad.
She said SNP and Rachel followed up by saying that she wanted a referendum then
Her response was that the SNP have done well but she is not seeking a referendum at this time
Rachel also said that the Greens, while in favour of indyref2, do nor want if for some years
Oh course the Greens want HMG to pay the huge cost of decommissioning the oil fields as independence would pass those billions straight to Scotland to fund
The more this goes on, independence is the dream of some, but is unlikely to see the light of day for quite a long time
And I assume this is the reason Salmond wants into the Parliament as he wants it 'now'
It will be a matter of public record, you'll be marked as a troublemaker and you'll never work in that industry again.
If there's a problem you give feedback, you leave, and you tell others about it - discreetly. Everyone knows each other and who the arseholes are, and they all get found out eventually, but going for a ET is very high risk.
Only when he got caught did he agree to pay it back
I actually use an Apple TV for a lot of things as that seems to have a better upscaler than a lot of TVs do.
You're doing the right thing and you're going to be ace!
The other insight I got was that there was all the difference in the world between doing those sort of jobs, as @Gallowgate is, for a short time in the confident expectation that you will move on to better things and being stuck in that job for the next 20 years.
As noted upthread, he spent money he didn't have on something he (or she) wanted, and somebody else provided the money.
Which part of that is not personal financial gain?
And if hadn't been caught...
And equally my second paragraph covers the scenario where something could be done and that's unlikely to actually exist.
Here, our three corkingly busy local franchises are owned by a local lady, and one of them has a site bang across from the entrance to MacArthur Glen.
As you are well aware this is investment time for you. Per hr calcs are irrelevant. I'm sure a Goldman junior would be working at or below NMW but has all the benefits (or not!) of a career at GS to look forward to.
It is a national asset. Grade One listed to boot. There is no requirement for a PM to pay out of own funds. They could have kept to £30k pa at taxpayer expense. A third party has in effect paid a voluntary tax to upgrade a national asset that is not adequately being preserved at the ordinary budget.
Perhaps we have more things to worry about at this time. I'm no Johnson fan but this is political mischief-making in a pandemic.
I said could be, it is a term associated with LGBTQ+ community. Depends on the context but as the user freely admits posting just to wind people up I wouldn’t rule it out.
I live in a rented flat. If I ask someone to lend me £10k to redecorate it, when I leave the landlord has the benefit of it. Not me. I haven't benefitted financially at all. I don't have the money in the bank to spend on anything else. I'm in the same position when I leave as when I arrived. The landlord has been "enriched".
What is it you're not understanding?
GCSEs and A levels prepare people for the world of the 1940s/50s not the 21st century.
Being blunt the important bit is the degree and a good personal statement will give you way better Degree options than the grades. While Oxford and Cambridge no longer have the sit an exam / interview and 2 Es are enough - a good personal statement with outside interests can knock 24+ points off the UCAS offer (child A has an BCC offer for an AAB advertised course).
Genuinely wasn’t aware that Bois could have a homophobic slant, will check my woke privilege!
Of all the nothing to see here, move along arguments on here, this one is the silliest.
On outside interests the best comments were from LSE who said, "we really like geeks. A lot of our students haven't seen a playing field for years and we are perfectly ok with that." The interest in "rounded" individuals has definitely waned since I was applying more than 40 years ago now.
Until the IR35 changes on April 6th that was possible in many areas by forcing people to use Limited Companies (I wasn't even aware that Delivery Drivers were using Limited Companies). The impact of that is going to take a while to play out but until recently an employed driver might have been on £12.50 an hour while an agency was accepting £15-16 to supply a driver.
And you can't do that when employer NI and holiday pay alone means the agency needs £16 to just pay Employer NI, Holiday pay and pension contributions.
And you can pick almost any low cost (substitute teachers, social care) industry and see the exact same issue