Below are the details from LONDON (Reuters) website about the postal strike action:
More than 40,000 postal workers began a second wave of one-day strikes after Royal Mail managers and union leaders failed to reach a deal to end the long-running dispute over pay, jobs and modernisation.
The Communication Workers Union (CWU) said 43,700 drivers and mail centre staff across Britain walked out from 4:00 a.m.
They will be followed on Friday by a small group of 400 workers in the towns of Plymouth, Stockport and Stoke and then on Saturday by 77,000 delivery and collection staff nationwide.
The strike went ahead after negotiations between CWU officials and Royal Mail managers in London collapsed for reasons that both sides agreed not to disclose.
"We remain available for discussions at any time," CWU Deputy General Secretary Dave Ward said in a statement. "We remain committed to reaching an agreed resolution."
The backlog of undelivered mail from two strikes last week still stands at 2 million items, the Royal Mail said.
Business Secretary Peter Mandelson has described the strikes as suicidal for a company that is losing 10 percent of its mail volume each year to private firms, the Internet, email and mobile phones.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whose Labour Party has received about 5 million pounds from the postal union since 2001, has called the strikes "counter-productive."
I am spilt on this dispute as I can see both sides. As a customer of Royal Mail it’s an inconvenience even for my personal mail – I can’t imagine how it would be for people trying to run a business while this is still unresolved.
From speaking to many people and reading opinions online I can see that it’s not only me. I agree that postal workers are affecting businesses and people are suffering as a result; in times like this recession they are lucky to have a job with a good pension and if they can afford not to work (by striking) then things cannot be too bad financially for them, they are however affecting other people's income and that is not very fair.
On the other hand I read one postal worker’s response to the negative press the workers had received and was sympathetic, he said:
“They have moved my hours by 3 hours with no thought of my family and home life, one guy came back from holiday to find he'd be working Saturdays, he's never done a Saturday in 20 years! Every single office and mail centre has had this happen through executive action - No managers have changed their hours or days. I look around my office and see more managers than actual workers, get rid of them not us.”
I understand that postal workers need to adapt to change (many industries are going through similar experiences) if they want the company to survive the competition that technology has brought but I know I wouldn’t be happy if there wasn’t a sense of fairness and equality in these changes.
Research has shown that the authoritative approach the Royal mail seem to have adopted is ineffective in a changing work place – a company needs to bring the workers with them through openness, consultation and collaboration, not necessitate change without an explanation.
It also seems to me that Royal mail execs and the union are battling egos whilst the public and the workers are losing out – that is just my take on it but either way there needs to be a speedy solution. What are your thoughts?
FYI: For those who want to avoid the effects of the postal strike on parcels and maybe even save some money, here is a forum link with some useful information from the bargain hunter Martin Lewis’ website: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/cheap-parcel-delivery.
Showing posts with label "charlene blog". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "charlene blog". Show all posts
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Are Loyalty Cards a Win-Win Situation?
Image courtesy of Tesco.comI was reading in the Financial Times that Tesco reported an improvement in its performance relative to its main UK rivals after revamping its loyalty card scheme, Tesco Clubcard.
“After years of powerful growth, Tesco had been under an unusual amount of pressure in its home market, from which it still draws the lion’s share of its sales.
Its share of the UK grocery market fell from 31.1 per cent to 30.9 per cent over the 12 weeks to September 6, according to quarterly figures from TNS Worldpanel; Asda, J Sainsbury and Wm Morrison – its closest rivals – have all been gaining share.” FT
Tesco fought back against this pressure by doubling the Clubcard points in store and has reported a positive effect, so clearly their loyalty card scheme works well for them.
I wonder then if it is a win-win situation and if consumers benefit just as much as the companies through these types of loyalty card schemes?
I have a Clubcard and although I don’t shop regularly in Tesco, I do collect points when I do happen to buy from there. I am also able to collect points through my gas and electricity provider (E-on). I get approx £5-£10 quarterly, which doesn’t seem much - but if you cash these in for other partner deals – days out, etc this can quadruple and make it much better value.
I have had a ‘free’ trip to The Science Centre amongst other places, purely from trading in my Clubcard points at the end of each quarter. I know that Tesco and other companies obviously benefit from the vast amount of information they get about their customers from these types of schemes but I’m not concerned about the privacy of what I put in my shopping trolley or about how many units of gas and electricity I use each month, so I don’t see it as a downside.
The only bad press I have heard about Tesco’s scheme, strangely arose from The Society of Radiographers who criticised Tesco for offering CT scans through its Clubcard reward scheme.
Society Chief Executive Richard Evans said in a letter to Tesco he was concerned that self-referral for diagnostic imaging outside a nationally regulated screening programme is "inappropriate and unnecessary."
Apart from this, the only negatives that consumers reported when reviewing were that “spending money on things you don’t need intentionally to receive points is crazy and you end up out of pocket”, this may be true for some but I know that I don’t go out my way to spend at Tesco so I’m satisfied that I’m getting ‘money for nothing’ - nothing being no extra cost or inconvenience to me.
Anyway, to round it up, I think it’s a great scheme for earning ‘rewards’ for spending money on everyday buys (groceries, petrol, energy) and I’m not too bothered about the privacy aspect and the fact that Tesco can track my spending for market researcher purposes – as long as they are offering great deals in return.
I view it as a win-win situation, what are your views?
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Kellogg's plan to laser flakes to fight fakes
A press release dated 14th October on Kellogg’s website states:
Kellogg's has developed a hi-tech method to stamp out imitation cereals - by branding Corn Flakes with the company logo.
The new technology enables the firm - which makes 67 million boxes of Corn Flakes every year - to burn the famous signature onto individual flakes using lasers.
Kellogg's plan to produce a number of one-off trial batches of the branded flakes to test the system.
Bosses will then consider inserting a proportion of branded flakes into each box to guarantee the cereal's origins and protect against imitation products.
If the system is successful it could be used on Kellogg's other best-loved brands including Frosties, Special K, Crunchy Nut and Bran Flakes.
The laser uses a concentrated beam of light which focuses the energy within the beam, down to a very small spot on the Corn Flake.
The energy density within the laser spot diameter is sufficient enough to give the surface of the flake a darker, toasted appearance without changing the taste.
Kellogg's embarked on the project to reinforce that they don't make cereals for any other companies and to fire a shot across the bows of makers of 'fake flakes'.
Yesterday Helen Lyons, lead food technologist at the company, said: ''In recent years there has been an increase in the number of own brands trying to capitalise on the popularity of Kellogg's corn flakes.
''We want shoppers to be under absolutely no illusion that Kellogg's does not make cereal for anyone else.
''We're constantly looking at new ways to reaffirm this and giving our golden flakes of corn an official stamp of approval could be the answer.
''We've established that it is possible to apply a logo or image onto food, now we need to see if there is a way of repeating it on large quantities of our cereal. We're looking into it.''
The company also released figures which show sales of Kellogg's Corn Flakes have risen in 2009 as shoppers with limited budgets opt for recognised, reliable brands.
A staggering 128 billion bowls of Kellogg's Corn Flakes are eaten worldwide every year in countries as far afield as Guatemala, Japan, Argentina and India.
And an incredible 2.8 million bowls of Kellogg's Corn Flakes are eaten in the UK everyday - that's one billion a year.
The firm's Manchester factory is also the biggest Corn Flake production line in the world and churns out cereals 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
This is interesting to me as a marketing student as I was recently discussing the effects and ethics surrounding supermarkets ‘copying’ known brands packaging and whether this was an intentional act to ‘con consumers’.
Earlier this year it was reported that one in three shoppers admitted accidently buying the wrong product (a supermarket’s own brand) because it’s packaging was similar to that of a well-known brand, a study by the British Brands Group found.
The survey found that some 65% of shoppers said similar packaging can be confusing or misleading and some of the named offender’s where Asda’s, ‘You’d Butter Believe It’ which was alarmingly similar to Unilever’s ‘I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter’ and Lidl’s ‘Jammy Rings’ resembling the more well known Jammy Dodgers.
I can understand then why Kellogg’s are worried and see this as a huge threat to their products but that aside – is this scheme really going to come to fruition?
I doubt it; in my opinion it seems to be a news grabbing PR stunt. Firstly, I am a little cynical about the stage this new food technology is at (the photo released is digitally manipulated, not using the new technology) and a few online news sites have expressed their difficulty in getting a clear answer from Kellogg’s about the likelihood they will adopt this scheme. The above mentioned Helen Lyons, the food technologist is conveniently on holiday so not available for comment.
Even if this was imminent, is it really a good use of money? I would assume it is very costly and time-consuming so would these resources maybe be put to better use elsewhere in the business?
After all, Kellogg’s said one of the main reasons for considering this technology was “to reinforce that they don't make cereals for any other companies”, great – so surely the Kellogg’s logo on the box is enough for me to know I am eating their cornflakes?
What are your thoughts?
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Most Ridiculous Claim of the Year - Chat with Michael Jackson on Twitter!
According to several newspapers online;
“Fans of Michael Jackson can hope to get in touch with their idol over Halloween with the world’s first Twitter séance.
Top psychic Jayne Wallace will run the ‘Twéance’, on the day before Halloween, i.e. October 30 from Angels Fancy Dress in London.
She will attempt to make contact with the King of Pop and other celebrities including Jade Goody, Patrick Swayze and Farah Fawcett, who also died this year, and then Tweet their answers to fans’ questions”.
“We were amazed to see no-one had used Twitter for a séance before,” the Daily Star quoted Benjamin Webb, 30, who works at Angels shop, as saying.
The Telegraph has reported, “The move is a paranormal publicity stunt by the fancy dress shop in central London ahead of Halloween”.
Whether you are a believer or not - I would sway more towards the latter, exploiting celebrities beyond the grave for some publicity is very low. It’s disturbing to think that this ‘top psychic’ who on her website states that even talking to one of her handpicked psychics will cost you £1.50+ a minute through her dedicated 24 hour hotline and apparently the fancy dress shop are going to be aggravating the families of these celebs who’s memory should be left to rest in peace.
The telegraph also reported, “This is not Mrs. Wallace’s first beyond-the-veil star-spotting. She claims that she “spoke” to Jade Goody, the Big Brother star who died of cervical cancer in March.
Apparently the late mother of two said she wanted to apologise to her mother, Jackiey Budden, for not listening to her about marrying Jack Tweed, saying it was “the biggest mistake she ever made”.
Again, who is she to claim that Jade communicated this to her? Although some may say that it’s obviously a load of nonsense and anyone who believes it only has themselves to blame but on the other hand, anyone who has lost someone close will understand that it’s a time when you are very desperate and vulnerable and so exploiting this is shameful.
I have in the past had my ‘tea leaves read’ and always find it interesting what psychics have had to say to friends and families about what the future has in store but more in a light-hearted, take with a pinch of salt kind of way. These types of ‘visions’ or predictions of the future can be harmless and not so damaging – claiming to contact the dead however is a different matter, especially when they are claiming to have been given important messages like the one above.
This woman, Jayne Wallace however is disgraceful in my eyes and anyone who is also involved in this ‘publicity stunt’ is just as bad. Leave the celebs memories’ and all those who have passed away in peace and get a real job that doesn’t feed off people who are at their most vulnerable.
“Fans of Michael Jackson can hope to get in touch with their idol over Halloween with the world’s first Twitter séance.
Top psychic Jayne Wallace will run the ‘Twéance’, on the day before Halloween, i.e. October 30 from Angels Fancy Dress in London.
She will attempt to make contact with the King of Pop and other celebrities including Jade Goody, Patrick Swayze and Farah Fawcett, who also died this year, and then Tweet their answers to fans’ questions”.
“We were amazed to see no-one had used Twitter for a séance before,” the Daily Star quoted Benjamin Webb, 30, who works at Angels shop, as saying.
The Telegraph has reported, “The move is a paranormal publicity stunt by the fancy dress shop in central London ahead of Halloween”.
Whether you are a believer or not - I would sway more towards the latter, exploiting celebrities beyond the grave for some publicity is very low. It’s disturbing to think that this ‘top psychic’ who on her website states that even talking to one of her handpicked psychics will cost you £1.50+ a minute through her dedicated 24 hour hotline and apparently the fancy dress shop are going to be aggravating the families of these celebs who’s memory should be left to rest in peace.
The telegraph also reported, “This is not Mrs. Wallace’s first beyond-the-veil star-spotting. She claims that she “spoke” to Jade Goody, the Big Brother star who died of cervical cancer in March.
Apparently the late mother of two said she wanted to apologise to her mother, Jackiey Budden, for not listening to her about marrying Jack Tweed, saying it was “the biggest mistake she ever made”.
Again, who is she to claim that Jade communicated this to her? Although some may say that it’s obviously a load of nonsense and anyone who believes it only has themselves to blame but on the other hand, anyone who has lost someone close will understand that it’s a time when you are very desperate and vulnerable and so exploiting this is shameful.
I have in the past had my ‘tea leaves read’ and always find it interesting what psychics have had to say to friends and families about what the future has in store but more in a light-hearted, take with a pinch of salt kind of way. These types of ‘visions’ or predictions of the future can be harmless and not so damaging – claiming to contact the dead however is a different matter, especially when they are claiming to have been given important messages like the one above.
This woman, Jayne Wallace however is disgraceful in my eyes and anyone who is also involved in this ‘publicity stunt’ is just as bad. Leave the celebs memories’ and all those who have passed away in peace and get a real job that doesn’t feed off people who are at their most vulnerable.
Thursday, 24 September 2009
BBC1’s Wounded
Did anyone watch BBC1’s Wounded documentary last night?
Well it seems to be a huge talking point today online with countless forums already inundated with comments on the bravery and inspiration that the two featured soldiers showed.
It was quite harrowing, but ultimately inspiring and centred on two young men who both suffered some of the worst injuries imaginable.
Tom had been the victim of an improvised explosive device (IED) that had blown off both his legs. Soon afterwards, his left arm was amputated. He was at Birmingham’s Selly Oak Hospital, where British soldiers from Afghanistan have been treated since 2001 and where he was recovering from 15 major operations.
Ranger Andy Allen, 19, of the Royal Irish Regiment was another victim of an IED. When he was flown back to Birmingham, the doctors were hoping to save his remaining leg, but couldn’t. He’d also been blinded in the attack.
What was inspirational was that both were so determined to get on and make the best of their lives. One wanted to walk within 7 months to collect his medal, the other wanted to walk and to see his baby boy. Both did it.
One forum post is from ‘Sue’ who wrote:
“100% AMAZING. I watched this programme through a mass of tears. As a 'Forces' wife and mother I felt very humbled that both my husband and son have returned safe and my heart goes out to all the families of guys like Andy and Tom. WELL DONE BBC for showing this and I hope that whoever watched it will now realise OUR FORCES ARE AMAZING PEOPLE and we should be proud to honour them”
All the reviews and posts I read seem to echo this sentiment and how brave these men are and the only negatives seem to be surrounding the politics of war itself which I won’t go into.
Whatever the circumstances; these two men are brave and undeniably inspirational. It seems that this documentary will be a talking point for a while to come.
Well it seems to be a huge talking point today online with countless forums already inundated with comments on the bravery and inspiration that the two featured soldiers showed.
It was quite harrowing, but ultimately inspiring and centred on two young men who both suffered some of the worst injuries imaginable.
Tom had been the victim of an improvised explosive device (IED) that had blown off both his legs. Soon afterwards, his left arm was amputated. He was at Birmingham’s Selly Oak Hospital, where British soldiers from Afghanistan have been treated since 2001 and where he was recovering from 15 major operations.
Ranger Andy Allen, 19, of the Royal Irish Regiment was another victim of an IED. When he was flown back to Birmingham, the doctors were hoping to save his remaining leg, but couldn’t. He’d also been blinded in the attack.
What was inspirational was that both were so determined to get on and make the best of their lives. One wanted to walk within 7 months to collect his medal, the other wanted to walk and to see his baby boy. Both did it.
One forum post is from ‘Sue’ who wrote:
“100% AMAZING. I watched this programme through a mass of tears. As a 'Forces' wife and mother I felt very humbled that both my husband and son have returned safe and my heart goes out to all the families of guys like Andy and Tom. WELL DONE BBC for showing this and I hope that whoever watched it will now realise OUR FORCES ARE AMAZING PEOPLE and we should be proud to honour them”
All the reviews and posts I read seem to echo this sentiment and how brave these men are and the only negatives seem to be surrounding the politics of war itself which I won’t go into.
Whatever the circumstances; these two men are brave and undeniably inspirational. It seems that this documentary will be a talking point for a while to come.
Friday, 18 September 2009
Can his Miracle Hands Provide a Cure for Cancer?
I very much doubt Adrian Pengelly can cure cancer. I watched Watchdog last night on BBC1 in disgust (sorry for this sounding like the opening line of a letter to ‘Points of View’) at the sometimes self-proclaimed Sir Adrian Pengelly – a man who maintains he can cure cancer using an energy that he transmits through his hands. Not only that – he can banish bad spirits from homes and can diagnose and treat sick animals according to him.
The first few clips on the Rogue Trader section of the show made a mockery of a man who was claiming to be talking to spirits (in a house rigged with tricks) and misdiagnosed a lame horse. I couldn’t decide if he was a foolish delusional man or a calculating immoral predator, especially after seeing the final excerpt on the show.
His claims turned from amusing to reprehensible when video footage was shown of this man telling a woman he has a 60-65% success rate in curing cancer – a totally unsubstantiated claim. It got worse when he also stated that his treatment was more successful on patients that do not use other conventional medicines like chemotherapy. Reading between the lines he was advising people that they would have a better chance if they declined other treatments – although I know there has been much debate among believers whether he was actually implying that or not.
Either way he offered his experience as proof of this and went on to say that he would advise his loved ones to decline other treatments if they were ill. The people who contact this man with cancer are ill, vulnerable, desperate and clutching at anything to help them so this is completely irresponsible advice and I’m shocked that he is allowed to get away with this. I would say that he should be investigated by the police, not a BBC1 show.
I have had a close family member in the position of being given news of terminal cancer and seen firsthand family members and I desperately trying to find a miracle treatment or medical breakthrough to reverse the horrendous news. This type of situation is definitely one where people are at their most vulnerable to any kind of positivity and it appals me that this type of immoral practice has been so far unpunished.
Adrian Pengelly and people who make unfounded claims like him are in my opinion evil and I can’t fathom how their consciences are allowing them to behave this way. To all the believers and people that have posted messages of support about this man on the many forums I have read today online – wake up, it’s not a witch hunt, he is a dangerous man making a living out of preying on vulnerable desperate people and it is interesting how his website with all his wild claims is now offline - not the sign of a genuine innocent man.
The first few clips on the Rogue Trader section of the show made a mockery of a man who was claiming to be talking to spirits (in a house rigged with tricks) and misdiagnosed a lame horse. I couldn’t decide if he was a foolish delusional man or a calculating immoral predator, especially after seeing the final excerpt on the show.
His claims turned from amusing to reprehensible when video footage was shown of this man telling a woman he has a 60-65% success rate in curing cancer – a totally unsubstantiated claim. It got worse when he also stated that his treatment was more successful on patients that do not use other conventional medicines like chemotherapy. Reading between the lines he was advising people that they would have a better chance if they declined other treatments – although I know there has been much debate among believers whether he was actually implying that or not.
Either way he offered his experience as proof of this and went on to say that he would advise his loved ones to decline other treatments if they were ill. The people who contact this man with cancer are ill, vulnerable, desperate and clutching at anything to help them so this is completely irresponsible advice and I’m shocked that he is allowed to get away with this. I would say that he should be investigated by the police, not a BBC1 show.
I have had a close family member in the position of being given news of terminal cancer and seen firsthand family members and I desperately trying to find a miracle treatment or medical breakthrough to reverse the horrendous news. This type of situation is definitely one where people are at their most vulnerable to any kind of positivity and it appals me that this type of immoral practice has been so far unpunished.
Adrian Pengelly and people who make unfounded claims like him are in my opinion evil and I can’t fathom how their consciences are allowing them to behave this way. To all the believers and people that have posted messages of support about this man on the many forums I have read today online – wake up, it’s not a witch hunt, he is a dangerous man making a living out of preying on vulnerable desperate people and it is interesting how his website with all his wild claims is now offline - not the sign of a genuine innocent man.
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
Celebrity Fronted Social Worker Recruitment Drive for 5000 Jobs
A TV campaign is being launched to try to recruit more than 5,000 social workers, amid fears the ‘Baby P’ case has turned people off the profession, the BBC reported.
Launching the appeal, actress Samantha Morton spoke of the "wonderful" social workers who supported her as a child. Fashion designer Sadie Frost, former Eastenders star Michelle Ryan and musician Goldie are also among those appearing in the adverts.
Children's Secretary Ed Balls said social workers "transform lives".
"Thousands of children and families desperately need the help and support social workers give in difficult and sometimes dangerous situations. It is a job that makes a difference in ways that most of us can only begin to imagine," he said, adding that its success stories were "rarely heard".
‘The Help Give Them A Voice’ campaign aims to attract back social workers who may have left the profession and people looking for a career change, as well as people making initial career choices.
Emilia Fox, another actress supporting the campaign, said: "I think we have got to a really critical situation so this is really to encourage people into a profession with responsibility."
In May, a survey for the Local Government Association (LGA) suggested the criticism of the profession following the ‘Baby P’ case had had a "highly damaging effect" on the ability of local councils in England to recruit social workers.
It found 60% of the 56 councils taking part in the study had experienced problems hiring children's social workers and 40% reported difficulties in retaining experienced staff.
Although this story appears positive and will probably prove to be a successful ‘recruitment drive’, is it really the right way to recruit staff that I’m sure everyone will agree play a pivotal role in society today for many people? It is a job with great responsibility and requires a certain type of person – caring and trustworthy are just two of the vital requirements of someone who would be successful in this career.
Am I being too analytical and pernickety to suggest that this is a waste of time and may attract the wrong type of people? I view this type of profession as one that people are born with the character to do or not, a vocation that no matter what training and skills can be provided to people, they may not be able to cope or do the job competently as it’s a lot more than a nine till five.
The same as a priest or nurse may feel that their profession was their calling; it’s a job that requires a similar nature and commitment to a cause. A lot of amazing social workers exist out there and as reported many have left due to the work conditions and treatment they received. Does it not make sense then to improve on these conditions instead of attracting masses of people, many of whom may be wholly unsuitable?
I understand there is a shortage of staff and they need to take action to ensure these positions are filled but does a celebrity endorsed recruitment drive really reflect the seriousness of the job? Is it really appropriate, no matter what the experiences of these celebrities have been? It is the ordinary ‘Joe Public’ that these people need to help and I just don’t think it’s a great way to recruit these important people. I feel a more targeted campaign if any and internal improvements to the departments makes a lot more sense.
I could be wrong, what are your thoughts?
Launching the appeal, actress Samantha Morton spoke of the "wonderful" social workers who supported her as a child. Fashion designer Sadie Frost, former Eastenders star Michelle Ryan and musician Goldie are also among those appearing in the adverts.
Children's Secretary Ed Balls said social workers "transform lives".
"Thousands of children and families desperately need the help and support social workers give in difficult and sometimes dangerous situations. It is a job that makes a difference in ways that most of us can only begin to imagine," he said, adding that its success stories were "rarely heard".
‘The Help Give Them A Voice’ campaign aims to attract back social workers who may have left the profession and people looking for a career change, as well as people making initial career choices.
Emilia Fox, another actress supporting the campaign, said: "I think we have got to a really critical situation so this is really to encourage people into a profession with responsibility."
In May, a survey for the Local Government Association (LGA) suggested the criticism of the profession following the ‘Baby P’ case had had a "highly damaging effect" on the ability of local councils in England to recruit social workers.
It found 60% of the 56 councils taking part in the study had experienced problems hiring children's social workers and 40% reported difficulties in retaining experienced staff.
Although this story appears positive and will probably prove to be a successful ‘recruitment drive’, is it really the right way to recruit staff that I’m sure everyone will agree play a pivotal role in society today for many people? It is a job with great responsibility and requires a certain type of person – caring and trustworthy are just two of the vital requirements of someone who would be successful in this career.
Am I being too analytical and pernickety to suggest that this is a waste of time and may attract the wrong type of people? I view this type of profession as one that people are born with the character to do or not, a vocation that no matter what training and skills can be provided to people, they may not be able to cope or do the job competently as it’s a lot more than a nine till five.
The same as a priest or nurse may feel that their profession was their calling; it’s a job that requires a similar nature and commitment to a cause. A lot of amazing social workers exist out there and as reported many have left due to the work conditions and treatment they received. Does it not make sense then to improve on these conditions instead of attracting masses of people, many of whom may be wholly unsuitable?
I understand there is a shortage of staff and they need to take action to ensure these positions are filled but does a celebrity endorsed recruitment drive really reflect the seriousness of the job? Is it really appropriate, no matter what the experiences of these celebrities have been? It is the ordinary ‘Joe Public’ that these people need to help and I just don’t think it’s a great way to recruit these important people. I feel a more targeted campaign if any and internal improvements to the departments makes a lot more sense.
I could be wrong, what are your thoughts?
Friday, 28 August 2009
BIG BROTHER’S BEEN BAD?
The media online and offline has been reporting of the decision for next year’s Big Brother to be the last. Davina herself has even mentioned it on her Twitter site and George Lamb on the spin-off show Big Brother’s Little Brother made an official statement that Channel 4 would review its decision after next year’s show.
There has been a lot of hype and speculation for the last couple of years and it seems a little exaggerated in my opinion – with comments like the ratings have suffered, the show isn’t as good as it used to be and hearsay about voting fixes, but does it all really matter? Whether true or not, all good shows come to an end and have a shelf life so it’s nothing new.
I like Big Brother and remember watching the first series religiously but now as BB10 is coming to an end I do think it’s getting less about the viewers’ opinions and more about Channel Four’s own agenda. BB10 Lisa is a prime example of this, she’s been sneaky, bitchy and a complete pain throughout and the only week that viewer’s had a chance to vote her out, Big Brother changed the way to evict, to voting on who you want to stay – perfectly engineered to get the ‘quiet one’ Hira out who seemed to have more going for her than anyone else in there.
Poor Halfwit/Freddie was also a victim of this year’s show as manipulative Bea played with his feelings which led to his downfall – if the public had the chance to get her out sooner then possibly Halfwit’s stay could have been a little longer.
All that aside there have been great shows and lots to talk about over the last ten series and I think it’s the right time to end it before it gets remembered for the rebellious behaviour of it’s participants and the unauthoritative nature of BB that has unfolded gradually and peaked this year.
If it is all coming to an end next year then I hope Big Brother does what many shows have before and make the final season one to remember.
There has been a lot of hype and speculation for the last couple of years and it seems a little exaggerated in my opinion – with comments like the ratings have suffered, the show isn’t as good as it used to be and hearsay about voting fixes, but does it all really matter? Whether true or not, all good shows come to an end and have a shelf life so it’s nothing new.
I like Big Brother and remember watching the first series religiously but now as BB10 is coming to an end I do think it’s getting less about the viewers’ opinions and more about Channel Four’s own agenda. BB10 Lisa is a prime example of this, she’s been sneaky, bitchy and a complete pain throughout and the only week that viewer’s had a chance to vote her out, Big Brother changed the way to evict, to voting on who you want to stay – perfectly engineered to get the ‘quiet one’ Hira out who seemed to have more going for her than anyone else in there.
Poor Halfwit/Freddie was also a victim of this year’s show as manipulative Bea played with his feelings which led to his downfall – if the public had the chance to get her out sooner then possibly Halfwit’s stay could have been a little longer.
All that aside there have been great shows and lots to talk about over the last ten series and I think it’s the right time to end it before it gets remembered for the rebellious behaviour of it’s participants and the unauthoritative nature of BB that has unfolded gradually and peaked this year.
If it is all coming to an end next year then I hope Big Brother does what many shows have before and make the final season one to remember.
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
"I'm suing Google..."
The Times online reported that Google is to be sued for $15 million (approx £9 million) by a not-so-anonymous blogger who was unmasked by the internet search company.
Rosemary Port said that Google had failed to protect her right to privacy when the company obeyed a court order to reveal her name after she used her blog to accuse a former Vogue model of being a "psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank".
Liskula Cohen, 36, won a landmark case in a New York court last week, forcing Google to disclose the online identity of Ms Port, 29, a Fashion Institute of Technology student, who created her "Skanks in NYC" blog a year ago using Google's Blogger.com site.
The New York Supreme Court ruled that Google must reveal the identity of the blogger.
Judge Joan Madden rejected Ms Port's claim that the blogs were a "modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting" and should not be treated as factual assertions.
After the court ruling Google turned over the e-mail address and IP addresses from each time the blogger had logged on to the blog, allowing Ms Cohen to discover the identity of her tormentor.
She said she was relieved to discover that the woman who created the blog was not someone close to her and decided not to continue with a defamation suit. The blog was deleted in March.
Google said that users of Blogger.com agree to a privacy policy that allows the company to share personal information if required by legal action.
Firstly, is it me or are the lawsuits getting crazier by the week across the pond? Okay, I know that people will be flying the freedom of speech flag in support of this nasty coward – I have read the comments online already.
That’s a good flag to fly – but not in this instance! Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if that opinion is defamatory and expressed to an audience (in print or by word), why shouldn't the person making the statement be liable for it? All this decision does is stop Ms Port hiding behind a wall of anonymity.
If Ms Port's comments aren’t defamatory, then she has nothing to worry about. Insulting people or holding a public opinion is not automatically defamatory. Her right to free speech is not infringed in any way.
Problem is, what she wants is freedom to abuse/insult/possibly defame people, in a manner designed to bring them anguish and degradation, in a highly public manner, anonymously. It's the fact that she is embarrassed and concerned that she has been outed that has angered her – not the fact that Google revealed her details – as a result of a court order I must add. Somewhat hypocritical to say the least.
That is not what free speech is about - free speech is the right to say what you want to say, not the right to be unaccountable for your vicious tongue. People should be responsible and accountable for their words and actions - that's part of enjoying these freedoms.
Please tell me this lawsuit will be dropped before it wastes any time or money in court. Someone should also try to contact the victim here - the model that has been called what can only be described as childish names and tell her to take a u-turn and sue Ms Port – not for cash, just for the principle and teach the nasty creature a lesson.
Rosemary Port said that Google had failed to protect her right to privacy when the company obeyed a court order to reveal her name after she used her blog to accuse a former Vogue model of being a "psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank".
Liskula Cohen, 36, won a landmark case in a New York court last week, forcing Google to disclose the online identity of Ms Port, 29, a Fashion Institute of Technology student, who created her "Skanks in NYC" blog a year ago using Google's Blogger.com site.
The New York Supreme Court ruled that Google must reveal the identity of the blogger.
Judge Joan Madden rejected Ms Port's claim that the blogs were a "modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting" and should not be treated as factual assertions.
After the court ruling Google turned over the e-mail address and IP addresses from each time the blogger had logged on to the blog, allowing Ms Cohen to discover the identity of her tormentor.
She said she was relieved to discover that the woman who created the blog was not someone close to her and decided not to continue with a defamation suit. The blog was deleted in March.
Google said that users of Blogger.com agree to a privacy policy that allows the company to share personal information if required by legal action.
Firstly, is it me or are the lawsuits getting crazier by the week across the pond? Okay, I know that people will be flying the freedom of speech flag in support of this nasty coward – I have read the comments online already.
That’s a good flag to fly – but not in this instance! Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if that opinion is defamatory and expressed to an audience (in print or by word), why shouldn't the person making the statement be liable for it? All this decision does is stop Ms Port hiding behind a wall of anonymity.
If Ms Port's comments aren’t defamatory, then she has nothing to worry about. Insulting people or holding a public opinion is not automatically defamatory. Her right to free speech is not infringed in any way.
Problem is, what she wants is freedom to abuse/insult/possibly defame people, in a manner designed to bring them anguish and degradation, in a highly public manner, anonymously. It's the fact that she is embarrassed and concerned that she has been outed that has angered her – not the fact that Google revealed her details – as a result of a court order I must add. Somewhat hypocritical to say the least.
That is not what free speech is about - free speech is the right to say what you want to say, not the right to be unaccountable for your vicious tongue. People should be responsible and accountable for their words and actions - that's part of enjoying these freedoms.
Please tell me this lawsuit will be dropped before it wastes any time or money in court. Someone should also try to contact the victim here - the model that has been called what can only be described as childish names and tell her to take a u-turn and sue Ms Port – not for cash, just for the principle and teach the nasty creature a lesson.
Thursday, 6 August 2009
Swine Flu Skivers Costing Companies
Thousands of healthy workers are thought to have taken advantage of official guidelines on the pandemic to extend their summer holidays.
By simply phoning the NHS swine flu hotline or visiting its website, sneaky workers can get themselves a course of antiviral medicine and do not need a sick note from their GP for the first seven days’ absence – don’t anyone reading this get any ideas.
And to make matters worse, the Government is considering doubling this period to a fortnight, which companies fear could make the situation worse and cost them millions of pounds in lost productivity at a time when they are struggling with the effects of the recession.
There are also predictions that more healthy workers will be tempted to call in sick as the weather improves over the next week, after the wettest July on record.
The Employment Law Advisory Service, which provides legal advice to companies on personnel problems, disclosed yesterday that it had begun receiving calls from concerned managers as soon as the self-diagnosis website was set up last month.
It has since heard from more than 1,000 companies that believe staff have exploited concern about the spread of the H1N1 virus to take an extra week off. It believes that the Department of Health’s guidance risks creating a “skiver’s charter”.
Peter Mooney, the service’s head of consultancy, said: “Managers feel that some staff are simply taking advantage of concerns about the transmission of swine flu to take an extra few days off work. Because the emphasis has been on not going to your local GP but using websites to assess the infection and the risk to others, those who stay at home are not going to need a doctor’s note or have too many people calling on them to see how they feel.
“Based on the volume, and the nature, of calls we have been taking, the number of deliberate false cases of the condition is having a significant impact on workplaces across the country — something bosses are keen to tackle.”
The flu service website and phone line handed out over 150,000 doses of Tamiflu in its first week. However, there is evidence that only about one in four recipients actually has the H1N1 virus.
GPs have said that they are being inundated with calls from patients claiming to have swine flu and requesting a note to sign them off work for longer than a week. Many are concerned that they are being asked to certify that people are ill without having seen them, meaning shirkers could take advantage.
Recent figures suggest the average worker takes 7.4 days off sick a year at a total cost of £17.3 billion to the economy, so the impact of staff taking another fortnight off for self-diagnosed swine flu could cripple some small businesses.
I have also read an article in a newspaper recently about a student Emily Morgan who was sacked from the National Pandemic Flu Service call centre for having swine flu - peculiar I know. After feeling ill during her first shift at her holiday job, the 21-year-old was later diagnosed with the H1N1 virus and prescribed Tamiflu.
She phoned in sick the next day, but when she returned to the Plymouth office 10 days later Miss Morgan said she was told she had lost her job. The international business student said: "It's kind of ironic. I feel I would have been better at the job now because I'd know what people were going through.
Miss Morgan said: "I rang them several times and they were well aware I had swine flu, and kept telling me to get well soon. I couldn't believe it when I turned up and I was told to hand in my security pass.”
Miss Morgan had been employed through recruitment agency Reed and when contacted by the press their response was, "There are procedures to follow in cases of absenteeism."
In terms of the ‘swine flu skivers’, I personally think it’s like anything, there are always people out there who will take advantage of a loop hole or opportunity to benefit themselves – I don’t think it’s crime of the century but if it does have a detrimental effect on a business then I suppose they will have to deal with it legally and appropriately.
For all genuine swine flu sufferers – Get Well Soon x
By simply phoning the NHS swine flu hotline or visiting its website, sneaky workers can get themselves a course of antiviral medicine and do not need a sick note from their GP for the first seven days’ absence – don’t anyone reading this get any ideas.
And to make matters worse, the Government is considering doubling this period to a fortnight, which companies fear could make the situation worse and cost them millions of pounds in lost productivity at a time when they are struggling with the effects of the recession.
There are also predictions that more healthy workers will be tempted to call in sick as the weather improves over the next week, after the wettest July on record.
The Employment Law Advisory Service, which provides legal advice to companies on personnel problems, disclosed yesterday that it had begun receiving calls from concerned managers as soon as the self-diagnosis website was set up last month.
It has since heard from more than 1,000 companies that believe staff have exploited concern about the spread of the H1N1 virus to take an extra week off. It believes that the Department of Health’s guidance risks creating a “skiver’s charter”.
Peter Mooney, the service’s head of consultancy, said: “Managers feel that some staff are simply taking advantage of concerns about the transmission of swine flu to take an extra few days off work. Because the emphasis has been on not going to your local GP but using websites to assess the infection and the risk to others, those who stay at home are not going to need a doctor’s note or have too many people calling on them to see how they feel.
“Based on the volume, and the nature, of calls we have been taking, the number of deliberate false cases of the condition is having a significant impact on workplaces across the country — something bosses are keen to tackle.”
The flu service website and phone line handed out over 150,000 doses of Tamiflu in its first week. However, there is evidence that only about one in four recipients actually has the H1N1 virus.
GPs have said that they are being inundated with calls from patients claiming to have swine flu and requesting a note to sign them off work for longer than a week. Many are concerned that they are being asked to certify that people are ill without having seen them, meaning shirkers could take advantage.
Recent figures suggest the average worker takes 7.4 days off sick a year at a total cost of £17.3 billion to the economy, so the impact of staff taking another fortnight off for self-diagnosed swine flu could cripple some small businesses.
I have also read an article in a newspaper recently about a student Emily Morgan who was sacked from the National Pandemic Flu Service call centre for having swine flu - peculiar I know. After feeling ill during her first shift at her holiday job, the 21-year-old was later diagnosed with the H1N1 virus and prescribed Tamiflu.
She phoned in sick the next day, but when she returned to the Plymouth office 10 days later Miss Morgan said she was told she had lost her job. The international business student said: "It's kind of ironic. I feel I would have been better at the job now because I'd know what people were going through.
Miss Morgan said: "I rang them several times and they were well aware I had swine flu, and kept telling me to get well soon. I couldn't believe it when I turned up and I was told to hand in my security pass.”
Miss Morgan had been employed through recruitment agency Reed and when contacted by the press their response was, "There are procedures to follow in cases of absenteeism."
In terms of the ‘swine flu skivers’, I personally think it’s like anything, there are always people out there who will take advantage of a loop hole or opportunity to benefit themselves – I don’t think it’s crime of the century but if it does have a detrimental effect on a business then I suppose they will have to deal with it legally and appropriately.
For all genuine swine flu sufferers – Get Well Soon x
Monday, 3 August 2009
No Job? Sue Your College or University?
A New York woman, Trina Thomson, 27, has filed a law suit against Monroe College were she completed an IT degree in April this year. She is seeking to recover $70,000 (approx £40,000) that she has spent on tuition the BBC reported. The woman claims the Office of Career Advancement at the college did not provide her with the leads and career advice it had promised.
"The college prides itself on the excellent career-development support that we provide to each of our students, and this case does not deserve further consideration," its spokesman said.
It sounds a little far fetched in my opinion and I would think that she will be unsuccessful but you never know – stranger things have happened. It is hard to prove because there are so many other contributory factors that the college could argue are the cause of her unfortunate jobless situation; her efforts and the current economic climate being the main ones.
It’s definitely not an isolated situation and one that a lot of students Stateside and over here in the UK will have found themselves in. After studying hard and gaining good qualifications they end up either jobless or taking on a job totally unrelated to their chosen field just so they can earn money.
I don’t think it is generally the college or universities responsibility in these situations but I do think that career advisors are pivotal and a major part of the organisation. I think if the “Office of Career Development” at the college in question has been less than helpful then they should be penalised and hopefully it will prevent other departments such as this in the future failing their students – if that is the case.
It’s a bit like many after sales departments, you find companies in all industries are friendly and helpful on initial contact but when you commit to buy, the after sales experience can be very lacking. It sounds like this is what Ms Thomson is trying to argue that she paid the tuition and studied hard but there was no help in the end after she spent all that time and money and promises have been broken by the college.
I remember a career advisor I seen at 5th year in school, he was very unhelpful and patronising when I told him what course I wanted to go on to do at university, he advised me to reconsider – he called it being realistic about my results, I called it giving up on my aspirations. In the end I never listened to him and completed the degree I had wanted to so it just shows how determination often wins over complaining or blaming other people.
The university I attended had a careers service too but I couldn’t fault any of the advice I have had from them – I was always helped, supported and advised and I know their job isn’t to get me a job but to help me find routes or ideas to go down. I think Ms. Thomson should maybe reconsider because I don’ know if she will be looked on favourably by prospective employers, whether rightly or wrongly – no one likes a trouble maker, least of all employers.
What do you think?
"The college prides itself on the excellent career-development support that we provide to each of our students, and this case does not deserve further consideration," its spokesman said.
It sounds a little far fetched in my opinion and I would think that she will be unsuccessful but you never know – stranger things have happened. It is hard to prove because there are so many other contributory factors that the college could argue are the cause of her unfortunate jobless situation; her efforts and the current economic climate being the main ones.
It’s definitely not an isolated situation and one that a lot of students Stateside and over here in the UK will have found themselves in. After studying hard and gaining good qualifications they end up either jobless or taking on a job totally unrelated to their chosen field just so they can earn money.
I don’t think it is generally the college or universities responsibility in these situations but I do think that career advisors are pivotal and a major part of the organisation. I think if the “Office of Career Development” at the college in question has been less than helpful then they should be penalised and hopefully it will prevent other departments such as this in the future failing their students – if that is the case.
It’s a bit like many after sales departments, you find companies in all industries are friendly and helpful on initial contact but when you commit to buy, the after sales experience can be very lacking. It sounds like this is what Ms Thomson is trying to argue that she paid the tuition and studied hard but there was no help in the end after she spent all that time and money and promises have been broken by the college.
I remember a career advisor I seen at 5th year in school, he was very unhelpful and patronising when I told him what course I wanted to go on to do at university, he advised me to reconsider – he called it being realistic about my results, I called it giving up on my aspirations. In the end I never listened to him and completed the degree I had wanted to so it just shows how determination often wins over complaining or blaming other people.
The university I attended had a careers service too but I couldn’t fault any of the advice I have had from them – I was always helped, supported and advised and I know their job isn’t to get me a job but to help me find routes or ideas to go down. I think Ms. Thomson should maybe reconsider because I don’ know if she will be looked on favourably by prospective employers, whether rightly or wrongly – no one likes a trouble maker, least of all employers.
What do you think?
Friday, 31 July 2009
£250 tax for parking at your workplace
The Telegraph has reported today that the country’s first “workplace parking levy” will come into force in Nottingham in 2012 and is likely to be adopted by other councils.
Under the scheme, any firm with 11 or more staff parking spaces will be charged £250 a year for each. That cost could rise to £350 within two years and employers would be free to pass the cost on to their staff.
An estimated 40,000 commuters in Nottingham drive to work and some businesses have threatened to leave the area if the scheme is introduced.
Business associations oppose the extra cost, which has been put at more than £3 billion if it were rolled out nationwide. About 10 million people in Britain drive to work every day.
Councils in Milton Keynes, Exeter, Cambridge and Oxford have expressed interest in the scheme.
The Core Cities Group, which represents Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle and Sheffield, has also expressed interest, identifying the levy's “congestion-busting” potential.
The AA described the latest scheme as a “tax on jobs”. “It is very unfair — discriminating against those employers who have parking spaces, which gets vehicles off the street,” said a spokesman.
“These tariffs apply around the clock, which is especially unfair on shift workers who rely on their cars because public transport is not available.”
“This is more about generating a revenue stream than reducing congestion and will require snooping to enforce it properly.”
In my opinion paying a fixed rate tax won't stop penalised drivers making 'unnecessary journeys', most of these unnecessary journeys are for leisure, pleasure or picking up a pint of milk from the local shop – not going to work to earn money and support themselves.
It will also encourage more on street car parking as any company that tries to get the money from an employee will say they will not park in the car park, I don't think it's a good time to be asking businesses to pay more it is the time for local authorities to find ways of reducing bills.
And what about people who live in rural or remote areas with little or no transport links to places of work – should they be encouraged to not to bother – these types of communities could deteriorate, unless they just pay the ‘tax’ and be penalised for working – doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Rural areas will not be the only victims; as it has become less necessary/common to work in large cities - any company with offices in smaller towns or built up areas will be taxed or its staff will with the unnecessary costs. It will be interesting to see the faces of local authority chief execs when their town centre’s are full of empty office blocks as more people are inclined to work in large cities with accessible transport links rather than pay to park in a company car park. Maybe this tax will have to go towards improving already diabolical transport systems that exist then.
There will be a lot more people then who use the train or bus to work in their nearest large city to avoid the charge and who will face delays, cancellations and unreliable services from the public transport, so their lateness at work may be affected – not very productive. People with kids who need childcare will be limited as most nurseries close at 6pm – it’s near impossible to finish at 5pm and not be pushing it to get to get home before 6pm for most I would say. And all these unhappy commuters will still have their cars at home for their “unnecessary journeys” to the local shop where at the moment they can still park outside for free. I’m confused then – who benefits?
The Campaign for Better Transport (Transport 2000) is not an environmental campaign group. As far as I am aware it is funded by bus companies, rail companies, local councils and transport unions - so it would be far more accurate to describe it as a lobby group for people who benefit financially from anti-motorist legislation.
In my opinion it’s yet another example of "stealth" tax to pay - not just for this current government' but successive governments gross incompetence and mismanagement over the years. Could it be that the only reason this is being proposed is because a large number of motorists are actually using their cars less and not changing them so frequently? Resulting in less revenue from fuel and less car tax on the sale of new cars; it appears to be a tax for "NOT" using your car.
As you can see I don’t think it’s a great idea at all to put it lightly, anyone disagree?
Under the scheme, any firm with 11 or more staff parking spaces will be charged £250 a year for each. That cost could rise to £350 within two years and employers would be free to pass the cost on to their staff.
An estimated 40,000 commuters in Nottingham drive to work and some businesses have threatened to leave the area if the scheme is introduced.
Business associations oppose the extra cost, which has been put at more than £3 billion if it were rolled out nationwide. About 10 million people in Britain drive to work every day.
Councils in Milton Keynes, Exeter, Cambridge and Oxford have expressed interest in the scheme.
The Core Cities Group, which represents Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle and Sheffield, has also expressed interest, identifying the levy's “congestion-busting” potential.
The AA described the latest scheme as a “tax on jobs”. “It is very unfair — discriminating against those employers who have parking spaces, which gets vehicles off the street,” said a spokesman.
“These tariffs apply around the clock, which is especially unfair on shift workers who rely on their cars because public transport is not available.”
“This is more about generating a revenue stream than reducing congestion and will require snooping to enforce it properly.”
In my opinion paying a fixed rate tax won't stop penalised drivers making 'unnecessary journeys', most of these unnecessary journeys are for leisure, pleasure or picking up a pint of milk from the local shop – not going to work to earn money and support themselves.
It will also encourage more on street car parking as any company that tries to get the money from an employee will say they will not park in the car park, I don't think it's a good time to be asking businesses to pay more it is the time for local authorities to find ways of reducing bills.
And what about people who live in rural or remote areas with little or no transport links to places of work – should they be encouraged to not to bother – these types of communities could deteriorate, unless they just pay the ‘tax’ and be penalised for working – doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Rural areas will not be the only victims; as it has become less necessary/common to work in large cities - any company with offices in smaller towns or built up areas will be taxed or its staff will with the unnecessary costs. It will be interesting to see the faces of local authority chief execs when their town centre’s are full of empty office blocks as more people are inclined to work in large cities with accessible transport links rather than pay to park in a company car park. Maybe this tax will have to go towards improving already diabolical transport systems that exist then.
There will be a lot more people then who use the train or bus to work in their nearest large city to avoid the charge and who will face delays, cancellations and unreliable services from the public transport, so their lateness at work may be affected – not very productive. People with kids who need childcare will be limited as most nurseries close at 6pm – it’s near impossible to finish at 5pm and not be pushing it to get to get home before 6pm for most I would say. And all these unhappy commuters will still have their cars at home for their “unnecessary journeys” to the local shop where at the moment they can still park outside for free. I’m confused then – who benefits?
The Campaign for Better Transport (Transport 2000) is not an environmental campaign group. As far as I am aware it is funded by bus companies, rail companies, local councils and transport unions - so it would be far more accurate to describe it as a lobby group for people who benefit financially from anti-motorist legislation.
In my opinion it’s yet another example of "stealth" tax to pay - not just for this current government' but successive governments gross incompetence and mismanagement over the years. Could it be that the only reason this is being proposed is because a large number of motorists are actually using their cars less and not changing them so frequently? Resulting in less revenue from fuel and less car tax on the sale of new cars; it appears to be a tax for "NOT" using your car.
As you can see I don’t think it’s a great idea at all to put it lightly, anyone disagree?
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
Car dealerships? Should legal technicalities outweigh moral responsibility?
Usually my blogs are my perspective or opinion on current events or news stories that relate to the recruitment industry or work in general but I've got a bee in my bonnet today about a car dealership that up until yesterday I thought was the best of a bad bunch so had to talk about this.
Without naming names I know that a great majority of any drivers who have experience buying used cars has a horror story or less dramatically a bad experience with the company they have dealt with – we all know the main players in this industry. Well this one is another one of these that has really annoyed me and I would appreciate your perspective or advice on the issue.
Basically, I bought a used car almost a year ago and it came with one year warranty - which I thought was great. Since I've had the car there has been a noise coming from the left hand side when I drive on motorways or expressways for any longer than 15 minutes or so. I have had the car in to get looked at on numerous occasions and still the noise persists. I was aware that if the warranty expired without this being resolved, I would have to pay so called the company who I will not name for assistance twice and was promised a call back – which never happened after a few weeks, no surprise.
Then out of the blue someone called from the company, I presumed to deal with my car issue but it turned out it was actually to sell me a ‘service’ which I politely declined as I was unhappy that the other issue had still not been resolved. The man I dealt with seemed very helpful and insisted he would help me even though it wasn’t ‘his job’ – he booked my car in to get looked at and I was satisfied that finally I was getting listened to. Just as the details of the appointment were being confirmed the man asked if I wanted a ‘service’ on the car at the same time – you can’t blame the man for trying. I again politely declined and said that if this issue was resolved I would consider getting my car serviced with the company when the MOT was due and kill two birds with one stone. The call ended and I was happy that the issue may finally be resolved.
A couple of weeks passed and the day my car was due to go in arrived, a man came to collect the car and my husband handed him the keys and signed to say it was picked up – so he was told. I then received a call to say my car was going to be dropped off and I was to pay the balance to the delivery man for the ‘Gold Service’ they had carried out. I was obviously slightly confused as I had at no point requested this work. I explained the original conversation I had with ‘Mr. Helpful’ and my anger that the man had booked me in for a ‘Gold Service’ when I made it perfectly clear I did not want that work carried out. He said he would look into it and I got a call back around 5.30pm from a woman in the services department to say I had to pay the £90 balance in order to get my car back – livid is the only word I can use to describe how I felt at this point.
I needed the car back to drop my daughter in the morning and to go to work so explained the situation again but was met with numerous responses that basically came down to pay or you won’t get the car back. They claimed that when my husband signed for the car to be taken in the morning that it was a ‘job card’ and it’s legally binding that I agreed to the work – in retrospect obviously he should have read thoroughly what he signed instead of taking the man’s word for it – we didn’t get a copy of what he signed for so I can’t be sure if it was or wasn’t. Maybe saying my car was held to ransom is dramatic but that’s what it felt like. I agreed to give them a cheque so that I could get my car back but was extremely reluctant and unhappy with the situation.
As it stands now, I contacted Consumer Direct to see if they could help me and they said that if my husband did sign a ‘job card’ then I may not have any grounds to claim the money back. I also contacted a manager at the dealership with my concerns and explained the situation and he said he would ‘look into it’ but I’m not holding my breath on that result either.
My issue is why these types of companies get away with firstly processing unauthorized work and then getting payment for work I did not want carried out by forcing me to pay or remain without a car? I know that the law is the law and it’s not a good idea to sign something that hasn’t been thoroughly read but that is an issue I have highlighted to my husband – I don’t think he will sign anything else without reading it.
Does anyone else agree that this company should face the consequences of morally wrong sales procedures, rather than using legalities to force payment for unwanted work?
Without naming names I know that a great majority of any drivers who have experience buying used cars has a horror story or less dramatically a bad experience with the company they have dealt with – we all know the main players in this industry. Well this one is another one of these that has really annoyed me and I would appreciate your perspective or advice on the issue.
Basically, I bought a used car almost a year ago and it came with one year warranty - which I thought was great. Since I've had the car there has been a noise coming from the left hand side when I drive on motorways or expressways for any longer than 15 minutes or so. I have had the car in to get looked at on numerous occasions and still the noise persists. I was aware that if the warranty expired without this being resolved, I would have to pay so called the company who I will not name for assistance twice and was promised a call back – which never happened after a few weeks, no surprise.
Then out of the blue someone called from the company, I presumed to deal with my car issue but it turned out it was actually to sell me a ‘service’ which I politely declined as I was unhappy that the other issue had still not been resolved. The man I dealt with seemed very helpful and insisted he would help me even though it wasn’t ‘his job’ – he booked my car in to get looked at and I was satisfied that finally I was getting listened to. Just as the details of the appointment were being confirmed the man asked if I wanted a ‘service’ on the car at the same time – you can’t blame the man for trying. I again politely declined and said that if this issue was resolved I would consider getting my car serviced with the company when the MOT was due and kill two birds with one stone. The call ended and I was happy that the issue may finally be resolved.
A couple of weeks passed and the day my car was due to go in arrived, a man came to collect the car and my husband handed him the keys and signed to say it was picked up – so he was told. I then received a call to say my car was going to be dropped off and I was to pay the balance to the delivery man for the ‘Gold Service’ they had carried out. I was obviously slightly confused as I had at no point requested this work. I explained the original conversation I had with ‘Mr. Helpful’ and my anger that the man had booked me in for a ‘Gold Service’ when I made it perfectly clear I did not want that work carried out. He said he would look into it and I got a call back around 5.30pm from a woman in the services department to say I had to pay the £90 balance in order to get my car back – livid is the only word I can use to describe how I felt at this point.
I needed the car back to drop my daughter in the morning and to go to work so explained the situation again but was met with numerous responses that basically came down to pay or you won’t get the car back. They claimed that when my husband signed for the car to be taken in the morning that it was a ‘job card’ and it’s legally binding that I agreed to the work – in retrospect obviously he should have read thoroughly what he signed instead of taking the man’s word for it – we didn’t get a copy of what he signed for so I can’t be sure if it was or wasn’t. Maybe saying my car was held to ransom is dramatic but that’s what it felt like. I agreed to give them a cheque so that I could get my car back but was extremely reluctant and unhappy with the situation.
As it stands now, I contacted Consumer Direct to see if they could help me and they said that if my husband did sign a ‘job card’ then I may not have any grounds to claim the money back. I also contacted a manager at the dealership with my concerns and explained the situation and he said he would ‘look into it’ but I’m not holding my breath on that result either.
My issue is why these types of companies get away with firstly processing unauthorized work and then getting payment for work I did not want carried out by forcing me to pay or remain without a car? I know that the law is the law and it’s not a good idea to sign something that hasn’t been thoroughly read but that is an issue I have highlighted to my husband – I don’t think he will sign anything else without reading it.
Does anyone else agree that this company should face the consequences of morally wrong sales procedures, rather than using legalities to force payment for unwanted work?
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Education spending to be cut despite Gordon Brown's promises
“Despite Gordon Brown pledging to safeguard spending on schools and universities, government documents show that the total education budget will fall by £100 million after the next election”, the Telegraph reports today.
Without having to write much more, I am angry that an education system that already seems to be falling behind compared to many European countries is going to suffer from cut backs. The Prime Minister insisted only a couple of days ago that key public services would be safeguarded – does education not fall under that category?
In addition to this, The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will have to reduce its entire budget by almost a quarter - what effect is this going to have then on the Government’s ability to help safeguard businesses through the recession?
I don’t have the answers but could make a prediction that it’s not going to be a positive one. I am getting really fed up with the constant controversy and downfalls of the Government, which I know is obviously nothing new. I just hope that this latest decision is the final straw and this country can finally break away from dishonest, gluttonous leaders.
Wishful thinking - I know.
Without having to write much more, I am angry that an education system that already seems to be falling behind compared to many European countries is going to suffer from cut backs. The Prime Minister insisted only a couple of days ago that key public services would be safeguarded – does education not fall under that category?
In addition to this, The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will have to reduce its entire budget by almost a quarter - what effect is this going to have then on the Government’s ability to help safeguard businesses through the recession?
I don’t have the answers but could make a prediction that it’s not going to be a positive one. I am getting really fed up with the constant controversy and downfalls of the Government, which I know is obviously nothing new. I just hope that this latest decision is the final straw and this country can finally break away from dishonest, gluttonous leaders.
Wishful thinking - I know.
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Do you hate Debbie or Steve in your workplace?
According to an article in the Daily Record last week, managers called Steve and Debbie have been named as Britain's bosses from hell. A poll of 4000 people put John and Catherine in second and Alan and Anne in third place. Staff said they were the most challenging people to work for.
In short, the worst male boss names were: 1.Steve 2.John 3.Alan 4.Paul 5.Chris 6.David 7.Mike 8.Simon 9.Barry 10.Andy.
And the worst women's names were: 1. Debbie 2. Catherine 3. Anne 4. Linda 5. Jane 6. Liz 7. Fiona 8. Andrea 9. Pam 10. Michelle.
Although it’s obviously not set in stone that people blessed with these names would be a nightmare to work with, it’s a bit of fun and provokes some interesting stories when discussed in a group. I personally don’t have any experience of bad boss’s with those names. We have a Jane in the office here and she’s great to work with – we love you Jane. If you have any stories feel free to share, although there would be little point trying to omit the name of your boss for anonymity – share anyway.
The article also told of researcher’s who exposed horror stories of employees being asked to carry out tasks that were definitely not noted in their job spec when they joined. Among them was a female boss who insisted her toenails were cut while she made an important conference call. Another spoke of their David Brent-like boss who threatened disciplinary action if staff didn't turn up to monthly karaoke nights.
I know that I wouldn’t complain about the latter if it was a paid outing but on a more serious note it’s worrying that there are many people suffering in their jobs and they don’t have an outlet for their woes except anonymous surveys. I’m sure there are many technically illegal tasks and treatment people endure in the workplace that goes unreported, especially with the economic downturn and people’s fears of redundancy and job loss.
No one wants to challenge or question unfair treatment generally as it can lead to bad feeling and in some cases a more serious personal vendetta from employers. I think it is an issue that needs to be given more time – it’s all well and good having legislation and laws surrounding health and safety and working time regulations, etc but are these truly implemented in all businesses today and are there ways that the unfairly treated can really change things without the risk of unemployment or being branded a ‘snitch’? I’m open to opinions…
In short, the worst male boss names were: 1.Steve 2.John 3.Alan 4.Paul 5.Chris 6.David 7.Mike 8.Simon 9.Barry 10.Andy.
And the worst women's names were: 1. Debbie 2. Catherine 3. Anne 4. Linda 5. Jane 6. Liz 7. Fiona 8. Andrea 9. Pam 10. Michelle.
Although it’s obviously not set in stone that people blessed with these names would be a nightmare to work with, it’s a bit of fun and provokes some interesting stories when discussed in a group. I personally don’t have any experience of bad boss’s with those names. We have a Jane in the office here and she’s great to work with – we love you Jane. If you have any stories feel free to share, although there would be little point trying to omit the name of your boss for anonymity – share anyway.
The article also told of researcher’s who exposed horror stories of employees being asked to carry out tasks that were definitely not noted in their job spec when they joined. Among them was a female boss who insisted her toenails were cut while she made an important conference call. Another spoke of their David Brent-like boss who threatened disciplinary action if staff didn't turn up to monthly karaoke nights.
I know that I wouldn’t complain about the latter if it was a paid outing but on a more serious note it’s worrying that there are many people suffering in their jobs and they don’t have an outlet for their woes except anonymous surveys. I’m sure there are many technically illegal tasks and treatment people endure in the workplace that goes unreported, especially with the economic downturn and people’s fears of redundancy and job loss.
No one wants to challenge or question unfair treatment generally as it can lead to bad feeling and in some cases a more serious personal vendetta from employers. I think it is an issue that needs to be given more time – it’s all well and good having legislation and laws surrounding health and safety and working time regulations, etc but are these truly implemented in all businesses today and are there ways that the unfairly treated can really change things without the risk of unemployment or being branded a ‘snitch’? I’m open to opinions…
Friday, 17 July 2009
"Facebook police raid family barbeque..."
Has anyone else seen the front page of the Metro today? At first I thought it was a joke but now I can't actually believe so many resources were wasted on an innocent party - a little bit embarrassing for all involved I would imagine
For those who haven't read the story, basically four police cars, a riot van and a helicopter raided a 30th birthday party with 15 attendees. As the barbeque was going to get lit, eight officers wearing camouflage and body armour jumped out demanding 'the rave' be shut down, whilst this was going on the small gazebo was flapping wildly due to the helicopter's blades above them. Supposedly the party invite created on Facebook under the 'create event' app had been intercepted by police who had thought it was an illegal rave as it was described as an "all night party" online.
Whilst reading it I thought the police must have had an embarrassing apology to make afterwards but was even more surprised to read that the police had insisted that they were right to end the party due to their concerns that stemmed from how it was advertised on facebook. The host of the party was obviously not best pleased as he’d spent £800 on food, drink and a generator for the evening and the party was rudely interrupted and closed down at four in the afternoon, even before the music had been put on.
It just shows I suppose how much of the interaction we have online is viewed and can be easily misinterpreted. I’ll definitely be more careful about the information I put online and how it is worded as the “Facebook police” certainly don’t seem very reasonable so I wouldn’t want them paying me a visit.
On a more serious note, there should be an investigation into who made the decision to go ahead with this ridiculous raid, not only is it a complete waste of time, money and resources but it’s an infringement of the guy’s rights surely. Is it now illegal to have a barbeque or party in your own garden? I didn’t think so…
For those who haven't read the story, basically four police cars, a riot van and a helicopter raided a 30th birthday party with 15 attendees. As the barbeque was going to get lit, eight officers wearing camouflage and body armour jumped out demanding 'the rave' be shut down, whilst this was going on the small gazebo was flapping wildly due to the helicopter's blades above them. Supposedly the party invite created on Facebook under the 'create event' app had been intercepted by police who had thought it was an illegal rave as it was described as an "all night party" online.
Whilst reading it I thought the police must have had an embarrassing apology to make afterwards but was even more surprised to read that the police had insisted that they were right to end the party due to their concerns that stemmed from how it was advertised on facebook. The host of the party was obviously not best pleased as he’d spent £800 on food, drink and a generator for the evening and the party was rudely interrupted and closed down at four in the afternoon, even before the music had been put on.
It just shows I suppose how much of the interaction we have online is viewed and can be easily misinterpreted. I’ll definitely be more careful about the information I put online and how it is worded as the “Facebook police” certainly don’t seem very reasonable so I wouldn’t want them paying me a visit.
On a more serious note, there should be an investigation into who made the decision to go ahead with this ridiculous raid, not only is it a complete waste of time, money and resources but it’s an infringement of the guy’s rights surely. Is it now illegal to have a barbeque or party in your own garden? I didn’t think so…
Thursday, 16 July 2009
Dragon's Den - Has it lost its spark?
I sat down to watch the new series of Dragon's Den last night and was a little disappointed with it, was anyone else?
It just seemed to be less about business and entrepreneurship and more about belittling the people who in the first place had shown a lot of courage going in there to pitch their ideas to highly successful and knowledgeable business people. Fair enough these people I’m sure have watched the show so know it’s not going to be an easy ride and they have put themselves in that position but I’m sure it would make more sense to give them constructive criticism rather than mocking them.
It’s a difficult enough task with the current economic climate to come up with a viable business model but to actually spend time and money to try to make this work is very courageous and the Dragon’s comments and discouragement could easily stifle the creativity of many of the inventors and entrepreneurs if they continue to treat it as a way of making ‘good TV’.
I could be wrong and it could be in the editing of the show that made it come across as more pantomime than business meeting but I hope that as the series progresses it becomes more about the pitch and business than entertainment value.
There seems to be a mentality on TV now that if it involves mocking someone or putting someone down then it is entertaining and it will be a ratings booster but I personally enjoy more learning about people’s success and am baffled by why TV now has such an emphasis on this type of show.
On this subject, the radio is currently on in the background and there is an advert for the “REGGAE REGGAE SUB” from Subway, a success story from Dragon’s Den – it shows that programmes like this can make a difference but for every success if there are ten demeaned individuals then is it really worth it?
I know that people may be thinking when reading this that it may sound like I’m saying that people should be encouraged and helped even if their idea is not feasible but that’s not what I mean. Obviously if someone has deluded ideas then they should be discouraged from pursuing it but all I mean is there surely must be a way of communicating this that doesn’t involve mocking or humiliating people?
It just seemed to be less about business and entrepreneurship and more about belittling the people who in the first place had shown a lot of courage going in there to pitch their ideas to highly successful and knowledgeable business people. Fair enough these people I’m sure have watched the show so know it’s not going to be an easy ride and they have put themselves in that position but I’m sure it would make more sense to give them constructive criticism rather than mocking them.
It’s a difficult enough task with the current economic climate to come up with a viable business model but to actually spend time and money to try to make this work is very courageous and the Dragon’s comments and discouragement could easily stifle the creativity of many of the inventors and entrepreneurs if they continue to treat it as a way of making ‘good TV’.
I could be wrong and it could be in the editing of the show that made it come across as more pantomime than business meeting but I hope that as the series progresses it becomes more about the pitch and business than entertainment value.
There seems to be a mentality on TV now that if it involves mocking someone or putting someone down then it is entertaining and it will be a ratings booster but I personally enjoy more learning about people’s success and am baffled by why TV now has such an emphasis on this type of show.
On this subject, the radio is currently on in the background and there is an advert for the “REGGAE REGGAE SUB” from Subway, a success story from Dragon’s Den – it shows that programmes like this can make a difference but for every success if there are ten demeaned individuals then is it really worth it?
I know that people may be thinking when reading this that it may sound like I’m saying that people should be encouraged and helped even if their idea is not feasible but that’s not what I mean. Obviously if someone has deluded ideas then they should be discouraged from pursuing it but all I mean is there surely must be a way of communicating this that doesn’t involve mocking or humiliating people?
Friday, 10 July 2009
"Time to Pick up the PACE..."
I have been asked to proof read an article for the upcoming edition of the Hirer magazine today about the Government initiative PACE (Partnership Action for Continuing Employment) which was created to support individuals who have either been made redundant or face the threat of losing their job.
The article written by Nicola Hamilton talks of the aims and structure of PACE and makes clear that although “absolutely necessary” as the Shadow Minister for Economy and Skills, John Park states, it is at the moment not reaching as many people as it could. It's an interesting article and I do agree with the fact that it’s not publicised enough. I personally hadn't heard of PACE before today and think that if it's to help people then people definitely need to know the support exists.
It would be interesting to know if anyone has any experience, good or bad about the initiative.
Let me know…
To read the full article, pick up the next edition of the Hirer magazine in stores soon or subscribe online at http://thehirercareernetwork.ning.com/page/subscribe-to-the-hirer
The article written by Nicola Hamilton talks of the aims and structure of PACE and makes clear that although “absolutely necessary” as the Shadow Minister for Economy and Skills, John Park states, it is at the moment not reaching as many people as it could. It's an interesting article and I do agree with the fact that it’s not publicised enough. I personally hadn't heard of PACE before today and think that if it's to help people then people definitely need to know the support exists.
It would be interesting to know if anyone has any experience, good or bad about the initiative.
Let me know…
To read the full article, pick up the next edition of the Hirer magazine in stores soon or subscribe online at http://thehirercareernetwork.ning.com/page/subscribe-to-the-hirer
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Is Someone Listening into your Mobile Phone Calls?
The police are to examine claims that a huge mobile phone hacking operation was launched by the News of the World, targeting thousands of people.
The Guardian says the paper's reporters paid private investigators to hack into phones, many of them owned by politicians and celebrities.
It is alleged details were suppressed by the police and the High Court.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has ordered a senior officer to "establish the facts".
I was just reading about the police investigation into the News of The World allegedly hacking people’s phones and if it is true it’s absolutely ridiculous. There’s been so much controversy surrounding journalists in recent years and in particular paparazzi, in cases like Princess Diana’s death but this is a new low. This is completely premeditated and if true absolutely shocking that anyone would think it’s acceptable to invade anyone’s privacy to that extent.
There are lots of people who campaign against the way this country is heading with CCTV on every corner and a national database of everyone through ID cards but this is supposed to be for the purpose of protecting the country, keeping the streets safer and counteracting terrorism say the Government, which may be true.
However, what excuse can a newspaper have for listening into private phone calls? Gossip? To sell papers? In my opinion there is none.
I have in the past had the view point that people who put themselves in the public eye have to deal with the consequences and all the circumstances that come with it to some extent (with the exception of children), however I am beginning to think that there are certain media sources now that have taken it too far and there needs to be a line drawn. There has to be some rules or regulations that can govern, punish and strike off any journalists who cross the line.
What’s your thoughts…?
The Guardian says the paper's reporters paid private investigators to hack into phones, many of them owned by politicians and celebrities.
It is alleged details were suppressed by the police and the High Court.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has ordered a senior officer to "establish the facts".
I was just reading about the police investigation into the News of The World allegedly hacking people’s phones and if it is true it’s absolutely ridiculous. There’s been so much controversy surrounding journalists in recent years and in particular paparazzi, in cases like Princess Diana’s death but this is a new low. This is completely premeditated and if true absolutely shocking that anyone would think it’s acceptable to invade anyone’s privacy to that extent.
There are lots of people who campaign against the way this country is heading with CCTV on every corner and a national database of everyone through ID cards but this is supposed to be for the purpose of protecting the country, keeping the streets safer and counteracting terrorism say the Government, which may be true.
However, what excuse can a newspaper have for listening into private phone calls? Gossip? To sell papers? In my opinion there is none.
I have in the past had the view point that people who put themselves in the public eye have to deal with the consequences and all the circumstances that come with it to some extent (with the exception of children), however I am beginning to think that there are certain media sources now that have taken it too far and there needs to be a line drawn. There has to be some rules or regulations that can govern, punish and strike off any journalists who cross the line.
What’s your thoughts…?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
