Yet more Tory sleaze….

shep

Guru
Regarding Hancock, I can't see why taking yourself off from your main job for 2 weeks to do other paid work isn't a sackable offence. I realise it isn't but it would be in practically every other career.

Would it?

So if I took 2 weeks leave then did paid work elsewhere I could face being fired?
 
OP
OP
Fab Foodie

Fab Foodie

Guru
Tindall has? I'd forgotten that one of the presenters has too. It's not like there aren't a million other celebrities they could have recruited. I'm not saying these people should never work again but there's no reason to give them an additional platform.

Regarding Hancock, I can't see why taking yourself off from your main job for 2 weeks to do other paid work isn't a sackable offence. I realise it isn't but it would be in practically every other career.



Standing down at the election perhaps and coining it while he can then.

Perhaps this is a good time to make being an MP like a normal career, then normal rules might apply.....
 

AuroraSaab

Über Member
Would it?

So if I took 2 weeks leave then did paid work elsewhere I could face being fired?

Many jobs have clauses that prevent you from doing so. Looking at the regs just now, it seems like MP's can have as many holidays as they like so he is within the rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

shep

Guru
Many jobs have clauses that prevent you from doing so. Looking at the regs just now, it seems like MP's can have as many holidays as they like so he is within the rules.

Fair enough, I never realised.

I guess Surgeons are different as many of them work for the NHS but have private practices.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
Many jobs have clauses that prevent you from doing so. Looking at the regs just now, it seems like MP's can have as many holidays as they like so he is within the rules.

In my working days, I worked in IT. I may have simply not read the small print, but, I don't recall ever having Employment Terms which would have prevented me from (say) taking a few weeks leave, and earning money elsewhere, although, I do recall at least one job where my terms and conditions specified I could not do paid work in the same discipline for anyone else, whilst in their employ.

I am unsure if, in Hancocks situation, working(?) as an MP, and, acting the clown on a TV show would qualify as "in the same discipline"? ;)
 

C R

Active Member
In my working days, I worked in IT. I may have simply not read the small print, but, I don't recall ever having Employment Terms which would have prevented me from (say) taking a few weeks leave, and earning money elsewhere, although, I do recall at least one job where my terms and conditions specified I could not do paid work in the same discipline for anyone else, whilst in their employ.

I am unsure if, in Hancocks situation, working(?) as an MP, and, acting the clown on a TV show would qualify as "in the same discipline"? ;)

My employment contracts have always included a requirement for my employer to agree to me doing other paid work.
 

Venod

Serendipitous
Ho Ho Ho

316814740_6024314207586734_223465443757292896_n.jpg
 

oldwheels

New Member
In my days of working for an employer the last one demanded that my wife give up her own business as he suspected I may have an interest in how it was performing and making more money than he was willing to pay me.
Two fingers raised and I became an ex employee and claiming constructive dismissal. Cost him quite a bit of dosh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

C R

Active Member
In my days of working for an employer the last one demanded that my wife give up her own business as he suspected I may have an interest in how it was performing and making more money than he was willing to pay me.
Two fingers raised and I became an ex employee and claiming constructive dismissal. Cost him quite a bit of dosh.

The kind of clause I have is fairly common. In practice they will always agree to allowing the external work provided it doesn't compete or risks companies secrets.
 

oldwheels

New Member
The kind of clause I have is fairly common. In practice they will always agree to allowing the external work provided it doesn't compete or risks companies secrets.

The issue was mainly that we were not totally dependent on my job and therefore less vulnerable to exploitation. They were described as upmarket scrap merchants as they bought bankrupt businesses and either stripped the assets or made the business profitable and either kept it or sold it on. In my case they kept the business but were a totally nasty bunch.
Th reason for bankruptcy was not because the business was potentially unprofitable but we lost a large customer and valuable warehouse facilities due to dodgy dealings well above my management level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

oldwheels

New Member
The issue was mainly that we were not totally dependent on my job and therefore less vulnerable to exploitation. They were described as upmarket scrap merchants as they bought bankrupt businesses and either stripped the assets or made the business profitable and either kept it or sold it on. In my case they kept the business but were a totally nasty bunch.
Th reason for bankruptcy was not because the business was potentially unprofitable but we lost a large customer and valuable warehouse facilities due to dodgy dealings well above my management level.

As an add on to this I discovered that the firm in question had a few employees who had been guests of HMP. A couple of accountants come to mind who had been done for some infringement [or fiddle if you like] and so were unemployable to most looking for people to work with figures. They were therefore cheap to employ and probably grateful for any work but would be closely watched.
I had better not name the English county this lot came from.:rolleyes:
 

glasgowcyclist

Well-Known Member

albion

Well-Known Member
The way it is being reported, it says the country is paying £770,000 per day to hide the 'landfill' evidence.

However I think this includes the stuff that can actually be used. However, the fact that over £250 million is spent per year on storage tells us much about government incompetence and maybe corruption.
 
Top Bottom