1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly and letting vans go out
with bald tyres.

2. Putting 6.30am down on his time sheets instead of 8.00am - Apprentices do
not get paid travel time. Although to be fair one of the electricians told
him to put 6.30 on his sheets just to see him get into trouble when he asked
what time to put on the sheets. (same apprentice also got a bollocking for
doing the same a few months ago)

3. Using "text speak" on his job report forms. I heard the words "I do not
want to read **** like that" shouted as he handed them in.

[1] All vehicle checks have a signed and dated form so we know who checks
which van each week.


--

Adam

On Jun 1, 6:45*pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly and letting vans go out
with bald tyres.

2. Putting 6.30am down on his time sheets instead of 8.00am - Apprentices do
not get paid travel time. Although to be fair one of the electricians told
him to put 6.30 on his sheets just to see him get into trouble when he asked
what time to put on the sheets. (same apprentice also got a bollocking for
doing the same a few months ago)

3. Using "text speak" on his job report forms. I heard the words "I do not
want to read **** like that" shouted as he handed them in.

[1] All vehicle checks have a signed and dated form so we know who checks
which van each week.

--

Adam

OOOOO, you are evil.
How detailed a vehicle check do you expect?
Have they got to check the oil?
How about brake fluid?
How about track rod ends?
How about excessive emissions?
When I drove someones van all I checked was petrol oil and water.

In message , ARWadsworth
wrote

and letting vans go out
with bald tyres.

The driver is legally responsible for driving the van with the bald
tyres so why is he doing the checks?




--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Alan wrote:
In message , ARWadsworth
wrote

and letting vans go out
with bald tyres.

The driver is legally responsible for driving the van with the bald
tyres so why is he doing the checks?

Because they are paid to do it is a good start. It's called learning. The
apprentices also drive the vans.

We check their work and then bollock them when they lie or do a poor job.
The tyres were still just legal but should have been reported as per the
weekly check form. They should have been reported four weeks ago so four
apprentices got a bollocking as all four of them had either lied or not done
their job properly. It is not their job to decide if the tyres are road
legal but it is their job to report on the condition of the tyres and that
included when the tyres have reached the depth indicators or are wearing
unevenly.

Their work was monitored for the last 4 weeks and they lied or did a poor
job.

--
Adam

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
harry wrote:

On Jun 1, 6:45Â*pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly and letting
vans go out with bald tyres.

2. Putting 6.30am down on his time sheets instead of 8.00am -
Apprentices do not get paid travel time. Although to be fair one of
the electricians told him to put 6.30 on his sheets just to see him
get into trouble when he asked what time to put on the sheets.
(same apprentice also got a bollocking for doing the same a few
months ago)

3. Using "text speak" on his job report forms. I heard the words "I
do not want to read **** like that" shouted as he handed them in.

[1] All vehicle checks have a signed and dated form so we know who
checks which van each week.

--

Adam

OOOOO, you are evil.
How detailed a vehicle check do you expect?
Have they got to check the oil?
How about brake fluid?
How about track rod ends?
How about excessive emissions?
When I drove someones van all I checked was petrol oil and water.

Not tyres, the things most likely to get you in trouble, before
defective lights?
--
Davey.

harry wrote:
On Jun 1, 6:45 pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly and letting
vans go out with bald tyres.

2. Putting 6.30am down on his time sheets instead of 8.00am -
Apprentices do not get paid travel time. Although to be fair one of
the electricians told him to put 6.30 on his sheets just to see him
get into trouble when he asked what time to put on the sheets.
(same apprentice also got a bollocking for doing the same a few
months ago)

3. Using "text speak" on his job report forms. I heard the words "I
do not want to read **** like that" shouted as he handed them in.

[1] All vehicle checks have a signed and dated form so we know who
checks which van each week.

--

Adam

OOOOO, you are evil.
How detailed a vehicle check do you expect?
Have they got to check the oil?
How about brake fluid?
How about track rod ends?
How about excessive emissions?
When I drove someones van all I checked was petrol oil and water.

Oil, coolant, tyres and keep records of any oil, antifreeze and air needed
to top up every Friday. Brake fliud and power steering fluids are on a
monthly check (ie the first Friday of the month).

They then always top up the windscreen washer bottle, the trunking in the
roof bars and also clean and hoover the van if needed. If they have been
annoying idiots then it is your duty to drive through lots of muddy puddles
on a Friday afternoon.

--
Adam

Davey wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
harry wrote:

On Jun 1, 6:45 pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly and letting
vans go out with bald tyres.

2. Putting 6.30am down on his time sheets instead of 8.00am -
Apprentices do not get paid travel time. Although to be fair one
of the electricians told him to put 6.30 on his sheets just to
see him get into trouble when he asked what time to put on the
sheets. (same apprentice also got a bollocking for doing the same
a few months ago)

3. Using "text speak" on his job report forms. I heard the words
"I do not want to read **** like that" shouted as he handed them
in.

[1] All vehicle checks have a signed and dated form so we know who
checks which van each week.

--

Adam

OOOOO, you are evil.
How detailed a vehicle check do you expect?
Have they got to check the oil?
How about brake fluid?
How about track rod ends?
How about excessive emissions?
When I drove someones van all I checked was petrol oil and water.

Not tyres, the things most likely to get you in trouble, before
defective lights?

Lights are not on the list. It's not needed in this case.


--
Adam

In article ,
ARWadsworth wrote:

[Snip]

Lights are not on the list. It's not needed in this case.

lights on a vehicle have to be in working order - even during daylight
hours.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

charles wrote:
In article ,
ARWadsworth wrote:

[Snip]

Lights are not on the list. It's not needed in this case.

lights on a vehicle have to be in working order - even during daylight
hours.

The lights are not on the check list as we do not need the apprentices to
check them on a weekly basis because of the way the vans are parked up at
night.



--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:
1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly and letting
vans go out with bald tyres.

A good habit I've got into is to do a once-over every time I get fuel.

Apprentices do not get paid travel time.

I don't know anybody who gets paid for travel time to/from work.
Your pay starts when you start work, and finishes when you finish
work. I know there are some jobs where you can get your travel
expenses paid, but you don't get wages for sitting on the bus for
an hour.

JGH

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:45:29 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly and letting vans go out
with bald tyres.

2. Putting 6.30am down on his time sheets instead of 8.00am - Apprentices do
not get paid travel time. Although to be fair one of the electricians told
him to put 6.30 on his sheets just to see him get into trouble when he asked
what time to put on the sheets. (same apprentice also got a bollocking for
doing the same a few months ago)

3. Using "text speak" on his job report forms. I heard the words "I do not
want to read **** like that" shouted as he handed them in.

[1] All vehicle checks have a signed and dated form so we know who checks
which van each week.
I would suspect that any company not willing to pay it's employees for
their work, wouldn't be too keen on them "wasting time" on vehicle
checks. Have they been trained in the process BTW?

Perhaps the person accepting the reports could be trained in the use
of English and anger management?

I do not shout at personnel, I do not resort to filth when
communicating and I always explain carefully if I think a higher level
of input to a task is needed.

Mind you, my company does pay for hours worked [unless salaried], and
we have a genuine "no blame" culture that seems to motivate the
workforce in a very positive way.

HN

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:56:32 -0700 (PDT), jgharston wrote:

I don't know anybody who gets paid for travel time to/from work.

Waves... Though I'm freelance now so it's a bit debateable.

But when I was a staffer we would get paid travel expenses and hours
when working away from base. The staffers I still work with are paid
that way as well. Not everybody is a 9-5 M-F, single place of work,
wage slave. B-)

--
Cheers
Dave.

H. Neary wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:45:29 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly and letting
vans go out with bald tyres.

2. Putting 6.30am down on his time sheets instead of 8.00am -
Apprentices do not get paid travel time. Although to be fair one of
the electricians told him to put 6.30 on his sheets just to see him
get into trouble when he asked what time to put on the sheets.
(same apprentice also got a bollocking for doing the same a few
months ago)

3. Using "text speak" on his job report forms. I heard the words "I
do not want to read **** like that" shouted as he handed them in.

[1] All vehicle checks have a signed and dated form so we know who
checks which van each week.
I would suspect that any company not willing to pay it's employees for
their work, wouldn't be too keen on them "wasting time" on vehicle
checks. Have they been trained in the process BTW?

Yes. And most of them have their own cars.

Perhaps the person accepting the reports could be trained in the use
of English and anger management?

I do not shout at personnel, I do not resort to filth when
communicating and I always explain carefully if I think a higher level
of input to a task is needed.

Well I can ignore that ****ing waste of space advice.


Mind you, my company does pay for hours worked [unless salaried], and
we have a genuine "no blame" culture that seems to motivate the
workforce in a very positive way.

You would survive about 5 seconds on a building site.

--
Adam

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 22:32:05 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:45:29 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly and letting
vans go out with bald tyres.

2. Putting 6.30am down on his time sheets instead of 8.00am -
Apprentices do not get paid travel time. Although to be fair one of
the electricians told him to put 6.30 on his sheets just to see him
get into trouble when he asked what time to put on the sheets.
(same apprentice also got a bollocking for doing the same a few
months ago)

3. Using "text speak" on his job report forms. I heard the words "I
do not want to read **** like that" shouted as he handed them in.

[1] All vehicle checks have a signed and dated form so we know who
checks which van each week.
I would suspect that any company not willing to pay it's employees for
their work, wouldn't be too keen on them "wasting time" on vehicle
checks. Have they been trained in the process BTW?

Yes. And most of them have their own cars.

Perhaps the person accepting the reports could be trained in the use
of English and anger management?

I do not shout at personnel, I do not resort to filth when
communicating and I always explain carefully if I think a higher level
of input to a task is needed.

Well I can ignore that ****ing waste of space advice.

You shouldn't. Foul language and shouting betrays a lack of education
and an inability to communicate.


Mind you, my company does pay for hours worked [unless salaried], and
we have a genuine "no blame" culture that seems to motivate the
workforce in a very positive way.

You would survive about 5 seconds on a building site.

My work is often on civils sites. I do quite well actually. We would
not go out of our way to advertise such errors as the odd missing
cable number, but anything affecting health and saftey or the overall
quality of the job is snagged and corrected.

My only problem on site is trying to relate to thick ******* that rely
on their own weird interpretation of HSE guidance to impose pointless
trivial dictats on contractors.


HN

In message , ARWadsworth
writes
If they have been
annoying idiots then it is your duty to drive through lots of muddy puddles
on a Friday afternoon.


Judging by the comments we see on here, are their any who aren't ?


Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

Owain wrote:
I used to get paid for sitting on a train for two hours.
But then I was working for 'the railway' at the time

I was once effectively paid to sit in a car for three hours,
but it was going from Sheffield to York for a project meeting
and the three of us in the car discussed the project on the
way there and back. Our timesheet stated we "started work"
when we got to the Sheffield office to meet up with the
driver, and "finished work" when he dropped us back off.

JGH

On 2/06/2012 9:32 a.m., ARWadsworth wrote:
....
Well I can ignore that ****ing waste of space advice.

I appreciate your posts - they are very entertaining. I can see how you
might be in court on a drunk and disorderly charge.

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:56:32 -0700 (PDT), jgharston
wrote:

ARWadsworth wrote:
1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly and letting
vans go out with bald tyres.

A good habit I've got into is to do a once-over every time I get fuel.

Apprentices do not get paid travel time.

I don't know anybody who gets paid for travel time to/from work.
Your pay starts when you start work, and finishes when you finish
work

When does your "work" start (and finish)? Even if you're sort of
"office-based" your work may well take you to remote locations which
you may visit without calling at "the office". I regularly did.

You may telephone somebody on business before you leave home.

Or even after you get home.

Effectively you're home-based, but have access to a desk/bench etc. in
some other place, possibly with colleagues who you occasionally meet.


--
Frank Erskine

jgharston wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly
and letting vans go out with bald tyres.

A good habit I've got into is to do a once-over every time I get fuel.

They don't go bald quickly enough to warrant checking that often IMO.

Apprentices do not get paid travel time.

I don't know anybody who gets paid for travel time to/from work.

Our fly in fly out miners do.

Your pay starts when you start work, and finishes when you finish work.

Not always.

I know there are some jobs where you can get your travel expenses
paid, but you don't get wages for sitting on the bus for an hour.

Our miners do, and it isnt a bus, it's a plane most of the time.

Rod Speed wrote:
I know there are some jobs where you can get your travel expenses
paid, but you don't get wages for sitting on the bus for an hour.

Our miners do, and it isnt a bus, it's a plane most of the time.

They "start work" when they arrive at the airport, and "finish
work" when they leave the airport. The airport is the terminal
point of their place of work.

JGH

jgharston wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I know there are some jobs where you can get your travel expenses
paid, but you don't get wages for sitting on the bus for an hour.

Our miners do, and it isnt a bus, it's a plane most of the time.

They "start work" when they arrive at the airport,
and "finish work" when they leave the airport.

But not the airport at the mine site, so they do
get paid wages for sitting in the plane on the
way to and from work.

Same thing with the offshore oil platforms too, they get
paid for the hour or two in the chopper to the platform.

The airport is the terminal point of their place of work.

They are still getting paid while sitting in the plane instead of in the
bus.

Adrian wrote:
In message , ARWadsworth
writes
If they have been
annoying idiots then it is your duty to drive through lots of muddy
puddles on a Friday afternoon.


Judging by the comments we see on here, are their any who aren't ?

None of them have annoyed me this week.

--
Adam

H. Neary wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 22:32:05 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:45:29 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly and letting
vans go out with bald tyres.

2. Putting 6.30am down on his time sheets instead of 8.00am -
Apprentices do not get paid travel time. Although to be fair
one of the electricians told him to put 6.30 on his sheets just
to see him get into trouble when he asked what time to put on
the sheets. (same apprentice also got a bollocking for doing
the same a few months ago)

3. Using "text speak" on his job report forms. I heard the
words "I do not want to read **** like that" shouted as he
handed them in.

[1] All vehicle checks have a signed and dated form so we know
who checks which van each week.
I would suspect that any company not willing to pay it's
employees for their work, wouldn't be too keen on them "wasting
time" on vehicle checks. Have they been trained in the process
BTW?

Yes. And most of them have their own cars.

Perhaps the person accepting the reports could be trained in the
use of English and anger management?

I do not shout at personnel, I do not resort to filth when
communicating and I always explain carefully if I think a higher
level of input to a task is needed.

Well I can ignore that ****ing waste of space advice.

You shouldn't. Foul language and shouting betrays a lack of education
and an inability to communicate.

So how do you give out a bollocking then?


Mind you, my company does pay for hours worked [unless salaried],
and we have a genuine "no blame" culture that seems to motivate
the workforce in a very positive way.

You would survive about 5 seconds on a building site.

My work is often on civils sites. I do quite well actually. We would
not go out of our way to advertise such errors as the odd missing
cable number, but anything affecting health and saftey or the overall
quality of the job is snagged and corrected.

My only problem on site is trying to relate to thick ******* that rely
on their own weird interpretation of HSE guidance to impose pointless
trivial dictats on contractors.

The site foreman dictates the HSE rules he wants to use, and what he says
goes. If you have a problem with HSE then you deal with the site foreman.

I have enough problems dealing with plasterers cutting cables, plumbers
burning cables and YEDL turning up just after we have made an illegal
connection to a cut out. And last week it was a project manager asking
labourers to cut cables!

--
Adam

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:09:41 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 22:32:05 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:45:29 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly and letting
vans go out with bald tyres.

2. Putting 6.30am down on his time sheets instead of 8.00am -
Apprentices do not get paid travel time. Although to be fair
one of the electricians told him to put 6.30 on his sheets just
to see him get into trouble when he asked what time to put on
the sheets. (same apprentice also got a bollocking for doing
the same a few months ago)

3. Using "text speak" on his job report forms. I heard the
words "I do not want to read **** like that" shouted as he
handed them in.

[1] All vehicle checks have a signed and dated form so we know
who checks which van each week.
I would suspect that any company not willing to pay it's
employees for their work, wouldn't be too keen on them "wasting
time" on vehicle checks. Have they been trained in the process
BTW?

Yes. And most of them have their own cars.

Perhaps the person accepting the reports could be trained in the
use of English and anger management?

I do not shout at personnel, I do not resort to filth when
communicating and I always explain carefully if I think a higher
level of input to a task is needed.

Well I can ignore that ****ing waste of space advice.

You shouldn't. Foul language and shouting betrays a lack of education
and an inability to communicate.

So how do you give out a bollocking then?

I dont.

Everyone is expected to know what is required of them and perform
accordingly.

In the case of poor performance [it only happened once], I would
report to his manager "back home".

All our staff are expected to do their jobs without supervision.



Mind you, my company does pay for hours worked [unless salaried],
and we have a genuine "no blame" culture that seems to motivate
the workforce in a very positive way.

You would survive about 5 seconds on a building site.

My work is often on civils sites. I do quite well actually. We would
not go out of our way to advertise such errors as the odd missing
cable number, but anything affecting health and saftey or the overall
quality of the job is snagged and corrected.

My only problem on site is trying to relate to thick ******* that rely
on their own weird interpretation of HSE guidance to impose pointless
trivial dictats on contractors.

The site foreman dictates the HSE rules he wants to use, and what he says
goes. If you have a problem with HSE then you deal with the site foreman.

I do not think I have ever met a site foreman. I usually introduce
myself to the site manager.

As far as trivia goes, have you dealt with the stupidity of fingerless
gloves for panel work? Have you tried operating a laptop with gloves
on? Safety glasses removal to see a drawing within a "clean" area has
qualified for a screaming loonies input in the past,

I do have run ins with people on health and safety grounds, basically
because I operate on site with a zero risk approach. Idiots that
demand totally unneccessary PPE, often increase my personal risk. If a
job requires protection, I have done it before or been thouroughly
trained to do it, so some plonker that has found a nice comfortable
niche in a health & safety role is unlikely to add anything to my
safety on site.


I have enough problems dealing with plasterers cutting cables, plumbers
burning cables and YEDL turning up just after we have made an illegal
connection to a cut out. And last week it was a project manager asking
labourers to cut cables!


A work permit system?


I have tried to get these introduced on a couple of sites. One in
particular where an electrical commissioning Engineer valved of the
delivery of a pump I was calibrating. Despite their "keen" health and
safety approach permits were not seen as "appropriate".

On 02/06/2012 07:09, ARWadsworth wrote:

You shouldn't. Foul language and shouting betrays a lack of education
and an inability to communicate.

So how do you give out a bollocking then?

It's possible to do it without swearing or shouting, and indeed can be
more menacing that way. The quick shout can be more appropriate though.

In article , ARWadsworth adamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
Davey wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
harry wrote:

On Jun 1, 6:45 pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly and letting
vans go out with bald tyres.

2. Putting 6.30am down on his time sheets instead of 8.00am -
Apprentices do not get paid travel time. Although to be fair one
of the electricians told him to put 6.30 on his sheets just to
see him get into trouble when he asked what time to put on the
sheets. (same apprentice also got a bollocking for doing the same
a few months ago)

3. Using "text speak" on his job report forms. I heard the words
"I do not want to read **** like that" shouted as he handed them
in.

[1] All vehicle checks have a signed and dated form so we know who
checks which van each week.

--

Adam

OOOOO, you are evil.
How detailed a vehicle check do you expect?

Have they got to check the oil?

Reasonable..

How about brake fluid?

Ditto..

How about track rod ends?

MOT item really, they don't usually develop sudden serious wear whereas
Oil disappearing quickly as with Brake fluid is serious..


How about excessive emissions?

Well clouds of smoke are likely to attract Plods attention so common
sense really needed here..

When I drove someones van all I checked was petrol oil and water.

Not tyres, the things most likely to get you in trouble, before
defective lights?

Lights are not on the list. It's not needed in this case.



Well its in apprentices best interests to check, after all its his
"licence" that will get the blame, driver responsible for the condition
of his vehicle.

Commendable to see that Adam is enforcing these checks.....


--
Tony Sayer

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 02/06/2012 07:09, ARWadsworth wrote:

You shouldn't. Foul language and shouting betrays a lack of education
and an inability to communicate.

So how do you give out a bollocking then?

It's possible to do it without swearing or shouting, and indeed can be
more menacing that way. The quick shout can be more appropriate though.

Foul language is a good way to make them all laugh at you.
In better educated circles we never use foul language and can get along
without it.

Clive George wrote:
On 02/06/2012 07:09, ARWadsworth wrote:

You shouldn't. Foul language and shouting betrays a lack of
education and an inability to communicate.

So how do you give out a bollocking then?

It's possible to do it without swearing or shouting, and indeed can be
more menacing that way. The quick shout can be more appropriate
though.

There are other ways

A couple of weeks ago an apprentice who I had asked to drill some holes came
back to me about 15 minutes later to tell me the drill was not working. I
told him to make sure there was power to the drill (it was already in place
as I had used it earlier) and that the extension lead was plugged into a
transformer and that the transformer was plugged into a socket. 15 minutes
later he came back and announced the drill was broken. I warned him that if
I had to get down from the tower scaffold to plug the drill in I would punch
him in the ******** and he needed to go and recheck the extension lead and
transformer as I was busy. He went away and 15 minutes later he came back to
say they were fine so I climbed down the scaffold walked across to where I
had earlier plugged the extension lead into a transformer to find the
extension lead plug sat on the floor and not plugged in to a transformer.

Just as I pulled the van into the unit I punched him in the ********.

--
Adam

H. Neary wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:09:41 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 22:32:05 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:45:29 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly and
letting vans go out with bald tyres.

2. Putting 6.30am down on his time sheets instead of 8.00am
- Apprentices do not get paid travel time. Although to be
fair one of the electricians told him to put 6.30 on his
sheets just to see him get into trouble when he asked what
time to put on the sheets. (same apprentice also got a
bollocking for doing the same a few months ago)

3. Using "text speak" on his job report forms. I heard the
words "I do not want to read **** like that" shouted as he
handed them in.

[1] All vehicle checks have a signed and dated form so we
know who checks which van each week.
I would suspect that any company not willing to pay it's
employees for their work, wouldn't be too keen on them
"wasting time" on vehicle checks. Have they been trained in
the process BTW?

Yes. And most of them have their own cars.

Perhaps the person accepting the reports could be trained in
the use of English and anger management?

I do not shout at personnel, I do not resort to filth when
communicating and I always explain carefully if I think a
higher level of input to a task is needed.

Well I can ignore that ****ing waste of space advice.

You shouldn't. Foul language and shouting betrays a lack of
education and an inability to communicate.

So how do you give out a bollocking then?

I dont.

Everyone is expected to know what is required of them and perform
accordingly.

Does this include apprentices?

--
Adam

H. Neary wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:09:41 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

The site foreman dictates the HSE rules he wants to use, and what
he says goes. If you have a problem with HSE then you deal with the
site foreman.

I do not think I have ever met a site foreman. I usually introduce
myself to the site manager.

I suppose the name varies according to the size of the site and probably in
which part of the UK you are in. However there is no doubt in my mind that
many of them are incompetent.

I have had the ones that would not allow the hi viz and hard hats to be
removed when second fixing a flat (wear them outside but not inside is the
usual rule on that sort of job) . It was also summer and he insisted on the
rule of only food or drink must be consumed in the canteen and he would not
allow bottles of water in the flats. He got a few flats as someone placed
nails against his car tyres.

--
Adam

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:55:23 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:09:41 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 22:32:05 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:45:29 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly and
letting vans go out with bald tyres.

2. Putting 6.30am down on his time sheets instead of 8.00am
- Apprentices do not get paid travel time. Although to be
fair one of the electricians told him to put 6.30 on his
sheets just to see him get into trouble when he asked what
time to put on the sheets. (same apprentice also got a
bollocking for doing the same a few months ago)

3. Using "text speak" on his job report forms. I heard the
words "I do not want to read **** like that" shouted as he
handed them in.

[1] All vehicle checks have a signed and dated form so we
know who checks which van each week.
I would suspect that any company not willing to pay it's
employees for their work, wouldn't be too keen on them
"wasting time" on vehicle checks. Have they been trained in
the process BTW?

Yes. And most of them have their own cars.

Perhaps the person accepting the reports could be trained in
the use of English and anger management?

I do not shout at personnel, I do not resort to filth when
communicating and I always explain carefully if I think a
higher level of input to a task is needed.

Well I can ignore that ****ing waste of space advice.

You shouldn't. Foul language and shouting betrays a lack of
education and an inability to communicate.

So how do you give out a bollocking then?

I dont.

Everyone is expected to know what is required of them and perform
accordingly.

Does this include apprentices?


We don't have them. Someone straight from full time education would
probably be allocated a position in "spreadsheet land" before they
went to site.

I never see youngsters on site. The last time I saw what I assumed
were apprentices, they were pulling cables through at a water
treatment works ten years back. They worked for a well known firm of
Welsh Electrical contractors. I remember them because of the stupid
infighting they had with each other, and even watched a pair being
seperated by their colleagues.

I don't think the company still employs such people. Behaviour like
that is not on, indeed on a recent FAT, I saw no one under 25 on their
premises [Apart from the somewhat scenic receptionist of course].

HN

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:00:23 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
H. Neary wrote:

One in particular where an electrical commissioning Engineer
valved of the delivery of a pump I was calibrating.

What does this mean? Is it even English?


Valved off = closed the valve on the delivery side of a pump. [ Bad
move, increases pressure].

Electrical commissioning Engineer = Person with an electrical
qualification that gets a project working.

Delivery = output

Pump = see Wikipedia

Calibrating = comparing perfomance with a known standard.

I sincerely hope this is of assistance. Do you not think that this NG
is maybe a little outside your abilities BTW?


HN

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:54:09 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Clive George wrote:
On 02/06/2012 07:09, ARWadsworth wrote:

You shouldn't. Foul language and shouting betrays a lack of
education and an inability to communicate.

So how do you give out a bollocking then?

It's possible to do it without swearing or shouting, and indeed can be
more menacing that way. The quick shout can be more appropriate
though.

There are other ways

A couple of weeks ago an apprentice who I had asked to drill some holes came
back to me about 15 minutes later to tell me the drill was not working. I
told him to make sure there was power to the drill (it was already in place
as I had used it earlier) and that the extension lead was plugged into a
transformer and that the transformer was plugged into a socket. 15 minutes
later he came back and announced the drill was broken. I warned him that if
I had to get down from the tower scaffold to plug the drill in I would punch
him in the ******** and he needed to go and recheck the extension lead and
transformer as I was busy. He went away and 15 minutes later he came back to
say they were fine so I climbed down the scaffold walked across to where I
had earlier plugged the extension lead into a transformer to find the
extension lead plug sat on the floor and not plugged in to a transformer.

Just as I pulled the van into the unit I punched him in the ********.


Oh well I assume his pay doesn't impact on the company too much.


The idiot must really be short of a few brain cells. I would have
screamed in agony, rolled on the floor till the ambulance arrived, had
a month off work [ Or at the very least four working days], and also
contacted the police and a solicitor.

HN

Owain wrote
jgharston wrote

1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly
and letting vans go out with bald tyres.

A good habit I've got into is to do a once-over every time I get fuel.

I was told to check them quickly before every journey.
They might have got a nail in etc.

It isnt even possible to check them quickly for a nail.

I had one that was only obvious because it ticked when
going around corners and that only happened because
it was in one of the front tyres.

Admittedly this was for riding a bike
where there's rather less room for error.

And a lot easier to check for something in the tyre too
and no spare if it does end up with a problem.

dennis@home wrote
Clive George wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

You shouldn't. Foul language and shouting betrays
a lack of education and an inability to communicate.

So how do you give out a bollocking then?

It's possible to do it without swearing or shouting, and indeed can be
more menacing that way. The quick shout can be more appropriate though.

Foul language is a good way to make them all laugh at you.

Fantasy with Adam doing it with an apprentice bollocking.

In better educated circles

Adam's apprentices don't qualify...

we never use foul language

Bet Adam's apprentices do...

and can get along without it.

Why bother ?

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 22:17:47 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:54:09 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Clive George wrote:
On 02/06/2012 07:09, ARWadsworth wrote:

You shouldn't. Foul language and shouting betrays a lack of
education and an inability to communicate.

So how do you give out a bollocking then?

It's possible to do it without swearing or shouting, and indeed
can be more menacing that way. The quick shout can be more
appropriate though.

There are other ways

A couple of weeks ago an apprentice who I had asked to drill some
holes came back to me about 15 minutes later to tell me the drill
was not working. I told him to make sure there was power to the
drill (it was already in place as I had used it earlier) and that
the extension lead was plugged into a transformer and that the
transformer was plugged into a socket. 15 minutes later he came
back and announced the drill was broken. I warned him that if I had
to get down from the tower scaffold to plug the drill in I would
punch him in the ******** and he needed to go and recheck the
extension lead and transformer as I was busy. He went away and 15
minutes later he came back to say they were fine so I climbed down
the scaffold walked across to where I had earlier plugged the
extension lead into a transformer to find the extension lead plug
sat on the floor and not plugged in to a transformer.

Just as I pulled the van into the unit I punched him in the
********.


Oh well I assume his pay doesn't impact on the company too much.


The idiot must really be short of a few brain cells.


I would have
screamed in agony, rolled on the floor till the ambulance arrived, had
a month off work [ Or at the very least four working days], and also
contacted the police and a solicitor.

So are you are saying that you could not manage to plug in a 110V extension
lead to a 110V transformer?

No of couse not!

I'm saying that I would take full advantage of any physical assault
against me.

HN

H. Neary wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:54:09 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Clive George wrote:
On 02/06/2012 07:09, ARWadsworth wrote:

You shouldn't. Foul language and shouting betrays a lack of
education and an inability to communicate.

So how do you give out a bollocking then?

It's possible to do it without swearing or shouting, and indeed
can be more menacing that way. The quick shout can be more
appropriate though.

There are other ways

A couple of weeks ago an apprentice who I had asked to drill some
holes came back to me about 15 minutes later to tell me the drill
was not working. I told him to make sure there was power to the
drill (it was already in place as I had used it earlier) and that
the extension lead was plugged into a transformer and that the
transformer was plugged into a socket. 15 minutes later he came
back and announced the drill was broken. I warned him that if I had
to get down from the tower scaffold to plug the drill in I would
punch him in the ******** and he needed to go and recheck the
extension lead and transformer as I was busy. He went away and 15
minutes later he came back to say they were fine so I climbed down
the scaffold walked across to where I had earlier plugged the
extension lead into a transformer to find the extension lead plug
sat on the floor and not plugged in to a transformer.

Just as I pulled the van into the unit I punched him in the
********.


Oh well I assume his pay doesn't impact on the company too much.


The idiot must really be short of a few brain cells.


I would have
screamed in agony, rolled on the floor till the ambulance arrived, had
a month off work [ Or at the very least four working days], and also
contacted the police and a solicitor.

So are you are saying that you could not manage to plug in a 110V extension
lead to a 110V transformer?


--
Adam

In article 580f65e2-2849-4d6e-9ba9-
,
says...

ARWadsworth wrote:
1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly and letting
vans go out with bald tyres.

A good habit I've got into is to do a once-over every time I get fuel.

Apprentices do not get paid travel time.

I don't know anybody who gets paid for travel time to/from work.
Your pay starts when you start work, and finishes when you finish
work. I know there are some jobs where you can get your travel
expenses paid, but you don't get wages for sitting on the bus for
an hour.


There's two different things going on here.

Travel from home to Company - no payment, fair enough.

Travel from Firm's base to work-site is (often) a different matter.

--
Sam

In article e24091be-0428-4eb8-9117-9287e77cb475
@l17g2000vbj.googlegroups.com, says...

Owain wrote:
I used to get paid for sitting on a train for two hours.
But then I was working for 'the railway' at the time

I was once effectively paid to sit in a car for three hours,
but it was going from Sheffield to York for a project meeting
and the three of us in the car discussed the project on the
way there and back. Our timesheet stated we "started work"
when we got to the Sheffield office to meet up with the
driver, and "finished work" when he dropped us back off.

JGH

I was once driving back from a job on a Sunday - unpaid.
The guy in the front passenger seat was being paid ordinary time because
he was a junior engineer.
The other chap, fast asleep on the back seat, was being paid at double
time because he was a technician.

I'm sure it all made sense to the accountants.

--
Sam

On 02/06/2012 21:58, H. Neary wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 22:17:47 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:54:09 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Clive George wrote:
On 02/06/2012 07:09, ARWadsworth wrote:

You shouldn't. Foul language and shouting betrays a lack of
education and an inability to communicate.
So how do you give out a bollocking then?
It's possible to do it without swearing or shouting, and indeed
can be more menacing that way. The quick shout can be more
appropriate though.
There are other ways

A couple of weeks ago an apprentice who I had asked to drill some
holes came back to me about 15 minutes later to tell me the drill
was not working. I told him to make sure there was power to the
drill (it was already in place as I had used it earlier) and that
the extension lead was plugged into a transformer and that the
transformer was plugged into a socket. 15 minutes later he came
back and announced the drill was broken. I warned him that if I had
to get down from the tower scaffold to plug the drill in I would
punch him in the ******** and he needed to go and recheck the
extension lead and transformer as I was busy. He went away and 15
minutes later he came back to say they were fine so I climbed down
the scaffold walked across to where I had earlier plugged the
extension lead into a transformer to find the extension lead plug
sat on the floor and not plugged in to a transformer.

Just as I pulled the van into the unit I punched him in the
********.

Oh well I assume his pay doesn't impact on the company too much.


The idiot must really be short of a few brain cells.

I would have
screamed in agony, rolled on the floor till the ambulance arrived, had
a month off work [ Or at the very least four working days], and also
contacted the police and a solicitor.
So are you are saying that you could not manage to plug in a 110V extension
lead to a 110V transformer?
No of couse not!

I'm saying that I would take full advantage of any physical assault
against me.

HN

Well you're an idiot then. We lost a very good lecturer in college
recently because some **** reported him for giving him a quick poke when
telling him to get off his phone, no harm was caused by the 'poke' and
the guy wasn't even meant to be on his phone anyway!!! So now, one of
our units is gone completely tits up until this mess is sorted.

--
David