"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me as I
will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of texting
him.

All I wanted to let him know was that he need not be at work at 5.30am in
the morning as the job has changed and he can arrive at work at 7.30am.

--
Adam

On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

All I wanted to let him know was that he need not be at work at 5.30am
in the morning as the job has changed and he can arrive at work at 7.30am.

Does this come into the category of cruel and unusual punishments?

:-)

On Monday, 17 August 2015 20:24:26 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
All I wanted to let him know was that he need not be at work at 5.30am in
the morning as the job has changed and he can arrive at work at 7.30am.

Won't your morning coffee and bacon roll that the apprentice is supposed to buy you on the way in be a bit cold by then?

Owain

On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

Why not?

All I wanted to let him know was that he need not be at work at 5.30am
in the morning as the job has changed and he can arrive at work at 7.30am.

How to win friends and influence enemies.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

Why not?


For fun.

--
Adam

On 17/08/2015 22:10, wrote:
On Monday, 17 August 2015 20:24:26 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
All I wanted to let him know was that he need not be at work at 5.30am in
the morning as the job has changed and he can arrive at work at 7.30am.

Won't your morning coffee and bacon roll that the apprentice is supposed to buy you on the way in be a bit cold by then?


You stop winding me up and I'll stop ****ing in your coffee.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 17/08/2015 22:34, ARW wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

Why not?


For fun.

OK - I suppose it will net him an extra 2 hours pay.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message ...

On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

Why not?

Seriously? If someone tells their employer that they will not answer the
phone for work calls, it's their problem. Perhaps the employer has no access
to a texting enabled device at the time of the call.
Bet the same little ****wit would expect all manner of special treatment
"because he's worth it".


All I wanted to let him know was that he need not be at work at 5.30am
in the morning as the job has changed and he can arrive at work at
7.30am.

How to win friends and influence enemies.

Richard posted
"Fredxxx" wrote in message ...

On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

Why not?

Seriously? If someone tells their employer that they will not answer
the phone for work calls,

Did you miss the phrase "after work hours"?

it's their problem.

What exactly does that mean?

Perhaps the employer has no access to a texting enabled device at the
time of the call.
Bet the same little ****wit would expect all manner of special
treatment "because he's worth it".

Perhaps as a compromise, the boss could text the apprentice, and append
to the message, "And don't forget I'm considerably richer than yow, you
inferior, minimum-wage little serf."

--
Les

On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 14:16:19 UTC+1, Big Les Wade wrote:
Richard posted
"Fredxxx" wrote in message ...

On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

Why not?

Seriously? If someone tells their employer that they will not answer
the phone for work calls,

Did you miss the phrase "after work hours"?

it's their problem.

What exactly does that mean?

I saw this as an attitude thing, if an employee refuses to answer the phone outside work hours then why does the employer have to TEXT them outside hours.

I've no objection to my empolyer contacting me outside normal working hours
if it's important. I could say that I'll only accept emails or calls or telegrams or letters.


Perhaps the employer has no access to a texting enabled device at the
time of the call.
Bet the same little ****wit would expect all manner of special
treatment "because he's worth it".

Perhaps as a compromise, the boss could text the apprentice,

That would seem sensible, perhaps the employee meant "I don't want to be phoned for anything, as I might be drinking, driving, having sex, at the same time so have no hands free, so please just TXT me if possible is that OK ?."

a reasonable employer would probbaly say OK or just say no that isn't possible and give a reason(s).
In the same way an employee should be allowed to phone/email or TXT the employee if they can't make it in.

"Big Les Wade" wrote in message ...

Richard posted
"Fredxxx" wrote in message ...

On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

Why not?

Seriously? If someone tells their employer that they will not answer the
phone for work calls,

Did you miss the phrase "after work hours"?

No. I would not be overly upset if my employer were to phone outside of work
hours for something of importance. Obviously, should my employer be phoning
often and needlessly, I would then point out that future calls will be seen
as paid time.


it's their problem.

What exactly does that mean?

Hmmm... I had just read the comment in the second Fredxx post "OK - I
suppose it will net him an extra 2 hours pay" and responded to that
erroneously in my post.


Perhaps the employer has no access to a texting enabled device at the time
of the call.
Bet the same little ****wit would expect all manner of special treatment
"because he's worth it".

Perhaps as a compromise, the boss could text the apprentice, and append to
the message, "And don't forget I'm considerably richer than yow, you
inferior, minimum-wage little serf."

That could work, but is the boss a Brummie?

"ARW" wrote in message
...
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me as I
will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

All I wanted to let him know was that he need not be at work at 5.30am in
the morning as the job has changed and he can arrive at work at 7.30am.

The problem here is that some employers will take advantage of an employee
being contactable after working hours.
For 13 years I was phoned and emailed up to 10pm, 7 days per week. If I went
anywhere my mobile went with me, as did a pen and notebook.
The other guys turned their phone off when they finished work, apart from
one who I think reads this group.
I did not mind too much, but I never once got a thank you.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2015 22:34, ARW wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

Why not?


For fun.

OK - I suppose it will net him an extra 2 hours pay.


Why? He is not working or indeed able to gain access to work.

--
Adam

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 14:16:19 UTC+1, Big Les Wade wrote:
Richard posted
"Fredxxx" wrote in message ...

On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me
as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

Why not?

Seriously? If someone tells their employer that they will not answer
the phone for work calls,

Did you miss the phrase "after work hours"?

it's their problem.

What exactly does that mean?

I saw this as an attitude thing, if an employee refuses to answer the
phone outside work hours then why does the employer have to TEXT them
outside hours.

I've no objection to my empolyer contacting me outside normal working
hours
if it's important. I could say that I'll only accept emails or calls or
telegrams or letters.


Perhaps the employer has no access to a texting enabled device at the
time of the call.
Bet the same little ****wit would expect all manner of special
treatment "because he's worth it".

Perhaps as a compromise, the boss could text the apprentice,

That would seem sensible, perhaps the employee meant "I don't want to be
phoned for anything, as I might be drinking, driving, having sex, at the
same time so have no hands free, so please just TXT me if possible is that
OK ?."

a reasonable employer would probbaly say OK or just say no that isn't
possible and give a reason(s).
In the same way an employee should be allowed to phone/email or TXT the
employee if they can't make it in.


They could return a missed call like normal people do.

BTW it's easy enough to check up if they are using their mobile on facebook
when you call them.

How often do you think apprentices get called after work hours (their work
hours not our work hours)?

Very seldom and 99% of those calls would be tell them there is a change of
plan in the morning. You are not going to call them for technical advice or
for a general chat out of work hours.

--
Adam

On 18/08/15 18:47, ARW wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 14:16:19 UTC+1, Big Les Wade wrote:
Richard posted
"Fredxxx" wrote in message ...

On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text
me as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

Why not?

Seriously? If someone tells their employer that they will not answer
the phone for work calls,

Did you miss the phrase "after work hours"?

it's their problem.

What exactly does that mean?

I saw this as an attitude thing, if an employee refuses to answer the
phone outside work hours then why does the employer have to TEXT them
outside hours.

I've no objection to my empolyer contacting me outside normal working
hours
if it's important. I could say that I'll only accept emails or calls
or telegrams or letters.


Perhaps the employer has no access to a texting enabled device at the
time of the call.
Bet the same little ****wit would expect all manner of special
treatment "because he's worth it".

Perhaps as a compromise, the boss could text the apprentice,

That would seem sensible, perhaps the employee meant "I don't want to
be phoned for anything, as I might be drinking, driving, having sex,
at the same time so have no hands free, so please just TXT me if
possible is that OK ?."

a reasonable employer would probbaly say OK or just say no that isn't
possible and give a reason(s).
In the same way an employee should be allowed to phone/email or TXT
the employee if they can't make it in.


They could return a missed call like normal people do.

BTW it's easy enough to check up if they are using their mobile on
facebook when you call them.

How often do you think apprentices get called after work hours (their
work hours not our work hours)?

Very seldom and 99% of those calls would be tell them there is a change
of plan in the morning. You are not going to call them for technical
advice or for a general chat out of work hours.


I actually disable my work email and VOIP app on my phone when I go on
an actual holiday. It's not so much they'll phone me, it's more I'll log
in and have a heart attack about something...

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:47:28 +0100, ARW wrote:

They could return a missed call like normal people do.

Or listen to any message left on voice mail.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article ,
newshound writes
On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

All I wanted to let him know was that he need not be at work at 5.30am
in the morning as the job has changed and he can arrive at work at 7.30am.

Does this come into the category of cruel and unusual punishments?

:-)
Law of natural consequences
--
bert

"ARW" wrote in message
...
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2015 22:34, ARW wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me
as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

Why not?


For fun.

OK - I suppose it will net him an extra 2 hours pay.


Why? He is not working or indeed able to gain access to work.

But he had to show up for work because you told him to do that
and refused to text him to say that he didn’t need to do that anymore.

On 18/08/2015 18:39, ARW wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2015 22:34, ARW wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text
me as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

Why not?


For fun.

OK - I suppose it will net him an extra 2 hours pay.


Why? He is not working or indeed able to gain access to work.

Waiting time counts as work time, as does travel time. It will depend
on his contract, even so it can't be paid at less than minimum wage, or
if the first year of a recognised apprenticeship, the appropriate hourly
rate.

There have been some recent cases upholding this.

Either way, he wins, even if he waits he has up to 6 years to make a
court claim.

On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 17:42:09 UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me as I
will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

All I wanted to let him know was that he need not be at work at 5.30am in
the morning as the job has changed and he can arrive at work at 7.30am.

The problem here is that some employers will take advantage of an employee
being contactable after working hours.

Same here but it can work both ways.

For 13 years I was phoned and emailed up to 10pm, 7 days per week. If I went
anywhere my mobile went with me, as did a pen and notebook.

One reason why I haven't a mobile. Not because of work but I don't always want to be contacted.
Years ago they decided to supply some of teh 'more important staff' with free mobiles paid for by the college. I didn't get one, and when they asled me why I didn;t phone in late during a tube strike I said I couldn;t becausee I didn;t have a mobile. They then aksed me why I didn;t have one and I said because I don't need one. But I said I'd accept a free one like other memebers of staff have, and that was the last I heard of this great idea.




The other guys turned their phone off when they finished work, apart from
one who I think reads this group.
I did not mind too much, but I never once got a thank you.

A good shceme was if both employees and the employer benifited from such a thing, but that requires though and planning so's unlikely ;-)

On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 18:47:45 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 14:16:19 UTC+1, Big Les Wade wrote:
Richard posted
"Fredxxx" wrote in message ...

On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me
as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

Why not?

Seriously? If someone tells their employer that they will not answer
the phone for work calls,

Did you miss the phrase "after work hours"?

it's their problem.

What exactly does that mean?

I saw this as an attitude thing, if an employee refuses to answer the
phone outside work hours then why does the employer have to TEXT them
outside hours.

I've no objection to my empolyer contacting me outside normal working
hours
if it's important. I could say that I'll only accept emails or calls or
telegrams or letters.


Perhaps the employer has no access to a texting enabled device at the
time of the call.
Bet the same little ****wit would expect all manner of special
treatment "because he's worth it".

Perhaps as a compromise, the boss could text the apprentice,

That would seem sensible, perhaps the employee meant "I don't want to be
phoned for anything, as I might be drinking, driving, having sex, at the
same time so have no hands free, so please just TXT me if possible is that
OK ?."

a reasonable employer would probbaly say OK or just say no that isn't
possible and give a reason(s).
In the same way an employee should be allowed to phone/email or TXT the
employee if they can't make it in.


They could return a missed call like normal people do.

Tha doesn't sound very likely, about as likely as students pulling a door which says pull to open rather than pushing it and walking off.



BTW it's easy enough to check up if they are using their mobile on facebook
when you call them.

Perhaps, but my employer doesn't know my FB account well I don;t think they do.
I've never used it at work. And even if I were using it at 5:00am in teh morning I do NOT see that as an automatic right to be able to phone me at 5am just because I'm logged into FB, any more than they have a right to ring my door bell at 3am because my bedroom light is on, which means I'm awake.

How often do you think apprentices get called after work hours (their work
hours not our work hours)?

No idea.


Very seldom and 99% of those calls would be tell them there is a change of
plan in the morning. You are not going to call them for technical advice or
for a general chat out of work hours.

As I said no, I'd need to know why you or anyone might need to call me outside normal working hours. My employer has my phone number and next of kin details.
Because they said we'd need them in case of accidents.

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:02:15 PM UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/08/2015 18:39, ARW wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2015 22:34, ARW wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text
me as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

Why not?


For fun.

OK - I suppose it will net him an extra 2 hours pay.


Why? He is not working or indeed able to gain access to work.

Waiting time counts as work time, as does travel time. It will depend
on his contract, even so it can't be paid at less than minimum wage, or
if the first year of a recognised apprenticeship, the appropriate hourly
rate.

There have been some recent cases upholding this.

Either way, he wins, even if he waits he has up to 6 years to make a
court claim.

The daft **** should have answered his phone or returned a missed call.

And enlighten me about apprentice hourly rates.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 17:42:09 UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me as
I
will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

All I wanted to let him know was that he need not be at work at 5.30am
in
the morning as the job has changed and he can arrive at work at 7.30am.

The problem here is that some employers will take advantage of an
employee
being contactable after working hours.

Same here but it can work both ways.

For 13 years I was phoned and emailed up to 10pm, 7 days per week. If I
went
anywhere my mobile went with me, as did a pen and notebook.

One reason why I haven't a mobile. Not because of work but I don't always
want to be contacted.

Nothing to stop you telling it to not tell you about
incoming calls and have it available when it is useful.

Years ago they decided to supply some of teh 'more important
staff' with free mobiles paid for by the college. I didn't get one,
and when they asled me why I didn;t phone in late during a tube
strike I said I couldn;t becausee I didn;t have a mobile. They then
aksed me why I didn;t have one and I said because I don't need
one. But I said I'd accept a free one like other memebers of staff
have, and that was the last I heard of this great idea.

Because the dunny cleaners don't qualify.

The other guys turned their phone off when they finished
work, apart from one who I think reads this group.
I did not mind too much, but I never once got a thank you.

A good shceme was if both employees and the employer benifited from
such a thing, but that requires though and planning so's unlikely ;-)

On 19/08/2015 18:49, adamko2020 wrote:
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:02:15 PM UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/08/2015 18:39, ARW wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2015 22:34, ARW wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text
me as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

Why not?


For fun.

OK - I suppose it will net him an extra 2 hours pay.


Why? He is not working or indeed able to gain access to work.

Waiting time counts as work time, as does travel time. It will depend
on his contract, even so it can't be paid at less than minimum wage, or
if the first year of a recognised apprenticeship, the appropriate hourly
rate.

There have been some recent cases upholding this.

Either way, he wins, even if he waits he has up to 6 years to make a
court claim.

The daft **** should have answered his phone or returned a missed call.

Maybe, but no need for Adam to wind him up.

It is also normal to give modest notice to an employee.

And enlighten me about apprentice hourly rates.

Not a lot in their first year.

On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 22:07:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 17:42:09 UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me as
I
will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

All I wanted to let him know was that he need not be at work at 5.30am
in
the morning as the job has changed and he can arrive at work at 7.30am.

The problem here is that some employers will take advantage of an
employee
being contactable after working hours.

Same here but it can work both ways.

For 13 years I was phoned and emailed up to 10pm, 7 days per week. If I
went
anywhere my mobile went with me, as did a pen and notebook.

One reason why I haven't a mobile. Not because of work but I don't always
want to be contacted.

Nothing to stop you telling it to not tell you about
incoming calls and have it available when it is useful.

True but when will it be useful. I do have a 'mobile' but it doesn't move as much as my landline phone does. I've had it a year in september made one call received one call.

On 19/08/2015 23:37, Fredxxx wrote:

Maybe, but no need for Adam to wind him up.

There are a lot of people that want apprentii to fail and leave. They
think they have better job security if there is a shortage of skilled
labour. However eventually the migrants will have the skills and take
the jobs as they cost less.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 22:07:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 17:42:09 UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text me
as
I
will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

All I wanted to let him know was that he need not be at work at
5.30am
in
the morning as the job has changed and he can arrive at work at
7.30am.

The problem here is that some employers will take advantage of an
employee
being contactable after working hours.

Same here but it can work both ways.

For 13 years I was phoned and emailed up to 10pm, 7 days per week. If
I
went
anywhere my mobile went with me, as did a pen and notebook.

One reason why I haven't a mobile. Not because of work but I don't
always
want to be contacted.

Nothing to stop you telling it to not tell you about
incoming calls and have it available when it is useful.

True but when will it be useful.

Most obviously when you are halfway to work and have found
that you wont be able to arrive at work any time soon because
the fools who are supposed to drive the train are refusing to
drive it or someone has blown one up or its just broken etc.

I do have a 'mobile' but it doesn't move as much as my landline phone
does. I've had it a year in september made one call received one call.

Just another dinosaur. Plenty don't bother with a landline anymore
and just have a mobile which works fine wherever they are.

dennis@home wrote
Fredxxx wrote

Maybe, but no need for Adam to wind him up.

There are a lot of people that want apprentii to fail and leave. They
think they have better job security if there is a shortage of skilled
labour.

Adam isn't doing it for that reason.

However eventually the migrants will have the skills and take the jobs as
they cost less.

Didn’t happen with the Irish or the post
war migrants except with some of retail.

On Thursday, 20 August 2015 20:37:06 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


Nothing to stop you telling it to not tell you about
incoming calls and have it available when it is useful.

True but when will it be useful.

Most obviously when you are halfway to work and have found
that you wont be able to arrive at work any time soon because
the fools who are supposed to drive the train are refusing to
drive.

Well I klnow those dates it or someone has blown one up or its just broken etc.

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/tube/tube-strike
Certain Tube trade unions have announced strike action next week. If it goes ahead, Tube services will be affected between Tuesday 25 and Friday 28 August.

Why do I need to phone them from a mobile, today or monday I'm booking those days off as holiday. And even if I didn;t why do I have to wait until I've started my journey before I know I can't finish it.
If I know I can't finish my journey I tend not to start it.

Of course I know realsie thanks to you that my holiday to pluto is well ****ed.





I do have a 'mobile' but it doesn't move as much as my landline phone
does. I've had it a year in september made one call received one call.

Just another dinosaur. Plenty don't bother with a landline anymore
and just have a mobile which works fine wherever they are.

Yep when charged and they have a signal.

On Thursday, 20 August 2015 13:42:52 UTC+1, dennis @ home wrote:
On 19/08/2015 23:37, Fredxxx wrote:

Maybe, but no need for Adam to wind him up.

There are a lot of people that want apprentii to fail and leave. They

There are also many whose only interest is to show the apprentice they're ard. But mostly the problem is the amount of bs kids are fed in school, moving from believing that to working effectively in a diy-like job is rather a culture shock, and most kids object. Some make decent workers, but most waste time.


NT

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 11:37:44 PM UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 19/08/2015 18:49, adamko2020 wrote:

And enlighten me about apprentice hourly rates.

Not a lot in their first year.

First year has nothing to do with it if they are under 19.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 18/08/15 18:47, ARW wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 14:16:19 UTC+1, Big Les Wade wrote:
Richard posted
"Fredxxx" wrote in message ...

On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text
me as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention of
texting him.

Why not?

Seriously? If someone tells their employer that they will not answer
the phone for work calls,

Did you miss the phrase "after work hours"?

it's their problem.

What exactly does that mean?

I saw this as an attitude thing, if an employee refuses to answer the
phone outside work hours then why does the employer have to TEXT them
outside hours.

I've no objection to my empolyer contacting me outside normal working
hours
if it's important. I could say that I'll only accept emails or calls
or telegrams or letters.


Perhaps the employer has no access to a texting enabled device at the
time of the call.
Bet the same little ****wit would expect all manner of special
treatment "because he's worth it".

Perhaps as a compromise, the boss could text the apprentice,

That would seem sensible, perhaps the employee meant "I don't want to
be phoned for anything, as I might be drinking, driving, having sex,
at the same time so have no hands free, so please just TXT me if
possible is that OK ?."

a reasonable employer would probbaly say OK or just say no that isn't
possible and give a reason(s).
In the same way an employee should be allowed to phone/email or TXT
the employee if they can't make it in.


They could return a missed call like normal people do.

BTW it's easy enough to check up if they are using their mobile on
facebook when you call them.

How often do you think apprentices get called after work hours (their
work hours not our work hours)?

Very seldom and 99% of those calls would be tell them there is a change
of plan in the morning. You are not going to call them for technical
advice or for a general chat out of work hours.


I actually disable my work email and VOIP app on my phone when I go on an
actual holiday. It's not so much they'll phone me, it's more I'll log in
and have a heart attack about something...



I have just had 5 days away on holiday.

I took work calls whilst on holiday. There were not that many (4 or 5 a
day). I either answered them or called back when it was convenient for me to
do so (I turn the phone to silent and do not answer it in restaurants etc).

--
Adam

"ARW" wrote in message
...
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 18/08/15 18:47, ARW wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 14:16:19 UTC+1, Big Les Wade wrote:
Richard posted
"Fredxxx" wrote in message ...

On 17/08/2015 20:24, ARW wrote:
"If you want to contact me after work hours you will have to text
me as
I will not answer the phone for work calls after work"

Fair enough.

He has just not answered his phone twice and I have no intention
of
texting him.

Why not?

Seriously? If someone tells their employer that they will not answer
the phone for work calls,

Did you miss the phrase "after work hours"?

it's their problem.

What exactly does that mean?

I saw this as an attitude thing, if an employee refuses to answer the
phone outside work hours then why does the employer have to TEXT them
outside hours.

I've no objection to my empolyer contacting me outside normal working
hours
if it's important. I could say that I'll only accept emails or calls
or telegrams or letters.


Perhaps the employer has no access to a texting enabled device at the
time of the call.
Bet the same little ****wit would expect all manner of special
treatment "because he's worth it".

Perhaps as a compromise, the boss could text the apprentice,

That would seem sensible, perhaps the employee meant "I don't want to
be phoned for anything, as I might be drinking, driving, having sex,
at the same time so have no hands free, so please just TXT me if
possible is that OK ?."

a reasonable employer would probbaly say OK or just say no that isn't
possible and give a reason(s).
In the same way an employee should be allowed to phone/email or TXT
the employee if they can't make it in.


They could return a missed call like normal people do.

BTW it's easy enough to check up if they are using their mobile on
facebook when you call them.

How often do you think apprentices get called after work hours (their
work hours not our work hours)?

Very seldom and 99% of those calls would be tell them there is a change
of plan in the morning. You are not going to call them for technical
advice or for a general chat out of work hours.


I actually disable my work email and VOIP app on my phone when I go on an
actual holiday. It's not so much they'll phone me, it's more I'll log in
and have a heart attack about something...



I have just had 5 days away on holiday.

I took work calls whilst on holiday. There were not that many (4 or 5 a
day). I either answered them or called back when it was convenient for me
to do so (I turn the phone to silent and do not answer it in restaurants
etc).

I answered all work calls when away for a few days.
I never missed a call, never turned the phone off.
If a guy was in trouble, I was there. You were not.
I even rang the office to see if all was okay.
Never once did I get a thank you.