Exploited by an employer then refused a good reference...revenge is sweet.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
Yes take it to court, tell them you knew of law being broken for how long was it again?

I would suggest going that route if legal proceedings are being thought of or implemented, as pointing out you knew of the child labor law being broken and only bringing it up when you son is fired will get you in hot water as well.

Ah, English law is quite clear. It is irrelevant if the child worker or parent were aware that the employer was breaking child employment law. You may be correct regarding the situation in another country, but regarding this specific case in the UK you are incorrect.

Perhaps you would have realised this if you had read all my posts properly. I have mentioned this a couple of times in the thread.

Oh, and there are no tears being shed on the cheeks of myself or my son...again your lack of realisation indicates that you did not read my carefully worded posts correctly. Tut tut.

*Edit*
And I am absolutely passionate about treating child workers with over and above compliance of child labour laws.
I'm self employed in building/construction, and there have been a few 16 year olds on site assigned as 'assistants/labourers' to me this summer. I've cut them the slack I remember getting as a 16 year old myself, and kept them well away from anything dangerous they are not allowed to do unless it has been for their benefit solely as supervised training.
When they've been tired we've told them to take a break as they need it and the whole environment is about different expectations and treatment of child workers when I've been involved in it. This employer did the complete opposite to the way I and all the other builders on site have dealing with the 16 year olds under our responsibility this summer.

...oh, and I'm not crying about my lad working like a dog because he chose to earn the money and prove to a dictator director that he couldn't break him with the long hours and tasks nobody else would do. The dictator director picked on the wrong child worker. I find it amusing.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
Yes take it to court, tell them you knew of law being broken for how long was it again?

I would suggest going that route if legal proceedings are being thought of or implemented, as pointing out you knew of the child labor law being broken and only bringing it up when you son is fired will get you in hot water as well.

Ah, English law is quite clear. It is irrelevant if the child worker or parent were aware that the employer was breaking child employment law. You may be correct regarding the situation in another country, but regarding this specific case in the UK you are incorrect.

Perhaps you would have realised this if you had read all my posts properly. I have mentioned this a couple of times in the thread.

Oh, and there are no tears being shed on the cheeks of myself or my son...again your lack of realisation indicates that did not read my carefully worded posts correctly. Tut tut.

I did read your posts, no where do give links showing you know anything you talk about, yes it is the gray area but what you mentioned numerous times up until page 6 where I was replying was the same old Its only the employers responsibility, no where have you stated any laws just you interpretation of who is responsible.

I have read you posts, your carefully worded ones and find your attitude to be the sickness that darkens this world.





Have fun getting revenge,


What idiot actually proudly advertises something like that about themselves?

This thread is all the evidence needed for your sons employers to get of on any charges you want laid.

Yes but lets keep it vague and bring up idiotic laws that in turn whatever you say UK law is will get you in hot water if presented like you have here.

Like I said you would be better of bringing up dismissal due to discrimination otherwise you are opening up a can of worms.

Oh, and there are no tears being shed on the cheeks of myself or my son...

so man up and do the morally right thing or take vengeance the way you suggest and see where it gets you.

a reply to: InhaleExhale
My my, such emotion, have a cup of tea perhaps?

You are factually incorrect though, it is the sole responsibility of the employer to comply with child labour laws, and knowledge of the illegal hours by the child worker is irrelevant legally.
Regarding discussions on the internet, I would only break UK law if my story identified the parties involved. It does not.
You seem annoyed, that is never good for well-being. Have that cup of tea.

a reply to: grainofsand

You are factually incorrect though, it is the sole responsibility of the employer to comply with child labour laws, and knowledge of the illegal hours by the child worker is irrelevant legally.

But facts don't seem to bother you otherwise you would approach this from a discrimination point of view which it sounds like if your son was fired for a company policy that wasn't implemented towards other employees.

Bring forward the child labor laws and the defense of the employer will simply be you conspiring to sue.

You know of the law yet waited till your son was fired to say anything, seriously why not make this about discrimination and not child labor laws if you want do right by your son?

From the way you have given readers insight I would say he was discriminated against and that is the avenue of legal proceedings you should follow instead of the child labor laws as being a primary cause for action.






Now off to drink my tea

a reply to: grainofsand

The thing is, whether it was minor or not, the company did the necessary and correct thing by firing your son. For most places 3 times is all they need to fire you.

This is just petty. Even by your own admission your son wanted the extra hours and wanted the extra money.

It all seems like "Na-na-na-na boo boo. We got you now!"

a reply to: InhaleExhale
Why waste time and effort of a difficult to prove constructive dismissal when there is a clear breach of child employment law. As I said, live by 'the rules' then die by 'the rules', a dictator is at risk if they fail to adhere to the laws which apply to them as they enforce their own.

*Edit*
...and there was never a conspiracy to sue, and cannot be because it is the government agency enforcing employment law now, not an individual. The law in this case is relating to child employment, and any company which vociferously enforces it's rules must expect to be seen as a company who follows the law of the land.

The responsibility when employing children in the UK is solely on the employer. They liked enforcing rules, and so do I hence the case which shows their clear breach of UK employment law.
Can't really have it both ways with rules can we?

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog
Nope, just following the same mindset of a dictator director enforcing rules because they are rules.
Employer and employee have both learned a lesson.

originally posted by: grainofsand

...it is interesting that you typed so much about an employee breaking company rules yet so little about a business breaking child employment law. That really is telling.

It is telling. It's telling you that I consider it completely clear that the company was at fault and should be dealt with accordingly. It's obvious enough that I didn't think I needed to explain it in further detail.

However, as the points surrounding the dismissal were more varied, I felt they merited more consideration from the other side of the equation - what an employer sees.

This is similar to the ongoing debate about hiring people with visible tattoos that can't be hidden. People think that the issue is the tattoo itself. It isn't. The issue is what getting that tattoo says about the person's decision-making process. In the same way, the issue is not actually "wearing the bracelet", the issue for an employer is what consistently wearing it despite being warned says about the person's decision-making process.

Having a tattoo doesn't mean that someone won't be an excellent employee. Wearing the bracelet doesn't mean that your son wasn't an excellent employee. But, in the real world that isn't populated by idealists and free thinkers, that is the impression that the employer might form, and it's the employer who makes the final decision over who keeps their job. Not understanding that simple fact shows a flawed decision-making process. Would you want to trust your livelihood to someone who has demonstrated a tendency to make poor decisions?

a reply to: EvillerBob

This is similar to the ongoing debate about hiring people with visible tattoos that can't be hidden. People think that the issue is the tattoo itself. It isn't. The issue is what getting that tattoo says about the person's decision-making process. In the same way, the issue is not actually "wearing the bracelet", the issue for an employer is what consistently wearing it despite being warned says about the person's decision-making process.

Exactly. While the OP's son might have shown a willingness to work and pick up extra shifts, he did not show regard to rules. It isn't fair to other employees who are compliant to company rules.

a reply to: EvillerBob
My succint reply would be:
I expect an employer to follow the adherence of company rules with the same passion that they do with the law of the land. People, or corporate entities, take their own risks when they break the law.
The employee in this case broke the rules and was punished, and the employer broke the law and is to be punished.
'Rules is rules' as the employer would say.

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
While the OP's son might have shown a willingness to work and pick up extra shifts, he did not show regard to rules. It isn't fair to other employees who are compliant to company rules.

The employer broke the law of the land, they present a love of 'rules is rules' and exercised their right to sack an employee for breaching them. There is no formal complaint about that.
This action demonstrates that if 'rules is rules' then this is a situation where they failed and the rule of law applies.
Rules is rules after all.

a reply to: grainofsand

Look, you were not even aware of the law yourself until you went looking for something to use against the employer. You can try and be high and mighty but you even said yourself that you are a small business owner and you were not aware of the laws until it affected your son.

Everyone in this thread sees what you did. You found something post-firing to be indignant about. What did you do the two previous times when your son mentioned he got a warning? Did you tell him to leave his bracelet off and in his bag or just leave it at home?

I would be on your side and even impressed if this was something you discovered prior to his firing and at that point contacted the authorities.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: EvillerBob
I expect an employer to follow the adherence of company rules with the same passion that they do with the law of the land.

Ah, so "we can break the rules because you broke the rules". Also known as "given an inch, takes a mile". I'm starting to build a clearer picture of why he's no longer employed there.

a reply to: EvillerBob
I assume you would expect an employer to comply with it's responsibilities in law if the stated environment in the business is rules is rules everytime?
We would agree there.

*Edit*
And as for:

I'm starting to build a clearer picture of why he's no longer employed there.

Nope, you just imagine it. Pull me on my quoted words, not whatever motive or sentiment you may imagine about me or the situation in the OP.
If you wish to imagine elements to the stated story then I shall dismiss you as being off topic.

a reply to: grainofsand

Why are so many in this thread supporting employers who break child labour law? I'm actually shocked.

Child labour laws were created to stop the exploitation of children.

Why were you happy to knowingly allow your child to be exploited?

I'm actually shocked.

a reply to: Argyll
Oh behave, the law said he was exploited.
Have you not read my posts at all here?
It is irrelevant in UK law if a child worker enjoys the excess hours or not. The employer had a fear based environment of 'rules is rules' and their fine example inspired the action to address their own breach of 'the rules'.
The 'exploitation' is a statutory law description. The employee broke company rules and suffered a penalty. The employer broke the law and suffers it's own now.
Is my explanation acceptable to you?

a reply to: grainofsand

I've only read the first four pages, but I was literally shaking my head at most of the responses. I do think that many have skimmed your story, and/or haven't put themselves in your son's shoes. Or perhaps they are employers/managers who are guilty of some of the same themselves. Worst case scenario, is that very few are standing up for what is right anymore...or don't believe they even have rights.

The blatant hypocrisy, is what this situation is truly about. A company fires a valuable hard-working, shift covering employee over a minor "rule" (and one that is VERY likely not equally enforced for all); yet fails to follow the "rules" of the law themselves! You can't be a "rule stickler" in one instance and not in the other - and yes the onus IS on the employer, especially when "he who makes the rules, breaks the rules". I have witnessed examples of this kind of mismanagement often enough in life, good on you for not letting them get away with it OP.

What you have taught your child is to refuse to allow for hypocrisy, and IMHO that is a very good thing. Maybe if more people did this, the west would not have the kind of politics and economy they currently do...but that is another topic.

This case will go well, yet I couldn't help but to wonder how many employees that company has treated shabbily over the years, as there is usually a pattern with management of this type. Going by the responses here, most are willing to take whatever is dished out...which is alarming indeed, and shows a level of compliance and apathy I had thought many here were long past. You reap what you sow are willing to accept, I guess.

a reply to: grainofsand

Oh, I fully accept that your son was probably treated unfairly by his employer, and that his employer deserves to be bought to task regarding the hours he had your son working.


I was just wondering why you were happy to knowingly allow your son to be exploited in the first place, regardless of how the lad felt about working long hours, the very reason that child exploitation employment laws were introduced was to protect and stop kids from doing what you were happy for him to do.

a reply to: MoonBlossom
Thanks for the reply, the situation is pretty much as you posted, and yes, I have also spoken to other employees who have been treated in a similar poor way by the employer, so you are correct, there are many who've just taken it to keep the work.
My interest in the case is of seeing that a dictator director follows applicable rules with the same passion as they enforce their own.
Both employee and employer learn a lesson. That is good.

Most firms in the UK have a 3 strike disciplinary process for minor infringements. Gross misconduct can mean you are fired on the spot, dependent on the seriousness of the offence.

He got fired after 3 strikes? Seems perfectly legit to me