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

a reply to: Argyll
I only care about the wishes of my son and if he is happy with whatever situation is going on in his life.
He enjoyed proving to the prick manager that he wouldn't be broken and did the horrible jobs and long shifts because he is young, fit, and enjoyed the wages.
The employer broke child labour law, not the child. The employer demonstrated to a child that absolute adherence to rules is paramount. The child demonstrated that rules apply equally to an employer, especially when it is relating to employing children.
A reasonable result you could say, both parties exercised their rights.

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog
Who's being high and mighty?
It is about an employer who enjoys vociferously enforcing their own rules being pulled for failing to follow the law.
That levels the playing field. That is good...if rules is rules as the business preached.

originally posted by: jude11

Maybe you should have responsibility as well for allowing your child to be taken advantage of when you clearly were aware he was breaking the law as well.

Good point!

And if I might add -- not sure about the UK, but here in the US, depending on your particular city and state, you might be in court yourself, might have to deal with Child Protective Services, might lose custody of your child, might even have some jail time. Why? For knowingly permitting or encouraging your child to break labor laws.

That may seem like stretch, but I have seen and heard of worse. It depends on how mad you make the ex-employer: Child neglect, fraud, conspiracy, obstruction of justice -- it is not hard to twist things around.

You see -- you have to consider -- revenge is often a two way street. So it is best to avoid thoughts of revenge -- it is not always as sweet or as productive as it may seem at first.

Take care, and best of luck.

a reply to: Axial Leader
Oh dear, that point has been addressed a few times in this thread.
Under UK law the only entity legally required to comply with child employment law is the employer.
If the child suffered as a result then it would be a seperate welfare issue.
The employer can be fined and ordered to pay compensation regardless of if the child suffered or not.
They are not allowed to do excess hours and cannot legally agree to do so. It is the responsibility of the employer alone to comply with the law, or face the penalty.

It is irrelevant legally if the child worker or their parents knew or enjoyed benefitting from the excess hours. The onus is solely on the employer. You may not like that, but it is the law here, and why the government agency is pursuing the case now.

originally posted by: grainofsand

It is irrelevant legally if the child worker or their parents knew or enjoyed benefitting from the excess hours. The onus is solely on the employer. You may not like that, but it is the law here, and why the government agency is pursuing the case now.

It is the same law in the USA.

Exactly the same, I think.

a reply to: grainofsand

Good to know. I don't mean to sound critical either. I just think it is a little risky to mix things up in this area -- there are other battles to fight.

But really, I respect what you want to do, and I wish you luck. I definitely don't want anyone to get mugged by their ex-anything.

My comment was really more about the power of criticism, attack, revenge, and how it can backfire unpleasantly sometimes. Especially if you are dealing with someone with a mean streak (and that doesn't sound like you or me.)

a reply to: Axial Leader
Ah totally agree and understand what you're saying.
But as far as I'm concerned, revenge/equalisation of adherence to rules for all parties, same same.
I grew up on a rough council estate and am comfortable with my own mean streak, but it is not needed when the law is more useful to deal with oppressive employers.
Employer and employee both learn a lesson from the experience.

*Edit*
I told my son multiple times that he had to be whiter than white once he knew the director was out to get him on rules that were pointless, like wearing the wrong colour socks even though they were hidden in boots for example. I also told him he was a fool giving the prick ammunition for his spot checks.
The employer failed to be whiter than white though, so it is fair that they suffer the consequences of non-compliance as well.
Live by the rules, die by the rules...if 'rules is rules' as the company enjoyed repeating to the employees.

a reply to: grainofsand

Well the onus was on your son in the first place to follow the rules. Like I said, it was only when your son was reprimanded did you dig up this law. It is spiteful and the reason why so many companies will not hire youth anymore.

You've stated repeatedly that your son was happy to pick up the shifts, to come in on his days off, when he had no obligation to the company or his employers (the onus is on supervisors/management to cover shifts, not their teenage employees). What if the case had been that the company was turning a blind eye to the extra shifts because someone was trying to pay for college/university? I have seen plenty of people waive their labour rights in order to fulfill a need in their personal life/professional life.

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog
My son failed to comply with company rules and suffered the penalty.
The employer failed to comply with employment law and will suffer a penalty.
It was the company who championed the 'rules is rules' mantra. My son is following their example.
It was spiteful of the dictator director to hound a child worker.
It was also a fail on the part of the director to be passionate about rules while breaking the law.

*Edit*
And there was no 'digging' required to find child employment laws, the UK makes it easy for employers to get basic information and access to the relevent published legislation. The employer failed to follow simple rules and must therefore experience the situation of suffering a penalty coz 'rules is rules'
Here, I'll throw you a bone to help you get started and see how clear and easily accessable the law is for employers who love following rules:
www.gov.uk...

originally posted by: Argyll

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.

Actually the primary focus was to prevent children being forced out of education and into work. If the child was able to work that much without compromising his schoolwork (which shouldn't be an issue over the holidays) and both he and the company were happy for that to be the case, I don't really consider this a matter of exploitation, rather a mutually beneficial arrangement.

However, the law is the law and they were in breach of it. My objection to the company's actions are on purely legal grounds, I don't have a personal objection to what they did provided all parties were happy with the arrangement.

It irks me somewhat that, having bent the rules (and put them at risk) to give him the chance to make more money, all he had to do was be grateful and follow some simple requirements - but no, he couldn't do that. But, kids do stupid things sometimes, and part of the role of a parent is to turn these things into learning opportunities for the future. That's why if frankly astonishes me that the father of all people hasn't clipped him around the ear for killing the goose that was laying a golden egg for him. Instead, he's being taught to be spiteful, ungrateful, and to refuse to take responsibility for his own actions.

a reply to: EvillerBob


Could not have said it better.

The op states they grew up on a rough council estate.

So did I.

The phrase that we would have had for his stated revenge strategy is a "c&@t's trick".

It's called that for a reason. It's immoral.

Another excuse.

Shut up. Move on. Learn and get over it.

You can't ignore one set of rules, then expect to invoke another to get revenge.

Revenge is a self seeking act. And you're the one steering the ship.

You were happy your son was learning adult lessons through work. Let him assess this situation like an adult would. This is his choice. Not yours.

originally posted by: grainofsand

I told my son multiple times that he had to be whiter than white once he knew the director was out to get him . . . .

Yep! Once a superior has it in for you, for whatever reason, nothing you can do.

My daughter was fired from her first "real job" at Burger King for suspicion of drugs. Why? Because she was too happy.

Trust me, other daughter and drugs, possible. But, not this daughter, at this particular time. She was crushed.

We did make sure drugs were not mentioned on her dismissal.

originally posted by: EvillerBob
It irks me somewhat that, having bent the rules (and put them at risk) to give him the chance to make more money, all he had to do was be grateful and follow some simple requirements

Haha, I love a good 'holier than thou' read in the morning.
Grateful? What for being treated disrespectfully and hounded by an adult director for personal reasons? For being told that if he didn't do the horrible tasks and cover extra hours that he would be sacked? For being paid £2 per hour less than 18 years olds while carrying out the work to the same standard? The company saved a fortune with him and took advantage of him big time, even if you do not believe that.
The story is as explained, repeatedly. Your attempts to provide added value to the story is incorrect, and derailing.

The employer repeated a mantra that rules must be obeyed regardless of reason other than they are rules.
My son learned this valuable lesson upon being dismissed for breaking rules, as was the employers right.
He saw the paradox of an employer being so passionate about rules yet breaking employment law, and we of course all realise that we cannot pick and choose which rules we comply with, even employers. The employer is being punished after being reported for the breach by the employee, as is the employees right.

Now you can go cry tears for this employer if you like but there is always a risk when breaking the law and treating employees like dirt, especially when using 'rules is rules' as a company mantra, and 'catch all' for sacking workers.
'Rules is rules' has just bitten them back on the arse.
I bet employers love your apparent submissive and compliant style, regardless of conditions the employer is putting you under. I don't just bend over for anyone, and I'm glad my son doesn't, but I am happy for you if 'get the lube out and bend over with no questions' is the advice you would give a child of your own.

Good day, I'm off to do a days work myself

originally posted by: selfharmonise
You can't ignore one set of rules, then expect to invoke another to get revenge.

Haha, that is exactly what the employer did.
It is a win win situation as both parties have been able to exercise their rights, just a tragedy for the employer that their penalty is a bit more severe. Shouldn't have shone the example of 'rules is rules' while hounding a child worker for personal reasons.

Why can't we know the rules that your son broke? Sounds to me that the company had a valid reason for firing him, unless, of course, you give us the reason. It's pretty telling when you don't give the reason.

I 100% understand what you're sayin OP, not clear why some aren't getting it. I even have another way of looking at the whole thing.

Your son and the company had an unspoken agreement to flout the labor laws, nobody was being harmed, who cares? Your son wanted the money(hell yeah!!) they needed his work ethic. It was a perfect little agreement till they didn't need him anymore. So rather than have some honor, cut his hours, talk to him like a man. They simply found a way to axe him. Or perhaps that director is just a prick about rules.

Either way, when you have formed an unholy alliance you are no longer in a position to act all principled, as they have tried to do. You are bound to your unholy brethren.

Screw em, they screwed him. Take em for what he's owed. After all, if it was up to him he'd still be their faithful employee.

originally posted by: grainofsand
I bet employers love your apparent submissive and compliant style, regardless of conditions the employer is putting you under. I don't just bend over for anyone, and I'm glad my son doesn't, but I am happy for you if 'get the lube out and bend over with no questions' is the advice you would give a child of your own.

My advice to my child would be that you're not being employed to be a special snowflake, you're employed to do the jobs that your employer requires. Your decision is between following the rules set out by the company, or finding work elsewhere.

My advice to employees would be that you're not being employed to be a special snowflake, you're employed to do the jobs that your employer requires. Your decision is between following the rules that I have set out for the company, or finding work elsewhere.

The thing about battles is learning when to pick them. Racist behaviour, sexual harassment? That's a battle worth fighting. Wearing a bracelet? What a ridiculous choice for a last stand.

You and your son aren't fighting to right some terrible wrong, you're not protecting the world from the next Bhopal or Exxon. You were perfectly happy when the money was rolling in. Now you're acting out of spite. You're not exposing hypocrisy, you're wallowing in it.

originally posted by: illusion987
Why can't we know the rules that your son broke? Sounds to me that the company had a valid reason for firing him, unless, of course, you give us the reason. It's pretty telling when you don't give the reason.

OP has given the reason already. His son was wearing a bracelet, which was in contravention of company policy. He was caught twice and given a warning on both occasions. He was then caught a third time in a targetted spot check, because not wearing the bracelet presumably contravened his HRA Article 19 right to be a special snowflake. As a result, the company let him go. The more OP posts, the more I suspect that the problem ran much deeper than just the bracelet.

OP and son are retaliating by reporting the company for breaching employment laws relating to the number of hours a minor is allowed to work - a breach that both OP and son were more than happy to ignore when the son was earning more money due to the extra hours.

a reply to: grainofsand

What kind of lesson is your son learning from all this?

That if someone does you wrong, you should break it off in them if you can? What happened to take the high road?

I understand anger and frustration. I just think you should weigh all the factors and include his life lesson in all this.

a reply to: grainofsand

Heh the funny and sad thing at the same time is that the employer will get into some trouble and will have to probably pay a fine and do some mandatory training of their directors in the ways children laws should be followed. With that done they will probably bury those costs with some creative accounting and forget about it.

And here is the sad part, even thou Your son will erase this experience from his CV, he will be blocked from a lot of potential employers via private channels ("Hey Matt, tell your HR department not to hire mr John Doe, he made us have gov problems. Oh btw hope to see you tomorrow at the pub"). And I bet You if the director is so vindictive as You say he is, this whole situation will probably be a lot worse for You than it will be for him in the long run..

Well those are only my 2 cents to the conversation ..