MobileB

No, the company is facing a temporary downturn in business, temp workers have been laid off, and on the book staff have been put into the positions of the laid off workers, so there are some people working two shifts, five days a week, and some working one shift four days a week.

We all understand the situation, and most people are very accepting that we have to be flexible, but my colleague doesnt want to change his shift pattern because of child care issues, and the financial losses involved, but to be honest, i think he will have to accept the changes and hope it will just be a short term inconvenience

If they are changing some and not others, then if I was in their position I would have gone out for volunteers first to change. If not enough volunteers then look to individual circumstances such as this as not to change and only then afterwards force the move through business critical reasons. If it is that bad and he cannot change then he would have a case for redundancy. I think in his position I would be weighing up how much I would get through redundancy, against loss of wage, ease of finding another job with suitable hours, against increased childcare costs.

Thanks for that info MobileB, the contract is a little vague on time scale, but they do state that "they reserve the right to enforce a change if necessary"....

My colleague is working 6-2 and 2-10 shifts monday to friday, and has been doing so for over 2 years, now he has been asked to work 6- 3.30 four days a week...and he tells me that the new shift pattern will cause havoc with his childcare costs and increase it very considerably

Hard to give individual advise but are they removing the 2-10 shift completely from the business? They may have good financial reasons for that and in which case if he is unable to adjust then there would be a case for redundancy. It is a very complex area. I know from my experience most people would bite their hand off though for that change!

Just giving this a small bump, if anyone can help

I'm friends with Steve on FB and LinkedIn. I'll point him in your direction. (PS I presume you mean Steve Lawton).

As other have said will be contract dependent but most invariably have a flexible clause in there. Would also depend on how long current shifts have been worked (could claim custom and practise) even if there is a flexible clause. Would also need to take account of what the actual changes are. So, for instance, if currently working 9-5 and they wish to change to 8-4 then this would probably be classed as reasonable unless there is some significant reason that this cannot be done (child care, public transport etc). If however, currently is 9-5 and changes to 3-11 then that is significant and would probably be a breach of contract.

As said, with all Contract of Employment issues, unless collective agreement in place, it is all dependent upon individual circumstances.

Gilder's car businesses have been taken over by the ambitious Stoneacre Group on 1st July. So they now operate as Mitsubishi in Chesterfield, and Honda in Sheffield (+ Rotherham?). Sheffield Honda is now located on Archer Road opposite Sainsbury's.

 

The premises on Chesterfield Road (anyone remember when it was Jack Marshall's garage?) together with the old Gilder VW garage at the start of Ecclesall Road South are separate from the car business, and privately owned by Gary Scotting. It will be interesting to see what plans he has for the Woodseats plot. My guess is for a block of apartments with their own parking.

 

Incidentally I think the new Surgery/Library is looking very smart. Hope the cladding is tickety boo.................

I thought the one on Middlewood Road was reopened as well. May be wrong.

Hallam FM's Big John @Breakfast with his co-presenters Janine and James is good. The genuine chemistry and witty banter between them is of national broadcast quality in my opinion. Get them on Radio 1 I say.

Don't think Janine's been on for over two years. She had a baby and is now working in Manchester.

Royston Glass were superb for us a few years ago. Came out, templated, came back and fitted perfectly at a very competitive price.

I have just received the following information from Visit Britain. These figures are the Average Room Rates achieved by hotels in November 2016.

 

Glasgow £96.00

Edinburgh £101.00

Newcastle £86.00

Liverpool £85.00

Manchester £129.00

Sheffield £81.00

Birmingham £98.00

Cardiff £91.00

Bristol £103.00

Brighton £91.00

London £155.00

 

The rates that a 5 star has to achieve in order to pay for it's ongoing costs are much greater than the £81.00 that Sheffield is currently achieving. We need a quality tourist attraction(s) or a major reason for 5 star guests wishing to visit and stay in our city.

That will only tell you a part story. You need to also look at the number of rooms sold (occupancy) and the number of rooms available. This will give you the RevPAR (Revenue per available room). It will tell a much more telling story than just the ARR.

However, naturally if there is a far greater supply of budget rooms then this will naturally drive down the ARR.

Thought this interesting article on the troubles ahead:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-theresa-may-s-brexit

Therefore, it makes no sense for the UK, which is the 5th largest World economy to be looking for the same deals these countries have with the EU.

6th.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/france-britain-uk-world-s-fifth-largest-economy-brexit-eu-referendum-a7123761.html

The FTSE 100 is on the brink of entering bull market= https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/jul/11/george-osborne-us-britain-brexit-stock-markets-sterling-business-live

If you have dollars and euros buying sterling is pretty cheap at the moment.

The trouble with staying in the EU is that we have gone thru the pain; lower share prices and sterling.

The fat lady has not even started dress rehearsals yet.

What Cyclone says is sort of correct. If you won't agree to the change in your contract, they can impose it on you by terminating your current contract and then re-engaging you on a new contract. They would need to terminate your old contract in line with the terms of that contract.

You could then claim unfair dismissal (if you have more than 2 years service) and show why you cannot work the new contract (for instance if there are childcare issues you could claim indirect sex discrimination), although this should also form part of your consultation. It is quite complex, though.

If there are more than 20 employees who reject the changes, the rules are slightly different.

There is a good leaflet from ACAS here:

http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/q/k/Varying-a-contract-of-employment-Acas-leaflet.pdf

We used Kings Security for a good few years, they were really good. You need to ensure that they are SIA registered and regulated.

But the FTSE 250 is 4% up on what is was 6 months ago. So not only is the UK growing faster than Europe, has lower unemployment than Europe, but our stock markets are outperforming Europe.

 

The falls over the last few days are recovering rather quicker than European ones too.

Err everyone thought we were stopping in the European Empire. Now we are out it is going down quicker than a Big Brother contestants knickers.

There has been a bit of profit taking over last day or so but watch the trend. Don't need to be a rocket scientist for that one.

And 4% points above where it was 6 months ago.

 

The FTSE 250 is currently 140% up on what it was 7 years ago. When a market is averaging 20% growth per year the odd small back slide doesn't make a fat lot of difference.

 

What rate is your ISA paying?

Which is the whole point we are trying to make. The FTSE100 is 36% made up of banks, mining companies and energy companies. Global companies that are affected by world events.

The FTSE250 is made up primarily of UK companies - names that we recognise. It's rise over the past 7 years, but particularly since 2012, has been because the British economy has been stronger, particularly against Europe.

Suddenly, the dimensions have changed since the vote last Thursday. The British economy is no longer safe and hence the big falls in the FTSE250. And that will continue whilst there is all this uncertainty. And suddenly our British companies that now have had their independence day are going to suffer.

Never mind the BMW, I think this one if for you:

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/518063/woman-viral-hilariously-honest-eBay-advert-Fiat-500-car-UK

What will stop immigration is the nasty country that we seem to be turning into.

It does seem to be going that way.

---------- Post added 29-06-2016 at 07:05 ----------

I think you are right.. to a point. Every other country in Europe requires a certain amount of contributions before getting out of work benefits for example, and we stand alone as not needing any at all. As you say, the rules have to apply across all workers, so it's instantly easier to get benefits here than anywhere else. Different countries have stricter rules on the level of contributions that others.

 

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/284

 

10. There is a significant difference between the UK and the rest of the EU15 in the accessibility of unemployment benefit. In other countries unemployment benefit is conditional on social insurance contributions and the amount paid out is linked to previous earnings. Moreover, the length of time that unemployment benefit can be claimed is linked to the length of time previously in work.

 

11. For example in every other EU15 country an individual can only claim unemployment benefit when they have worked for a specific amount of time and thus contributed to the system or made a certain number of social security payments. This ranges from 4 months in France to one year in many countries, including Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, and Spain. In Portugal an individual has to have worked for at least 450 days in the previous 24 months. All other countries require a certain number of payments or that a certain number of days/weeks/months be worked before an individual qualifies for unemployment benefit. The level of benefit paid is generally linked to previous earnings and often capped at an upper limit – only in Ireland and Finland is unemployment benefit paid at a flat rate. Moreover, in all countries except Belgium, unemployment benefit is paid for a period of time related to the amount of time previously spent in employment or it is capped for a period ranging from a few months to a maximum of 38 months in the Netherlands; it is capped at two years in Denmark, France, Portugal and Spain. In Belgium it can be claimed for an indeterminate period of time.

 

12. This contrasts sharply with the UK where there are two types of unemployment benefit available to job seekers. Contribution-based Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) is conditional, at least in theory, on actively seeking work, and Jobcentre staff regularly monitor claimants to see what they are doing to find work, with sanctions being applied if they do not. Contribution-based JSA is based on NI contributions and capped at six months. However, if you do not qualify for contribution-based JSA as you have not previously worked then you are able to claim income-based JSA – also conditional on actively seeking work – but not conditional on previous NI contributions, therefore payable to someone even if they have never worked. There is no time limit on income-based JSA and it is paid at a rate unrelated to previous earnings.[5] (See Annex D). These two benefits (Income and Contributions-based JSA) are paid at the same rate therefore a worker is not penalised for never having contributed anything in tax or NI.

 

13. EU rules permit social security contributions made in one country to be ‘transferred’ when claiming unemployment benefit in another country. However, since the UK has no minimum contribution requirement for income-based JSA, and the payment is related neither to previous earnings nor to the length of time that has been worked, an unemployed worker would be able to claim unemployment benefit on much more favourable terms than in the rest of the EU15 where the benefit is more strictly governed.

 

14. In short, it is far easier to gain access to unemployment benefits in the UK than anywhere else in the EU15.

 

Conclusion

 

15. The UK is far more generous than most other EU15 countries in topping-up low wages by just over 80% through in-work and housing benefits. This makes employment in the UK a very attractive for migrants from less wealthy EU member states, especially after adjusting for differences in the cost of living.

 

16. Access to unemployment benefit is also much easier than in other EU countries.

 

With that in mind, the criteria for claiming benefits for anyone in the UK would have to change to a contribution based system. Which isn't beyond the realms of possibility for a Conservative government.

Without going into detail, what you are quoting is from 2012. The rules changed in 2014. For instance, from that date "they" can no longer claim housing benefit. The rules on income based JSA changed and other changes.

Immigration and freedom of movement was never a reason for me to vote Leave, so it's neither here nor there for me, but for a lot of Leave voters it's a big deal. I am wondering if one of the possible scenarios would be for access to the single market, which in return means freedom of movement, but restrictions on in and out of work benefits for EU migrants in a more punitive fashion than those Cameron was aiming for back in February.

 

It won't stop migration but it will stop migrants who can't afford to support themselves without a decent job; those seen to be 'stealing our jobs' etc.

What jobs are these?

What benefits can they currently get if not in work?

What in work benefits can they get now?

Just to give some information from the "coalface" - working in the area I am today I think that is an apt description.

- Having never dealt with a single issue of racism in the past two years, today we have had three complaints of racism under the social media policy. Seen the posts - they are pretty horrible to be honest. Staff being dealt with as appropriate.

- Just given a presentation to 24 6th form students all studying A levels. A few of them studying economics so needless to say Brexit did come up so we did a quick hands up. Interesting that it was 75%-25% for Remain. Some of these people had a vote, others didn't (not 18 at the time of the vote) but this in an area that voted exit by a substantial margin.

There was a number of comments of disillusionment about the oldies that their own future has been taken away. A few of them were wanting to study abroad and they really do not know how they stand. This is an issue for the next 12 months not for years to come. Very interesting.

The younger ones today are really a different generation from when I was that age and I think a number of people fail to realise that.

Who told them that ?

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/impossible-for-scotland-to-join-eu-says-barroso-1-3308359

That's up to the EU. The single market works both ways. If we don't have access to their market, they won't have free access to our's. Germany does sell a lot of VWs, Mercedes Benz, Audi, and BMW cars over here. But I'm sure the manufacturers won't mind their government cutting them off from those sales in order to be seen to be playing hard ball.

Err they will. Under WTO rules there would be a 9.8% tariff. Don't really think that would make much difference to Mercs and BMW but may be hard on VW.

Peter Hargreaves, who gave £3million to Brexit campaign because "we would be better off out" has lost £410million since Friday.

I cannot imagine for one moment that the EU would ever consider even thinking about giving the UK access to the single market without insisting on free movement of labour. It is a key cornerstone, without which countries would resort to protectionist restrictions on incomers. If one country had, all would have to do the same. Not necessarily a bad idea in itself, but totally against the intent of the EU's free market. Allowing it wuld certainly mean the end of the EU as it stands. Those turkeys won't vote for christmas.

What I find ironic, and what people still don't seem to get, is that with any country in the EU, under current rules, if you don't find a job within 93 days, and you have no means of sustaining yourself (including a bank account in that country without a minimum amount of funds in) then there is a requirement for you to return home. How or whether that is implemented is a different matter, but those are the rules now. And they will be the same if we stay in the single market.

The highest levels of remain voters were actually in areas of highest net migration while some of the strongest leave areas have had the fewest recent new migrants.

London, which absorbed 133,000 of the 330,000 net migration in 2015, voted the most strongly for remain. Manchester also voted for remain – and with net migration of 13,554 had nearly double the level of net migration seen in Birmingham, which voted leave.

The pattern is starkest at the local authority level. Lambeth in London, which recorded the highest remain vote of 78%, saw a net influx of 4,598, while Castle Point in Essex, which includes Canvey Island, saw a net inflow of only 81 new international migrants in 2015, but 72% of people there voted leave.

The pattern was repeated in Conservative Wandsworth in London, where net migration was 6,295 and 75% voted remain, and Labour Hartlepool, where there was a net increase of only 113 in new migrants but 69% voted to leave.

So... Boris will be having quiet chats with Angela in private - Angela will come back with a better offer (in the same way Ireland got one), and Boris will say, "things have changed", and go to the country again.

 

This time an overwhelming Remain vote will sweep Boris to the head of the queue on his noble steed...

Ha ha. Even Nigel would be offering £350 million for the health service if that was to happen.

(PS still not seen any news on where this week's hospital is going to be built).