(August 16, 2012 at 6:16 am)jonb Wrote: Stewards that were already working for some venues prior to the Olympics would have to work for free if they wanted to work for the Olympics. That is my claim is it not?

No, it's not.

Your claims were:

1) The people working as stewards in venues had their jobs taken away for the duration.
2) The unemployed would have had their benefits removed if they did not volunteer.

These are the two original claims that I asked you to provide evidence for.

I disagree with tibbers often. Knee jerk reactions are healthy for him to work with if everything was easy for him: we might as well give up this experiment. You hear that tiberius?! You're fired!

Go home and eat your frozen waffles.

(August 16, 2012 at 7:37 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(August 16, 2012 at 6:16 am)jonb Wrote: Stewards that were already working for some venues prior to the Olympics would have to work for free if they wanted to work for the Olympics. That is my claim is it not?

No, it's not.

Your claims were:

1) The people working as stewards in venues had their jobs taken away for the duration.
2) The unemployed would have had their benefits removed if they did not volunteer.

These are the two original claims that I asked you to provide evidence for.

Ok lets do this one at a time shall we. I will deal with 1 first. We can deal with other things in latter posts.

People working as stewards at lords are normally employed by lords and work there. true or false.
Was lords a provider of stewards for the Olympics? No evidence provided but I suppose I could look it up do you insist, or can we take that a read?

The companies providing staff for the Olympics stet up their own criteria,
for who would qualify to work at the events.

Therefore for the people working at lords, would not be able to work in the place they normally worked at unless they worked for free to qualify to be a steward at the games. In short where they would normally be employed for the period of the Olympics they did not work at that time at that venue, their normal employment was removed from them.

I wait.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvyDWGF290M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKjTGIXbBJA&feature=fvst

I'm an old man and very dense, but that was a good one

(August 16, 2012 at 1:27 pm)jonb Wrote: People working as stewards at lords are normally employed by lords and work there. true or false.

True.

Quote:Was lords a provider of stewards for the Olympics? No evidence provided but I suppose I could look it up do you insist, or can we take that a read?

No, Lords was not a provider of stewards, but that doesn't mean the people who already work there as stewards lost their jobs. This just reiterates my point about you using terrible logic. You can't just make these assumptions without providing evidence.

If the stewards at Lords had lost their jobs for the Olympics, you'd have thought at least one of them would have complained online, and a fuss would have been made.

I know for a fact that there were volunteers working at train stations across London to handle the increased number of passengers, but do you think that everyone who normally worked at the station lost their jobs for that duration? Well, I can't say for sure, but whenever I was at one of those stations, there were Olympic volunteers standing right next to the National Rail staff, so I'm leaning more towards "no".

The fact is, stewards were needed mainly for the stadium that was built to host the Games. In places like Lords, where staff already exist, extra stewards were probably there to support the larger numbers of crowds (and also deal with security). Even if this wasn't the case, it doesn't mean that the staff at Lords were fired; for all we know, they were given holiday time at that period. A lot of people at our company took holiday for the duration of the Olympics; I wouldn't be surprised if the same was true at other places.

Quote:The companies providing staff for the Olympics stet up their own criteria, for who would qualify to work at the events.

Therefore for the people working at lords, would not be able to work in the place they normally worked at unless they worked for free to qualify to be a steward at the games. In short where they would normally be employed for the period of the Olympics they did not work at that time at that venue, their normal employment was removed from them.

Firstly, as we've already discussed, Lords wasn't a company that hired extra stewards for the events, so they couldn't just create new contracts for stewards based on this one event. It would be against contract law in the UK, and once again, there is no evidence to support the accusation.

Secondly, why are you still barking on about stewards being required to work for free at the Olympics? I thought we'd sorted that out several posts ago. The Olympics was paid work; the Jubilee was unpaid work experience, which was required for the paid work at the Olympics.

In any case, all of this is made completely irrelevant by the fact that I asked for evidence, and you presented a number of arguments based on assumptions alone. I've done a few Google searches for various claims you've made here, and there are no results that support what you say.

If you don't start actually posting evidence rather than your delusions about how the world works, I'm going to start ignoring all the irrelevant stuff until you do.

Ha ha ha I don't believe you
We have established if a person wanted to work for the Olympics they would have to do unpaid work, ie they would have to work for free. Now I have stopped. This is just stupid, as you refuse to accept what is written in black and white.

If they wanted to work as a steward for the Olympics. You haven't established if people who were already working had to do the same or lose their jobs. Establish that. It's forking simple.

A steward working at lords, would not be working for lords during the Olympics, that steward would during the Olympics have to work for the companies that supplied stewards, the companies that had the above mentioned policy.
So during the Olympics if they wanted to work they would have to fit to the agenda of the company that took over employment for the duration.

( Incidentally companies which fucked up so much that the army had to step in and run the thing properly. But you wouldn't know about that either would you.)

Is that simple enough.

Okay, so show that.

'G4S had a £284m contract to provide 10,400 staff for Olympic events but could not supply enough personnel, leaving some 4,700 members of the armed forces to stand in.'
From article bellow

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19251772