(August 16, 2012 at 1:27 pm)jonb Wrote:

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

Sorry Jonb but isn't that simply re-stating your original assertion that people were sacked to make way for Olympic stewards (whether they were volunteers or not).

Please post some evidence for this because if it is true I may write to my MP about it - but I need a bit more than "someone on an internet forum said so".

Regards

Grimesy

(August 17, 2012 at 8:15 am)pgrimes15 Wrote: Sorry Jonb but isn't that simply re-stating your original assertion that people were sacked to make way for Olympic stewards (whether they were volunteers or not).

Please post some evidence for this because if it is true I may right to my MP about it - but I need a bit more than "someone on an internet forum said so".

Regards

Grimesy

No I am not saying anyone was sacked, but the stewards who would normally work at, for instance lords, which I know about, but there might have been others were not just taken on by the companies which ran the Olympic stewards. Which; and this is my opinion seems an odd decision because these are trained staff used to those venues and would seem ideal to use.
The next part of this is that the companies treated all applicants the same, so people who had no experience of stewarding had to work for free at the Jubilee which I suppose is arguable as to being fare, but if you were already a steward your experience was not assessed and you would also be expected to work for free at the jubilee. From the point of view of a person who works through every summer at lords this means that just to do their normal job at lords, they would have to work for free to do what they normally do while the Olympics was on. So my daughter who works at lords among others felt her job was taken away unless she did free work.

What I have asked my MP is why we are paying management fees to a firm which did not do the obvious thing and directly take on staff who were already working at those venues which were already in use, because these people would have the right experience to run the events well as and also knowledge of the particular venue, and it may have meant the army would not have to have been called in.

(I think there might be enough in the reports above that substantiates that question and it might be a good one for you to ask your MP if you are so inclined.)

Supposition, I want to say this, but I am not going to run round the web trying to validate it, but I think it is a point well worth thinking about. As far as I know I heard on the radio that G4S were still going to take their full management fee, but I have not heard anything spoken about it, since before the Olympics. It seems the media know the general mood is one of seeing the Olympics as being a success means that reporting the parts which failed would tarnish that general view, and these reports would not be welcomed. Similarly I haven't heard Anyone standing up and congratulating the army for the brilliant job they did stepping in at the last minute and saving the day. True I could have missed the reports, but it seems the shambles G4S left the Olympics in is and old story and now not worth reporting.

I am sorry I know I am told I should only state solid verifiable facts, but I think sometimes knowing other peoples superpositions, and eye witness reports as being useful. I would not like to see others treated the same as I have been by T and B, Just because a person has personal experience only does not make them a liar. True I will take what those witnesses say with a pinch of salt, but I also know sometimes witnesses are not far of a truth.

(August 16, 2012 at 8:21 pm)jonb Wrote: 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.

No, we have established that if a person wanted to work as a steward for one of the Olympic contractors, they would have to do unpaid work. I accept this; I've said as much. What I don't accept is your assumption that this extended to people who were already employed as stewards. My main reason for not accepting it is that a) there's no evidence that I can find to support it, and b) it would have been a breach of contract law in the UK. If my employer had an event where they had to hire extra workers, they couldn't just turn around to me and say "well, since our extra staff had to work for free to get their contracts, you'll have to do some free work too, or you won't be allowed to work for this event". It isn't how contracts works.

(August 17, 2012 at 12:08 am)jonb Wrote: 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.

Yes, they would be working for Lords during the Olympics. The companies were there to hire extra stewards, as I've already pointed out. Most of the stewards were hired for the Olympic site itself, but there is no evidence to suggest that they replaced the people already employed by Lords or any other Olympic venue. G4S and other companies did not "take over employment" of any of the venues that they provided stewards for; all they did was provide employment.

(August 17, 2012 at 7:54 am)jonb Wrote: '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

She asked you to show that workers at Lords would not be working during the Olympics, not that the army had to be called in. We aren't disputing that claim, since there is masses of evidence to back it up. What we are disputing is your claim that the regular workers at Lords were told that they couldn't work during the Olympics, which you still have not provided evidence for.

(August 17, 2012 at 10:50 am)jonb Wrote: No I am not saying anyone was sacked, but the stewards who would normally work at, for instance lords, which I know about, but there might have been others were not just taken on by the companies which ran the Olympic stewards. Which; and this is my opinion seems an odd decision because these are trained staff used to those venues and would seem ideal to use.

No, you didn't use the word "sacked", but you said their jobs were "taken away" for the duration. This is a falsehood; you have not provided any evidence to support it. Have you ever considered the fact that it might seem an odd decision because it's not true?

Quote:The next part of this is that the companies treated all applicants the same, so people who had no experience of stewarding had to work for free at the Jubilee which I suppose is arguable as to being fare, but if you were already a steward your experience was not assessed and you would also be expected to work for free at the jubilee. From the point of view of a person who works through every summer at lords this means that just to do their normal job at lords, they would have to work for free to do what they normally do while the Olympics was on. So my daughter who works at lords among others felt her job was taken away unless she did free work.

Yes, the companies providing extra stewards for the Olympics had to treat all applicants the same, but the people already working at Lords were not applicants since they already worked at Lords. Also, the people at Lords did not work for any of the companies providing extra stewards...because they weren't extra stewards; they were regular stewards. So your daughter works at Lords? Tell me, did she get paid for the duration of the Olympics if her job was "taken away"? Was she on a regular (full time) contract with Lords that entitled her to work during that period? If she was, then why on earth hasn't she complained to someone? You can take Lords to court for something like this; it's a breach of contract law. I suspect however, that this is just another attempt to try and present your point without actually providing any evidence.

Quote:What I have asked my MP is why we are paying management fees to a firm which did not do the obvious thing and directly take on staff who were already working at those venues which were already in use, because these people would have the right experience to run the events well as and also knowledge of the particular venue, and it may have meant the army would not have to have been called in.

As far as everyone is aware, this is exactly what happened. You have not presented a single piece of evidence to suggest that this happened. I suspect your MP read your letter, sighed, shook his head, and shredded it.

Quote:I am sorry I know I am told I should only state solid verifiable facts, but I think sometimes knowing other peoples superpositions, and eye witness reports as being useful. I would not like to see others treated the same as I have been by T and B, Just because a person has personal experience only does not make them a liar. True I will take what those witnesses say with a pinch of salt, but I also know sometimes witnesses are not far of a truth.

Sure, eye witness reports are very useful, but the fact is, you have not presented any of those either. None of them have ever been reported in any newspaper article, or by any employment group, or charity working for employment fairness. If this problem was as widespread as you claim it is, there would be evidence for it, and there would have been a massive backlash, especially amongst the working community.

(August 17, 2012 at 12:55 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No, we have established that if a person wanted to work as a steward for one of the Olympic contractors, they would have to do unpaid work. I accept this; I've said as much. What I don't accept is your assumption that this extended to people who were already employed as stewards. My main reason for not accepting it is that a) there's no evidence that I can find to support it, and b) it would have been a breach of contract law in the UK. If my employer had an event where they had to hire extra workers, they couldn't just turn around to me and say "well, since our extra staff had to work for free to get their contracts, you'll have to do some free work too, or you won't be allowed to work for this event". It isn't how contracts works.

Oh I did not know that lords staged the Olympics, I presume lords was hired, to stage events, anyway my daughter works when lords put on events, lords did not stage the event no breach of contract.
Your assertion fails

(August 17, 2012 at 1:25 pm)jonb Wrote: Oh I did not know that lords staged the Olympics, I presume lords was hired, to stage events, anyway my daughter works when lords put on events, lords did not stage the event no breach of contract.
Your assertion fails

So has yours. If your daughter was not a full time worker at Lords, she had no contractual right to work there during the Games, and therefore did not have her job "taken away"; she would not have had a job there anyway (if Lords had no events on that fortnight). Your first claim is now completely disproved if this was all you were basing it on. If your daughter was not a full time worker at Lords (which by your words, she isn't), then she only has a job at Lords when they say she does.

Next!

(August 17, 2012 at 12:55 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Yes, they would be working for Lords during the Olympics. The companies were there to hire extra stewards, as I've already pointed out. Most of the stewards were hired for the Olympic site itself, but there is no evidence to suggest that they replaced the people already employed by Lords or any other Olympic venue. G4S and other companies did not "take over employment" of any of the venues that they provided stewards for; all they did was provide employment.

I know my daughter was not hired for the event, sure I cannot prove that, but you will have to provide evidence that the venues hired staff themselves as this seems to be your assertion. Go on find extra stewards, go on find the stewards that were already working for the venues and find that reference for lords and I will say any dam thing you want. No G4S did not "take over employment" at any of the venues, G4S used its own staff. I wonder if you think your own post might be used as evidence.

(August 17, 2012 at 1:39 pm)jonb Wrote: you will have to provide evidence that the venues hired staff themselves as this seems to be your assertion.

No, that is not my assertion, never had been.

Quote:Go on find extra stewards, go on find the stewards that were already working for the venues and find that reference for lords and I will say any dam thing you want.

Staff that had full-time contracts at all Olympics venues worked during the Olympics. This includes stewards who are hired on full-time contracts, because it is illegal to tell someone they cannot work when they have a contract that says they can.

Quote: No G4S did not "take over employment" at any of the venues, G4S used its own staff. I wonder if you think your own post might be used as evidence.

Ahem, you were the one who stated that companies like G4S took over employment during the Olympics:

(August 17, 2012 at 12:08 am)jonb Wrote: 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.

(Bolding mine.)

Enough of the thinking I use my own posts as evidence; you can't even keep your posts consistent.

(August 17, 2012 at 1:52 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(August 17, 2012 at 1:39 pm)jonb Wrote: you will have to provide evidence that the venues hired staff themselves as this seems to be your assertion.

No, that is not my assertion, never had been.

Quote:Go on find extra stewards, go on find the stewards that were already working for the venues and find that reference for lords and I will say any dam thing you want.

Staff that had full-time contracts at all Olympics venues worked during the Olympics. This includes stewards who are hired on full-time contracts, because it is illegal to tell someone they cannot work when they have a contract that says they can.

Quote: No G4S did not "take over employment" at any of the venues, G4S used its own staff. I wonder if you think your own post might be used as evidence.

Ahem, you were the one who stated that companies like G4S took over employment during the Olympics:

(August 17, 2012 at 12:08 am)jonb Wrote: 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.

(Bolding mine.)

Enough of the thinking I use my own posts as evidence; you can't even keep your posts consistent.

'Took over employment', yes right it I can see how easily that phrase can be misinterpreted so I would right that differently. And I apologise if it caused any confusion.
At the same time a part time worker may not have legal title, but on forums we are not restricted to legalese as such I stand by the statement 'the Olympics took the jobs away'. As if it was not for the presence of the Olympics the stewards in all probability would be working.

'Full time stewards', that is an interesting concept for a cricket ground, how could you steward without people to steward?
Sure there are senior staff responsible for the hiring and firing and management of staff And there is a head steward, but these are not really the stewards we are talking about are they?

I mean the term steward to cover people who steward, have you a different definition?

(August 17, 2012 at 3:10 pm)jonb Wrote: 'Took over employment', yes right it I can see how easily that phrase can be misinterpreted so I would right that differently. And I apologise if it caused any confusion.
At the same time a part time worker may not have legal title, but on forums we are not restricted to legalese as such I stand by the statement 'the Olympics took the jobs away'. As if it was not for the presence of the Olympics the stewards in all probability would be working.

'Full time stewards', that is an interesting concept for a cricket ground, how could you steward without people to steward?
Sure there are senior staff responsible for the hiring and firing and management of staff And there is a head steward, but these are not really the stewards we are talking about are they?

I mean the term steward to cover people who steward, have you a different definition?

Great, so we've come down to you arguing semantics rather than just admitting you were plain wrong about your claim. This is not about legality; this is about your claim that the people who worked at Lords had their jobs taken away during the Olympics, which as I've demonstrated is not true.

Now we've sorted that claim out, how about your next one? Provide evidence for the claim that unemployed people who did not volunteer had their benefits taken away.

(August 17, 2012 at 3:20 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Great, so we've come down to you arguing semantics rather than just admitting you were plain wrong about your claim. This is not about legality; this is about your claim that the people who worked at Lords had their jobs taken away during the Olympics, which as I've demonstrated is not true.

Now we've sorted that claim out, how about your next one? Provide evidence for the claim that unemployed people who did not volunteer had their benefits taken away.

No
I sit in the sunshine, a cloud comes over, it takes the sunshine away from me.
Is that a lie?
My statement stands.
Lets sort this out first!