Olympics

[Tiberius]

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.

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.

'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.

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?

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.

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.

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.