Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

BrewDog: yet another hip company using 'rebel' language to sell its stuff

Gramsci said:
I've been asking for Spam to be banned from Brixton forum for some time.

Got a problem with that?
Click to expand...
All I can say is that banning more and more people isn't going to solve any problems in the Brixton forum. Maybe we disagree on that.
 
A reminder: this is a thread about Brewdog, not about the Brixton forum, despite several posters from that forum transparently following me here to try and piss about. Any further posts relating to Brixton or the moderation of that forum will be deleted.
 
Someone has fucked up somewhere. Don't know whether it was the PR firm or Brewdog but it's not a good look.

Twats. A plague on all their houses.

 
editor said:
Unless you're a worker at Brewdog whose going blind.
Click to expand...

Quite an interesting story that. One mainly feels sorry for the guy whose eyesight is just going to progressively deteriorate (Stargadt disease I think it's called). Working on a packaging/canning line is presumably a potentially dangerous activity if you don't have the typical levels of visual acuity that many have. And so I can see how they'd want to manage that risk for both themselves and the worker.

On the other hand, it seems the HR person responsible didn't follow the RNIB's prescribed set of measures/adjustments to work out whether he could still carry out the role effectively and ensure no danger to himself or others. Massive failing on the part of HR. Even if they did offer him alternative roles in the company to try and keep him - which sound like they may have been totally inappropriate in any case. It may have been if his eyesight deteriorated so far that he would have to have been removed from the role in any case (and to the benefit of everybody), but at least for the time being he could have been allowed to continue with the right concessions/adjustments to his working environment. So they certainly got that wrong, massively. And that's fairly typical of a business that experiences exponential growth (while not HR related, look at some of the funky new energy companies that have great aims but then suddenly can't cope with the massive influx of customers and then end up letting them down).

I have a friend who is an ex-colleague from my last company who has albinism, and struggles with the desk she has been given (light from the windows makes it harder for her to see her monitor, as well as being on the end of a set of desks meaning it's quite noisy). She moans but gets on with it. She is brilliant at her job though (and everything else - you should see her crossing a busy road after several beers). But I wish the office manager/HR person (who is also largely brilliant but overworked) would take her more seriously. But my colleague doesn't like to make a fuss because she feels it makes her look weak. Which she is anything but. And after extensive discussions, what we've taken from it is that the office manager simply doesn't have the training or the personality to be able to discuss her disability (as she calls it) in a frank and open manner that makes it easy for a solution to be found.

Brewdog could certainly have found a better way to deal with the situation to everybody's best interest - and in keeping with HR legislation. They deserved the fine. I imagine after all that they have probably upped their game to ensure they have a better understanding of HR legislation and how to deal with such situations in the future. I hope so anyway.
 
Last edited:
discobastard said:
Quite an interesting story that. One mainly feels sorry for the guy whose eyesight is just going to progressively deteriorate (Stargadt disease I think it's called). Working on a packaging/canning line is presumably a potentially dangerous activity if you don't have the typical levels of visual acuity that many have. And so I can see how they'd want to manage that risk for both themselves and the worker.

On the other hand, it seems the HR person responsible didn't follow the RNIB's prescribed set of measures/adjustments to work out whether he could still carry out the role effectively and ensure no danger to himself or others. Massive failing on the part of HR. Even if they did offer him alternative roles in the company to try and keep him - which sound like they may have been totally inappropriate in any case. It may have been if his eyesight deteriorated so far that he would have to have been removed from the role in any case (and to the benefit of everybody), but at least for the time being he could have been allowed to continue with the right concessions/adjustments to his working environment. So they certainly got that wrong, massively. And that's fairly typical of a business that experiences exponential growth (while not HR related, look at some of the funky new energy companies that have great aims but then suddenly can't cope with the massive influx of customers and then end up letting them down).

I have a friend who is an ex-colleague from my last company who has albinism, and struggles with the desk she has been given (light from the windows makes it harder for her to see her monitor, as well as being on the end of a set of desks meaning it's quite noisy). She moans but gets on with it. She is brilliant at her job though (and everything else - you should see her crossing a busy road after several beers). But I wish the office manager/HR person (who is also largely brilliant but overworked) would take her more seriously. But my colleague doesn't like to make a fuss because she feels it makes her look weak. Which she is anything but. And after extensive discussions, what we've taken from it is that the office manager simply doesn't have the training or the personality to be able to discuss her disability (as she calls it) in a frank and open manner that makes it easy for a solution to be found.

Brewdog could certainly have found a better way to deal with the situation to everybody's best interest - and in keeping with HR legislation. They deserved the fine. I imagine after all that they have probably upped their game to ensure they have a better understanding of HR legislation and how to deal with such situations in the future. I hope so anyway.
Click to expand...
The summaries I read of the tribunal case were pretty clear - Brewdog were basically given everything they needed to help the worker, yet they chose not to. They also chose not to learn about how to manage worker disabilities. There are tons of free and low cost resources from unions and ACAS to educate on topics like this.
 
equationgirl said:
The summaries I read of the tribunal case were pretty clear - Brewdog were basically given everything they needed to help the worker, yet they chose not to. They also chose not to learn about how to manage worker disabilities. There are tons of free and low cost resources from unions and ACAS to educate on topics like this.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't disagree. Your first two sentences say the same though? They were given everything they needed to help the worker, but didn't (either though active informed choice i.e. they didn't care or feel like it, or ignorance such that they were incompetent), and they *also* chose not to learn how to manage the worker disabilities?

Sounds like they fucked up massively, as per my post. Just interested what the tribunal notes actually said.
 
discobastard said:
Quite an interesting story that. One mainly feels sorry for the guy whose eyesight is just going to progressively deteriorate (Stargadt disease I think it's called). Working on a packaging/canning line is presumably a potentially dangerous activity if you don't have the typical levels of visual acuity that many have. And so I can see how they'd want to manage that risk for both themselves and the worker.

On the other hand, it seems the HR person responsible didn't follow the RNIB's prescribed set of measures/adjustments to work out whether he could still carry out the role effectively and ensure no danger to himself or others. Massive failing on the part of HR. Even if they did offer him alternative roles in the company to try and keep him - which sound like they may have been totally inappropriate in any case. It may have been if his eyesight deteriorated so far that he would have to have been removed from the role in any case (and to the benefit of everybody), but at least for the time being he could have been allowed to continue with the right concessions/adjustments to his working environment. So they certainly got that wrong, massively. And that's fairly typical of a business that experiences exponential growth (while not HR related, look at some of the funky new energy companies that have great aims but then suddenly can't cope with the massive influx of customers and then end up letting them down).

I have a friend who is an ex-colleague from my last company who has albinism, and struggles with the desk she has been given (light from the windows makes it harder for her to see her monitor, as well as being on the end of a set of desks meaning it's quite noisy). She moans but gets on with it. She is brilliant at her job though (and everything else - you should see her crossing a busy road after several beers). But I wish the office manager/HR person (who is also largely brilliant but overworked) would take her more seriously. But my colleague doesn't like to make a fuss because she feels it makes her look weak. Which she is anything but. And after extensive discussions, what we've taken from it is that the office manager simply doesn't have the training or the personality to be able to discuss her disability (as she calls it) in a frank and open manner that makes it easy for a solution to be found.

Brewdog could certainly have found a better way to deal with the situation to everybody's best interest - and in keeping with HR legislation. They deserved the fine. I imagine after all that they have probably upped their game to ensure they have a better understanding of HR legislation and how to deal with such situations in the future. I hope so anyway.
Click to expand...

Basically HR did what HR do in every company. They are, to a person, incompetent parasites who see their primary purpose to cover up the boss's drink driving conviction and manage out of the company young female employees who have made complaints about the unwanted sexual advances / sexual assaults from the bosses.
 
discobastard said:
I wouldn't disagree. Your first two sentences say the same though? They were given everything they needed to help the worker, but didn't (either though active informed choice i.e. they didn't care or feel like it, or ignorance such that they were incompetent), and they *also* chose not to learn how to manage the worker disabilities?

Sounds like they fucked up massively, as per my post. Just interested what the tribunal notes actually said.
Click to expand...
Tribunal decisions are available for free online now, so anyone can access them.

I'm of the belief that they chose not to do anything because they were given everything they needed to help him keep his job, then didn't, which was a breach of the equalities act 2010. The RNIB would have made their obligations under law very clear.
 
Teaboy said:
Basically HR did what HR do in every company. They are, to a person, incompetent parasites who see their primary purpose to cover up the boss's drink driving conviction and manage out of the company young female employees who have made complaints about the unwanted sexual advances / sexual assaults from the bosses.
Click to expand...

Agree on all counts here - managing to appoint an hr person, presumably a senior hr person AND a lawyer none of whom appeared to know anything about the dda is spectacularly incompetent.

The reason most stuff like this doesn’t go to tribunal is that someone somewhere along the way manages to pick this up and say “you’ve broken the law. You are going to get turned over in the tribunal. Pay them off”

The reputational damage to brewdog here is ridiculous - they’ve gone from being marmite to being stone cold cunts. And incompetent cunts at that.

Btw while I’ve pointed out up thread that they pay llw, they are cunts of the highest order and I thought that before this specific incident.

Alex
 
Now that anyone can look at tribunal decisions for free, I suspect there will a) be more companies paying to settle (if they are not stupid) and b) greater acts of law breaking exposed (if they are stupid/ shortsighted etc). No tribunal fees means more cases will get filed again.

Companies shouldn't break the law of course, but if they do, they should face the consequences.

The founders of Brewdog went to the same uni I did. Alumni publications have featured them in the past. I have asked the alumni office why they feature a pair who have such terrible attitudes to women, but no answer.
 
NoXion said:
Then you obviously haven't been looking hard enough, you fucking lazy cunt:

Mr R Meade v Brewdog Ltd: 2200921/2017

First page of results when Googling "brewdog employment tribunal blind".

You fucking twat.
Click to expand...
It may be the on the first page of results; however, if you'd taken a close look at it you might have noticed that the claimant name does not match, the date is wrong, it records a decision where the claimant was unsuccessful and the claim was dismissed, and in any case it has no details of the case other than what the decision was, which, for the one we have been discussing, we already know.
 
teuchter said:
It may be the on the first page of results; however, if you'd taken a close look at it you might have noticed that the claimant name does not match, the date is wrong, it records a decision where the claimant was unsuccessful and the claim was dismissed, and in any case it has no details of the case other than what the decision was, which, for the one we have been discussing, we already know.
Click to expand...

True, I posted in a rush on a noisy bus using a smartphone. In my naiveté I assumed that there would be only one case turning up in the results with the search terms that I used.

So it turns out that BrewDog have previous for being cunts to their employees, and you're still a passive-aggressive cunt.
 
NoXion said:
True, I posted in a rush on a noisy bus using a smartphone. In my naiveté I assumed that there would be only one case turning up in the results with the search terms that I used.

So it turns out that BrewDog have previous for being cunts to their employees, and you're still a passive-aggressive cunt.
Click to expand...

You decided to definitely not go down the gracious apology route then :thumbs:

Thanks for your continued active-agressive shoutings.
 
Teaboy said:
Basically HR did what HR do in every company. They are, to a person, incompetent parasites who see their primary purpose to cover up the boss's drink driving conviction and manage out of the company young female employees who have made complaints about the unwanted sexual advances / sexual assaults from the bosses.
Click to expand...
This is one of the dumbest posts I’ve ever read on Urban. And I think that says something.

*Really* fucking stupid, thick, ignorant post.

Quite impressive in a way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ash
Another Brexit benefit- using Wi-Fi in Europe
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
Elpenor
Elpenor
Bingoman
Is the Princess of Wales dead yet?
Replies
20
Views
710
moochedit
moochedit
Humberto
Missing persons. How many families does it happen to?
Replies
12
Views
863
cupid_stunt
cupid_stunt
Sasaferrato
The NHS needs to get its finger out and stop whining about lack of funds. They are bloated and wasteful.
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
154
Views
8K
UnderOpenSky
UnderOpenSky
Tooter
Yet another huge Tory financial disaster.
Replies
9
Views
734
Sasaferrato
Sasaferrato
Back
Top Bottom