ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Quis custodies custodiet
Big Harry the Hatchet does. Wanna tell him he's been doing a bad job?
Quis custodies custodiet
It's certainly a handy one if you're the person enforcing it.
It certainly backfired miserably and it revealed just how disruptive and unpleasant their conduct can be, which is giving me food for thought about how the Brixton forum can continue.Yes it does. I notice it doesn't go down so well on this forum.
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.I've been asking for Spam to be banned from Brixton forum for some time.
Got a problem with that?
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.
On the thread topic, brewdog have cancelled some kind of deal with US brewer scofflaw, after the latter promised to give free beers to trump supporters.
Which is something, at least.
Brewdog scraps beer deal over Trump offer
Unless you're a worker at Brewdog whose going blind.We care about beer and people. Not hate.
Unless you're a worker at Brewdog whose going blind.
On the thread topic, brewdog have cancelled some kind of deal with US brewer scofflaw, after the latter promised to give free beers to trump supporters.
Which is something, at least.
Brewdog scraps beer deal over Trump offer
I didn't say it was a big thing, and they're still a bunch of utter cunts for what they did to their worker.Unless you're a worker at Brewdog whose going blind.
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.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.
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.
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.
Tribunal decisions are available for free online now, so anyone can access them.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.
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.
Tribunal decisions are available for free online now, so anyone can access them.
On the thread topic, brewdog have cancelled some kind of deal with US brewer scofflaw, after the latter promised to give free beers to trump supporters.
Which is something, at least.
Brewdog scraps beer deal over Trump offer
I haven't been able to find any details of this tribunal online.
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.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.
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.
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.
he's an award-winning passive-aggressive cunt, having competed at local, regional, national and indeed international level where his passive-aggressive cuntery has been recognised by many prizes and citations.So it turns out that BrewDog have previous for being cunts to their employees, and you're still a passive-aggressive cunt.
This is one of the dumbest posts I’ve ever read on Urban. And I think that says something.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.