Haz mat suit for sikhs

[blazey]

Originally Posted by banjoman

My view is that all times the best person should get the job, and actually banging on about equality and non descrimination is one of the surest ways to bring it about. Left to it, normal employers want the best person for their job regardless of race,sex,disability etc.

This is what I said in my essay in the first term

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by flashytart

well why did he become a copper in the first place? surely he would have learnt on his training that they didnt have suitable protection for him.....the daft get

He could be a policeman without ever joining the counter-terrorist operation support unit. He wouldn't have to wear the suit for ordinary police duty.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by banjoman

My view is that all times the best person should get the job, and actually banging on about equality and non descrimination is one of the surest ways to bring it about. Left to it, normal employers want the best person for their job regardless of race,sex,disability etc.

However I also think that there is a feeling in this country that "I am owed a job", rather than getting off your bum and working hard to find one and sticking too it. What happens is people refuse to make any compromise expecting the company to bend over backwards to accomodate them. Guess what...you work for them not the other way around. The company does not exist to give you a job. However in my experience if you work hard its rewarded, sometimes making some adjustments and the company too and everyone gets what they want. So in this case, my opinion the chap had the option of quitting, shaving the beard and not wearing the turban, taking a different job in the police force, or as mentioned finding out what everyone else did

£100,000 :-0 So how many hip replacements, innoculation, school books, overtime hours for police is that ?

I agree with everything that you stated except for “The company does not exist to give you a job.”

The company exists to provide a service or a product and to make some money for the owner and the government. Usually a lot more than the workers get. In order to achieve the aims, workers are needed.

A company could not exist without the workers but the workers could exist without a specific company and go and work for someone else.

[banjoman]

Originally Posted by jambutty

The company exists to provide a service or a product and to make some money for the owner and the government. Usually a lot more than the workers get. In order to achieve the aims, workers are needed.

Not necessarily. I agree that most businesses are there to make money, so if we remove the small % that arent (ie charities) we can take that as a basic premise. However most businesses start out as single people or groups finding ways to make money to provide for themselves and their families and grow from that, until today the big businesses are there to generally make money for shareholders rather than a single person

Returning to the premise that most companies start from small groups of people, these take on employees for two main reasons : To do tasks either they cant do or dont want to do. Yes the owner at this stage would expect to make more money for himself than the persons he employs, but fortunately in this country if the worker believes he can make more elsewhere or by doing it for himself he is free to do that.

When an employer takes on a person to do a role they inform the person what they want them to do, and their remuneration for same. What I see happening however is that some people expect the money, but dont believe they have to do the work. They dont appreciate that the business is in the business of making money and that they have a part to play, regardless of their feelings on how much money the boss makes. They were offered a job to do certain tasks, and if they accept it to my mind they should do it.If they dont like it there are options open to them.

[Boeing Guy]

Banjoman spot on.
Its the chicken and egg, without an employer no need for staff, no staff no employer.

My father set up business in 1977, just him and his business partner. I was 8 at the time. So they soon needed to employ and by the early 1980's were quite large, employing over 50 staff. He would go out to work in his BMW 735i at 6am and return at 9 or 10pm weeknights.
Weekends if we were lucky he would have Saturday off which was not often.
Then of course were the business trips abroad, to sell product. His product that he and his partner invented, not the staff.
Better yet the staff started at 9am and finished at 5pm, on Friday they went home at 3pm. Of course they worked hard, but did they work any harder, did their children miss their father every night? No.
Did they resent him for having a nice car, etc... you bet. So in the mid 80's he downsized, had to or go under. Spent several years, yet again away from his family. Now he employs 5 people and has everything outsourced. Has time for his family and why not.

There is a serious problem in the UK with the us and them syndrome. A man or woman sees a opportunity to make money then good for them, whats wrong in that and if you can give someone a job as well then great, nobody owes you a job.
If you work for someone and don't like what your conditions are, then do something about it. It is not rocket science.
To start a business take guts, lots of it and so what if said person whats lots of money, it's their business after all, they own it.

We don't, thank goodness, live in a socialist state, if you want a better standard of life then do something about it, night school for example, or what I did and am still doing, downsize your home, go the bank and pay to retrain, flight training is not subsidized in anyway and this has cost me lots so far. The reward however is very good and so it should be.