Evolution to blame for joint pain

[Sebastian Toe]

Sorry, HH, the main folk wearing them are women working in companies - such as the finance and insurance world - who have been told they have to wear them by their bosses, or risk losing their jobs.

Proof?
Don't tell me, you were chatting to a couple of people from your church and they know someone who once worked for the Pru who told them that fact!
 

[Harrowby Hall]

Sorry, HH, the main folk wearing them are women working in companies - such as the finance and insurance world - who have been told they have to wear them by their bosses, or risk losing their jobs.

Yes, Hope. It must be true 'cos there was that one case that was in the papers....

Perhaps these are all the same women that do the dirty films. They just never take their high heels off ... 

[Harrowby Hall]

Sorry, HH, the main folk wearing them are women working in companies - such as the finance and insurance world - who have been told they have to wear them by their bosses, or risk losing their jobs.

I am now going to give you a serious answer to this statement.

1  Such behaviour on the part of any employer could be challenged under the Equality Act 2010. It is discriminatory.

2  Such behaviour could be challenged on Health and Safety grounds. It is potentially damaging to the health and well-being of the women concerned.

What makes you think that your statement is true?

[Jack Knave]

Proof?
Don't tell me, you were chatting to a couple of people from your church and they know someone who once worked for the Pru who told them that fact!
 

This has been in the news. Whether it is widespread is another thing but I wouldn't be surprised if it is.

[Jack Knave]

I am now going to give you a serious answer to this statement.

1  Such behaviour on the part of any employer could be challenged under the Equality Act 2010. It is discriminatory.

2  Such behaviour could be challenged on Health and Safety grounds. It is potentially damaging to the health and well-being of the women concerned.

What makes you think that your statement is true?

Taking legal action costs money which many employees can't afford.

[Nearly Sane]

Taking legal action costs money which many employees can't afford.

which is not an answer to the question
'What makes you think that your (Hope's)statement is true?'

[Sebastian Toe]

Taking legal action costs money which many employees can't afford.

They should join a union then.

[Jack Knave]

which is not an answer to the question
'What makes you think that your (Hope's)statement is true?'

It wasn't suppose to be an answer just a statement about the reality of the situation.

What (Hope's) statement? - not sure what you are talking about.

[Jack Knave]

They should join a union then.

How easy is that? If it is easy why didn't the people who worked for the two sports firms that have been in the news recently do so?

[Sebastian Toe]

How easy is that? If it is easy why didn't the people who worked for the two sports firms that have been in the news recently do so?

Why dont you ask them?

[Nearly Sane]

It wasn't suppose to be an answer just a statement about the reality of the situation.

What (Hope's) statement? - not sure what you are talking about.

The post you replied to

Quote from: Hope on January 02, 2017, 09:04:48 PM
Sorry, HH, the main folk wearing them are women working in companies - such as the finance and insurance world - who have been told they have to wear them by their bosses, or risk losing their jobs.


Quote from Harrowby Hall
I am now going to give you a serious answer to this statement.

1  Such behaviour on the part of any employer could be challenged under the Equality Act 2010. It is discriminatory.

2  Such behaviour could be challenged on Health and Safety grounds. It is potentially damaging to the health and well-being of the women concerned.

What makes you think that your statement is true?

[Jack Knave]

Why dont you ask them?

I don't know any of them. Is it easy to join a union for all circumstances of employment?

[Jack Knave]

The post you replied to

Quote from: Hope on January 02, 2017, 09:04:48 PM
Sorry, HH, the main folk wearing them are women working in companies - such as the finance and insurance world - who have been told they have to wear them by their bosses, or risk losing their jobs.


Quote from Harrowby Hall
I am now going to give you a serious answer to this statement.

1  Such behaviour on the part of any employer could be challenged under the Equality Act 2010. It is discriminatory.

2  Such behaviour could be challenged on Health and Safety grounds. It is potentially damaging to the health and well-being of the women concerned.

What makes you think that your statement is true?

Which statement are you referring to?

[Nearly Sane]

Which statement are you referring to?

Hope's statement which is included in and referred to the post I just copied.

[Sebastian Toe]

Is it easy to join a union for all circumstances of employment?

All? I dont know. Most , fairly easy.

[Hope]

All? I dont know. Most , fairly easy.

I believe that it is problematic if the employer refuses to allow union representatives onto the property, and time for workers to go to meet such reps. 

[Nearly Sane]

I believe that it is problematic if the employer refuses to allow union representatives onto the property, and time for workers to go to meet such reps.

Can we have evidence for your claim earlier as challenged by Harrowby Hall?

[Hope]

1  Such behaviour on the part of any employer could be challenged under the Equality Act 2010. It is discriminatory.

2  Such behaviour could be challenged on Health and Safety grounds. It is potentially damaging to the health and well-being of the women concerned.

There was case back in the summer at a London firm (financial, iirc) where a temp was asked to leave, and the agency was told by the firm that they expected the women they sent to abide by a certain dress code - which included heels.  Whether it has ever gone to tribunal, I don't know, but ... .

After a quick hunt, here is one media report from the Guardian - http://bit.ly/1YlEq5B

[Nearly Sane]

There was case back in the summer at a London firm (financial, iirc) where a temp was asked to leave, and the agency was told by the firm that they expected the women they sent to abide by a certain dress code - which included heels.  Whether it has ever gone to tribunal, I don't know, but ... .

After a quick hunt, here is one media report from the Guardian - http://bit.ly/1YlEq5B

Yes, this has already been covered. It is not support for your statement.

[Harrowby Hall]

Sorry, HH, the main folk wearing them are women working in companies - such as the finance and insurance world - who have been told they have to wear them by their bosses, or risk losing their jobs.

There was case back in the summer at a London firm (financial, iirc) where a temp was asked to leave, and the agency was told by the firm that they expected the women they sent to abide by a certain dress code - which included heels.  Whether it has ever gone to tribunal, I don't know, but ... .

Spot the inconsistency between these two statements.

Hint

... the main folk wearing them are women working in companies ... - implication: there are lots of such women.

... there was case back in the summer --- - implication: there was a solitary incident.
 

[Jack Knave]

All? I dont know. Most , fairly easy.

All as in all types of jobs and employment.

[Jack Knave]

Hope's statement which is included in and referred to the post I just copied.

I'm not Hope. You said 'your' implying me JK.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not Hope. You said 'your' implying me JK.

No, I quoted (in quotes) the bit from Harrowby Hall's post that you had replied to and added in (Hope) in brackets to point out that it referred to Hope's statement. 

[Sebastian Toe]

All as in all types of jobs and employment.

Not all. There are some jobs which have legislative restrictions I believe. But generally speaking, yes.

[Jack Knave]

No, I quoted (in quotes) the bit from Harrowby Hall's post that you had replied to and added in (Hope) in brackets to point out that it referred to Hope's statement.

But my reply wasn't there with that lot in your post so I don't know what you are referring to and I'm not searching back in the thread to find it. So you either furnish me with what I said, including the #number, or decease with this farce.