Yes, the government is looking for an easy solution, but you, too, flowerchild, are doing the same thing. Yes, not everyone on benefits is a scrounger, but many people - on and off benefits - were perfectly happy to vote in government after government that promised them easy solutions to difficult problems. Did any of these voters question these 'solutions'? Did they ever question the availability of easy credit while wages stagnated, for instance? Or were they just happy to live for today, just as the government is? Certainly the tabloids just want to stir up problems with their stories, but who buys these newspapers, or, otherwise said, who is it that keeps them in business? You say the government should be doing this, that, and the other thing. What about asking people to do things for themselves, too? No-one is forced to buy anything in Poundland, for instance, so if people want small shops to stay open, all they have to do is shun the big chains. They don't, though, do they? When the small businesses close down, they scream that it is all the government's fault. Some of the blame lies with the government, but some of the blame also lies with the people. The reason I even responded on this thread is that the woman who is suing the government really just gets to me. She has a dream, fine, but why does the government have to give it to her? Why can't she work at, say, a supermarket, while looking for jobs at a museum? She didn't say that there were no jobs, just that she wasn't in her dream job. She just wants everyone to pay for her dreams and I don't see why anyone should have to do so. Look, the government is made up of people and they are human; it's not sane to ask them to be some sort of gods. They will make mistakes, they will live for the short-term, they will do stupid things. It is wiser, therefore, not to put yourself entirely at the mercy of the government. People should work harder to improve themselves and their society.

The point is that she clearly only wanted to work in a museum. That was it. It didn't matter whether there were jobs available for her in museum: that is what she wanted and she wasn't willing to accept anything else. Now if she wasn't accepting money from taxpayers, then that would be fine; she can be as picky as she likes if she is footing the bill. She isn't footing the bill, however; she is expecting taxpayers to subsidise her until she finds her dream job and that just isn't right. It is rare, even in good economic times, for someone to find his dream job straight out of university. Most people have to accept something else and work towards their aspiration. That's just the way of the world. As I said before, you can't have everything you want and this woman needs to learn that lesson.

Well I hope she loses. I listened to the interview and it was clear that she only wanted to work in a museum and if she didn't get that, then she didn't want to work. I'm afraid that she is being too picky and she needs to learn that she isn't entitled to the job of her choice. She said that she had gained no relevant skills when she worked for Poundland; I agree, because she should have learned that she can't have everything her way and that would have been a valuable lesson. What gives her the right to demand that taxpayers subsidise her until she finds her dream job? She doesn't seem to realise that her JSA money doesn't get into her pocket by magic: other people have to get up and go to jobs - jobs that may very well not be their dream jobs - and work so that quite a bit of their money can be taken from them in taxes and given to ungrateful people like her. Instead of spending her time on lawsuits, she should be looking for work and doing everything she can to get a job, any job.

I am sorry, but I think it is a very bad idea to tell an already-depressed man that his relationship may be under threat. That will certainly lessen his stress, oh yes indeed it will. Maybe she should just send him a rope. The answer is to keep supporting him from a distance. Don't put any pressure on him. The original poster should make herself into a safe haven for her overworked partner. Let him know that she is there, and then talk about nice things, simple things. Send him care packages full of food or other things he likes. Send him short texts letting him know that she is thinking about him. Above all, she should NOT make this all about her. It's about him. He has problems and he is hoping they will go away if he just works hard enough. That's a typical human response. A compassionate response is to support him. Sooner or later he will realise he has a problem and seek help.

From what you have said, no, I don't think there is any discrimination. This just sounds as if it is a case of poor management. The managing director should have handled this differently; he should have taken into account all the work you have been doing. On the other hand, and I hate to tell you this, but, you, too, bear some responsibility here as you have taken it for 5 or 6 years. Perhaps the managing director didn't take your complaints seriously because you kept on doing all the tasks that weren't part of your job description. If the pay and the responsibility weren't to your liking, you should have said something years ago, and, if no-one listened or did anything about it, then you should have found another job and handed in your resignation. You might have found that the MD would have made you a better offer at that point and if he had not, you would have been covered. I don't know whether it is against the forum rules for me to say this, but I am only doing it to try to help you. You have been treated badly, but you also need to be more assertive. The best you can do is learn from the situation. And, who knows? Maybe once the company realises that you aren't coming back, then maybe it will begin to appreciate you and you might even get a call.

Good gosh, this sounds something like the plot for the film Glengarry Glen Ross! The whole sales team should get together and split the cost for legal advice as the company obviously wants to replace them with cheaper salesmen. They are trying to engineer a dismissal on the grounds of underperformance but they are going about it much too fast, and if your husband receives the right advice, he can turn it to his advantage. Don't wait for the company to make the next move. Get advice now!

Look, I understand that you want compassion, and that's fine, but if others are supposed to think of you, then have you thought of them? Many people work very hard and pay heavy taxes and see almost nothing for their tax many, save having their rubbish emptied once a fortnight. These people are forced by the full weight of the law to pay taxes that end up, among other places, in the pockets of those who pay nothing, and may have never, ever paid anything. Yes, you can say, these say they need help, and many of them do, but can you imagine how hard it is to be forced to help someone? People who work often need help, but for them, there is often none. Many of them, quite rightly think that if they could keep more of their own money, they could better overcome the problems they face. There it is, though, some of their money is in other people's pockets: it was taken from them by force and given to someone else, someone who didn't earn that money. Can't you see, just for one moment, how much resentment that can cause? People are not horrible or evil simply because they resent having their money - the money they worked for - taken off of them by force. If you say 'tough', I need that money more than they do, then tell me, how compassionate does that make you? And if you aren't compassionate, why should they be?

I don't know how much better off you would be financially at this moment, but instead of just thinking about now, you should think about the future. We are in the midst of a financial crisis. In my opinion, it is going to become much harder to obtain and live off benefits in the future. If you wait for the sword to fall, you will lose. If you take a minimum wage job now, you can use the experience gained to find a job earning more money in the future. You can make connections that can help you to find other jobs. You can be in a position where your survival won't depend upon the whims of the welfare state.

I think that you have to go. The whole point of the system is that you are supposed to be looking for work - or doing work-related training - pretty much all of the time. You aren't supposed to be busy with other things. It may not sound fair to you, but that's the way it is. Yes, you could try fighting the system, but sometimes, it's just not worth it. You have to weigh up the cost of the fight and the loss of benefits against whatever it is you are doing.

Tell your daughter not to worry about having been escorted off the premises. This sort of thing is typical for jobs that have access to sensitive data or computer systems. If your daughter's job included working with anything the company might think was sensitive or valuable, then it was only following good practice. I'm not saying that your daughter would have done anything, but companies do not wish to take the risk. As to being 2 months passed her review, well, companies run behind on these things. When there are scheduling problems, it seems that employee reviews are always the thing that get shoved into last place and that's probably what had happened in your daughter's case. The important thing for your daughter to do now is to look for other work. There is nothing she can do about getting this job back. It might help her to sit down and list all the things that happened in her former job - the things that were working out and the things that weren't - just to clear her mind, but that's all she can do. Your daughter might think that it is the end of the world, but it isn't; this is just a setback. She's young, she can overcome this.

Yes, I see what you are saying. You are saying that as you didn't suffer the same consequences as the others, that is, you weren't sent to prison but only fined, you shouldn't suffer the same consequences for the act all these years later. I understand that it seems unfair and, while I think the CRB system is unfair, I also think that you are misunderstanding the law. Forget the CRB stuff for a moment. In court, you were sentenced to a fine for aiding and abetting theft from a person. According to the law, that is the same as if you committed the crime yourself. The judge could have sent you to prison, but for whatever reason - and I'm not judging that reason or you, I'm just pointing it out - he didn't, and instead, fined you. The act, however, remains the same, and so does the conviction. The reasoning behind this, I suppose is that someone aiding and abetting a big crime, say, murder, should not receive an 'out' simply because he didn't actually do the crime himself; it's to prevent people from saying, for instance, 'You can't get me for anything to do with the murder as I only supplied the gun - I didn't shoot it.' I well appreciate that all this took place 18 years ago and it is very unfair that you are judged by it now. There is, however, nothing, absolutely nothing, you can do to change the record because the record isn't wrong. The best you can do, I'm afraid, is to look for another job in some field that doesn't require a CRB check and, at the same time, to work against the unfair system that means that people are penalised forever for mistakes in their youth.

Get legal advice. Now. Also, get a printout of the job advertisement. You can use it in your case against the company. You are going to have to fight an unfair dismissal case. Prepare yourself for it because it is going to get very dirty, I'm afraid. I know you are hoping it is going to work itself out, but it's not going to do so. As I said before, gather your documents, your witnesses, and anything else that can help your case.

It sounds as if, for some reason, the company you work for wants to get rid of you. Are there any problems for the business that would, perhaps, lead to it making someone redundant? If that is the case, the company may be trying to evade paying you redundancy by making it appear that it is dismissing you for supposed repeatedly bad conduct. There is no evidence of this, so the company is cooking it up. That's how it appears to me. You need to take legal advice tout de suite. You also need to find out which witnesses are willing to help you. You need to request any paperwork the company has on what it purports to be your 'conduct problems'. If you had been formally warned, you would have had to sign something, for example. Get together your bank statements to prove that no money has ever been deducted for shortfalls in payment collection. Find out everything you can, everything you need and get it together. Basically, you have to assume that you are going to have to fight an unlawful dismissal case. Prepare yourself for it now.

I used to suffer from this problem, too, in one of the flats where I lived. While I did not resolve the issue for other people facing this problem, I did manage to get the DCAs to leave me alone. At first I explained that I wasn't the person they were looking for and that I hadn't any idea where that person was. That didn't help. Neither did putting down the phone on them. I thought to myself, 'this is crazy because I've told them that they are chasing the wrong person and a quick look at the electoral register would confirm what I am saying.' So, I thought, if they act crazy, what happens if I act crazy? I treated the whole thing as if it were a game. When a DCA rang up, for instance, I told the person on the other end of the phone that I would be glad to help him, but first, would he mind saying hello to my little friend? Then I would press the button on a toy dragon I had been given and let it roar into the phone (it had an awesome roar). They went away for a while after that. When they started again, after about 6 months, I then just told them I needed to check something before answering them and put the phone to one side and went off and just did what I wanted to do, leaving them hanging on the line. They went away for several months. When they rang up again, I then reminded them of the draconian measures in the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1968. The act, I said, would mean that the caller would be imprisoned for a period of up to 5 years. It was being taken seriously by the authorities, I said. They went away after that and then I moved out of the place so I don't know if they ever started again. Pity, in a way, because I was all set to tell any DCA my theory, about how, having been reincarnated from a spider, I felt an urge to eat flies now and again and what did they think of that? The thing is, you can fight back. The DCAs want frightened, worried people on the other end of the line. If you cause them problems, then they will move on to someone who is intimidated by them. As I said, it doesn't solve the wider problem, but it will solve it for an individual.

That's good to hear, but when I reported it, the woman on the phone made it clear that if I gave too much information, it could get back to the person whom I had reported. That was 6 years ago, though, so things may have changed a bit.

I should have made it clear that I didn't really expect to be told the outcome. But I was surprised to have been told that I wasn't completely anonymous. If true, that is worrying for those who make reports in good faith.

That, unfortunately, is not what I was told when I reported someone. I was told not to provide any information that could lead back to me because the person I reported then might be told my name. Because of that, I didn't provide as much information as I could have done. Before anyone starts thinking I am a monster for reporting someone, it's not like that. I had sued the person - a sole trader - due to non-performance of contract. During the course of the suit, I found out that the person was claiming benefits and yet, at the same time, she admitted that she was still trading. She admitted these things in court to a judge. Furthermore, I found out, while trying to have papers served, that she was living at least part-time with a man, while, at the same time, claiming benefits as someone who was single. I decided that taxpayer fraud wasn't on and reported her. I don't know what investigations were held or what happened in that regard.

I really think you should consult with a solicitor who specialises in employment law. It may be that you were an employee, but I can't tell. Many solicitors will give a free half hour's consultation, and that may be enough for you to at least gain knowledge of your status so that you can proceed from there.

So how far is the other location from you? I appreciate that you feel that you have done nothing wrong and that your former line manager is the one who should be moved, but you have to face reality. The good news is that you have your job back. Given the state of the British economy, this is a very good thing indeed. Yes, you have good friends at your current location, but you have one great big enemy there, too, and that is your former line manager. There is probably no way that you can make the company move her to another department. I just can't see any tribunal coming down on your side: you have been re-instated and HR is trying to deal with the problem. As I said before, HR has to deal with the problems of 2 people: you and your former line manager. HR can probably come up with a business case that it was easier to move you than the manager. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see any way forward but for you to get a fresh start in a new department or for you to find a new job. Yes, it feels unfair to you, but sometimes you just have to make the best of what you have.

I'm confused. Are you trying to claim you are a partner or an employee? I thought you were saying you were an employee because you said that she called you an employee, provided tools and told you what to do and that the .gov website confirms that you meet the requirements to be considered an employee. Then, all of a sudden, you say that a solicitor has written to you to tell you that you don't have a partnership agreement. Also, did your employer - if that is what she was - tell you that she was giving up the business or did she sack you? Clarification is needed before anyone can give you advice.

Do you have any problems getting to the other site? If not, then perhaps it is a good thing that the company wants to move you. Look at the situation from HR's point of view. HR is trying to deal with the problems of two people: you and your former line manager. If HR separates the two of you, then the issues between you go away. You are given a fresh start in another department and your former line manager is given a fresh start with another employee. If, however, HR keeps you together, it will probably see problems come up because of the dismissal and re-instatement. HR may just feel that there is too much water under the bridge between you and your former line manager. If you won't suffer any inconvenience, if your pay and conditions stay the same or basically the same, it might be a good idea for you to write to HR and tell your contact there that you have re-considered and you will be glad to move. Think: which will be worse? Going back to the same department working under a line manager who will almost certainly be hostile to you or going to a new department and learning new procedures?

It looks as if you are going to have to take it on the chin, then. In the first year of employment (soon to be first two years of employment), the employer can dismiss you without any reason at all, as long as it is not discriminatory. As this is your first time off sick and not a reoccurring illness, you can't say that you have been discriminated against because of disability. Has your employer said that he is going to pay you for the time you have worked and any holiday time owing? What does your contract say about notice periods?

How long have you been employed? Are you self-employed? Is this your first time off sick or is this reoccurring illness?

It does perhaps depend upon what your contract says, as others have pointed out. In the current employment environment, however, I would think very carefully about relying on the small print. If company you work for is an otherwise good employer, then a little good will on your part might ensure that you have a job in the future. Can you get a lift from one of your co-workers to that other store? Can you ask your management whether there is anyone in that other store who would be willing to give you a lift, if, say, you chipped in for petrol? Can you get a lift from one of your relatives or friends. Is there some form of public transport available? It's only one week, so you might be able to come up with some short-term solution. If not, try to come up with something and tell your management what you have done to try to resolve the problem. What I am saying is that if the job is worth it to you, try to solve the problem rather than stubbornly declaring that you just don't want to go/can't go.

To be honest, I think you are overreacting a bit. Your manager sounds as if he was trying to help you when he warned you that if you can't get promoted, you will be made redundant. He was just trying to give you an off-record look at the situation in my opinion. If the situation is as the manager told you, then everyone else in marketing but you is being considered possibly for redundancy. It sounds as if your company values you and wants to find a way to keep you. Take that as a good sign and use it to your advantage. Instead of worrying about correct procedures at this point, concentrate on resolving the problem about the lack of communication with your managers. As well, work on getting that promotion. You're being given a hand up - take it.