As people don’t appear to able to read or provide sensible answers, I’m out.

I haven’t seen anything from you yet that warrants a sensible answer.

donsimon – Does that work in the private sector too? Whenever an employee goes on holiday I can fire them? What happens when they’ve all been on holiday and nobody is left who works here? I’m confused.

I haven’t seen anything from you yet that warrants a sensible answer.

I can only assume these types of responses are coming from said gimps who are a tad nervous about being found out as being surplus.

I thought you’d already flounced on page 1?

See, that’s the problem with this place – anything you say can and will be used in evidence etc…….

Sorry.

As people don’t appear to able to read or provide sensible answers, I’m out.

bye bye xxx

I can only assume these types of responses are coming from said gimps who are a tad nervous about being found out as being surplus.

Everyone is surplus to requirements in one way or another. Was it not you that said that you were surplus to requirements on this thread?

don simple simon – Member

Which force are you on?

Do you mean police force (evidently nothing you say should be taken to mean what it says)?

If so, none of them.

Never mind ds, I’m sure it will be lots better after G4S have taken over. That nice Mr Cameron seems to think so.

Being allowed leave means they’re being allowed to chose to take one of their 25 days annual leave on Thursday.

It’s not extra time off.

Like any organisation or company, staffing levels are set to take account of the fact that each person will be absent for x days a year for their annual leave.

So suppose you need 10 policemen to cover town A every day. That means you’ll need to employ 11 so that there are still 10 on duty when each one is on leave. It doesn’t make the 11th officer surplus to requirements.

I don’t quite see what the problem is?

Do you mean police force (evidently nothing you say should be taken to mean what it says)?

WTF are you on about Kenny? The below is the text where you misrepresented what I said.

Well, you appear to be suggesting that any police officer who goes is surplus to requirements, despite having been told that those going are on their days off.

I wasn’t suggesting anything, I came straight out with it.
I certainly didn’t suggest that any officer who goes was surplus, but rather that some are.
And I’ve already shown that the source of the day off info came from someone else here and apologised for it.
Get away with you and your bizarre understandings, what I have said is perfectly clear and only interpreted by those with a strange outlook on life.
I’ll repeat, if a job can be done with less people, why should we pay for the dead weight? If the strike demonstration can show that outputs are not affected (bregante did say that people can go where staffing allows), in the police force or any other job (mine included), shouldn’t the dead weight be culled?
😆

I thought you had flounced? Your post seems to be contradictory to me. Feel free not to respond though, you stick to your guns.

Police forces also need surplus capacity so should be over staffed some days nothing happens some days they will have a football match at one end of town a riot at the other and a car crash in the middle.

I have no issue with the police protesting and marching through London they have just as much right to do so as the countryside Alliance the poll tax protestors the anti capitalists and students .

I certainly didn’t suggest that any officer who goes was surplus, but rather that some are.

But look what I found…

If the country doesn’t fall apart while they’re striking (they aren’t striking by the way, they’re either on a day off or on their annual leave. Striking is something altogether different- ask someone to show you how to google ‘striking’), I say they must be surplus to requirements and should be sacked.

And

If they’re not on the job, they’re not working. If they’re not working, sack the lazy gimps!

If they’re not on the job on a rest day or on leave they’re not working. If they’re not working on a rest day or leave, sack the lazy gimps!

I suggest that if they’ve been given the day off that this is the green light to getting rid as they’re clearly surplus to requirements

If you go to page one of this thread and scroll down you can look and see which star came out with all those gems.

I thought you had flounced?

You see, that’s what happens when you think too much, you can be wrong.

Your post seems to be contradictory to me

Where’s the contradiction?
Surplus gets sacked, simples.
If people are showing that they are surplus, they can and should be sacked in these austere times.
If they can afford the time on their days off, they can work a bit extra to help Team UK, during these austere times.
I’m out because I’m as bored of repeating it as I’m sure people are of reading it. If you can’t get your head round that a_a, is it any wonder the kids have no future?
EDIT:

If you go to page one of this thread and scroll down you can look and see which star came out with all those gems.

It’s nice that you went to all that trouble Kenny, and I can only assume that you support the idea of paying salaries to dead weight, good luck to you.

You see DS, what happens in the real grown up world is this:

Every adult in the u.k who is in paid employment (not self employed) is allowed a certain number of days off a year. Some people call them “holidays” but the emergency services tend to call it “annual leave” and you get a certain number of hours each year to take when staffing levels allow. if I ask for leave when the numbers do not allow it I can’t take leave, for example I am not allowed to take leave at all during this years Olympic games (and I have no problem with that whatsoever).

But you see, due to this silly “holiday” or “leave” entitlement, employers have to employ enough people to provide cover to allow for those holidays to take place. Does that make sense to you?

So for the final time. The officers attending the March in London on 10th May have taken a day of their own annual leave entitlement to attend.

And for what it’s worth, I’m not attending as staffing levels do not allow it.

It’s nice that you went to all that trouble Kenny

You’re welcome. It didn’t take me long.

and I can only assume that you support the idea of paying salaries to dead weight people having days off, good luck to you.

Thanks again, although I don’t think I’ll need any luck – the majority of the population agree with me that people should have days off from work now and again.

Debates powered by pure sexual frustration, don’t you have other half’s to drive mad?

Or hamsters to train 😆

You see DS, what happens in the real grown up world is this:

Every adult in the u.k who is in paid employment (not self employed) is allowed a certain number of days off a year. Some people call them “holidays” but the emergency services tend to call it “annual leave” and you get a certain number of hours each year to take when staffing levels allow. if I ask for leave when the numbers do not allow it I can’t take leave, for example I am not allowed to take leave at all during this years Olympic games (and I have no problem with that whatsoever).

But you see, due to this silly “holiday” or “leave” entitlement, employers have to employ enough people to provide cover to allow for those holidays to take place. Does that make sense to you?

So for the final time. The officers attending the March in London on 10th May have taken a day of their own annual leave entitlement to attend.

And for what it’s worth, I’m not attending as staffing levels do not allow it.
And would this be called attempted patronising? If you have forgotten it was you bregnte who said that people would be given leave if staffing levels allow. That to means that if 5 people are on the rosta and the boss feels the work can be done by 4, why should we pay for the fifth, let’s experiment. If you want a_a, our resident teacher can help you with the maths, wait a minute, scrap that idea…
Edit all you want kenny boy, it’s not going to change my opinion that there is dead weight and this dead weight should be got rid of.

And would this be called attempted patronising? If you have forgotten it was you bregnte who said that people would be given leave if staffing levels allow. That to means that if 5 people are on the rosta and the boss feels the work can be done by 4, why should we pay for the fifth, let’s experiment. If you want a_a, our resident teacher can help you with the maths, wait a minute, scrap that idea…
Edit all you want kenny boy, it’s not going to change my opinion that there is dead weight and this dead weight should be got rid of.

I’m not attempting to do anything DS. I am patronising you.

I am explaining the term “leave”. I honestly thought you were trolling. Obviously not. You clearly are very very stupid.

You clearly are very very stupid.

Clearly. 🙄
And the charge of stupidity, I will lay at your door and I expect you to accept with the grace it is given. I didn’t introduce the idea of staff being given free time where staffing levels allow, that was you dear boy (or possibly girl). If staffing levels allow staff to go on a jolly, that is a surplus. End.

it’s not going to change my opinion that there is dead weight and this dead weight should be got rid of.

That might well be true.

But you’re equating of that with some police officers going on a protest on their day off is some of the most hard-of-thinking reasoning I’ve ever seen.

Do you work don simon?

I’m not attending as staffing levels do not allow it I’m happy to let others do my protesting for me.

Bizzies eh? 😆

But you’re equating of that with some police officers going on a protest on their day off is some of the most hard-of-thinking reasoning I’ve ever seen.

But I haven’t done that, have I? I have said that

If staffing levels allow staff to go on a jolly, that is a surplus. End.

Do you work don simon?

I don’t see what that has to do with the question or my opinion, so it’s an irrelevant comment. Deal with the issue in hand.
Have you ever managed a business?

I’m not attending as staffing levels do not allow it I’m happy to let others do my protesting for me.
Bizzies eh?

Just holding the fort dd 😉

For decades the police have been the enforcement arm of the rich and powerful, whilst they line their pockets and pay working class people as little as possible.

These individuals have gone on strike and protested, the police have then been used to coerce, bully, attack and even hospitalize countless people. All at their masters bidding and all without so much as one question about it being right or wrong to do so.

Now it’s your time to be on the receiving end in terms of your quality of life being unfairly lowered and all of a sudden there is a big hoohaaa about it.

Sorry but what goes around comes around, on the bright side at least you now know exactly how it feels, being in the same boat as the rest of us 😆

where you misrepresented what I said.

You’ve had dealings with the Police in the UK then 😆

I don’t see what that has to do with the question or my opinion, so it’s an irrelevant comment question. Deal with the issue in hand.

No I don’t suppose you do yet. Are you afraid to answer it?

No I haven’t ever managed a business.

If it wasn’t for don simon, it’d be curtains for all of us.

No I don’t suppose you do yet.

😯

If it wasn’t for don simon, it’d be curtains for all of us.

😀

You’ve had dealings with the Police in the UK then

8)

If staffing levels allow staff to go on a jolly, that is a surplus. End.

If staffing levels allow some staff to take a days annual leave, out of their legal entitlement, is that a surplus?

😯 isn’t an answer. Do you work? Come on now, be brave and answer it.

If staffing levels allow some staff to take a days annual leave, out of their legal entitlement, is that a surplus?

Yes it is.
If their manager believed he needed to employ 5 people to get the work done and then decides that he can actually have the work done with only 4, how can that be anything but a surplus?
Do I work? Yes. Nothing about being brave, I don’t see the relevance.
Do you wear black shoes?

What if the manager knows that he needs 4 people to get the work done, and also knows that each of those 4 people will be legitimately absent from work for 25 days a year, leaving him with 3 people to do 4 people’s work for those 100 days. Would a competent manager not foresee this problem and recruit accordingly to cover this shortfall?

By your logic, the only way to avoid either a surplus of staff or a shortfall of staff is to employ exactly the number required to do the job then never allow them to take any leave.

Do I work? Yes. Nothing about being brave, I don’t see the relevance.

Good. Do you ever take time off, holiday if you like?

Yes I wear black shoes, sometimes.

kaesae,
they are not going to see what its like being on the receiving end though are they? they are not going to get held against their will in a ‘kettle’. they are not going to have agent-provocatuer enticing riot police to charge in. they are not going to get murdered in the street with little or no consequence. they are however going to be ignored and screwed over by the ruling elite just like the rest of us though.

Would a competent manager not foresee this problem and recruit accordingly to cover this shortfall?

Yes he would, and he’d probably recognise that having the a 4th person sitting on their ar5e for 265 other days might be considered a waste of resources, which is what you want, isn’t it?
Your example only needs to work for 100 days, no?
For 265 days the paid employee that you want is surplus.
That’s what I understand from your example.
EDIT: The example isn’t so good for the second part, but here goes, forgetting the number of cover days is 265 or 88,33 per person, which is alot. We now have a bit of overtime that Munque was looking for (sorry if it was someone else) to satisfy the shortfall.

Good. Do you ever take time off, holiday if you like?

Not often.

OK, so now I’m going to talk you through it again with some bigger numbers.

Say he needs 15 people there each day to get the work done.

Each of those 15 takes 25 days leave each year.

So for 15 x 25 = 375 days he only has 14 people coming to work.

So he needs to employ a 16th person to give him 15 people at work each day.

Unless he just has 15 and never allows them any leave.

I can’t simplify any more for you. It is very basic.

Not often.

Per haps you should.

I’m going to the pub now.

Toodle pip.