MPDTT

Wrestlemania 6:

Vince screaming "It's champion Vs champion, it's title for title, it's the ultimate challenge, it's Wrestlemania!"

That was enough!

On 8/28/2020 at 11:10 PM, LazyMcLopez said:

You're unlikely to have any option but to go into the office or leave the job unfortunately. You barely have any rights in the first 2 years of employment unless you can show that your treatment is unfair because it disadvantages you as a result of you being part of a protected category (disability, ethnic minority, religion etc.) 

The government is about to launch a campaign encouraging people to return to the office and threatening that they may be easier to sack if they work from home, so unfortunately things are not looking encouraging for workers wanting to work from home unless it's also something the employer is keen on. 

Under 2 years, you are right. As I said in the 'work' thread, the Government will want people back in their places of work, so are unlikely to put more power in the hands of employees in this regard. Further, I believe employers will easily be able to reject flexible working applications from people wanting to work permanently at home (if they so choose) - using the 'detrimental impact on quality' or 'detrimental impact on performance' justifications allowed under the ACAS code. 

If you have under 2 years service and you feel you are being discriminated against due to a protected characteristic, then you could in theory quit and bring a tribunal claim if the flexible working request being rejected, just as someone with 2 years service can. However, anyone considering a tribunal claim for a flexible working request being rejected needs to consider if they can afford to ditch their job and wait for a case to get to tribunal - which will probably be early 2022 at the earliest given the backlog in cases brought about by the pandemic - that's a long time to go without an income. So, for the majority of employees who find themselves having flexible working requests to WFH rejected by their employers, I think they will just have to lump it.  

49 minutes ago, CavemanLynn said:

Like most stats, that headline's only part of the story. That 120k is the threshold to get into the top 1%. I'd imagine it's a pretty steep curve after that. It'd be interesting to see what percentage of UK total earnings the top 1% actually account for, and what percentage of UK GDP they're responsible for.

You are right. In the same article, it states:

"To be halfway up the 1 per cent pecking order and make the 99.5th percentile required an income of £236,625."

So it does indeed become very steep thereafter.

2 minutes ago, Linus said:

That's EIGHT years on minimum wage. Fuck that 1%.

I appreciate its a big number.....I just thought the top 1% would earn something like £500k+

Today I learned that the salary required to be considered in the "top 1%" is much lower than I'd have thought.

"There are about 540,000 people in the top 1 per cent income bracket across the UK and that requires £120,000 a year"

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-7357395/Who-1-Britain-one-them.html

14 minutes ago, King Coconut said:

Let's not pretend that this isn't the crux of it from an employer's perspective, but it's HR paranoia to assume that work that's carried out remotely can't be monitored. 

Your cafes and tapas bars would also probably boom with the increase in colleagues meeting up to touch base over a cappachoochoo. 

It really is not HR's paranoia. It may be Operation's paranoia, but not HR's - who have long since argued that people are managed by output, not working time. Set clear deliverable and performance manage people against them.

And on your cafe's and tapas bars comment, I really don't think that would be the case. Central London would be a ghost town and millions of jobs reliant on commuters would be lost.

21 minutes ago, johnnyboy said:

...for their mates who want their rental income.

Tell that to the third of Pret's workforce who are about to lose their jobs.

Removing picture in picture segments really hurt this weeks show for me. But when last in the US I watched a couple of episodes on TNT and found picture in picture annoying in it's own right. I think Fite's usual coverage is the best possible experience and so worth the money. 

Loved the Dark Order stuff. Anna Jay is going to becone a star in this role. Also, sign Tay Conti - those 2 will be money!

I'm so invested in MJF / Moxley. But I think Moxley retains this time. I have this suspicion that despite of what Hangman did, I don't see him turning heal - Omega and the Bucks will end up as the heals after Omega turns on Hangman at All Out after they drop the belts to FTR. I really want to see the return of The Cleaner now - it has been hinted at for months and my prefence would be for him to do so and get massive heat by taking out Hangman. I'd love to see them build towards a rematch of Moxley / Omega at Full Gear 2, minus the 'lights out' stipulation - Putting the belt on Omega and having Hangman return and chase Omega for the belt and ultimately beat him for it.

If they do put the tag belts on FTR at All Out, they really can't put the Bucks / FTR match off much longer - certainly no later than Full Gear in November.

One of the opportunities I'm exploring currently is our ability to reduce our office footprint across the UK and Europe by introducing more flexibility around work from home. By introducing an optional 2 day work from home policy and moving to a more agile working environment with no assigned desks, we think we can reduce our footprint by at least 20% whilst also having a positive impact on diversity and access to a wider pool of talent.

We ran a survey on this for our London office employees this week and had over 200 respondees. Interestingly, while folks liked the potential for a 2 day WFH policy, there was a strong sense of negativity towards a move assigning teams to particular areas or zones, rather than assigning an individual to a certain desk - but I think that is indicative of the significant cultural shift that we need to sell the virtues of to its employee base.

We do remain committed to the need for a signifiant office presence and for employees to attend at least 3 days per week for many reasons, including: culture, community & team integration, team innovation and problem solving, performance monitoring and trust, onboarding and mentoring / development of new & developing employees.

I really do get why the government is 'bricking it' in regards to a move towards home working - a substantial shift resulting in less commuting will have a massive impact on the economy, with millions of jobs in city centres built around the office worker at risk - bars, cafes, dry cleaners, shops, restaurants - all rely on us for their income. I'm really not surprised by the governments push to get everyone back to the office - I think they have concluded that the cost of permanant shift to mass homeworking is just too high and they'll want to ensure we all go physically back to our places of work. I almost wonder if legislation will be coming to protect employers from claims in this regard.

That said, one benefit I see from such a shift is a dramatic reduction in the cost of office space in city centres, specifically central London. That would be benefical to start ups and entrepreneurs - and christ we need those to flourish over the next few years!

I've been back in the office a week now - and must say I'm so glad to be there! I've missed the social interaction, Wasabi's Chicken Katsu Curry and over priced pints from All Bar One!

24 minutes ago, patiirc said:

 

As for me, promoted again, national job. This year is going a bit mental. Sake!

 

Congratulations on the promotion!

2 hours ago, Bellenda Carlisle said:

What music do you listen to? 

Mainly rock, indie and chill-out. 

1 hour ago, Carbomb said:

All this talk of speakers on a wrestling forum and no mention of JBL?

I have a JBL Xtreme! Great for the garden!

49 minutes ago, Chris B said:

What are you basing this on? Based on a lot of what I've seen online, a lot of organisations are reporting higher productivity and job satisfaction with people working from home - at least, this seems to be the discussions happening. Has this been the case with what you've seen as well?

Asking partly because what I've seen anecdotally - in my organisation, productivity has been WAY up and has helped the organisation during a difficult time (including paycuts across the board). However, recently, the CEO has started getting antsy about how much people are online, and encouraging managers to check if people are showing as available/away etc on Teams. In much the same way, the same CEO used to occasionally get antsy about whether or not people were in and out of the office at certain times (he was a morning person), and would discourage working from home.

If it'd been left to him, we'd never have been able to test working from home to the level we have, and not seen the positive benefits from it. However, as with many organisations, we're at the whim of his feelings, and he feels like if he can't see good behaviour in person, people must be taking the piss.

This idea of 'doing our best work' strikes me like similar things. Belief from HR leaders doesn't often fill me with optimism, as I've often seen it involve a lack of trust of employees, and a lot of measurements that don't actually mean much. 

Background note - I've worked for an international people management / leadership organisation in the past, so I've become far more cynical towards the entire thing. There's an inherent distrust of employees, particularly young ones, while refusing to acknowledge failings that actually engender distrust. 

There was a great article recently on this in the Wall Street Journal called "Companies Start to Think Remote Work Isn’t So Great After All". Unfortunately I can't share it with you as it's behind a pay wall. Still, I've found this chap on Youtube has added a full discussion video on the contents. Note that I've not watched this through.

Just now, Keith Houchen said:

This is a scenario where unions and employers will hopefully be collectively progressive. Covid has changed the whole landscape. 

I agree. 

Incredible how they have turned the Dark Order into something of interest in such a short period of time. And the TNT title definitely feels like a big deal. 

I'd also like to add, from an employers side, that we are concerned about a wave of home working flexible working applications post-covid. In fact, its the subject of most discussion amongst my network. I think a lot of organisations are trying to figure out what culture they want after Covid - as employees will want more flexibility in regards to work location - but at the same time the employer may well want a certain degree of attendance in the office. From my company's point of view, we are preparing a policy that allows for 2 days working from home per week for all employees - but we will resist flexible working requests for 4 or 5 days per week working from home - we believe we do our best work when together and interacting with our colleagues and therefore not having that presence will be detrimental to quality of output and ultimately performance - so we are trying to meet our employees half way. I'd also be concerned about the floodgates issue - setting a precedent, as you suggest your employer has already said to you, would really worry me as an HR leader. 

So I agree with Keith - speak to your union. However, I share the above because I do believe your employer will have justifiable grounds to reject a request to work from home 4 days out of 5 (assuming you are a full time employee) and I think if they have suggested you only need to be in the office 3 days out of 5, then that is, in my view, extremely reasonable. 

One thing that could help you, however, is to ask to be referred to Occupational Health - if the company gets a medical assessment from a doctor recommending that your working arrangements be adapted in this way, then your company may be more agreeable to at least try it on a temporary basis.  

Hi Tommy,

Sorry to hear you are unwell. You are looking to submit a flexible working application to work from home. You should submit a formal flexible working application in writing as per your company policy. They will meet with you to discuss it and then the company is legally obliged to come back to you with a decision within 3 months.

By law, there are only specific reasons the company can use as grounds to reject such a request, they are:

• It will cost your business too much
• The company cannot reorganise the work among other staff
• The company cannot recruit more staff
• There will be a negative effect on quality
• There will be a negative effect on the business’ ability to meet customer demand
• There will be a negative effect on performance
• There’s not enough work for the employee to do when they’ve requested to work
• There are planned changes to the business, for example, intentions to restructure that will not fit with the proposal.

Many organisations don't want to consider flexible working applications currently due to not being in a state of 'business as usual', but you have the right to request it and get a response within 3 months. 

I suggest you read up on your rights on flexible working applications on the ACAS website: https://www.acas.org.uk/making-a-flexible-working-request

2 hours ago, Rossman said:

Recently switched my seperates to go more vintage with a new amp. Technics SU3500

 

Manufactured in the late 70s, works well and has a lovely warm sound.

Usually listen to vinyl, my turntable is a 1981 Luxman PD-277. Refurbished in Poland with a wider plinth. Then I added a Shure M75ED cartridge to complete the original sound.

 

I have a set of Mission floor speakers which my mate gave me. They don't sound much different to a set of book shelf ones I was also given. That's the next thing I would like to upgrade.

@Rossman that looks amazing. My Hi-Fi is a reasonably modern one and I don't have an interest in Vinyl, so no record player. Made up of various Cambridge Audio Azur models + Monitor Audio BR2s. The whole system must be at least 10 years old by now, but it still looks and sounds great. Annoyingly however, the DAB tuner doesn't support DAB+.   

33 minutes ago, Tommy! said:

Double post ~

To be clear that's 85k per institution not per product I believe, so having two 80k pots with one bank only covers 85k, not 160k.

 

Correct. Anyone fortunate to have more that 85k in one institution should move some. 

25 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

There's little to be said for moving money about each year too. That's a fiddly process. In my case, it will involve new apps and log-ins on my phone, etc.

Assuming he's able to put aside the maximum £4000 a year, hallicks will get a bonus of £1000 to bring him to £5000. What's 1% of that? £50. He'd be getting around £20 anyway. If he's saving for a house deposit, then I presume he'll want to be spending his money within the next couple of years. We're not talking long-term compounding of anything extra he can obtain now. Is all the fuss of moving in year two worth it for £30 more than he'd have got anyway? Ultimately, it's an insignificant amount in view of what he'll have to be saving and what he'll need for a deposit.

Right now, you are correct. Interest rates are derisory and for most types of accounts not worth considering - an account is simply somewhere to store your money. Longer term, hopefully interest rates rise - but given the national debt, I'm not holding my breath. 

I do move my savings from time to time, usually annually, in the same way I move my insurances, broadband, TV or energy provider etc - all these institutions count on the customer not switching so they can offer worse terms to those being loyal - to the detriment of the consumer. Each individual switch might not be worth big money - but they all add up.   

38 minutes ago, gmoney said:

No.that isn't quite true, you're not charged and extra 25%, you are effectively losing more than the bonus, but it's not an extra 25%. 

From the money saving expert:

Imagine you saved £1,000 by April 2021 and so got a £250 bonus (due in May). So you'll have £1,250 total (ignoring interest, for ease). If you withdrew it in June, and closed the account, the 25% penalty would be £312.50. So you'd get £937.50 back.

The way the maths works out is withdrawing for reasons other than buying your first home or retirement loses you 6.25% of what you contributed.

Also, until April 2021, the penalty is only 20%, which means you would only lose the bonus. 

I hope you don't do HR at an accountancy firm!

You're right, I am wrong, I misunderstood - my apologies.  

The old Help To Buy ISA was a better product (closed in 2019 I think), because there was no penalty on withdrawal - just loss of bonus.

If I had paid more attention at school I may have gone into Finance - numbers are supposedly easier to manage than people! 

Hi @hallicks. They are great products, but a word of warning - if something unforeseen happens and you need to withdraw the money for any reason other than buying a house, you will sacrifice the bonus in full (fair enough), but the thieving tax man will also scalp 25% of your whole pot if you withdraw before aged 60 - and I think that's daylight robbery!

I'd encourage you to read more on MoneyFacts: https://moneyfacts.co.uk/isa/lifetime-isas/. Moneyfacts do a really useful weekly newsletter on all savings accounts that is also incredibly useful to ensure you get the best interest rates.

A quick look shows Skipton's Lifetime ISA is only paying 0.35% interest, but Moneybox does one at 1.1% and Nottingham BS does one at 1.05%. 

https://www.moneyboxapp.com/cash-lifetime-isa-2-3/

All these accounts are protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, so the first £85,000 of savings per person is protected by the government - meaning it doesn't matter if you go with a major institution or a provider who is more obscure. 

Whichever one you open, use MoneyFacts to keep an eye on the interest rates and consider switching on an annual basis to the account with the highest interest - but don't do so within a year when a bonus is applied - for example the MoneyBox account is paying 1.1%, of which 0.6% is a bonus paid after 12 months of opening. 

I hope that helps. 

Loads of Off Topic threads on various genres of music, but I see none on Hi-Fi kit. 

I've been loyal to Cambridge Audio separates since the early 2000's and same goes for Wharfedale speakers. I'm thinking of adding a network streamer so I can play from Spotify in the highest quality possible - thing is, this equipment costs a fortune! Cambridge Audio's network streamers range from £800 (CXN V2) - £1300 (AZUR 851N). Anyone got any experience with Network Streamers? Are they worth the money?

52 minutes ago, SuperBacon said:

They've had 5 incredible albums since then, Koi No Yokan probably being my favourite.

I honestly think they're the best band in the world. 

I give that award to Rise Against. But I'm going to go back and have a listen to some Deftones. 

5 hours ago, SuperBacon said:

2020 is saved as the best band in the world return with a banger. Wasn't expecting an almost stoner rock riff from this, but I am very pleased with it.

 

What a surprise - I didn't know about this. Deftones have not been on my radar since White Pony, but this is catchy.