Why do the service industry get so many breaks

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119117581#Comment_119117581

Yes, thats along the lines of what I was thinking of. Cost of accommodation is probably deducted at source, as well.

Employers don't become their employees landlords. Can you imagine that before the RTB if someone was sacked and asked to leave?

dotsman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119117581#Comment_119117581

And do Google have a sex ban as well? Of course not.

You seem to think the employer can do what they want. That in itself is very debatable. But you are missing the even bigger question regarding "can they vs should they". You need to ask yourself - what sort of sick, twisted, horrible, vile cnut would implement such a rule.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119187922#Comment_119187922

What type of employer reserves staff quarters for staff only? The responsible type I would have thought.

I doubt the staff are forced to stay there against their will.

dotsman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119187986#Comment_119187986

Way to go on answering my questions!

Let me show you how by answering yours...

Firstly, it has nothing to do with "responsibility". I'm not sure how you would even think that.

In the case of Google and other good employers, it is simply a perk to attract staff. They offer very high wages and other attractive benefits, but still struggle to attract talent because Dublin has such an horrific reputation for accommodation. So these employers tend to offer new/temp staff accommodation (often for just the first few months etc), so the new/temp employee doesn't have to face the crisis of accommodation hunting while starting a new job.

On the other end of the scale, you have employers like the hotel mentioned in this thread. Here, the employer knows that the really low wages they pay make it very difficult for the employee to find accommodation. Add in the fact that most employees will be foreign and not have family homes or "an aunt they can stay with" nearby, and it can be essential for attracting staff. But, more importantly, it is essential for retaining staff. As not only their employer, but also their landlord, the business owner holds massive power over the employee, making it difficult for the employee to leave. Unfortunately, as is so often the case with power, it can be easily abused, as it is in this case, where the employer is enforcing a fcuked up, evil rule that demonstrates how they don't even consider their employee as a human with basic needs.

Why have you such an issue with this? Work staff rooms are for staff only, people leave their clothes/personal items in there. They usually have keypads on them which only the staff know the code of. This is for their safety, the public don’t go in there. This is staff quarters on the grounds of the hotel/employer, accommodation for staff only, why is this hard for you to understand? If the staff don’t like the arrangement, no one forces them to stay there.

dotsman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119188142#Comment_119188142

Are you really comparing a staff break room to a person's home???

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119188549#Comment_119188549

I’m comparing “staff only” areas in an effort to explain why the public is excluded, and why employers/other staff would expect only staff to be admitted.

Before I respond to any more of your posts, could I ask, do you understand what “staff only” means when you see it written on a door?

dotsman

Before I respond to any more of your posts, could I ask, do you understand what “staff only” means when you see it written on a door?

Yes

Now, before I respond to any more of your posts, could I ask, do you understand how a staff break room is very different to a person's home?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119188694#Comment_119188694

Of course I understand the difference, the question is though, do you understand what “staff only” means when applied to both? I’m really struggling to see, outside of a learning disability, why it is so difficult for you to comprehend that if a condition of staying in staff quarters is adherence to the “staff only” policy, that you think anyone other than staff are permitted to be there.

Mrs OBumble

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119187986#Comment_119187986

Ones who don't want their staff quarters used as a brothel is the short answer.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119188750#Comment_119188750

For good or ill that's quite conservative.

I had a colleague who was renting a room in Dublin from a Muslim married couple and they would not let him bring a girl back to the house.

Since I doubt these hoteliers frown on sex outside marriage (I could be wrong) I have to conclude that they simply see these staff quarters as different from a normal tenancy and see it is as their right to exercise a greater level of control over the property than a normal landlord.

That's fine but it ought to a sticking point in negotiations. For every disadvantage a tenant has they should insist on a discount to make up for it.

mazdamiatamx5

This is just the usual generic "someone else gets something I don't get" right wing crybaby whinge thread.

The legislation in our country is clear. Employees are legally entitled to breaks. There is no differential between employees in the services industry or those in other industries.

If people experience their employer breaching the law, then their grievance is with their employer or union rep. It is not with those working in other sectors who are getting their legally mandated breaks.

If entrepreneurs chose to work more hours than employees in order to build up a business, then that is their free choice. We live in a society of choices.

If you don't agree with the legal framework in my country, then you can emigrate to a country with a more lax regime (If you're of that view, I recommend Dubai, they have no labour protection legislation whatsoever. I think Sudan is similar. Dubai has a nicer lifestyle, if you're lucky enough to be from a white European background (if you're low caste Indian, you're screwed), but its buildings are even uglier than Sudan.) or alternatively lobby your TD to change the law.

dotsman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119188707#Comment_119188707

What sort of home has a "staff only" policy on it? What sort of landlord would want to implement such a ridiculous rule? Why should we tolerate this? You still haven't explained why a landlord should impose this rule.

Mrs OBumble

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189078#Comment_119189078

Liability.

The staff aren't choosing their own housemates. The employer is doing at least some vetting of other staff. But they cannot vet guests.

If a staff member gets raped, in the provided staff housing, by a random who another staff member brought into the house, then some people (especially parents of the assaulted staff member) would see the employer as responsible: they should have provided safe housing.

Yes, it happens. Especially among groups of young transient workers who need staff housing.

dotsman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189272#Comment_119189272

Is there any difference between this and a standard house share? Why is a landlord not liable in that scenario? Has there ever been a case that an employer-provided housing has resulted in the employer being held liable for the scenario you described?

I would seriously doubt it. As bad as our compo culture is, there would be a serious breakdown in common sense if the employer was held liable.

And exactly what vetting is the employer doing to ensure that a staff member won't rape their housemate?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189627#Comment_119189627

Yes, this is accommodation provided by an employer to employees only, it is a condition of occupation that you are an employee, the other is a tenancy covered by tenancy legislation, the tenants have exclusive use of the property. Was this not clear from the start?

dotsman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189768#Comment_119189768

<facepalm/>

Yes, that was clear. Yet has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Please try again.

veryangryman

Why do ye have to yoyo the arguments in a peaceful way so much? Just fight to the death and there'l be one less irritant