Government Cutbacks

[Lee54]

I thought you had to a government approved contractor to work in Schools, well that what they told me when asked to register.

 

If they're volunteering, they're not working.

 

Any person completing a task of a tradesman at a Government building or any development that has Government backing must be pre approved by the DTI.

[ai_Droid]

Any person completing a task of a tradesman at a Government building or any development that has Government backing must be pre approved by the DTI.

 

Cock.

[Lee54]

What happened to protecting jobs, or is sod you mate I'm OK.

 

It seems crazy for the taxpayer to pay someone to do something that someone else is willing and (crucially) able to do for free. We've developed a culture where everything can be bought for a monetary price, but little or no value is assigned to the work done by volunteers. The social and economic value that could be unlocked by more fully leveraging the talents existing within communities for their own benefit is immense, and is a worthier aim for government than job protection.

 

But its OK for the taxpayer to bail out, Banks and the likes and protect the many jobs in the finance industry that would have been lost. Why not replace a lot of the jobs within the finance industry and save money, transfer the offices to India and China.

And what about all the crying the Taxi Drivers done when the Goverrment wanted to make it a open market.

[Lee54]

Any person completing a task of a tradesman at a Government building or any development that has Government backing must be pre approved by the DTI.

 

Cock.

 

If painting is listed here http://www.gov.im/dti/construction/ then the rules apply, it is also covered under H&S regulations for hazardous materials.

[rallybug]

Any person completing a task of a tradesman at a Government building or any development that has Government backing must be pre approved by the DTI.

 

Cock.

 

Indeed - I helped out on emptying, cleaning and re-painting up at the grandstand before last year's TT. There's a budget, and if the budget won't stretch to paying a tradesman's fee for slapping some paint up, then asking for volunteers isn't a bad idea. And does being a Government-approved contractor mean that their work will necessarily be any better than some kid's mum and dad?

[Skeddan]

Where do you stop.

Why not get the parents to come in after work and do the cleaning of the schools. you know the mess the kids make.

Then at the weekend turn up and cut the grass, mark the pitches out ect.

 

Would you like someone to turn up at your place of work and volunteer to do a job you do for no money at all and put your job at risk, I doubt it.

The amount of posts that have been made complaining about eastern block workers doing locals out of jobs and the many replies of complaint you lot made, well double standards maybe apply.

'get the parents to...' - They are being asked to volunteer, not made to do this. If they want to volunteer to help out with the soccer team or hockey or whatever, why not? The issue is when it involves health and safety, presents risk to kids etc. and possibly if unions threaten action which would end up being more costly.

 

What about lifeboats, civil defence etc. Are these unacceptable? What about offenders sentenced to 'community service'? Volunteers in charities? Someone who picks up a bit of litter from the beach and puts it in a bin? 'BAN THEM!'?

 

I don't see how you could seriously expect the state to ban voluntary work - isn't that a matter of individual choice?

 

Migrant workers in paid employment is not the same as voluntary workers and community work.

 

You don't seem to be stupid enough to be able to take your own statements seriously, and seem to just want to make provocative comments which you don't seriously believe for the sake of it.

 

Stop being a troll.

[Declan]

Skeddan we don't play "soccer" in the Isle of Man.

[Slim]

If painting is listed here http://www.gov.im/dti/construction/ then the rules apply, it is also covered under H&S regulations for hazardous materials.

 

They are all based on employment, not volunteering. This is a good idea, and you have no argument against it, give it up.

 

But its OK for the taxpayer to bail out, Banks and the likes and protect the many jobs in the finance industry that would have been lost. Why not replace a lot of the jobs within the finance industry and save money, transfer the offices to India and China.

And what about all the crying the Taxi Drivers done when the Goverrment wanted to make it a open market.

 

When has the manx taxpayer bailed out banks or behaved to protect financial sector jobs? Please provide me with a specific example, ta. It's like saying an accountant would get upset because the PTA get one of the dads to tot up the kitty after a car boot sale.

 

Taxi Drivers? Can't you see the difference between volunteering and employment? Are you that dim? Next you'll be sensationally claiming B&Q is stealing decorators jobs by selling non tradesmen paint.

[WilDDog]

Lee54, are you a painter by any chance?

[Lee54]

Lee54, are you a painter by any chance?

 

No chance, been employed by same employer for over 30 years, full pension and lump sum retirement payment, so I could retire now and offer my services to another employer for half what I'm paid now, and reduce costs for them and still be doing very well.

 

Slim wrote

When has the manx taxpayer bailed out banks or behaved to protect financial sector jobs? Please provide me with a specific example, ta. It's like saying an accountant would get upset because the PTA get one of the dads to tot up the kitty after a car boot sale.

I did not say Manx taxpayer, but the taxpayer has bailed out RBS which own IOM Bank, The Manx Government are paying the bill to take legal action out against KSF. The Manx Government have bailed out the MEA more costs to the tax payer.

Like most that I guess post on the forums are employed or are connected to the finance industry, are it would be interesting to know what feelings they would have if all of a sudden their jobs were being cut or reduced, as their employers could have it done cheaper by moving offshore or just bring foreign in and replace local staff.

 

Nothing wrong with parents helping out at school as long as it does not have the potential to effect another persons job. getting involved with sports day, trips out and fairs ect, yes they are OK. But why do the BOE employ painters, joiners, electricians, plumbers,cleaners and gardeners at the tax payers expense if we have so many volunteers amongst you.

How many of you parents have volunteered to clean the toilets out at you child's school just so the school can save a few quid

[Gladys]

Yes, but that was not the reason for your original gripe.

[Stavros]

I'll not go down the road of right or wrong. All I would suggest is that if any member of the public that wishes to volunteer for this kind of work with the school should check first to ensure that there is adequate insurance in place with the school for volunteers.

 

I've read the comment by Pragmatopian "although I would imagine that the type of people who would volunteer to help paint their community's school would not be 'where there's blame there's a claim' filth." But this could be a different situation if someone was to fall off a step ladder whilst painting a classroom and suffer an injury that prevented them from being able to work at their own employment and be able to buy things such as their children's school uniform.

 

The point I would like to make is feel free to volunteer but please check that adequate insurance is in place beforehand. Some employers' liability policies exclude volunteers and it would be difficult to argue that it should be covered by the public liability insurance if you were being "used" / "employed" on a volunteer basis (without pay!) If there is a public liability policy in place which is not a compulsory insurance such as employers liabilty.

 

This advice would also apply to the school because they could find themselves faced with a personal injury claim. Just because there isn't an insurance policy in place does not mean that they would not be liable for any injuries or subsequent claims.

 

Stav.

[Pragmatopian]

I've read the comment by Pragmatopian "although I would imagine that the type of people who would volunteer to help paint their community's school would not be 'where there's blame there's a claim' filth." But this could be a different situation if someone was to fall off a step ladder whilst painting a classroom and suffer an injury that prevented them from being able to work at their own employment and be able to buy things such as their children's school uniform.

 

I'm reminded of a lecture I attended by the then Master of the Rolls (now Senior Law Lord) Lord Phillips on tort law. He was bemoaning the fact that, in many circumstances, the law now essentially prevents people from choosing to take risks by mandating the acceptance of liability by others - as a result, many opportunities are denied to us because those deemed responsible are scared that they'll be sued. He felt that the UK had gone too far towards US levels of litigiousness.

 

Someone falling off a ladder and getting injured is unfortunate, but (in the absence of someone pushing you off) I'd argue it's nobody's fault.

 

[Edited - hadn't noticed Lord Phillips became Senior Law Lord on 1 Oct this year and the Lord Chief Justice is now (rather appropriately) Lord Judge]

[manshimajin]

Someone falling off a ladder and getting injured is unfortunate, but (in the absence of someone pushing you off) I'd argue it's nobody's fault.

Not even the fault of the person on the ladder? Certainly their misfortune!

[Gladys]

Some employers' liability policies exclude volunteers and it would be difficult to argue that it should be covered by the public liability insurance if you were being "used" / "employed" on a volunteer basis (without pay!) If there is a public liability policy in place which is not a compulsory insurance such as employers liabilty.

Are you sure about that Stav? I would have thought this would not be covered by any employers' liability policy as that is a statutory insurance to cover the employers' liability to his employees. Volunteers are, patently, not employees. More likely to be covered under public liability or occupiers liability insurance. Either way, you are right, you should check.