Indigo Jo Blogs

BBC NEWS: EU stalemate on workers' rights

I heard this being discussed on the radio this morning, with a discussion on the Today programme between representatives of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Trades Union Congress (TUC); you can listen to it with this stream. I have considerable interest in this as I have been an agency worker for some time, having worked in both offices as a driver.

The CBI argued that this country has more agency workers than anywhere else in Europe, because agency workers offer flexibility to both workers and employers. My experience is that the flexibility is much more a benefit for employers, because they can sack someone for any reason they like, even after someone has been working there for months. I worked for a certain company for several months through the winter of 2002 and spring of 2003 until I took a week off for a family wedding in Ireland. The managers gave me every impression that I would be welcome back, but when I returned from Ireland I found that my job had been given away. There was nothing I could do about it and was out of work for weeks afterwards. The reason the foreman gave was that he did not like to keep agency drivers on for long, because they tended to "get their feet under the table".

I think a compromise should be reached so that the nature of agency work is preserved - people know when they start that they are there on a temporary basis, which is why it's called temping, and that when the occasion for their employment is over, so is their employment. I would, however, like to see more protection from unfair or capricious dismissal - and this for permanent workers as well, as they cannot sue for unfair dismissal until they have been employed for two years.

Posted by Indigo Jo at 9:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A few weeks ago, browsing the magazine shelves at Borders, which sells imported American magazines, I fell on a feminist magazine called Bitch, which had a feature on chain emails aimed at scaring women. They were about men using elaborate ruses to ensnare women, and the article launched into an analysis of why people send these stupid messages around. Their take on it is that these messages perpetuate the notion that women really need to stay indoors and not take any risks with their lives; that bad things happen to bad girls. A few examples of the messages are detailed in this page: CIAC Scare Chains.

Continue reading "The hoax in the hospital" »

Posted by Indigo Jo at 9:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Today's Independent has an article in its Green Pages (its regular section on environmentally-friendly living) by someone who has decided to stop cycling in London and start driving instead (page 41, John Miller, Two Wheels Deadly). First it was that Alsatian dog which was tethered next to his bike, which urinated on his panniers and damaged his wheels. Then it was the exposure to dangerous drivers, and finally the deterioration of the cycling infrastructure in his supposedly cycle-friendly home borough of Waltham Forest (in east London).

I feel somewhat qualified to address some of the points in this article, since I'm a regular cyclist and a professional driver. In my current job, which is in a distant part of London (Wealdstone), I have to cycle to New Malden station before getting two trains (or more usually three, because I get off at Wimbledon, get a coffee and get back on the train to Clapham Junction), and the actual job is mostly van driving. As I wrote here before, I had a very lucky escape at a roundabout on the main route to New Malden when I was hit by an old man who either did not notice me or thought he had priority because he had a more powerful vehicle. (He didn't - on a roundabout, you give way to the vehicle already on the roundabout unless road markings and signs suggest otherwise).

Where I disagree with this writer is his enthusiasm for the speed cameras which he says are being replaced by reminding devices, in which drivers are reminded of their present speed and to slow down rather than being "flashed" and fined:

One innovation on my local main roads is solar-powered advisory speed signs. If a driver's doing more than 30mph, they light up. Very pretty they are. But they don't deter speeding. Why should they? No camera, no fine. All it asks is that drivers be nice and respect the speed limit. And if they hit a cyclist, so what? The chances are that all they'll get is a charge of driving without due care and atteniton. ... Motoring law largely deals with the hypothetical circumstances, not its consequences.

I can't see how someone who is speeding and kills a cyclist can get off on a petty charge like that. That comes under causing death by dangerous driving, which routinely attracts prison sentences. But my real objection is that there are so many dangers for cyclists than mere speeding. The problem is reckless and dangerous driving.

For example, I've worked for numerous companies and had the dubious privelege of being driven around London (and other places) by their drivers. I was once sent out by a vehicle-hire company to deliver vans to companies, and the driver drove like a maniac and cut corners, by which I mean taking a corner wide by driving over the lines in the middle of the road. This is in fact more dangerous than speeding, as it could cause a head-on crash, or run down the cyclist who is in the middle of the road because he is going right or straight on. People are more tempted to do this on back roads, which have a lot of right-angle junctions and less traffic, which leads drivers to imagine that they can cut corners and speed safely. On another occasion I had to swerve to avoid a driver who turned right across my path in Tooting. Some people just don't look.

Speed cameras, on the other hand, often appear on main roads rather than these back streets. They smack not only of a money-making scheme, but also of the state getting its pound of flesh out of pettily disobedient subjects. They are often used to enforce too-low speed limits, like the 30mph speed limits in the Limehouse Tunnel in east London. In that tunnel, you have to concentrate if you want to keep the speed limit, which means you are likely to be watching the speedometer rather than the road. The last time I drove through it, nobody was keeping the speed limit (some were doing well over 40mph). And it's not an accident black-spot - I have heard of one serious accident which was caused by a young driver driving recklessly.

Speed cameras are used because they are an easy way of "solving the problem" of dangerous driving, but anyone who works in my profession will know that they are ineffective. They need to sort out the blatantly dangerous driving - the corner-cutting and rapid acceleration and braking, for example. They also need to stop drug driving. On one occasion I went out in a 16-tonne Volvo truck to deliver furniture to Essex, and the driver pulled over and rolled himself a joint as we headed up the main road past Chelmsford. Alhamdu lillah we got back in one piece, but his driving was noticeably impaired.

I'm not surprised that John Miller no longer feels able to cycle in London. Since my crash I cycle less than I used to, and am more apprehensive. I've never cycled in Waltham Forest, but the provision for cyclists south of the river isn't up to much either - in particular, crossing the six-lane A3 is particularly hazardous, particularly if you just want to go straight out of New Malden to Raynes Park. And yes, there is the problem of foliage growing over cycle routes and not being cut back. But I really don't see the benefits of speed cameras, as they don't tackle bad driving practices other than speeding.

Posted by Indigo Jo at 5:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's not often that I post personal stuff here, but I'm getting the impression that I've been discriminated against, although I don't think I'll find out until at least tomorrow (insha Allah).

Yesterday, out of the blue, a company to which I must have sent my CV after seeing their advert as a result of an email circular I'd signed up for, called me on my mobile. I'd forgotten that I'd sent my CV to them, but we arranged for me to visit them on Thursday for an interview. I said Thursday, because of some cash-flow problems I thought I'd have arising from the renewal of my web hosting contract this week (£82). Anyway, this morning, I got up and cycled in the pouring rain to the job in Raynes Park I did yesterday - only to be told that I wasn't needed, and apparently my agency hadn't got the message through.

Anyway, later on in the morning, I called that company back and asked them to re-arrange the interview, as I was now free (i.e. unemployed) for today, and might not be free on Thursday, as jobs come up day by day. They agreed, and we set the time for 4pm this afternoon.

Just before I went, I sent them a fax explaining that, for religious reasons, I was unable to shake hands with members of the opposite sex. This was to forestall any embarrassment or offence which might be caused by my refusing a handshake when it's offered. I set off some time after 2pm, which is more than enough time. I got to the office just before 4, and knocked on the door.

And there was nobody there. There was no sign of life at the office whatsoever, and the door was locked. I tried calling them again, but nobody answered. I hung around for about 20 minutes, asking the guy at reception if he knew why they might not be there. He didn't, although he did say they'd been in, as they'd got their mail. I called their number and left a message, asking them to call me back if they wanted to arrange another interview.

I then headed for the Apple Centre in Regent Street, where they have free internet access, to check if they'd sent me an email. They hadn't. So what happened? I'm pretty sure I didn't mis-hear or forget that they said 2pm rather than 4pm - I'm pretty sure it was indeed 4pm. It seems that either someone didn't pass on a message, or they got funny when I sent them that fax (which, by the way, did not say which religion, although they could probably guess). Still, I'm going to call them again tomorrow insha Allah, to see if I can re-arrange that interview. If it does turn out to be discrimination, I intend to name the company.

Posted by Indigo Jo at 10:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

This past week (as explained earlier) I've been doing a temporary job driving a minibus, transporting the severely mentally disabled of New Malden from their homes and care facilities to two day care and activity centres. It's been quite a sweet little job, and the hours vary but they have invariably been less than I work at other jobs. As far as I know, this doesn't mean I get paid less (although it might, given that agency workers cost employers more, hour for hour, than regular employees do).

When I first started, I found the van itself a bit of annoyance, but hey - vans almost always are. It's an Iveco "Turbo Daily" which was converted for its present purpose, so I hear. Vans always have their idiosyncrasies - like the radio which doesn't remember how loud it was the last time you switched it off, so you always have to turn up the volume whenever you switch the engine off (like whenever it stalls). It also has a lousy turning circle. However, you realise it's not so bad when you get to drive their old H-reg (that's like late 1980s, I think!) Ford Transit. My co-worker told me that a repairman once told him, after taking it for a ride, that the van had had some vandalism, and when the co-worker opened up the front, a young fox jumped out! So that's who'd been nibbling through the wiring!

My daily routine has involved bringing the "service users" in in the mornings, taking a group out from about 11, and then taking them home in the afternoon. The trips out are things like "rambles" by the River Thames at Walton or in the park (of which there are lots in our part of London - Richmond, Osterley, Bushy Park ...), supervised shopping or (as today) trips to a "sensory room", which is a room with dimmed lights and various amusements and soft furnishings, and these rooms are mainly for autistics. The care worker describes it as a "chill-out room".

The job isn't made any easier by the road works they are doing in the high street of New Malden. This is something that has Transport for London's stamp on it, which means it is a London project rather than a Kingston borough project, but it seems to involve narrowing the road to make way for a more generous pavement. Right now though, it involves trucks blocking half the road during the morning rush hour - bright idea, Ken. Worse, my co-worker told me he saw workmen breaking up new concrete kerb slabs and chucking them in the skip! Surely if the slabs are surplus to requirements, they should have got a refund. The centre itself is part of a bizarre one-way system on a road off the high street, and once you've gone round the block, you have to go out - you can't go back round the one-way system again. Then you've got to go left at the lights on the high street, down to the roundabout at the bottom of the high street. (Unless you fancy turning round in the road.)

The "service users" have a range of disabilities, although my co-worker told me there had been some who'd had nothing wrong with them at all - they were just institutionalised, having been dumped into the system for such reasons as being born out of wedlock, as in the case of one elderly lady who had died a couple of years back. (This sort of thing really makes my blood boil - people's whole lives being wasted in order to save other people embarrassment.) Many of them had been victims, sorry, patients of "long stay" hospitals, one of which he had described as an old-fashioned "Bedlam" type place. These were the sorts of people at whom the "care in the community" initiative under John Major's government was aimed, although it was caricatured as being the release of dangerous mental patients who then went on to kill people. They don't tell us much about what exactly is wrong with the "clients" for confidentiality reasons.

Posted by Indigo Jo at 12:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I've managed to come by a rather sweet temporary job with the local facilities for dealing with the learning disabled, which consists of (who'd have guessed!) driving them around. It basically involves driving them from their homes (which are normally care homes) to their day care facilities in the morning and back in the evening, and taking a group out in the late morning. I got it through an agency I re-activated my links with a couple of weeks back, after my usual agency (in Croydon) had failed to get me any work for a couple of weeks (leaving me badly short of cash). This is certainly an unusual job for me; my normal jobs involve goods, not people. A few years ago I was working for a commercial transit company on contract to Surrey County Council. For a length of time I can't remember now, I picked up severely learning-disabled children from various places in Surrey and took them to their schools around Leatherhead. Then there was some event which necessitated me picking up a group of kids with behavioural issues. On the second day, I told one of them to shut up when they were being too loud in the back of the van. The care worker told the company, and I was out of work that day. And this was after weeks of dealing with the severely disabled and there being no complaints at all.

The people here all fall into the "severely disabled" category. Many of them walk and talk, to varying degrees. A lot don't. They range in age from late teens to the younger end of elderly; they get sent to this department after finishing with the education system. I always go out with an escort (who used to be a driver, until he was stripped of his licence for reasons connected with his diabetes), and asked him how the "clients" or "service users" became the way they are. He told me that many of them had Down's Syndrome, and some were the victims of forceps deliveries that went wrong. Not many were disabled by accident. But a lot of them were middle-aged, and lived at home until their parents became too old to cope. The wise ones, he said, got their children used to living in residential care early, so it wouldn't be too much of a shock when they had to move in for good.

I have to say, this job reminds me of why I wouldn't like to work with the mentally disabled all the time. A few of them inspire sympathy and/or respect, like Janice, who is in her 40s, and has a calm and dignified air to her even though she cannot talk (she is in a wheelchair and can tread herself round in it), while others shout around her. She has said to have been a "service user" of this department since her early 30s. I enjoy being around her even though she cannot really do much. Others I find frustrating or even a bit frightening. Sometimes I'm looking for a patient (I can't get to calling them clients) in the unit, and I get some patient who isn't supervised asking me a question which I can't really understand. I gather she wants to know about who's driving her (or someone else) around this week or next. She's very nicely dressed, in a long denim skirt with flowers on it, and I've been told that she lives with her family who look after her very well.

The centre is basically a sheltered workshop combined with a treatment and activity centre, and the more able of them do craft work, the fruits of which they sell at the May Fair to raise money for the centre's outings. Some of them sit and listen to music and perhaps dance, while others have been known to make clothes. I saw a rather nice picture of various clients with the clothes they'd made, and the ladies tended to make rather nice, brightly coloured dresses. I asked the escort about one of the patients, who attended the centre in a bright purple velvet-effect dress, and he told me that several of the patients liked to dress up, that they had feelings just like any other adults, and many of them in fact had partners among the other patients.

I think I'm going to enjoy this job for the next week or two - it's nice to work with people rather than goods and on your own every so often. They are much better to work with than most of the driver's mates or construction site workers I've had to deal with on other jobs. But the work is still not a full eight hours' work, and I'm not sure if it'll be eight hours' pay either. I'll have to see, insha Allah, when I get my pay slip next Friday.

Posted by Indigo Jo at 9:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Not long back from attenting a "selection interview" for an IT recruitment agency in Tolworth. I've been looking for a proper job for ages, half-heartedly because I'm not very good at interviews and writing crap on job applications. I saw this ad in the Surrey Comet for this IT agency, offering to train people to be web designers or network engineers. So, given that computers are really my main interest now, I thought I'd call them up. I have to say, nothing about this company impresses me much. It's all Microsoft. The web design course is about ASP and .NET (who thought up that stupid name?), the database module is about SQL Server (by the way, if you're running a web service with my hosting company, MySQL costs £25 per year whereas SQL Server costs £15 per month, so you really should think of whether you need a SQL server database ...). Now, all this is lock-in technology - yes, Novell does a freely-available clone of .NET but how widely used is it?

The interviewer told me his company had gone the Microsoft route because the vast majority of the industry want that. Which begs the question, why is "the industry" spending loads of money on inferior, proprietary, lock-in technologies when there is stuff available for free? Linux is free, BSD is free, PHP is free, and there are web-service databases available for free. Windows costs money, particularly at the server level, and SQL Server costs a whole lot extra.

They also told me that the training would require a "contribution" of nearly £3,000, which is money I simply don't have right now. If I remember rightly, the money which my tuition at Kingston University cost my parents was less than that (and I don't want to ask them for that amount of money again), and that lasted a year rather than just a few weeks. They do say that they'll refund people's contributions if they don't get them a job within 60 days, but I wonder how many strings are attached. If the job they get me is with the defence or gambling industries, neither of which I'm prepared to work in for religious reasons, I'm sure they wouldn't refund my money.

Altogether I don't think I'm going to take them up on this offer.

Posted by Indigo Jo at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)