Re: Drivers and guards to be sacked.

["Tony Gatt" <baulko@tig.com.au>]

Nice to see Tezza is as accepting of criticism as he always was..

read on..

Tezza <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
399d582c$0$786$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:399d582c$0$786$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Tony Gatt" <baulko@tig.com.au> wrote in message
> 8niq0e$9pg$1@bugstomper.ihug.com.au">news:8niq0e$9pg$1@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
> > Ahhh, if they haven't been issued with the correct uniform, then the
> > employer has a responsibility, but if they have, and just won't wear it,
> I'd
> > be lining up the letters as well.
> >
> > Companies have policies, and dress standards are one of them.
> > (so are obeying signals but thats another story..)
>
> So, go past a signal at stop - no sack
> Wear wrong coloured material - sacked. Makes heaps of sense to me.

U take that one up with Cityrail. They are the ones still allowing
"dangerous drivers" to roam the rails, not me. I remember the days when a
serious "mistake" still landed you back in safeworking school for a
"refresher course". But the Olympics are coming, we cant upset that.

>
> >
> > Speaking as an employer..
> > If the individual refuses to wear the uniform prescribed, then he is
> indeed
> > saying that he doesn't wish to conform to the employers conditions and
> > therefore forfeits the right to his "livelihood". The unemployment
office
> do
> > not require a dress standard and he may well be more suited to that. If
he
> > wishes to remain employed, then it is my suggestion that he complies
with
> > the dress standard.
>
>
> Oh, as long as it's that important! Sack 'em all!
>

Uh huh. Nice to see you back Tezza.

Tony.