Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
All this arty farty poncy la de da bloody human rights and what not.
Why should the fire service have to accommodate an employee that isn't fit for purpose, as contractors we all know if you can't do the job, you don't GET the job (or at least not for long).
If you're a fire fighter you should be able to do your job.
[Edit: Chantho beat me to it] The only argument here is that the fire service were lax in letting it get to this stage. Maybe a quick " 'ere Dave you look like you could do with cutting down on the pies, too many marshmellows on the picket lines eh?" a year or so earlier would have helped!
Leave a comment: