Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Not paying the minimum wage.; Named and shamed
Topic Started: Jan 15 2015, 08:59 AM (907 Views)
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I suspect this list is the tip of the iceberg:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-names-and-shames-37-national-minimum-wage-offenders

•Kings Group LLP, Hertfordshire, neglected to pay £53,808.91 to 53 workers
•Kings Group Lettings LLP, Hertfordshire, neglected to pay £26,893.43 to 49 workers
•Chi Yip Group Ltd, Middleton, neglected to pay £15,566.78 to 13 workers
•Kingsclere Nurseries Ltd trading as Abacus Day Nursery, Newbury, neglected to pay £12,904.19 to 8 workers.
•Ms Thap Thi Ly trading as Sweet N Sour, Fleetwood, neglected to pay £11,039.14 to 2 workers
•Michael Kearney trading as Electrical Estimates, Ceredigion, neglected to pay £5,557.91 to 4 workers
•ABC Early Learning and Childcare Centre UK Ltd, Wolverhampton, neglected to pay £5,329.25 to 68 workers
•C J Hartley Ltd trading as Headwork, Sheffield, neglected to pay £4,762.64 to 4 workers
•Mrs Kelly Jayne Lockley trading as Diva Hair Design, Walsall, neglected to pay £4,103.65 to a worker
•Browncow Tanning Ltd trading as Fake Bake Hair & Beauty Boutique, Glasgow, neglected to pay £3,406.66 to 2 workers
•J Wood Joiners & Builders Ltd, Edinburgh, neglected to pay £3,373.19 to 4 workers
•Louise Ross Trading as Luxe Salon, Leeds, neglected to pay £3,368.13 to a worker
•H&M Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd, London, neglected to pay £2,604.87 to 540 workers
•Building Projects Ltd, Dundee, neglected to pay £2,345.85 to 3 workers
•David A Farrer Ltd, Morecambe, neglected to pay £2,261.00 to a worker
•Julian’s Hair Salon Ltd, Newbury, neglected to pay £2,131.35 to a worker
•Motorists Discount Store Ltd trading as TMS Autoparts, Manchester, neglected to pay £2,025.19 to a worker
•Ms Dawn Platts trading as Level 2 Hair Studio, Barnsley, neglected to pay £1,186.89 to a worker
•Myers and Family Ltd, Wakefield, neglected to pay £1.598.82 to a worker
•Welcome Break Holdings Ltd, Newport Pagnell, neglected to pay £1,318.70 to 19 workers
•Callum Austin Ltd trading as Jason Austin Hairdressers, Kettering, neglected to pay £1,899.66 to 2 workers
•Mrs Karen Riley Trading as Crave, Preston, neglected to pay £1,179.09 to 7 workers
•RPM Performance Rally World Ltd, Maldon, neglected to pay £998.71 to a worker
•Ego Hair & Beauty (Anglia) Ltd, Colchester, neglected to pay £985.55 to a worker
•Mr Jinit Shah trading as Crystal Financial Solutions, Middlesex, neglected to pay £941.65 to a worker
•Counted4 Community Interest Company, Sunderland, neglected to pay £930.73 to a worker
•HAE Automotive Services Ltd, Harrogate (ceased trading), neglected to pay £798.16 to a worker
•Vision on Digital Ltd, Ossett, neglected to pay £683.86 to a worker
•Ultimate Care UK Ltd, Ipswich, neglected to pay £613.79 to 7 workers
•Century Motors (Sheffield) Ltd, Sheffield, neglected to pay £571.72 to a worker
•Mr D Eastwell & Mr G Brinkler trading as The Salon, Letchworth Garden City, neglected to pay £409.85 to a worker
•Rumble (Bedworth) Ltd, Nuneaton, neglected to pay £404.41 to a worker
•Shannons Ltd, Worthing neglected to pay £313.76 to a worker
•Holmes Cleaning Company, Worksop neglected to pay £240.48 to a worker
•Learnplay Foundation Ltd, West Bromwich, neglected to pay £224.73 to a worker
•Adrien Mackenzie trading as Maverick Models, Manchester, neglected to pay £205.52 to a worker
•QW Security Ltd, Hartlepool, neglected to pay £126.20 to a worker

The 37 cases named today were thoroughly investigated by HM Revenue and Customs after workers made complaints to the free and confidential Pay and Work Rights Helpline.

The scheme was revised in October 2013 to make it simpler to name and shame employers that do not comply with minimum wage rules.
Edited by papasmurf, Jan 15 2015, 09:00 AM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lazy copy and paste, where are the informed comments. Where is the references to those companies who now pay "The Living Wage".
Mr Smurf you feed yourself on every tidbit to fuel your dogma and waste bandwidth. I see no reasoned analysis.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 15 2015, 10:46 AM
Lazy copy and paste,
I have to do that RJD you won't read references. It is a name and shame policy from government, for once a policy I am happy to assist with.
If you wish to start a thread about companies who pay the living wage please feel free because that is not the topic of this thread.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 15 2015, 10:52 AM
RJD
Jan 15 2015, 10:46 AM
Lazy copy and paste,
I have to do that RJD you won't read references. It is a name and shame policy from government, for once a policy I am happy to assist with.
If you wish to start a thread about companies who pay the living wage please feel free because that is not the topic of this thread.
I think I have told you at least a dozen times that what is expected is some contribution from your analysis of the situation, your synopsis. What is it you do not understand that a 14 year old can? Any fool can copy and paste, what is needed is what they call these days is "your take on the situation". Your whinging is a big bore.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 15 2015, 11:13 AM
I think I have told you at least a dozen times that what is expected is some contribution from your analysis of the situation, your synopsis.


You never do that RJD all you ever do is quote Torygraph opinions.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 15 2015, 11:34 AM
RJD
Jan 15 2015, 11:13 AM
I think I have told you at least a dozen times that what is expected is some contribution from your analysis of the situation, your synopsis.


You never do that RJD all you ever do is quote Torygraph opinions.
Wrong again, I use a range of sources, but I avoid the Morning Star, Daily Worker and the Big Issue.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
I see no evidence that this is the tip of an iceberg. While it might be foolish to presume this is most of the cases it still needs to be kept in context. An average of 0.6p per worker in the UK and that over a number of years.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 15 2015, 12:28 PM
I see no evidence that this is the tip of an iceberg.
I do, not enough staff to carry out inspections and enforcement.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alberich
Member Avatar
Alberich
[ *  *  * ]
If firms are found to have been paying less than the minimum wage (which is a legal requirement) then prosecute them, and fine them heavily. What's the problem?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Strange you didn't mention Ed Miliband's Doncaster council.
Miliband's council doesn't pay the living wage.

When Cameron mentioned Miliband's council doesn't pay the living wage. Miliband's face was priceless.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The directors of any company found not to be paying NMW should be banned from any company governance role for 10 years.

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Jan 15 2015, 01:13 PM
Strange you didn't mention Ed Miliband's Doncaster council.
This thread is about the minimum wage, not the living wage. (I would also take care bringing up who is not paying the living wage, or I will be forced to mention Iain Duncan Smith and contract workers at DWP HQ.)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Alberich
Jan 15 2015, 01:01 PM
If firms are found to have been paying less than the minimum wage (which is a legal requirement) then prosecute them, and fine them heavily. What's the problem?
Or if you know of an Employer who is abusing employees by paying them less than the NMW or not applying necessary condition for employment then report them to the Authorities. How many companies have been found guilty of paying less than the NMW>? How many have reported they are now paying more than The Living Wage? The latter one is the new tip of an emerging iceberg where large household name Employers have paid and do pay more than the NMW.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Living Wage Employers
Employers found: 1129
Please use the filter below to refine your search by Region.
To download a PDF list of all Living Wage Employers by Region click here
Please be patient, this may take a moment.

They even have their own web-site: http://www.livingwage.org.uk/employers

Here is a few from the top of the list where top starts with the letter "a":
Academy House Service
Advice Direct Scotland
Aequitas Consulting
AIT Partnership Group Ltd
Argyle Street Housing Cooperative
Ark Academy (Brent)
Arup
ASH Scotland
Attic Removals
Attic Storage
BCD Travel
Belfast Cleaning Society Limited
Breadshare CIC
Bristol Pound CIC
Brook Young People

Look closely you will find most of the Banks and even Goldman Sachs, mind you I think they pay multiples of the NMW even to Cleaners if they will double up as Traders during the lunch break.

These companies should be applauded as they are paying more than the NMW.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ten firms in the 'A' category, five in 'B' (already @ 'r'), so the indication is - not many ... and not the ACME corporation.

Posted Image
Edited by Affa, Jan 15 2015, 05:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 15 2015, 03:37 PM
Living Wage Employers
This thread is not about those though RJD, start a thread about it, if it bothers you that much.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
As Labour introduced the NMW, I would be interested in how many firms were fined when Labour were in power?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Jan 15 2015, 06:26 PM
As Labour introduced the NMW, I would be interested in how many firms were fined when Labour were in power?
Not many for which New Labour should be ashamed. (I can't find a history of it but he first prosecution was not until 2007. )
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 15 2015, 10:46 AM
Lazy copy and paste, where are the informed comments. Where is the references to those companies who now pay "The Living Wage".
Mr Smurf you feed yourself on every tidbit to fuel your dogma and waste bandwidth. I see no reasoned analysis.
It would perhaps have been nice if you'd roundly condemned these firms for flouting the law of the land but instead you go after the person who brought these skinflints to your attention! ;D

After all shit firms like thiese undercut decent rivals by ignoring the regulations, and in my first hand experience of these fly by night businesses the money saved tends to go straight into the owners pockets and not into improving the viability of the firm.

A cut and dried version of shooting the messenger methinks!

File under a poor attempt at a distraction.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Jan 15 2015, 06:26 PM
As Labour introduced the NMW, I would be interested in how many firms were fined when Labour were in power?
Find out and tell us then!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 15 2015, 09:58 PM

It would perhaps have been nice if you'd roundly condemned these firms for flouting the law of the land
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 15 2015, 10:01 PM
jaguar
Jan 15 2015, 06:26 PM
As Labour introduced the NMW, I would be interested in how many firms were fined when Labour were in power?
Find out and tell us then!

Waiting .........

Not that it matters too much because living standards were rising, and unemployment falling in the first five years of the MW - removing the scope for those that would cheat the system 'if they could'.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 15 2015, 10:01 PM
jaguar
Jan 15 2015, 06:26 PM
As Labour introduced the NMW, I would be interested in how many firms were fined when Labour were in power?
Find out and tell us then!
I suspect a more relevant point of reality would be the answer to. If there are those who are prepared to flout the law and pay below the M/wage, how much lower would they (and those who do pay the M/wage) be paying if there was no M/wage?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 16 2015, 10:49 AM
Tigger
Jan 15 2015, 10:01 PM
jaguar
Jan 15 2015, 06:26 PM
As Labour introduced the NMW, I would be interested in how many firms were fined when Labour were in power?
Find out and tell us then!
I suspect a more relevant point of reality would be the answer to. If there are those who are prepared to flout the law and pay below the M/wage, how much lower would they (and those who do pay the M/wage) be paying if there was no M/wage?
Probably a fair bit lower. You can have full employment or a NMW set above the sellable price of our less able workers in the world market but not both.

The NMW should set the level at which a worker can either just walk out of a job or decline a job and receive no DWP sanction. Then the market will sort it out (and benefits should ensure no one is too poor)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 12:39 PM


receive no DWP sanction.
That would mean a change to the benefit rules that just is not going to happen.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 16 2015, 12:41 PM
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 12:39 PM


receive no DWP sanction.
That would mean a change to the benefit rules that just is not going to happen.
Well you're probably right because nowadays politicians would rather someone lives in social isolation misery than have a job with low pay showing the result of their own policy failures.

Still should happen because having so many unemployed is our biggest and enduring national disgrace.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 12:46 PM


Still should happen because having so many unemployed is our biggest and enduring national disgrace.
Currently and historically, tell a boss which orifice to stick their job up and rock up to the "dole office" expecting to be able to get a penny piece in benefits will fail. The default position is you are lying and your boss is as pure as the driven snow and you have made yourself intentionally unemployed.
It will take a tribunal to get any benefit, which used to be free, but thanks to the current shower in power you now have to pay for it. (And it isn't cheap.)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 16 2015, 12:54 PM
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 12:46 PM


Still should happen because having so many unemployed is our biggest and enduring national disgrace.
Currently and historically, tell a boss which orifice to stick their job up and rock up to the "dole office" expecting to be able to get a penny piece in benefits will fail. The default position is you are lying and your boss is as pure as the driven snow and you have made yourself intentionally unemployed.
It will take a tribunal to get any benefit, which used to be free, but thanks to the current shower in power you now have to pay for it. (And it isn't cheap.)
OK but that's the point I am making. Stop insisting that a boss MUST pay the NMW and instead let them know that if they drop below NMW they have to inform the DWP and also that their workforce can walk out and get JSA instead anytime they like

The harsh truths are (a) that many jobs don't exist because they are unsustainable at NMW, (b) that a would be second earner in a household might be very glad of 20 hours work at £5 an hour and (c) we have 2 million unemployed.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 01:11 PM


The harsh truths are (a) that many jobs don't exist because they are unsustainable at NMW, (b)
Care to attempt to back that up with some evidence please.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 16 2015, 01:13 PM
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 01:11 PM


The harsh truths are (a) that many jobs don't exist because they are unsustainable at NMW, (b)
Care to attempt to back that up with some evidence please.
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/cadbury-new-threat-move-bournville-7942801
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 01:37 PM
No mention of the minimum wage, I was asking for a reference to research to back up you contention. (I would be waiting a long time which was why I asked.)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 16 2015, 01:44 PM
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 01:37 PM
No mention of the minimum wage, I was asking for a reference to research to back up you contention. (I would be waiting a long time which was why I asked.)
Yes it wasn't the best reference (I was in a hurry, still am). It was clearly showing that labour costs will drive jobs overseas.

This is a better one:

http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Manufacturing/Minimum-wage-rise-will-drive-jobs-overseas


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 02:59 PM
No it isn't a reference to research to back up your contention.
If you can find any research to back your contention up you will be searching for a long time.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 16 2015, 03:02 PM
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 02:59 PM
No it isn't a reference to research to back up your contention.
If you can find any research to back your contention up you will be searching for a long time.
All research is sponsored by the Low Pay Unit you say?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 12:46 PM


Still should happen because having so many unemployed is our biggest and enduring national disgrace.


As I have stated, there are lots of jobs to be done. It is not for lack of requirement that there are so many unemployed - it is entirely from a lack of financial resources.

Another reminder - the introduction of the MW had the opposite effect of that imagined. Unemployment was substantially reduced.

If there is are negatives to raising the MW these are modest price increases and one rarely touched on ........ it would encourage, invite, more economic migrants.

Of the top, and without analysis, if say the MW went up £2 ph ...... a nominal increase of say £80 to the outlet per employee at McDonalds ..... something like £400 -500 pw. On a turnover of £15,000 pw that is a 2.6% - 3.3% increase. Something like 10 -12 p on the price of a Burger, fries and a coke if the business is to recover the loss.

I'd say the numerous benefits far outweigh the modest price rise for customers.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 01:11 PM

The harsh truths are (a) that many jobs don't exist because they are unsustainable at NMW,


A job that pays substantially less than unemployment benefit/dole money is not a job imo.
It is exploitation, and government should act to prevent it - the MW does that.

It is because the MW has lost ground that the Welfare bill for in-work benefits has increased.
It's not all the fault of immigrants, it is more from lower standards of living ...... and do understand that low wages means a loss of consumer spending which hurts business, reduces profits and market opportunities on a grand scale.

The CBI has made similar comments ...... but Austerity it is, and austerity it will be if George is to remain.






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 03:09 PM
All research is sponsored by the Low Pay Unit you say?
No it wasn't and isn't.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 16 2015, 05:46 PM
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 12:46 PM


Still should happen because having so many unemployed is our biggest and enduring national disgrace.


As I have stated, there are lots of jobs to be done. It is not for lack of requirement that there are so many unemployed - it is entirely from a lack of financial resources.

Another reminder - the introduction of the MW had the opposite effect of that imagined. Unemployment was substantially reduced.

If there is are negatives to raising the MW these are modest price increases and one rarely touched on ........ it would encourage, invite, more economic migrants. . . .
The truth is the NMW was introduced at a time when unemployment was already going down. I could and will just as easily argue it would have gone down further were it not for the NMW.
Quote:
 

Of the top, and without analysis, if say the MW went up £2 ph ...... a nominal increase of say £80 to the outlet per employee at McDonalds ..... something like £400 -500 pw. On a turnover of £15,000 pw that is a 2.6% - 3.3% increase. Something like 10 -12 p on the price of a Burger, fries and a coke if the business is to recover the loss.

I'd say the numerous benefits far outweigh the modest price rise for customers.

And just where is that extra money to come from? It would come from them spending less on other goods so no net benefit.

You say it is a lack of money that causes unemployment, no it is not. Seems people have plenty of money when we imported £34Billion of goods in November. That is over £500 for every man, woman and child in the UK because in a huge part they choose to buy imports from countries where the wages are less. Try asking the man in the street if he's prefer a 42inch LED TV from Taiwan or a 22inch LCD TV from the UK for the same money.

Affa
Jan 16 2015, 06:03 PM
A job that pays substantially less than unemployment benefit/dole money is not a job imo.
It is exploitation, and government should act to prevent it - the MW does that. . .

Forgive me for being blunt but that sentiment is plain evil.

If someone wants to take a job at £5 an hour for a little extra cash and someone else is happy to pay that but can't afford more then you want that transaction to be made illegal. And that's because the government doesn't want to be embarrassed at its failure to address the causes of low pay. That's beyond patronising, they and you want to victimise the less able so the well off don't have to gaze upon the lower paid

We should be protecting the less able from victimisation and actively embarrassing the hell out of those that'd use the NMW to keep the less able out of sight, work, identity, purpose etc

Here's a sobering read for you: Unemployed young people "falling apart"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 16 2015, 07:37 PM
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 03:09 PM
All research is sponsored by the Low Pay Unit you say?
No it wasn't and isn't.
Well I got sick of finding research that was and had clearly been guided to be 'on message'
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 07:52 PM


If someone wants to take a job at £5 an hour for a little extra cash and someone else is happy to pay that but can't afford more then you want that transaction to be made illegal.

The 'can't afford to pay more' is what I was referring to earlier ........... and because he decides he can't afford to pay more, the job doesn't get done?
Of course he could get the job done if he upped his own returns (a little), but the priority is never 'can I do better if I set more staff on', it is 'can I get away without hiring more staff'.

I got annoyed in TESCO earlier in the week - mid-day, and there were six or more queuing at every check-out, the few that were open. The manager was even directing shoppers with baskets to the cigarette desk. There was panic, and very quickly more check-out ailse where opened, men in ties, back-office staff, anyone he could get it seemed.
A month ago this outlet introduced self scanning where shoppers scanned their shopping as they walked around, and simply settled the bill at a self check station (the onus on trust), with no staff (other than a single monitor watching proceedings) involved -- a policy of reducing staff numbers.

One pretty young girl was brought in from the beauty salon, seconded, and I'm not even sure she was a Tesco employee or from a franchised business on the premises ......... bad times we live in!

Edited by Affa, Jan 16 2015, 08:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply