Soldato
Why do people post things in forums when they don't have a clue?
https://www.gov.uk/taking-sick-leave
"If an employee is ill just before or during their holiday, they can take it as sick leave instead."
https://www.gov.uk/taking-sick-leave
"If an employee is ill just before or during their holiday, they can take it as sick leave instead."
2 isn't great tbh, the ratings are :
I tend to not eat in anything less than a 4 if I can help it.
Hell, we do mobile hospitality catering for up to 200 covers out of the back of a converted articulated lorry and have a 5* rating...its not that hard to achieve
Err, it's your right as an employee...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
which is why I don't understand why the UK loves buffets.
I mean if you own a restaurant and you don't do a buffet, you get constant phone calls asking "do you do a buffet?".
you can guarantee any buffet will have had at least several people at it before you that haven't washed their hands in a while but also scratched their genitals, backside, etc.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
he's right though. especially if your employer has very strict sick absence policies in place.
i'd rather take the annual than call in a sick day for something minor.
He's not right at all, and being bed ridden for a week of your annual leave is not minor. It is the employers responsibility that the employee take enough time off work, for rest and recuperation, and being ill while off on holiday is not rest, hence they have the right to claim the holiday back.
I've actually done this for more than one employee over the years, when I found out they had been ill while off, since they didn't know about it. If your employer isn't happy about it then you don't have a very good employer tbh.
Unless you get lots of people complaining from different days/not connected to each other the chances of getting anywhere are slim to none really. If there were a lot of complaints against the place you'd have far more traction for any kind of compensation.
Had a minor instance of some kind of food poisoning earlier in the week
got home in the early hours of Monday morning and was comedy barfing like on Family Guy for 3-4 hours
It isn't hard to achieve at all you just need people that give a **** and have half a brain.
Had a minor instance of some kind of food poisoning earlier in the week
got home in the early hours of Monday morning and was comedy barfing like on Family Guy for 3-4 hours It isn't hard to achieve at all you just need people that give a **** and have half a brain.
Soldato
No, he's not right at all. Just because people are ignorant it doesn't change an employees statutory rights.
Soldato
Tbf the place I worked the checks would be done but not always written down. I'd do the monthly sign off and come across the odd empty box so I'd just fill it in with a "within range" figure.
We always got a 5 star rating on inspection anyhow.
Associate
When I had food poisoning (November 4th to 6th, 2008) I had eaten nothing out of my normal routine and I could think of nothing that I had done that deviated from my normal hygiene behaviour. If though I had happened to go out for a meal just before the symptoms got going I would naturally, and erroneously, think that had been the cause.
Last edited:
Soldato
Personally I think anything under 3 should mean closure of the business
Getting a 3 should mean the business is on notice for random no-notice spot checks for the next 2 years.
4 should be the absolute minimum to be left alone till next check.
Soldato
Squit through their letterbox ?
Soldato
2* that posh compared to the place I ate at last weekend, just found out today that it has been given a zero on it last recent check. Boak.
I got food poisoning from a Wagamama in Hampstead, unpleasant. They had 5 stars,so I was unlucky or someone hadn't cleaned something. Obviously, not gonna go back to that branch.
Then again, the whole food rating thing does feel a bit symbolic, nice gesture but a bit empty. Most places fill the paperwork out and close to inspection time give a deep clean.
My favourite place does a wicked dinner and his rating is a 3, but he openly admits that he couldn't give a toss since the paperwork is an utter waste of time, since if something tragically were to go wrong the paperwork/logs would be disregarded in any case.
His open kitchen is spotless, Has a roaring trade. Then again, a lot of that is personal touch.
Then again, the whole food rating thing does feel a bit symbolic, nice gesture but a bit empty. Most places fill the paperwork out and close to inspection time give a deep clean.
My favourite place does a wicked dinner and his rating is a 3, but he openly admits that he couldn't give a toss since the paperwork is an utter waste of time, since if something tragically were to go wrong the paperwork/logs would be disregarded in any case.
His open kitchen is spotless, Has a roaring trade. Then again, a lot of that is personal touch.
Last edited:
Like I said earlier the cleanliness of the kitchen is often irrelevant, as the most common tranmission is from workers or other diners. There's also no possible way to know you got food poisoning from there, incubation periods can range from an hour to 90 days for different kinds of food borne illnesses.
Obviously there's a higher chance of getting ill if somewhere has a zero rating but for a chain like Wagamama's they're going to be pretty damn strict.
Exactly. Could be anything from drinking from a can of coke that was improperly stored or a carrot you ate a month ago.
Totally agree with you. I put it down to bad timing and a universal joke.
Personally, I don't see the scores thing lasting much longer, with budget at councils stretched.
A chain must have 5 stars as they have the resources. An independent 3 is my minimum.
Soldato
A bad case of cultural appropriation there.
Oh really. You don't want to know what we used to call corner shops run by Asians when we were kids then.
Funnily enough I was just asking myself the same thing.
You'll actually find that if you have less than 2 years service you can be dismissed for taking it as sick leave.
For all intents and purposes this means that as long as no discrimination has occurred you can be dismissed without reason. Taking a week off sick would at many places of employment lead to dismissal in the early phases of employment, taking a weeks leave and then turning around and asking for it off as sick instead would come across as taking the **** by many employers like it or not.
Regardless, this is the reality for many unfortunately.
Last edited:
I personally wouldn't want to risk it where I work, they would happy let me take back the leave and it would be completely fine. But if I was ill again for a few more days within a year someone would need to consider taking action which could lead to a warning and so on. Last thing you want is to get a reputation for being unreliable or worse be sacked if you get a run of bad luck of mild illness like flu etc.
Soldato
False. Completely and utterly false.