The apprentice has been hired because the contractor has turned out to be a waste of space.The contractor doesn’t even work with the workforce any more and the contractor has turned down at least one job with another company.HarryCharltonsCat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 8:51 amHardly comparable is it. I doubt those shareholders turn up and pay to watch you work every weekend. If they did, they might wonder why, when there was a job for your highest paid contractor to do, you chose to hire an apprentice to do it instead.lo36789 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:16 pmYep. Burn could really want to play but we want him off the wage bill and are forcing him out effectively. That he hasn’t found anywhere else is perhaps unfortunate but I wouldn’t expect him to quit otherwise.
Nobody knows the reason and the reason I reference the Richards article is that it’s not helpful to make accusations otherwise.
If we could find somewhere to take him and we pay the difference in wages that might end up being the compromise - again does anyone expect him to just walk away despite being contracted.
In all my years of knowing contractors at work never have I known one walk away before their term is up, even if they have nothing to do, unless they have another contract to go to.
And I am not sure in those circumstances the shareholders received ongoing news on the contract situation of each employee.
I for one don’t require any further clarity about the contractor.