"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 15:08:02 on Sun, 24 Jul
2011, tim.... remarked:

Yes, we already know you are the employer from hell.

No you don't, because I am not an employer :-)

But even if I was, I am the sort of person who would be reasonable as
possible about such issues, but I still wouldn't consider the insistence
on
agreeing a flexible completion date as a valid reason for disrupting a,
months in advance, pre-planned shift system.

It's not a flexible date, but one that's firmly set at short notice.

It's flexible in the sense that you have willingly said to the vendor "I
can
do any day" rather than "It must be May 10, 11, 15, 16, 22, 23 etc".

No, it isn't like that. Picking a date is a compromise between what can be
quite a few people, as well as the availability of third parties (you
can't realistically complete between Xmas and New Year for example,
because not only are most solicitors closed, apparently none of the
lenders are open so you can't get the funds.

With rentals it's even more common to have only a couple of week's
notice.

How come? You get 2 months notice for having to leave. Even if you push
it
to a court order the court will give you some flexibility for the day to
move.

You have to find somewhere to move to (which is clearly much easier if the
last landlord gives you a reference along the lines of "I had to go to
court to evict him"). Finding somewhere isn't always easy, and can result
in quite a small window during which you have to move. As part of the
"employer unreasonableness" issue is whether the day in question is taken
as paid, paid leave, or unpaid leave, money can be an issue and not
everyone can afford to have a big overlap where you are paying two sets of
rent at once.

We're specifically talking about 45K pa employees here

tim