This makes him an odious person in my book!
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-06-16...e-staff-to-have-***-and-fire-those-who-refuse
He's a clip of the article:
"A plumbing company will introduce a mandatory requirement for all staff to have received a
Covid-19 vaccine and will fire staff who refuse without a valid reason. From 1 January, any employee of Pimlico Plumbers who has not received the vaccination will have their employment with the company terminated, unless they have a legitimate health reason as to why they can’t receive the vaccine".
I don't have a problem with that, but just note for a moment that he refers to 'his staff' and 'their employment'. I'll touch on that below.
As to 'no *** no job' during the pandemic, where tradesmen were going from house to house in the course of their work visiting often vulnerable householders in their homes, there was a grave risk that they could infect customers, with possible fatal consequences. It became mandatory for care home workers to be vaccinated or dismissed, and some were dismissed.
The very last place I'd have expected anti--vaxxers was the NHS, but sadly, the guy below was just, one of 80,000 who despite working with elderly and vulnerable patients, refused the vaccine. Remember this was a time when relatives who had had the ***, weren't even allowed to visit their own elderly relatives in care homes.
Quote:
"Matt Taylor is a specialist paramedic who has worked through the pandemic treating elderly and vulnerable people in their homes. He hasn't had a Covid-19 vaccination and says he's prepared to lose his job over it. He's one of around 80,000 unvaccinated NHS staff in England being told if they work with patients and don't get a *** by next week they could be moved to a different role or even sacked".
End quote.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60104140
Right, back to the 'odious' Charlie Mullins.
As I said above, he referred to 'his staff' and their 'employment', but he fought his way right up to the Supreme Court and lost, trying to make out that he wasn't an 'employer' - he was merely a 'client' (a 'customer') of self-employed plumbers. Mr Smith, who worked for Pimlico Plumbers for a number of years, had a heart attack and asked to work three days a week rather than five. I'd suggest that most of us would think that a good boss would have some empathy and wouldn't see a problem with that, given that Pimlico had 400 plumbers on its books. Employment law says that in such circumstances, employers should make reasonable adjustments, and though the quality of Smiths work wasn't in questions, Mullins didn't want him to work part-time so he sacked him, except that in Mullins eyes he didn't 'sack him' - he 'dispensed with his services'.
The company exercised “tight administrative control” over Mr Smith and he “undertook to do the work personally”, the Supreme Court said. Pimlico Plumbers required Mr Smith to wear a company branded uniform and to lease one of its vans, which displayed the company's logo and was equipped with a GPS tracker. Mr Smith also had to work a minimum number of hours per week.
If you really were 'self-employed' you'd be able to pick and choose your jobs, decide what to charge, what hours to work, what van you used, what clothing you wore, what vehicle you used, whether you lease or bought it, what geographical area you covered, when you took leave for holidays, etc.
The Supreme Court ruled that though Pimlico Plumbers classed Mr Smith as self-employed, he was in fact a worker, in a landmark case for the gig economy. The UK’s highest court upheld the
Court of Appeal’s decision after a further appeal from
Pimlico Plumbers which claimed that Gary Smith, who worked at the company for six years, was
self-employed.
Rebecca Hilsenrath, chief executive of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, hailed the judgment as “one of the biggest decisions ever made by the courts on workers’ rights”.
“If you wear the uniform, if you drive the branded vehicle, if you only work for one business, you are employed. That means you are entitled to the appropriate protections and adjustments which go with the job, to enable you to work safely and productively. Everyone has the right to a healthy working environment, and to that end businesses need to recognise their duties to their workers.”
The case centred on Gary Smith, from Kent, who worked for Pimlico Plumbers between August 2005 and April 2011. He suffered a heart attack in January 2011 and later sought to work three days per week instead of five, as he had done previously.
Pimlico Plumbers refused to grant Mr Smith’s request and took away his branded van, which he had hired from the company. Mr Smith claims he was unfairly dismissed in May 2011.
Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of the Green Party, said the decision was a victory for workers’ rights. “The bogus use of self-employed contracts in the gig-economy has seen countless workers left without basic rights like decent pay, sick and holiday leave and, most importantly, job security,” he said.
“Pimlico Plumbers must now do the right thing and end its use of self-employment contracts altogether.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38931211
He's since sold the business to an American firm:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58632984
Whether they're any better is anyone's guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pimlico_Plumbers_Ltd_v_Smith
There are those who believe he's a 'self-made millionaire', a 'rags to riches East End boy made good', a success story.
Certainly the Tories did - he was awarded the OBE in 2014 for 'services to plumbing'.
I think he probably wrote his own press release:
"Mr Mullins, a campaigner for state-funded apprenticeships"
What??? How many apprentices did he ever employ - none - not one, because he was he wasn't an 'employer'.
But wait - in the next breath, he says his is an' employer':
'Mr Mullins, whose company employs 260 people with a turnover of £24mill'....
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ded-obe-for-services-to-plumbing-9950689.html
Others may disagree, but to my mind, he's Just a spiv living on his wits - a classic example of the term 'you can take the boy out of the gutter, but you can't take the gutter out of the boy.
