The Ferrari thread !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Two "rogue" employees took the initiative to make it obvious...

---

One hopes that they don't become disillusioned and buy a tin of travel sweets :p :

(I'll get my coat :burnout: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Is it your turn to clean the toilet , Davey ?

---

These threads drive me round the bend...

:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Let me make it clear .

I would have fired Felipe on the spot .
I would have told him to pit and get out of my car .

---

Well, they've got Luca Badoer and Giancarlo to capably stand in..........


....you might well be onto something there........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Brockman

These threads drive me round the bend...

:p

---

I'm all, ahem, aflush, with laughter.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

His employer told his engineer exactly what to say to him .
The way he delivered the message was what got them in trouble .

---

On the forth time of asking maybe, how did he sound on the previous occasions? We don't know do we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

To assume that anyone's employer should have the right to ask any employee to do as asked is not really a stretch , is it ?
Sign up , do the job , get a paycheque .
The choice is clear .

---

Employment law sees the employer with surprisingly few ways to hold the upper ground in a dispute. If asked to leave, Massa could make a rather large sum out of Ferrari and make them look rather stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

And , the choice was clear for Felipe , and for Smedley .
They both did as told , but did not do it subtly enough to escape sanction .

Massa did what he was told , or , more correctly , made the logical decision , when told the situation .
He didn't like it , and needed to be told three times .
When finally he relented , and did as his employer expected , he and his engineer made it obvious .

---

No matter how he slowed, your average punter would smell the rat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

The toilet to which I referred earlier , I own . I have employees in the restaurant who I could ask to do it always , but I take my turn .
And , there is no complaint .

Recently , I had an employee who wouldn't wash the toilet . Her actions disrupted the whole apple cart , as others had to fill in , and do that part of her job , the most disgusting part .
She doesn't work for me any more .

---

Well, that saved a pay packet, and despite the loss, the bog still shines, I bet? If your ex employee had any nouse, a claim for either unfair or constructive dismissal would have been options to her, and she is likely to have won.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Our Italian friends gave us the basis for a language, whereas we have developed in a country where holding a door for someone requires a thank you. (Sorry something which I noticed on a recent trip to Rome along with the concept of queueing not quite being understood lol) :p

Chill out.. :s mokin:

---

I'm not the least bit worked up about any of this.
Every culture I've ever known of has an upside that out-weighs it's down side. Viva la difference. I'm old enough to remember when you respected people in my country until they gave you a damn good reason not to.
My how things have changed.
Here is an example:

It was about 12 years ago I lived on a pretty steep windy narrow street in suburban uptown San Diego. I had gotten a steal on a '56 Ford F100 with a custom Callen Camper Shell. Needless to say it was a lot of weight for the inline six but it was a 3 speed on the tree and 1st was just a granny gear. Its positive function was for hauling large loads uphill or pulling tree stumps. I never used it and down shifting into it was a pretty dodgy endeavor.
One day I was rolling down my street in second. I saw a small girl about 6 years old stand in the middle of the street with one hand in the air. It was very close to everything I could do to stop short of her or plough someone’s yard. As I got closer I realized that she was just standing there giving me the finger. I backed up to her and said in a firm but non threatening way:
"What the hell do you think you're doing"? Out from a house flies her mother who proceeded to try to chastise me. She Ejaculated ( :s ailor :) "You can't talk to my daughter that way". I said "she almost got killed" I'm reporting this to the police. As I drove away I heard a couple choice insults and just scratched my head.
And I left the authorities out of it.

As I see it flando is a very fast driver when he is the clear no 1 in a team, when not he feels insecure and does a lot of mistakes a bit like MS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

It is , indeed , Davey .

But , don't forget that the original intention was to have them for free .

Two "rogue" employees took the initiative to make it obvious , and gain sympathy for the "hard done by" driver , causing the team to be fined and reprimanded .

The "free pass" is what you get when you don't make it obvious .
And , "obvious" seems to mean tone of voice , "sorry" , and a crowd of fans yelling about team orders being banned , despite seeing it , in the same words , many times , even this year .

Heikki knew what his team wanted , and didn't complain , and was lauded for his team thinking . And this , being honourable in a secondary role , is what being the devoted number two should be all about .
That's what Dennis was all gushy about .

Gilles did his time as number two , and nobody seems to mind . And some think it was the disturbance of his own number two passing him that lead him to the distraction that contributed to his demise .

When it's my turn to wash the toilet , I wash the toilet , and I don't complain . I just wash the thing the best way I know how , and perform the best job I can .

Smedley and Massa should be on toilet duty for a long time to make up for this .
Then , the pi$$y faces would fit .

---

:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Let me make it clear .

I would have fired Felipe on the spot .
I would have told him to pit and get out of my car .

---

:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DexDexter

You're like the wind, one never knows which way it blows.

---

Probably not. I support many teams and drivers and that's why people are confused. Also in the past I have changed my favorite teams and drivers. So let me say something clear.
McLaren did the right thing in that race, in 2008. Lewis needed that points. Heikki was slow and needed to get out of the way. So Ron did the sensible thing. He informed him of the situation, i.e. he ordered him to be a good team player.
This probably costed the only victory Piquet could have won in his career.
One would argue that he didn't deserve it, but on the other hand Lewis was LET by Kovalainen to overtake him and than proceeded to do what he did. All power to him and his team. All power to all his fans who think that this is the right way. I agree with them.
But in my opinion Ferrari also did the right thing, this year and in 1999, when Salo let Irvine to win. This is a championship at stake. At the 2010 race Massa was losing time to Vettel, was not able to get his tyres to work and was threatening a 1-2 result and was costing his teammate points. Points which may be prescious at the end of the season. So he let him win, as he was too informed, like Heikki, about what is going on and what is important for the team.
To coin always has two sides and nothing is black and white, but what Ferrari did is not really different to what McLaren did. The circumstances are different, but the reasoning is the same. One teammate has to be sacrificed for the greater good of the team. For the chances of the team leader.
For Massa, the stakes were higher ofcourse, and for Salo in 1999, they were brutal, he lost his one and only chance. But the order, the message, the information, is the same and you have to be a fanboy to deny it.
Not that there is something wrong to be a fanboy. But when a whole organization like the FIA acts because of fanboys and because of journos from certain country, who turn a blind eye for similar actions of the team from their country, now there is something wrong in my opinion.
All of this is IMO and in no way diminish the respect I feel for the involved teams and their passionate fans.

Probably my command of English language needs more improvements. But I was a bit perplexed because it always seems that Ferrari are portrayed by the media as the Empire from "Star Wars", while McLaren are like Jedi. In Italian or Spanish media MIGHT be the other way around, but I don't know these languages. So I comment the British media and for me they dictate too much what happens in F1.
In the end all is well, but we don't need scandals for things which are completely normal in F1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Well, that saved a pay packet, and despite the loss, the bog still shines, I bet? If your ex employee had any nouse, a claim for either unfair or constructive dismissal would have been options to her, and she is likely to have won.....

---

You need to get real legal advice before saying anything else that displays a lack of knowledge.

The only way in which employees can win a case of unfair or constructive dismissal is if they can prove that the correct procedure has not been followed.

Without fail, the only times they can do this is if the management did not follow basic legal procedure.

Failure to carry out a reasonable request is a good enough reason for disciplinary action.

Refusing to clean the toilet when everybody else is willing to do it, and when it needs cleaning, is failing to carry out a reasonable request.

Further more, most manual and service based employment has a three-month period from its initial start date where the employer does not have to follow disciplinary procedure and can let a new employee go without giving specific reasons.

If this was included within the terms and conditions of employment, Mr Bagwan would have been well within the statutes of the law to stop his employment of somebody who did not fit well within the work culture of his organisation

In future, perhaps you should seek legal knowledge from a qualified lawyer and not from the newspapers or pub-based experts?

Any employement tribunal would view the Massa incident as, at worse, a reasonable request from the employer. But, given that there was no actual request, any case brought against the employer would not reach that stage and would not have been given time in a courtroom or in front of a tribunal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pallone col bracciale

You need to get real legal advice before saying anything else that displays a lack of knowledge.

The only way in which employees can win a case of unfair or constructive dismissal is if they can prove that the correct procedure has not been followed.

Without fail, the only times they can do this is if the management did not follow basic legal procedure.

Failure to carry out a reasonable request is a good enough reason for disciplinary action.

Refusing to clean the toilet when everybody else is willing to do it, and when it needs cleaning, is failing to carry out a reasonable request.

Further more, most manual and service based employment has a three-month period from its initial start date where the employer does not have to follow disciplinary procedure and can let a new employee go without giving specific reasons.

If this was included within the terms and conditions of employment, Mr Bagwan would have been well within the statutes of the law to stop his employment of somebody who did not fit well within the work culture of his organisation

In future, perhaps you should seek legal knowledge from a qualified lawyer and not from the newspapers or pub-based experts?

Any employement tribunal would view the Massa incident as, at worse, a reasonable request from the employer. But, given that there was no actual request, any case brought against the employer would not reach that stage and would not have been given time in a courtroom or in front of a tribunal.

---

Whilst this remains off topic, you will find that a cleaner should be employed to clean, not a waitress. It depends also if the waitress was on a waitress wage, or a cleaners wage.

Then there are cross contamination issues, clothing blah blah blah.

If you are determined, you can have the book thrown at such establishments, and prove, very easily, that you had no choice than to not clean the toilet, or, that in asking you to do so was against your job description.

I just hope the rest of the staff change their clothing after performing their cleaning duties before serving or prepping in the restaurant. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pallone col bracciale

You need to get real legal advice before saying anything else that displays a lack of knowledge.

The only way in which employees can win a case of unfair or constructive dismissal is if they can prove that the correct procedure has not been followed.

Without fail, the only times they can do this is if the management did not follow basic legal procedure.

Failure to carry out a reasonable request is a good enough reason for disciplinary action.

Refusing to clean the toilet when everybody else is willing to do it, and when it needs cleaning, is failing to carry out a reasonable request.

Further more, most manual and service based employment has a three-month period from its initial start date where the employer does not have to follow disciplinary procedure and can let a new employee go without giving specific reasons.

If this was included within the terms and conditions of employment, Mr Bagwan would have been well within the statutes of the law to stop his employment of somebody who did not fit well within the work culture of his organisation

In future, perhaps you should seek legal knowledge from a qualified lawyer and not from the newspapers or pub-based experts?

Any employement tribunal would view the Massa incident as, at worse, a reasonable request from the employer. But, given that there was no actual request, any case brought against the employer would not reach that stage and would not have been given time in a courtroom or in front of a tribunal.

---

We don't know when these events took place, or much detail about the procedures followed. It's also a certainly that they didn't take place under EU law, given who posted them. That notwithstanding, your post (under current EU legislation) is so full of inaccuracies that you'd do well never to employ anybody without taking your own advice and seeking legal advice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

He is presently trolling the Autosport forum if you are interested. His angry posting is going down about as well as you can imagine on there. :dozey:

---

The guy obviously has problems that have nothing to do with being interested in F1 etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Brockman

That notwithstanding, your post (under current EU legislation) is so full of inaccuracies that you'd do well never to employ anybody without taking your own advice and seeking legal advice.

---

After his comments and conclusions regarding the Team Orders fiasco, I would have thought he would have refrained from giving legal advice ever again!! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

@Pallone col Bracciale... Can I just compliment you on your perfect use of English in your recent posts. Since you have joined the forum I have noticed that your use of the language has improved to a point where I would say you can write it better that alot of the English members of this forum including myself. At times you have come across as very Italian or as can be expected from somebody where English is not their first language, but of late you've spoken flawlessly with your grammar absolutely spot on, and even used the 'pub' in your latest post which is a very English term, and I must say I am very impressed.

Have you spent a considerable amount of time in the UK can I ask? I just wanted to compliment you.. :)

---

Come on, he uses the expression Grazie quite often, doesn't he. Must be Italian then... ;)

Di dove siete, Pallo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

@Pallone col Bracciale... Can I just compliment you on your perfect use of English in your recent posts. Since you have joined the forum I have noticed that your use of the language has improved to a point where I would say you can write it better that alot of the English members of this forum including myself. At times you have come across as very Italian or as can be expected from somebody where English is not their first language, but of late you've spoken flawlessly with your grammar absolutely spot on, and even used the 'pub' in your latest post which is a very English term, and I must say I am very impressed.

Have you spent a considerable amount of time in the UK can I ask? I just wanted to compliment you.. :)

---

Come on!
Tell us what you really think! ;)
BTW who was this guy?
I guess we will never know as he is still banned :s ailor:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve2009

Hail Caesar

http://www.elpais.com/recorte/200610...lor_Oviedo.jpg

---

Hold fire guys, we'll get a 'stop being so disrespectful per favor' message in a minute.

init?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DexDexter

The guy obviously has problems.

---

:up: ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

After his comments and conclusions regarding the Team Orders fiasco, I would have thought he would have refrained from giving legal advice ever again!! :D

---

I was proved correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pallone col bracciale

I was proved correct.

---

Nope.

The FIA, whilst satisfied that the rule breaking did in fact take place, conceded that the burden of proof, given the cunning deception used, was too great to guarantee a conviction, and so left it at that.

The fact that the Stewards indictment remains is the most telling factor, and that Ferrari are not challenging that decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Nope.

The FIA, whilst satisfied that the rule breaking did in fact take place, conceded that the burden of proof, given the cunning deception used, was too great to guarantee a conviction, and so left it at that.

The fact that the Stewards indictment remains is the most telling factor, and that Ferrari are not challenging that decision.

---

Ferrari are not challenging it because the FIA backed down. $100,000 is cheaper than legal action.

Capito?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pallone col bracciale

Ferrari are not challenging it because the FIA backed down. $100,000 is cheaper than legal action.

Capito?

---

Ferrari confirmed they would not challenge it before the WMSC met.

A man who claimed that Alonso was over-rated trying to be smart?

It is not such a smart thing to do when you have already shown yourself to be beyond foolish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Ferrari confirmed they would not challenge it before the WMSC met.

---

Because doing so would bring the sport into disrepute, and clearly break FIA protocol. And that, considering that they knew the FIA had no evidence to work with, would be much more trouble than it's worth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pallone col bracciale

Ferrari are not challenging it because the FIA backed down.

---

In what way did the FIA "back down"?

The FIA German GP stewards found Ferrari to be in breach of Article 39.1, which bans team orders, and 151c, which relates to bringing the sport into disrepute. They were fined $50,000 for each offence.

Ferrari did not appeal.

The FIA WMSC upheld the decision of the stewards and

Quote:

---

remains convinced that Ferrari did use illegal team orders at the German Grand Prix - but it decided not to punish the team further at its disciplinary hearing on Wednesday because of inconsistencies in the way the rules have been applied in the past.

---

(Link)

Ferrari did not appeal.

In other words the original guilty verdict was rubber stamped by the sports governing body and Ferrari have accepted the FIA's rulings on this matter. Case closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Whilst this remains off topic, you will find that a cleaner should be employed to clean, not a waitress. It depends also if the waitress was on a waitress wage, or a cleaners wage.

Then there are cross contamination issues, clothing blah blah blah.

If you are determined, you can have the book thrown at such establishments, and prove, very easily, that you had no choice than to not clean the toilet, or, that in asking you to do so was against your job description.

I just hope the rest of the staff change their clothing after performing their cleaning duties before serving or prepping in the restaurant. :eek:

---

My employees must be certified food handlers to be able to work for me .

In my small establishment , they are fully aware that all aspects of the running of the restaurant are on the job description .

Your final statement is walking a fine line , and I suggest you think about it before you make such an allegation again .
Upon being inspected , which is always without notice , we have never failed to achieve anything less than 100% rating , of which we are very proud .

You can kill a restaurant with such unfounded accusations .

So , experience it yourself , or don't think you have any personal knowledge .

Which brings me back to the topic .

I've met Felipe , and he's a mouse .
I'd fire him in a second for disobeying the first two suggestions .

You see , no matter who you are , if you don't see the bigger picture , you're not ever going to be a good employee for anyone .
If my employee has a good idea , we change to fit .
If I ask them to do something I wouldn't do myself , I am asking too much .
If the company does well , my employee does well .

Everybody is happy that the employee who left , left , by the way .

And , she quit , knowing she didn't fit .
Simply , she had a job she didn't want to do .

Felipe did the job , but grudgingly , and that's no good either . It just brings everyone down .
Don't play like you're trapped in a bad contract when you are happy to cash the cheque .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

My employees must be certified food handlers to be able to work for me .

---

Understood, and rightly so. But, if a certified food handler who felt they 'had' to leave your restaurant for not cleaning round the rim, I suspect that, a tribunal case would not work in your favour.

A cleaner in that position may well not have good grounds, but someone trained for food prep is NOT a cleaner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pallone col bracciale

I was proved correct.

---

I'm sure you will take great joy in choosing a single point in which you have been proved correct by opinion alone.

Only problem is, me ole rub a dub, apples and pears, hows yer father Italian National ( ;) ) that you are fundamentally wrong and were proved so in the WMSC ruling.

Do you really want to state what bit you think you were correct about and allow me to go back through that thread, extract your remarks and counter them with the EVIDENCE at hand or shall we leave this moot point and move forward seeing as you failed to answer my post on "that" thread last time when you were wrong.

:rolleyes:

As for me, I think at this time on a Friday afternoon, I would prefer to have a Brown Bottle or 2, a bit of the old English Ale if you follow my meaning or as I like to put it.... have a life!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

I've met Felipe , and he's a mouse .

---

A mouse who almost died racing yet he came back and continues to race, interesting eh?!

Anyway, he's a very very fast mouse who's not afraid to go racing, and that's what counts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

I've met Felipe , and he's a mouse ..

---

He is a mouse, Sir Maxamillion mouse,

and he comes from a long long long long long long line of......

Bullfighting mouses.

Ole!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

A mouse who almost died racing yet he came back and continues to race, interesting eh?!

Anyway, he's a very very fast mouse who's not afraid to go racing, and that's what counts.

---

Speedy Gonzales? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Oh come on the facts don't suggest that when the ruling wasn't reversed and the fine stayed in place.

---

:eek:

You naughty, NAUGHTY boy!

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Speedy Gonzales? :D

---

:D ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

Come on!
Tell us what you really think! ;)
BTW who was this guy?
I guess we will never know as he is still banned :s ailor:

---

FWIW Steve2009 was permanantly banned for an attack on StD.
A true Forum Martyr! :s mokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Understood, and rightly so. But, if a certified food handler who felt they 'had' to leave your restaurant for not cleaning round the rim, I suspect that, a tribunal case would not work in your favour.

A cleaner in that position may well not have good grounds, but someone trained for food prep is NOT a cleaner.

---

No , clearly not understood .
The job description includes that function .

You know little of the case , yet continue to cast a shadow on a very clear issue .

I wonder now if you are capable of relating the analogy to this Ferrari issue at all , when originally , I was more thinking you were just dodging the matter entirely , by fixating on the toilet talk .


It's a good thing that Felipe did , eventually , decide to act for his team .
He has his seat because of this , and this only .

If he had not had the sentimental factor in his court , he would not have been treated as kindly , I'm quite sure , especially as he cost his team a hundred G$ .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

A mouse who almost died racing yet he came back and continues to race, interesting eh?!

Anyway, he's a very very fast mouse who's not afraid to go racing, and that's what counts.

---

He might be fast if he wasn't pouting so much .
That lower lip protruding isn't very aerodynamic .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

No , clearly not understood .
The job description includes that function .

You know little of the case , yet continue to cast a shadow on a very clear issue .

I wonder now if you are capable of relating the analogy to this Ferrari issue at all , when originally , I was more thinking you were just dodging the matter entirely , by fixating on the toilet talk .


It's a good thing that Felipe did , eventually , decide to act for his team .
He has his seat because of this , and this only .

If he had not had the sentimental factor in his court , he would not have been treated as kindly , I'm quite sure , especially as he cost his team a hundred G$ .

---

Ferrari cost themselves a fine, due to the fact that they manipulated the drivers changing position. After creating a handicap for Massa, they declared Alonso quicker and made it clear that Massa was to yeild the position.

As for your restaurant, fully accepting that your job decription does cover all normal activities such as cleaning, you still aren't making the proper comparison. If you fired an employee for failing to execute a direction that would be in violation of food handling regulations, do you think that would somehow exempt you for being fined for the violation taking place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

No , clearly not understood .
The job description includes that function .

You know little of the case , yet continue to cast a shadow on a very clear issue .

I wonder now if you are capable of relating the analogy to this Ferrari issue at all , when originally , I was more thinking you were just dodging the matter entirely , by fixating on the toilet talk .


It's a good thing that Felipe did , eventually , decide to act for his team .
He has his seat because of this , and this only .

If he had not had the sentimental factor in his court , he would not have been treated as kindly , I'm quite sure , especially as he cost his team a hundred G$ .

---

You brunged up the WC comparison, not me.

And as it was, Alonso was only able to demonstrate his 'superior speed' due to being on a different engine map.

I'd say that's hoodwinking.

Fact is, Massa chose to continue to RACE, I always thought that was what racing drivers were paid to do?