Mr Andrews would do well to actually READ what I said about the school in question. I made it clear that I was not trashing the school or its Principal. What I have done is warn the unsuspecting that the school's form of contract is an invidious document that contains numerous traps and pitfalls of the kind that contribute to many of the horror stories we read here. I also warned of the likelihood that the school MAY not have authority to employ its own teachers. Any school that fails to confirm they have such authority probably doesn't!

Sure, the contract doesn't allow any time for socialising but neither does it allow time or opportunity for a lot more things besides. However, like most people, I do like to go and have the occasional night out with the boys and if I see a contract that quite specifically precludes this, I believe it is not unreasonable to point it out.

And this is NOT only a "school" review board. Mr Andrews again chooses to miss a salient point, in that it is also a "recruiter" review board and he says nothing about the many postings similar to mine that are about recruiting agencies with similarly invidious forms of contract and which the plaintiffs have neither visited or dealt with before. So why single me out?

Does Mr Andrews deny me the right to warn my counterparts seeking work? I trashed no-one and I made that clear. I did however comment on a badly produced contract and on the possibility that the school might be recruiting illegally. I commented on the fact that whoever goes to work there will have the minimum of holidays - and even those can be 'commandeered' by the management at any time. Moreover, I also took the liberty of advising them on how to restructure their form of contract to make it scrupulously fair to the employee as well, instead of being biased in favour of the employer.

I had an acknowledgement that they would get back to me after 2 or 3 days but I had no reply at all - evidently they didn't approve of a contract ensuring that the employee has the same rights as the employer.

All that I commented on in my earlier posting is a matter of record created by the school in question. I stand 100% behind every word I said and Mr Andrew's comments are entirely without any knowledge of the situation and therefore have no credibility or authority. I have issued a prudent and well-informed warning, whereas Mr Andrews is merely whining.

Finally, Mr Andrews implies that as I have not worked for, or been to the school in question I have no right to complain about it. The fact is that I was offered a job by the school and was sent a copy of a contract that they intend will be the governing document. I believe that being offered such a document as they did gave me every right to comment on it. If Mr Andrews is prepared to sign any old piece of paper he is sent and accept its terms regardless of what is reasonable, fair - indeed legal at all! Then let that be his business but I believe the majority of us are more discerning and prudent than to do that - and a timely and objective warning is well in order.

Let that be the final word

John