Wow! Now your crew are actually employees - or so says a lawyer!

Typical of people who find things don't go their way and want revenge.
Typical of a lawyer to try to work outside the spirit of the law. (all allegedly, of course)

I hope she gets nowhere.
 
Lakesailor said:
I hope she gets nowhere.
Click to expand...

Lakey, I am shocked, shocked I say, at your attitude.

She has every right to continue whinging long after she got off the boat. And get her £40k back, with a bit to make up for the time lost at sea with all those beastly crew, and that nasty Captain

I wonder if she was on the Sloop John B?
 
Preposterous, unless there was some truly irresponsible, unwarrantably antisocial behaviour on board during the race.

Looks like a snotty little claim made by someone who should never have embarked on a demanding trip in an environment which pi55es freely on office-style political correctness.

Let's hope the tribunal nips it in the bud and castigates the plaintiff for time-wasting.
 
I think she's just peed of because she couldn't hack it, pulled out early and no refund available. When you go with JST you 'sign on' as crew even though you pay, and you are subject to the same rules and rights as far as I can see.
 
FullCircle said:
In today's Independent - Woman employment lawyer is claiming harassment and bullying as an 'employee' on the RKJ Clipper event, even though she paid £40k to go.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-was-harassed-during-yacht-race-9644606.html


Ermm, unbelievable.
Click to expand...

[
She gave up her life as an employment lawyer with the aim of spending 11 months – and £40,000 – sailing around the world, only to find that the once-in-a-lifetime adventure would end up back in front of an employment tribunal.

In a case brought against one of Britain's best known seafarers, lawyer-turned-sailor Ruth Harvey is suing the organisers of the Clipper Round the World Yacht Race after claiming she suffered victimisation and harassment while on board.]

she took "time out" NOT "GAVE UP" a career. She is now looking for a free trip + compo
 
I'm no lawyer, but I would have thought the basic definition of an 'employee' is someone who is paid by someone else to do a job of work. Surely paying for the privilege of doing that work puts her in a different category, or are lawyers bending this rule too? Its a crazy world....

Sounds to me she just didnt appreciate the clearly defined chain of command and discipline involved in keeping a racing yacht competitive. Maybe those 2.00am watches didnt suit her modern lifestyle? \clearly she went in for it with an expectation of 'value for money' and didnt understand or accept the pressures and demand of complete and instant response to commands that she would find herself under in that environment.
 
I love this comment after the article:

"Well, what else can a lawyer do but sue if something does not turn out exactly as you expect. The rest of us shrug and get over it. A lawyer has to find someone to blame, other than their own expectations, and make money out of it. You can take the lawyer out of the rat race but not the rat out of the lawyer".
 
oldharry said:
Sounds to me she just didnt appreciate the clearly defined chain of command and discipline involved in keeping a racing yacht competitive.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they really did treat her badly. Is the general assumption here that she's in the wrong because she's a lawyer or because she's a woman?

If she was crew then (a) she could expect to be given orders and (b) it's reasonable that she should get the protection of employment legislation. If she was a paying passenger then she had every right to feel aggrieved if she was treated as staff rather than as a customer
 
Excellent, I am now preparing a case against full circle, for 48 hours crewing on his boat, unendurable physical abuse...climbing all those steps to get to RTYC before last orders, sexual harassment...making me wash dishes which is clearly woman's work. Allowing under supervision, drinking above sensible limits probably causing permanent health damage. The list goes on.
 
CoVianna said:
I love this comment after the article:

"Well, what else can a lawyer do but sue if something does not turn out exactly as you expect. The rest of us shrug and get over it. A lawyer has to find someone to blame, other than their own expectations, and make money out of it. You can take the lawyer out of the rat race but not the rat out of the lawyer".
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that her case is unfounded? Did a payment of 40k not entitle her to reasonable treatment on board?
 
I don't really mix it with racing crews but I remember very clearly hitting the Needles Channel heading east in a bit of a blow and being overhauled by a racing boat (flyer if memory serves) who were quite literally screaming at each other in order to get even better performance from their beast. They left me feeling slightly inadequate in terms of boat speed comparisons! I think RKJ's fleet are classed as a racing fleet and if this lawyer wasn't up for being verbally and occasionally physically abused, then she shouldn't have signed up in the first place. Racing is a world apart from cruising.
 
Hmmmmm, could be a tricky one.

1) An employer sets the work, time schedule and provides the tools to carry out the tasks set. √

2) You are expected to do the work yourself that you are employed to do and maybe asked to carry out other tasks√

3) You will usually have a written contract although a verbal contract will do.√

The whole basis of this action, I suspect, will be the contract.
 
HM Revenue and Customs

if the answer is 'Yes' to all of the following questions, then the worker is probably an employee:

Do they have to do the work themselves?
Can someone tell them at any time what to do, where to carry out the work or when and how to do it?
Can they work a set amount of hours?
Can someone move them from task to task?
Are they paid by the hour, week, or month?
Can they get overtime pay or bonus payment?
Click to expand...
 
JumbleDuck said:
Or maybe they really did treat her badly. Is the general assumption here that she's in the wrong because she's a lawyer or because she's a woman?

If she was crew then (a) she could expect to be given orders and (b) it's reasonable that she should get the protection of employment legislation. If she was a paying passenger then she had every right to feel aggrieved if she was treated as staff rather than as a customer
Click to expand...

Surely that's exactly what she's arguing by going to a tribunal? A cake and eating situation. As crew you have some characteristics of an employee, there may be some discussion but if the skipper says jump you say how high. If she's consistently been a barrack room lawyer when given tasks then her time onboard will have been utter misery for her and everyone else. I'd be surprised if all of this wasn't laid out in whatever contract covers it, and probably again in joining instructions. Do clipper participants do qualifying voyages?
 
There must be some foundation to her claims and subsequent actions. I do not believe a lawyer with 30 years experience would bring such a case( knowing the publicity this would attract)without grounds(career suicide?).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top