Work - The pros and the cons...
  • Moto70 wrote:
    I had a verbal agreement for 40 hours, that is as good as a written contract os it should be as good as a written contract. There are still people on hourly and think that's why us on salaries are getting the shit but I will stand my ground even if it costs me my job...

    You said the women who is dealing with this has already denied that was ever agreed. If you value this job I'd be looking to join a union and get some official support, otherwise it's just your lone word against theirs.

    don't fancy those odds mate

    g.man
    Come with g if you want to live...
  • g.man wrote:
    ...but by your own admission you are not contracted to work forty hours per week. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have never signed any contract at all since starting this job. If this is indeed the case then I think you'll be lucky if they don't just fire you and get some other poor bastard in to do the hours they want. You seem to be on rather a sticky wicket here. good luck g.man

    But a precedent has been set by him doing those hours and being paid for them for 'x' amount of months.
    They can't just fire him because no piece of paper has been signed. I can't actually recall ever signing a contract myself.
    Live= sgt pantyfire    PSN= pantyfire
  • You're fired too.

    :D

    g.man
    Come with g if you want to live...
  • I'm not saying that your perfect job is going to fall in your lap or that you'll find it very quickly even if you put in considerable effort to do so but, if there's something out there that you might enjoy doing as a vocation, you can make it happen, as long as your expectations are reasonable, of course.

    I'm not earning much of a living at the moment, doing what I do, but I love every second of it and would never set foot in an menial office job again, not for any salary.  It's taken a hell of a lot of blood, sweat and tears even to get to where I am now though, tbf.
  • @g  I deserve to be fired.

    I am currently freelancing at an office, they insist on getting me in to work when I suggested pay per job (design). I do my £x work a day and down tools, no matter what the time is!?
    Live= sgt pantyfire    PSN= pantyfire
  • I'm no expert but there are all kinds of laws to protect against these things contracts or not. As pantyfire said a precedent has been set and as far as I'm aware if you can prove hours and pay for a certain period this is as good as a contract. As has been already said join a union contact your representatives and find out the facts, forewarned is forarmed.
  • Moto70
    Show networks
    Twitter
    @jsm147
    Xbox
    Moto 70
    PSN
    MotoSeventy
    Steam
    [kia]_permian
    Wii
    Moto70

    Send message
    You shouldn't need anyone to tell you that a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's not written on.
    According to the Government website a contract doesn't have to be written...

    This has only came about because I have taken 6 days off to go and see my Dad in Spain and it has been taken from the extra hours I have done (around 14 days worth), this was agreed by the site manager but the owners now want to stop this happening. My private life means a lot more to me than my job so whatever happens happens.

    Like I said I'm happy for those of you that have a job you enjoy, I would love to be in that position but I still doubt it take precedence over BBQ's with friends, time spent with my dogs or even just chilling on the sofa with my headphones and a bottle of wine.

    We have already lost our electrician and our plumber for the same reason, the electrician was having to go in at 1am on a Monday morning to turn off a generator that anybody that was still there could have turned off. So he had a 30 minute drive with his Sunday night completely buggered with regards to coming out with us and after 2 years of other shit that proved to be the final nail...
  • Or you could get a job that you actually enjoy? Work-life balance is important, whatever you do, but no reason why both parts of your life can't be rewarding and fulfilling.
    Someone has to do the work that no one enjoys though. Its not an option for everyone. 

    Elm's point of view is very naive. If you're a self-employed portrait painter or something then yeah, the job takes as long as it takes. If you're in an menial office job, you generally have work to do all the time. On the off chance you complete your work, you get sent to help somewhere else or you get given more work. Do you carry on with that until its done? With most jobs I've had of this type, its more likely that you have more work than can possibly be done even working a 7 day week. If its once in a while, that's one thing. But its all the time. 

    Unless the employer has the luxury of employing people in a desirable field, they can't expect people to hand their lives over to in exchange for a pittance.
  • Elmlea wrote:
    I don't understand the obsession with hours.  Surely you're paid salary X to do job Y; and if you happen to be an astonishingly capable guy and can get it done in half the time, bully for you.  If you're a bit low-average, and need longer, well you either work longer or you get a job more suited to your abilities. Even if it's "crunch time," how can they arbitrarily say "work 60 hours this week!"  Surely it's just "get this work done by this day!" and you choose what you need to work? Much more efficient to just tell people to produce the work rather than being so specific about precisely when they need to be in the office.

    Couldn't disagree more. If you're employed to work for a certain amount of hours, then any extra should be paid for. If the company's expectations are that you should be working longer hours then they should have given you a longer contract in the first place. Why would you ever think it's fine to provide free labour for someone elses profit Elm?
  • Why would you ever think it's fine to provide free labour for someone elses profit Elm?
    I don't; but similarly, why should people pay their staff if they're not working?  In the same way I think it's inefficient and inappropriate to pay people to sit in work when they're not doing anything, I think it's inefficient and inappropriate to not pay people to work longer, if you see what I mean.  Why do we have to specify 40 hours at all?  It just doesn't seem the best way to decide how much someone should work, as the amount of work someone can get done in 40 hours is very abstract.

    I mean, I don't do this sort of job; I've worked anything between about 10 and 90 hours a week depending on what's been required, but that's the nature of my job and I obviously understood that when I took it.  Perhaps I am being cripplingly naive, but doesn't my idea have some sort of merit?  That being that you contract someone to do a job, and that job has a list of duties, and they work whatever they think is appropriate to get that job done, rather than an arbitrary number of hours.

    I've seen it in microcosm with extra duties we have at work.  Some people can crack them out in an hour or 2 during a normal working day, and maybe do a little bit of work at home.  Others demand days off flying to spend 10+ hours working on the same size of task during normal work hours.  Both produce the same result.

    I don't mean for a second to be insulting to anyone, and I can obviously see how this could be used by unscrupulous managers to just cut down on staff and up the number of duties that someone else has to do, letting the "as many hours as required" bit cover them for all sorts of abuses, but if the amount of work was sensible then I could see it working.  It won't work for hours-based jobs like Dante's, but it could for others.  


    We sometimes have programmed "office days."  Not weekends, not days off, but days where you're not required to fly.  When we do fly, we have enough breaks that I manage to get absolutely everything extra I need to do (including our mandated 3 x 30 mins of exercise in work time per week) without needing extra days.  So when I get an office day, I have literally nothing to do. I have to drive 45 mins in to work because some other people aren't necessarily as efficient, and need an extra day to do their extra duties because they sit in front of the TV during their breaks rather than doing a bit of extra work then.  Due to their work ethic, I get extra days I don't want or need at work, so I think this whole concept is just riling me a bit right now.

    Apologies for ramble, but I hope you see what I mean.
  • Right, I see where you're coming from, but don't entirely agree. For one the break thing. You shouldn't have to work on your break, and I don't think that not doing constitutes a lack of work ethic (though the people to which you refer may do other things that do). You have something of a point, but it's one that would be latched on gleefully by a great many crap managers.

    For me, the number of hours you work should be based on the time that is needed for you to be doing something for your employer. Obviously, in my job that means that 2 people have to be in from 9am to 6pm, as otherwise the insurance is invalid. When it gets busier you need more staff, but you need at least one other to cover breaks.

    In other jobs the amount of staff and times they are needed are dictated differently. So Moto's job for example sounds like they need someone to be working 48 hours (or perhaps even more) a week. Honestly though given the amount of extra time they all seem to be doing what they actually need is another person. If it's going to take longer than you have allocated staff for you need to either amend your expectations of workload, or bring someone else in.
  • Elmlea wrote:
    Both produce the same result. I don't mean for a second to be insulting to anyone, and I can obviously see how this could be used by unscrupulous managers to just cut down on staff and up the number of duties that someone else has to do, letting the "as many hours as required" bit cover them for all sorts of abuses, but if the amount of work was sensible then I could see it working.
    I'd imagine it would be abused more often than not. It's in the employer's interest to squeeze in as much as they can get away with calling a 'sensible' amount of work.
    We sometimes have programmed "office days."  Not weekends, not days off, but days where you're not required to fly.  When we do fly, we have enough breaks that I manage to get absolutely everything extra I need to do (including our mandated 3 x 30 mins of exercise in work time per week) without needing extra days.  So when I get an office day, I have literally nothing to do. I have to drive 45 mins in to work because some other people aren't necessarily as efficient, and need an extra day to do their extra duties because they sit in front of the TV during their breaks rather than doing a bit of extra work then.  Due to their work ethic, I get extra days I don't want or need at work, so I think this whole concept is just riling me a bit right now. Apologies for ramble, but I hope you see what I mean.
    You're attacking people for using their breaks as breaks and calling them inefficient and lazy. Perhaps they'd rather do the office day thing and get the work done that way - they still do it. If you should be pissed off at anyone it should be those who've decided you have to go into the office when you've already done your work. So yes, perhaps if you've done everything there should be a way of letting them know and being exempt from those office days, but those folks watching TV on their breaks are not the ones making you go in.
  • Moto70
    Show networks
    Twitter
    @jsm147
    Xbox
    Moto 70
    PSN
    MotoSeventy
    Steam
    [kia]_permian
    Wii
    Moto70

    Send message
    I see what you mean Elm, you're upset at having to go to work to do extra hours that you're not getting paid for because you're on salary when you could be doing something else with your time. It is irrelevant to your bosses what you've got to do, or not do, with your time.

    You're told to be there so you are regardless of the fact that you have nothing to do so now imagine my situation, I do have plenty to do by virtue of my employer not having enough staff to do the job and they already expect people to do around 12 hours unpaid extra work so do you think that me going over 40 hours will be a rare thing? It will happen every week.

    I can't understand people saying that extra hours should be done for free when we have other threads saying that we should cherish every moment we can spend with our kids or our fathers or our friends or our pets...

    Also one last thing, I've already mentioned that this was brought about because of me using 6 days to go and see my Dad. In August last year my Dad fell really ill, so ill that he was in a coma for 5 days and the Spanish hospital told us he had a less than 5% chance of survival. He had contracted peritonitis and on top of other things his kidneys failed. I spent every minute I was allowed to at his bedside until he recovered. Thankfully he did pull through and his kidneys started working again (I was due to go back to Spain to be tested to see if my kidneys would be a match for a donor) so this break was a chance to see my Dad not in ICU connected to loads of tubes. I found out last night that he now has a tumour on his kidneys though the severity of it is unknown until he has his biopsy which could be taking place while I'm out there again.

    If work thinks that I'll be doing anything for them unpaid over the chance of seeing my Dad they may as well sack me now...
  • The problem here is that you get paid for your time not a finished product. So elm isn't forced to go in on his time off its scheduled time that's part of his working hours which he is paid for. He should stop working through his breaks which are there for a reason and do his work in the scheduled tome like his colleagues. The opposite is true for moto his work needs to organise the work needed doing and staff and pay appropriately. Employment law is there for a reason, the way some people are talking we'll be back to the work houses and debtors prison soon.
  • n0face wrote:
    The problem here is that you get paid for your time not a finished product. So elm isn't forced to go in on his time off its scheduled time that's part of his working hours which he is paid for. He should stop working through his breaks which are there for a reason and do his work in the scheduled tome like his colleagues. The opposite is true for moto his work needs to organise the work needed doing and staff and pay appropriately. Employment law is there for a reason, the way some people are talking we'll be back to the work houses and debtors prison soon.

    Exactly.
    You can't leave things like employee rights/renumeration down to the moral whims of a company owner. Human nature the way it is for every scrupulous boss there will be 50 who bully or cajole their employees to do more for less.
    I take it the vast majority of us work sitting at a desk, how many of you have actually tried to take your lawful mandatory VDU breaks every hour and get away with it?
    Live= sgt pantyfire    PSN= pantyfire
  • regmcfly
    Show networks
    Twitter
    regmcfly
    Xbox
    regmcfly
    PSN
    regmcfly
    Steam
    martinhollis
    Wii
    something

    Send message
    In my job, we have such mental contracts, and as teachers are such, they're constantly being negotiated with. I am in that camp where I do get unpaid over time- and it is unbalanced as an English teacher has more marking than, say, a PE teacher.

    Remember that holidays don't factor into overtime - that's already covered as part of my salary. But it would be ridiculous for me to cut down to a 40 hour week, because otherwise there wouldn't be extra curricular activities, no school newspaper, no Saturday morning football team, and to be honest, that's the part of the job I love.

    But I do think that in jobs that aren't as specialised as this, you really should be paid for what you work. It's logical, innit?
  • If you don't work those hours moto then a graduate student probably will. Businesses also change and can be rapidly. If the 40 hours a week is all your business can afford then would you prefer to work a couple of extra hours for your company to stay afloat and keep your job or make them pay you the extra and go under? Hypothetical like..
    Currently playing; Pokemon Lets go Evee and Clash Royale
  • I'd like to know what cuts the management are taking from the top down first and when I've found the top brass have 20% knocked off I'd think about signing up.
  • mk64 wrote:
    If the 40 hours a week is all your business can afford then would you prefer to work a couple of extra hours for your company to stay afloat and keep your job or make them pay you the extra and go under?
    The Royal Mail wouldn't be allowed to go under.
  • mk64 wrote:
    If you don't work those hours moto then a graduate student probably will. Businesses also change and can be rapidly. If the 40 hours a week is all your business can afford then would you prefer to work a couple of extra hours for your company to stay afloat and keep your job or make them pay you the extra and go under? Hypothetical like..

    Which is fine on paper if you're a bean counter, but a graduate probably wouldn't be able to do Moto's job in the same time.
  • mk64 wrote:
    If you don't work those hours moto then a graduate student probably will. Businesses also change and can be rapidly. If the 40 hours a week is all your business can afford then would you prefer to work a couple of extra hours for your company to stay afloat and keep your job or make them pay you the extra and go under? Hypothetical like..
    Oh please. As if one individual doing or not doing 8 hours extra work a week is going to decide the fate of a company.
  • Moto70
    Show networks
    Twitter
    @jsm147
    Xbox
    Moto 70
    PSN
    MotoSeventy
    Steam
    [kia]_permian
    Wii
    Moto70

    Send message
    monkey wrote:
    mk64 wrote:
    If the 40 hours a week is all your business can afford then would you prefer to work a couple of extra hours for your company to stay afloat and keep your job or make them pay you the extra and go under?
    The Royal Mail wouldn't be allowed to go under.
    I'm not at the Royal Mail anymore, I wish I still was...

    We currently have 250 full time staff and 200 cleaners (Feb-Nov), out of those 250 staff we have some on salary, some on hourly, some that are expected to do extra hours and some that get TOIL.

    I am unique here in that I am the only person doing this job hence they want me here all the time, all the other depts have multiple staff so there is cover etc.

    The case is simple, there aren't enough people here doing my job so I am constantly busy.

    If they had their way everybody would be on salary and expected to work more hours than contracted for, at 12 hours each that is 13,000 hours a month they'd be getting for nothing...
  • Think before you speak. If he does it then it sets a precedent. If he does it then others will demand it. Before long the hundred people in his company are being paid an extra 8 hours a week.

    That quite easily might not be sstainable.

    I'm talking more in concept than motos exact situation but I'm reading very little thought or advice from the other point if view or perspective. Just people putting themselves in his shoes.

    I'm not sure how much moto knows about the business. What's the companies ebitda moto?
    Currently playing; Pokemon Lets go Evee and Clash Royale
  • I'd be surprised if he knew, MK. Most studio staff are kept well away from the financial side of things. 

    <derail>
    It's not in every place, but there's occasionally an 'Us' vs. 'Them' attitude in some companies between the designers and the suits. It's unfortunate when it happens, because it's people blurring the lines between 'management' and 'project management'. Worst example of it I've heard of was when a well-regarded company in town took the staff for a snowboarding weekend (back when the country had money). All the suits flew business class. All the designers flew economy. If that really happened, then it was a spectacularly dumb move.
    </derail>
  • I think the unpaid hours culture is becoming a bit extreme tbh. I understand the arguments for and against working additional hours to get the job done. In my old job the company became a call centre over a period of time. They started to log start times for even the most senior staff in a way to measure productivity.  Because measuring the amount of time someone is at work is  how you measure how effective they are.  If you ended up staying past your normal leaving time then everything was fine, though if you were 5 minutes late then God help you.  They  had you filling out a form if you were in at 9.01 to say why you were late. Even if they knew the traffic had been terrible. And then they would take you to disciplinary if you were late more than 3 times in a month.  when it happened to my colleagues (not to me, because I told them to go play clock-in with someone who gave a fuck) I told them to ask for a print out of their log in times. their excuse was always it was detrimental to the business if people were even one minute late. But not detrimental to the employee if they went home an hour or two later than usual.   It was difficult to complain if someone (in one case) had cost the business 12 minutes in the morning (no kidding) but had in total done over 7 additional hours in the same month without overtime.
    mk64 wrote:
    If you don't work those hours moto then a graduate student probably will. Businesses also change and can be rapidly. If the 40 hours a week is all your business can afford then would you prefer to work a couple of extra hours for your company to stay afloat and keep your job or make them pay you the extra and go under? Hypothetical like..

    Its not my job to do a costing exercise to make sure the work I'm doing keeps the company afloat.  If the management are having trouble I suggest they learn how to use a calculator.  And they need to increase their charges or diversify in what they are providing as a company.  I would rather they learn the basics of Operational Management and Financial planning and didn't go into a job lying they could get it done for less time then they knew was possible. Or costed it properly so they had some leeway. 
    Fucking simple business basics Maria.
  • Moto70
    Show networks
    Twitter
    @jsm147
    Xbox
    Moto 70
    PSN
    MotoSeventy
    Steam
    [kia]_permian
    Wii
    Moto70

    Send message
    We're not privvy to the accounts but the problem is that this is a family run business and a notoriously difficult to work for family. They don't care about sacking people for no reason, they don't care about outside lives. I have never worked in a place where moral is so low...
  • Time to start working on the 'folio. Make sure you've got that parachute ready.

    Of course, I'm being a bit hypocritical here. Really need to sort out my own book!
  • Moto70 wrote:
    We're not privvy to the accounts but the problem is that this is a family run business and a notoriously difficult to work for family. They don't care about sacking people for no reason, they don't care about outside lives. I have never worked in a place where moral is so low...

    Has anyone tried to speak to them about it?

    I suggest you keep a note of everything dodgy they do and then blackmail them.
  • If you're the only person doing the job, surely you've got some leverage there. They won't want to get rid off you if they can help it as it'd take time to get someone else in. 

    A bit risky obviously.
  • mk64 wrote:
    Think before you speak. If he does it then it sets a precedent. If he does it then others will demand it. Before long the hundred people in his company are being paid an extra 8 hours a week. That quite easily might not be sstainable.
    First, that's not the responsibility of the individual employee who, as has been said, is probably not privy to the accounts (the company may be doing well and just taking the piss). Second, if you start down that road where does it end? Why not work another 8 hours for free so that the company can lay off a few people and save some more money? Good for business, no?

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!