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...
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
According to the Government website a contract doesn't have to be written...igorgetmeabrain wrote:You shouldn't need anyone to tell you that a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's not written on.
Someone has to do the work that no one enjoys though. Its not an option for everyone.Âigorgetmeabrain wrote: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.
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.
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.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.
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.We sometimes have programmed "office days." Â Not weekends, not days off, but days where you're not required to fly. Â 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. Â 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. Â 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.
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.
The Royal Mail wouldn't be allowed to go under.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?
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.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..
I'm not at the Royal Mail anymore, I wish I still was...monkey wrote:The Royal Mail wouldn't be allowed to go under.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?
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..
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...
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?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.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!