Squizz

These fvckers want me to work 40+ hours per week minimum, when I'm contracted for 37 1/2. [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

Of course the other members of the team "look" more committed... They're all geek-fvckwit developers with no life "off-line".

<sigh>

It's all b@ll@cks anyway. As soon as the project is finished, we're all going to be made redundant... I feel it in my water!

Squizz

Why does QUOTE knacker the text formatting?

Regacy

I'd solve your problem very quickly if you worked for me.

Leslie

I dont understand how companies can write you down these days for not working for longer than you are paid for. If you do so voluntarily than nothing wrong with getting a brownie point for that, but to exploit you by expecting you to do so is wrong and will eventually lead to less efficiency due to tiredness and irritation because of a lack of quality in one's life. Very short sighted and selfish attitude to a firm's own work force.

Les

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Right. These same companies would give you a hard time for taking the odd pen, stapler or ring binder from the stationary cupboard 'because it all adds up and harms the company...', yet you're expected to work beyond your contracted number of hours. Those extra unpaid hours all add up too!

Personally I have (pardon the expression) no time for companies which clock-watch. I'm paid to get my job done; why should anyone care how long it takes?

Diablo

Harsh reality of life time.

What does your contract actually say?

I'm contracted to work 7.5 hours 5 days a week. No overtime.

I'm also contracted to work over and outwith the normal working week as required if the job dictates it. Which it frequently does.

(Not IT)

If your projects are being delivered on time, to budget, etc, etc, etc, then you cannot be "marked down", but if they are not then thats a different story.

All down to what you signed up for.

D

Mice_Elf

Ditto. Also contracted for 37.5 hours a week, but it's "expected" of me to work overtime, given that I am on a Managerial level. The first 16 hours of which, are unpaid.

Regacy

it's not a tangible 'mark down' it just means that when it gets to pay review time or a promotion is in the offing you whingers are stuffed.
Pull your finger out and face up to it, it's a competitive market and if the guy next to you is better than you he'll earn the money.
Unless you work in the civil service or at the BBC!
IMHO

Pete Croney

What a long winded way of saying "I don't want a pay rise but my collegues deserve one".

Richard Askew

Rik - give em the flick mate..

Dave P

Same as Diablo. Contract states 35 hours per week unless otherwise required. Normally work 55 hours plus no overtime. No payrise this year but I'm in banking and have a job.

Dave

AnDy_PaNdY

An all too familiar story in the modern workplace.
Problem is there are lots of other **** lickers who are happy to push you aside to get on the bosses good side.
Fekk 'em I say

bigjohn

with an attitude like that you should work on the london underground ....i reckon you would be out on strike every week .
The fact that you live a long way from your job is not an excuse to get out on the dot everyday ....you live there by your own choice !! everyday i work longer than i am " contractually obliged" , i dont get paid any more for it and im not kissing **** its just the way it is , if a promotion comes up maybe i would be favoured because i show commitment and not the " i get in at 9 am , take an hour for lunch and go home at 5 pm mentality"... just remeber your there because you choose to do that job , if you feel your being exploited get out

Scot123

Sorry, doing unpaid work for your company is stupid and nothing more than exploitation. You're forced in this position unfortunately because of idiots with absolutely no back-bone. At the end of the day you look after one person, yourself, because when push comes to shove the company will pay off the crawlers just as quick as anybody else. They look after their interests, you look after yours.

unclebuck

Agree in many ways with Scott. If you find yourself having to work long hours for no extra money then it is bad managment pure and simple.[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

I'll do it in an emergency, when there is a deadline etc, but there is a limit. And I would expect time off in Lieu afterwards.

Flexi-time works *both* ways. If your company stopped it then they have laid down the rules that you work from and to a particular time. It's their rule, so you are doing what they have asked.

Also appaisals are supposed to be of a positive nature focusing on what you do that is good for the company. If someone is writing that kind of stuff then I would complain about the quality of the appraisal itself. I would deffo talk to someone (HR?) before commiting anything in writing.

[Edited by unclebuck - 2/27/2003 8:12:15 PM]

ADP

One of my mates works for a well known car company. He turns up at something like 7am every morning and always works the hours hes paid for(goes home at 3.30 ish I think). His attitude is "if you want me to work any longer, pay me" simple as that and I have to say - thats the way it should be. His employers dont like it, but seem to tolerate it.

Why should anyone have to work more time than they are paid for, its work for feks sake, you only live once so why spend your time slaving away in a crappy office or whatever for any more time than you have to esp if its unpaid.

I hate the way companies "expect you" to put more in for free, they can go fck themselves as far as Im concerned. Im not the kind of person who would leave his desk while all hell was breaking lose and I was needed to help out, but as for just doing more hours ie more lines of code or whatever then no way.

This is why I work for me best way.

Tim-Grove

As soon as that clock hit 4:00pm(3:30 on Friday) im gone, and if im still there it's time-and-a-half for me.

Tim.

[Edited by Tim-Grove - 2/27/2003 8:22:46 PM]

robski

Having to work long hours is ok if you want to do it, companies have to be reasonable, even if your contract states you are there to get a job done it still has to be reasonable.

I would never work excessively long hours over a period of time, by doing this you build benchmarks that become the norm.

If you happily work 9 hour days you will find that eventually you need to work 9.5 then 10, most companies will take the **** until you have enough back bone to stand up for yourself.

My wifes ex boss would happily commit my wife to work extra hours to *** lick his boss but as soon as he had delegated the work he would **** off home. Until one day she just said sorry I cant and left, he had egg on face the next day.

There will always be times when extra hours need to be worked, if you are in a position to be able to do them then you should be expected to, if you cant it shouldnt be held against you.

In the workplace now a days you will find people willing to work silly hours to stand a chance of a promotion thats up to them, but it doesnt always work that way.

If your that pissed about it just start looking for a new job, find one nearer to home thats the best option

robski

Regacy

I have run several large redundancy programs in the last few years.

The legal position is as follows:

On an individual basis if a company terminates the employment of an employee who has been employed for 12 months or more, the employee is entitled to bring a complaint of unfair dismissal before an Employment Tribunal within 3 months of the termination of his employment. The company can defend such a claim by establishing two things; firstly that it had had a statutory reason for the termination and secondly that it followed a fair procedure.

Redundancy, one definition of which is where an employers requirement for employees to do work of a particular kind has ceased or diminished, is such a reason.

The second element is a fair procedure. In the context of redundancy it is well established that this means giving as much warning of possible redundancy to affected employees as soon as possible, and thereafter consulting with them properly before any final decisions are taken.

This means that it would be an unfair dismissal to simply tell employees with more than one year’s service that their jobs are redundant and their employment is to be terminated without any prior warning or consultation. The reality however is that once you tell employees that their jobs are at risk most people simply want to know whether they have a job or not. They want the uncertainty to be as short as possible.

In such circumstances there is clearly a balance to be struck between fully complying with your legal obligations - to engage in a full and meaningful consultation process and on the other hand keeping periods of uncertainty to a minimum.

Turning now to the question of selection procedures the legal position is that whenever you have employees doing the same job and you need to reduce staff numbers, selections must be based, as far as possible, on objective criteria such as length of service. However length of service is not always a criteria that is in the company’s best interests. Other factors are things like quality and quantity of work, versatility and adaptability.


You are a sitting duck.
Pull your finger out or accept the consequences.
But don't resent the '**** lickers' who get to keep their jobs when you discover just how tight the jobs market is at the moment.
r

3times

Can't believe people work as many as 37 1/2 hours in a week!

I'd need a week off to recover if I worked that long!

Diablo

But how many of you "work to rule types" actually work for the 7.5 hours or so you are there?

What about the time spent surfing the web, chatting, making cups of tea, etc, etc, etc.....?

FFS its this work to rule attitute that caused the downfall of the British manufacturing industry. When other nations workforces were taking pride in what they do, and puting in the extra effort we were leaving on the dot and having tea breaks

I agree its just a job, but can people not see that it benefits the employee (in most cases - and particularly the case in question on this thread) to show a bit more committment?

OK, so it can be abused by employers which causes other problems and is a whole other ball game IMO.

I could have, my working life in my line of work done the 9 to 5.30 thing, and stuck to that. I'd have got minimum rises, slow progression and probably be stuck in a rut, but hey, I wouldn't have worked unpaid

Buy showing a bit more committment, puting in a bit of extra effort and balancing that against life away from work (and I accept that's the hard bit) I've got on much better for a little extra effort.

Perception is reality, its getting that perception right.

At the end of the day, any job is just a means to an end - but you can change that end.

Likewise, to an employer, an employee is just a means to en end for an employer. To stand above the rest and this get on in life you gotta demonstrate that you are not the same.

D [/i]

[Edited by Diablo - 2/28/2003 9:58:57 AM]

I_dont_giveafvk

you lucky youve got a job dont lose it by being a plonker, times are hard deal with it

Chris L

Just remember and it is something I've come to realise as I've got older - companies pay what they can get away with - not the most they can afford to. Staff are an expense - simple as that. If I worked for myself, it would be different I too would put in the very long hours because it would be to my benefit.

I've come to realise that there are things more important than work. Right now my boss will have a go at me if I am working more than 45 hours (contract is 37.5) a week. He feels the same way. I have in the past worked stupid hours - 70 or 80 a week, sometimes with very little time off. Difference then was I was getting good overtime rates, so at least I saw some financial benefit.

I'm normally in the office by 7:30 and rarely take a lunch break. I try to leave at around 3:30 to 4:00 - mostly to avoid the traffic - it makes my life easier. But I'm not going to work all hours. I've also undertaken to do a lot of training which will require me to do a lot of work in my own time.

I too have been through multiple rounds of redundancy in the last 12 months and have had no pay rise in the last two years. I'm lucky enough to still have my job - which I do well and there are no complaints from my clients or colleagues. All this bs about marking people down because they are not doing unpaid overtime is crazy.

Sure everyone wants dedicated staff, but if everyone is having to put in overtime to get the work done, doesn't that also suggest that perhaps more staff are needed? However this will cost money...

Chris

12LEE

Spot on Diablo.

This was posted Wednesday, February 26, 2003 13:58. OK, that was no doubt during the self-enforced 1300-1400 lunch hour. Is all surfing at work constrained to this period? Personal phone calls?

This country's work ethic, on the whole, sucks. Work hard, be successfuly, reap the rewards.

If I had staff, *everyone* would be on a pay scheme relating to the performance of the company. No "expected" bonus, I'm talking proper comp-plan stuff. 50% of salary related to company performance.

Gordo

Haha - you're not daft are you?

"I feel it in my water they'll make me redundant at the end of the project [sic]"

you're not wrong there mate .........

Stevie

Agree with Diablo and 12Lee.

Work ethic is pants in this country. I would never want employees, too many rights over the employer. Sod that.

Everyone that works WITH me is purely on a contractual basis, get something done, I'll pay for it.

I actually had someone ask me if I would pay for a day of his time a couple of weeks ago. It was for a project he had introduced to me that had "full approval". After 1 day of my time also, £400 in my legal costs, my solicitor and I discover "approval" had't even been applied for, let alone granted!! He knew this, and wanted me to pay for his time! Not sure I understand that

JapSport

Most of what I've read on this thread is garbage IMHO.. I run my own company and would never 'mark someone down' if they worked their contracted hours alone. I employ people to work 39 hrs a week. If I needed people to work 45 hours a wekk, I'd employ them to work 45 hours a week. Sure, sickness, holidays etc. can cause shortfalls in labour but if you treat the workforce with respect there will ALWAYS be volunteers to work PAID overtime if the need arises. It seems to me that companies which cannot manage their labour effectively are overcommitting to their customers, in any sector. It's worth remembering that a happy employee working an eight hour day will easily be twice as productive as an employee feeling obliged to work 10hrs.

Not sure of your best course of action as I too have been a victim of the pressure you're under in the past and my resolution was to quit and set up on my own. This doesn't work for everyone though.

My point however is that there should be no obligation to work for free and any company that needs it's employees to work for free isn't much of a company.

Ray_li

i Was temping for a bank not long ago. they gave me job A and said here is your target everyday. by the way you have job B and job C to do as well. then they said to me im not meeting my targets.
then told me i cant do over time then after a few weeks told me off for not doing over time.

Ray

dont work there any more but if i see him out and about im gonna smack him

Regacy

Hold on guys.
I think we need to differentiate between different types of jobs
If you work in a structured role with clear tangible targets (putting the lids on tubes of smarties) then it's unreasonable to pressure you to work non-contracted hours.
However if you work in a proactive environment where you affect your work rate and delivery is more subjective then you do have a responsibility to 'finish' the job.
If you can do that between 9 and 5 that’s great, if it takes you till 6 then you either have to question the scale of the task, or your time management.
Beyond that it's all about perception, I can't stand companies that have a 'work late' culture, it's not productive.
But companies that have a performance / delivery culture are typically more successful.
The same can be said for the individuals that perpetuate these behaviours.

12LEE

but what would be wrong with paying the smartie tube assembly executive on a performance-related basis - so long as the target is sensible - and leaving it up to them how productive/remunerated they want to be?

edited to add - pay for outputs, not inputs. Agree that there's a case for unionisation, measured hours, etc., on jobs that are not output-based, e.g. public sector, tube whiners, etc.

[Edited by 12LEE - 2/28/2003 12:18:13 PM]