Flexible Working. Reduce lunch break...
Comments
-
unforeseen wrote: »The last but one on the list maybes goer. They have an extra person working for half an hour but there may be insufficient work to justify it
Possibly clutching at straws a little though, Anyway op has dropped it we will never know0 -
glentoran99 wrote: »The reason has been given, it wasn't one of those, The company simply cant change the reason on appeal. As I said earlier I have direct experience of it and won, The reasons initially given were not too different from the OP, The change also similar, reducing lunch etc
Lucky you. Your company chose to allow your appeal.
The fact that they can cope with one person leaving at 5 doesn't mean they can cope with everybody leaving at 5. If they allow one person to do so while losing nothing (losing half an hour of a lunch break that nobody in a professional environment takes is losing nothing) , everybody will want to. That's enough to disallow it. The fact that somebody allowed it for you doesn't mean they had to, and doesn't mean anyone else has to.0 -
glentoran99 wrote: »its not, it does not fit with any of these
the burden of additional costs
an inability to reorganise work amongst existing staff
an inability to recruit additional staff
a detrimental impact on quality
a detrimental impact on performance
detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand
insufficient work for the periods the employee proposes to work
a planned structural changes to the business.
The fact that they are happy for the change in hours negates everyone of those as a reason
I'm glad the OP must have another job and doesn't have to contest this. Glad they are pleased with their outcome. But let's not get carried away and imagine things that we don't know for a fact.0 -
I'm not so sure the OP has another job. (She is very good at posting things which can be interpreted in more than one way!) I have concluded that the most likely outcome is that she has re-jigged childcare so that her current arrangement can continue!I was a board guide here for many years, but have now resigned. Amicably, but I think it reflects very poorly on MSE that I have not even received an acknowledgement of my resignation! Poor show, MSE.
This signature was changed on 6.4.22. This is an experiment to see if anyone from MSE picks up on this comment.0 -
jobbingmusician wrote: »I'm not so sure the OP has another job. (She is very good at posting things which can be interpreted in more than one way!) I have concluded that the most likely outcome is that she has re-jigged childcare so that her current arrangement can continue!0
-
Quite. We are a large organisation but spread over many locations. We MUST be available to members 8.30 - 17.00, Monday to Friday. As with your experience, nigh on every request we get (and we have been operating flexible working requests far longer than the law has!) is to finish early. We therefore have a rota system and everybody must work it. The,"office" must be covered. We have recently been able to establish telecoms systems that work through virtual networks, so the location of the "office" is no longer a complete fixed point. But "someone" will be working from 8.30 - 17.00 answering phones and directing calls. With only three people employed to do that, that means "what people want" isn't an option! So far we have never needed to look at regulating this - we have left them to work it out between themselves. And that has so far worked. If it comes a day when it doesn't, then the apparition of no flexibility will loom. And we're the union!!!!!!
This. One team I worked in we had to have the office phones covered 8.30-5pm. Each week we sorted a rota out as to who would to earlies and lates. It was usually the same people who volunteered as it suited them - after all, if you're in at 7.30 to beat the traffic, you can answer phones at 8.30! Likewise, if you come in at 10 you need to stay until 6 to get your hours in.0 -
ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »Lucky you. Your company chose to allow your appeal.
The fact that they can cope with one person leaving at 5 doesn't mean they can cope with everybody leaving at 5. If they allow one person to do so while losing nothing (losing half an hour of a lunch break that nobody in a professional environment takes is losing nothing) , everybody will want to. That's enough to disallow it. The fact that somebody allowed it for you doesn't mean they had to, and doesn't mean anyone else has to.
Totally irrelevant, and not everybody wants to do the same thing, everyones circumstances are different, even if they did each application is looked at individually and the circumstances are the time, "because everyone will want to isn't a valid excuse"
Someone in my office asked to do the same hours that I changed to, they were refused, the didn't appeal correctly so lost out
They allowed it for me because they didn't have a valid reason not to0 -
glentoran99 wrote: »Totally irrelevant, and not everybody wants to do the same thing, everyones circumstances are different, even if they did each application is looked at individually and the circumstances are the time, "because everyone will want to isn't a valid excuse"
Someone in my office asked to do the same hours that I changed to, they were refused, the didn't appeal correctly so lost out
They allowed it for me because they didn't have a valid reason not to
Well well done you. I bet you are popular. You are the very antithesis of unionism, aren't you. The best for me and **** everybody else.
Any company with two ounces of sense would have refused your appeal rather than !!!! off every other worker they have.0 -
The reason has been given, it wasn't one of those, The company simply cant change the reason on appeal.
The reference to policy is not to consider whether their reason for refusing is acceptable or not, it was asking about the policy for lunch breaks. If there is a policy that states clearly that lunch breaks have to be one hour, then that's the policy and there needs not be any reason to justify why this policy should be changed for a particular person because their offer of flexibility is not what the OP wants.0 -
ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »Well well done you. I bet you are popular. You are the very antithesis of unionism, aren't you. The best for me and **** everybody else.
Any company with two ounces of sense would have refused your appeal rather than !!!! off every other worker they have.
Imagine that, Putting myself and my family first!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.4K Spending & Discounts
- 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 172.8K Life & Family
- 247.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards