MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Should Theo undercut Duncan's work at double pay?

Charco_2

Sainsbury's i think on a Sunday!

Androcles

The boss must be mad! I f he didn't have an overtime premium policy before, he certainly does now and it is three times pay. Having created the precedent, he will find it extremely difficult not to pay that for ever. If the next batch of overtime comes up and Theo gets it, he can claim it is unfair if he gets any less, and raise a grievance under the company procedure. In any case, if Duncan got the overtime and Theo, who was equally eligible to do it, did not know, he can equally raise a grievance that the boss is unfairly allocating overtime and asking what the method of deciding who gets it, actually is.

As I said the boss must be :wall: after that decision!

matchmade

I agree with those who say that negotiation is best. If I were in Duncan's shoes I would be seriously ticked off if this Theo character tried to undercut my negotiated rate. Theo should think about the effect of his behaviour on their future working relationship. He should approach Duncan and ask if he'd give up the overtime, or stand aside at the next allocation; if Duncan says "I have an aged mother, or a child of my own, or a CSA ransom to pay" or whatever, Theo should approach the employer and ask to be included on a shortlist for the next allocation. If Theo were that keen on overtime, he should have done this in the first place, and not indulge in sour grapes just because Duncan got in there first.

englishmac

First come first served. If he needed the money that much and it is known that it is difficult to persuade workers to do overtime, then he should have brought it to his boss's attention that he would be available if it arose.

From a company point of view, they would be mad to renege on the initial deal as the next time they are desparate for overtimers, they are likely to find themselves in a worse situation. I have found it is common for people to find they are in need of extra money when it suits them, not the company. When it doesn't suit them, they are willing to put themselves out to help the company (and thereby themselves by protecting their own jobs). P*** the triple pay overtimer off and they won't be so willing to work overtime next time it is up for grabs. Could find themselves without any overtimers at all.

tara747

matchmade wrote: »

I agree with those who say that negotiation is best. If I were in Duncan's shoes I would be seriously ticked off if this Theo character tried to undercut my negotiated rate. Theo should think about the effect of his behaviour on their future working relationship. He should approach Duncan and ask if he'd give up the overtime, or stand aside at the next allocation; if Duncan says "I have an aged mother, or a child of my own, or a CSA ransom to pay" or whatever, Theo should approach the employer and ask to be included on a shortlist for the next allocation. If Theo were that keen on overtime, he should have done this in the first place, and not indulge in sour grapes just because Duncan got in there first.

But why should Duncan have to justify why he needs the extra cash? I don't get it...

pineapple

Agreed he shouldn't have to. Indeed the boss can't and shouldn't make assumptions about one persons need over another. But it does go on! I used to work with someone who got a name for filching all the overtime.
She told everyone that she needed the money to pay for her daughter's drug habit!!

tara747

pineapple wrote: »

Agreed he shouldn't have to. Indeed the boss can't and shouldn't make assumptions about one persons need over another. But it does go on! I used to work with someone who got a name for filching all the overtime.
She told everyone that she needed the money to pay for her daughter's drug habit!!

:eek::eek::eek:

Divvying up overtime should not be based on that sort of thing! Parents, childless, single, coupled up, etc - it doesn't come into it imho. It should be based on business need and be divided fairly and equitably.

Ebenezer_Screwj

These days overtime is hard to come by at any price. Duncan's company must have some reason to pay him triple rate and he got there first so better luck next time for Theo.

agudbuk

No body forced Theo to have a child. Duncan has no responsibility to support Theo's family.
If you can't afford children don't have them .; and if you do have them lets not use them as moral blackmail on others.
If this was a fair world people that have children would pay more tax.

tara747

agudbuk wrote: »

No body forced Theo to have a child. Duncan has no responsibility to support Theo's family.
If you can't afford children don't have them .; and if you do have them lets not use them as moral blackmail on others.
If this was a fair world people that have children would pay more tax.

OK, I know I thanked your post above but that was before I read the bit in bold. I disagree, incidentally, but would be interested in hearing why you think that parents should pay more tax. Bearing in mind that their children will (hopefully) be working in adulthood and paying taxes of their own to fund oldies' NHS treatment (I'm not even going to get into debating whether the state pension will still exist by the time I'm 65! :eek:).

I agree totally with the other bits though.