lateness

Emily1990_2

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

And why shouldn't they? The employer is paying the employee for the time so I don't see anything wrong with them insisting on punctuality. Anyway, when do you feel it ceases to be "nitpicking" - 3 / 5/ 10 / 30 minutes late?

If you're on probation then you know you are under the microscope so why take chances?

OP's husband should apologise in the meeting and then aim to get back from his future breaks early to show he has learnt the error of his ways.

1/2 minutes is essentially nothing and could easily result from watches/clocks being different or the like. I know at my old workplace the clock in the office was different from the clock in the canteen which was different from the clock on my computer and my phone. Of course it depends on how regularly this is occurring but surely you could also argue employees shouldn't be getting up from their desks to make tea in the morning as this takes up a few minutes. Or going to the loo?

I don't see anything wrong with punctuality but nitpicking over '1 or 2 minutes late on a 'few occasions'' sounds to me like they are being Nazis.

Willsnarf1983

Emily1990 wrote: »

1/2 minutes is essentially nothing and could easily result from watches/clocks being different or the like. I know at my old workplace the clock in the office was different from the clock in the canteen which was different from the clock on my computer and my phone. Of course it depends on how regularly this is occurring but surely you could also argue employees shouldn't be getting up from their desks to make tea in the morning as this takes up a few minutes. Or going to the loo?

I don't see anything wrong with punctuality but nitpicking over '1 or 2 minutes late on a 'few occasions'' sounds to me like they are being Nazis.

Your wrong Emily, 1/2 minutes a day is 200-400 minutes a year which is what 3 and a bit to nearly 7 hours a year out of business time....how would u feel if the company stung you for 3-7 hours...would you put up with it? I doubt it

Will

Proc

Emily1990 wrote: »

1/2 minutes is essentially nothing and could easily result from watches/clocks being different or the like. I know at my old workplace the clock in the office was different from the clock in the canteen which was different from the clock on my computer and my phone. Of course it depends on how regularly this is occurring but surely you could also argue employees shouldn't be getting up from their desks to make tea in the morning as this takes up a few minutes. Or going to the loo?

I don't see anything wrong with punctuality but nitpicking over '1 or 2 minutes late on a 'few occasions'' sounds to me like they are being Nazis.

All this from someone who is supposedly training to be a solicitor?

Good luck telling the Magistrates to stop "nit-picking" when you turn up just a few minutes late to court.

langold

thanks for the comment not for the unhelpful ones, why do people come on here and say unhelpful thinghs i am worried about my family and the money situattion please dont make fun, he has started to take shorter breaks, hes a hard worker and i can only think hes looked at one clock and then looked at another on the way back, one of his lateness is 30 seconds, i will let you no the outcome, thankyou

bigblackdog

i was in a similar position once , the only real argument i had was to point out the times i had been early for work , i think in this situation your hubby should do all in his power to at least clear the probation period , if it was me i would give them nothing to complain about and endeavour to be 30 seconds early back from break , he is also going to have to synchronise his watch to the one they are timing him with else buy a stopwatch or use the stopwatch function on his mobile phone , during probation he is probably under scrutiny more than if he had been working there longer , all his faults will be magnified in his bosses eyes perhaps , just keep them sweet till the probation is over ,good luck

langold

im going to get him a watch tommorow, he is going to be 5 mins early from his breaks,hes really trying

Tiddlywinks

Emily1990 wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with punctuality but nitpicking over '1 or 2 minutes late on a 'few occasions'' sounds to me like they are being Nazis.

Would you please provide your definition of "Nazis"; specifically in this context? I'd love to hear this justification from someone trying to make it in the legal profession.

It appears that the OP's husband has been warned about his timekeeping (as I doubt that the meeting is for a first "offence"). He is already aware that he is on probation so he should make sure that he is extra careful to comply with company requirements - this is the sensible thing to do and would be the sensible advice to give any future client that you may have in this situation (once you qualify).

Referring to employers as "Nazis" when they are only asking for compliance is, I would suggest, not the path to go down.

ecoelle

I have to deal with this at work all the time. 1 or 2 minutes doesn't sound a lot but for example i have 8 checkout staff on tills and they all need 15 minutes break during their shift, 1 or 2 minutes per staff late back throws out everyone elses break, byt the time you get to the last person, they could be 15 minutes late going on their break which affects everyone. In intances when i have had to deal with this in an investigation with staff they usually recieve a verbal warning on the first meeting, followed byt a first written if it continues, then a second written, then possible dismissal. He has an opprtunity here to sort out his time keeping so lets hope he takes the warning and stops being late.

Fly_Baby

This does sound exessive to me. Wouldn't any employee ever be kept for extra 5 minutes at the end of the working day, or had a work talk with a manager etc during their lunch break? I am sure the employee would find it reasonable and will not be making a fuss over these 5 minutes unpaid time and how much it would cost his over the year.

langold

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Would you please provide your definition of "Nazis"; specifically in this context? I'd love to hear this justification from someone trying to make it in the legal profession.

It appears that the OP's husband has been warned about his timekeeping (as I doubt that the meeting is for a first "offence"). He is already aware that he is on probation so he should make sure that he is extra careful to comply with company requirements - this is the sensible thing to do and would be the sensible advice to give any future client that you may have in this situation (once you qualify).

Referring to employers as "Nazis" when they are only asking for compliance is, I would suggest, not the path to go down.

yes it is a first offence