Doing Overtime Due To Perpetual Offending Of Another employee.

Meestapink

ariarnia wrote: »

I would suggest you get it in writing that you have been told to take the time as toil and come in late incase you get docked then you're not being paid for the overtime and being paid less for your contracted hours...

There is no chance of me being docked and I will be paid accordingly. Yes maybe not at overtime rate however as this is seemingly an impossible demand. I will just take the time instead. This however does somewhat skirt round the actual core point and original post of having to work the extra time for a perpetual offender and the difference between actual working hours and implied or adopted working hours. The way I say it is that this employee cannot be disciplined as long as he stays within the 6-2 2-10 etc working rota. However the clocking time hours were changed with the introduction of the new clock machine to 05.30-12.30 12.30-20.30 and 20.30 til 05.30 . These had the "proper" shift references next to them and not just mornings, afternoons and nights. Does this make my dilemma any clearer now? The company is basically saying as long as he clocks in before 2, 10 and 6 that he is ok and tough shiite to me as I have signed a contract saying there is a possible reasonable amount of overtime. I'm not so sure that 3 years worth of 10, 20 mins plus the odd pi55 take hour or so actually constitutes reasonable!!
As mentioned before in my OP the email written was meant to fire a couple of people up, I work in the steel industry and as such working conditions are quite "taxing" so therefore to incur working any extra time over my weekly allotted hours can be extremely demanding both mentally and physically. I do agree with the comments above that working in an environment when sometimes the ambient air temperature rises to above 80 degrees C is somewhat different to working in a cushy office with a pow-wow and email for a friend!!!! The way management, grievance and working practice is dealt with is a very different planet, those who slated my approach are now benefit to the facts and maybe would like to judge differently now?

SarEl

Meestapink wrote: »

As mentioned before in my OP the email written was meant to fire a couple of people up, I work in the steel industry and as such working conditions are quite "taxing" so therefore to incur working any extra time over my weekly allotted hours can be extremely demanding both mentally and physically. I do agree with the comments above that working in an environment when sometimes the ambient air temperature rises to above 80 degrees C is somewhat different to working in a cushy office with a pow-wow and email for a friend!!!! The way management, grievance and working practice is dealt with is a very different planet, those who slated my approach are now benefit to the facts and maybe would like to judge differently now?

I don't believe that anyone "slated" your approach. several people, quite properly, pointed out that this less than tactful approach could be antagonistic to management and make things worse. A piece of advice which may be true in almost any industry. But since you did not see fit to provide the "facts" until after you had had their advice, then you aren't really in a position to cast aspersions. Also, it is all very well, and nobody would deny that steel workers work in a hard industry. But slagging off office work as "cushy" is similarly indicating that you have no knowledge or empathy with other workers, who have their own problems and issues, which are just as big and just as critical as yours. The way things are dealt with may be different - that doesn't infer that it is better. I have some respect for the blunt approach of certain industries to HR, and in many ways it can be more likely to achieve a solution and/or less stressful than the months or years of protracted "niceness" that grinds people down and damages their health and wellbeing - but that still doesn't mean, even in steelworks, that everyone appreciates it. I have heard the same argument made to suggest that discrimination and bullying are "ok" in some sectors of employment, because that's the way everyone speaks to each other, or acts, or behaves. It's never "ok" and it can come back to bite you in the backside.

That said, if it works for you, then fine. For many people, even those in "production jobs" (which covers a lot more than steel working) it might just have easily led to the door.

Googlewhacker

DVardysShadow wrote: »

The key point is that the core issue has a fair basis. If you think that the style of the email is out of order, it is clear that you are putting form above substance.

If I was the boss I would still accept the points made by the person but I would also warn them of their conduct in terms of addressing colleagues (albeit management).

Googlewhacker

Meestapink wrote: »

As mentioned before in my OP the email written was meant to fire a couple of people up, I work in the steel industry and as such working conditions are quite "taxing" so therefore to incur working any extra time over my weekly allotted hours can be extremely demanding both mentally and physically. I do agree with the comments above that working in an environment when sometimes the ambient air temperature rises to above 80 degrees C is somewhat different to working in a cushy office with a pow-wow and email for a friend!!!! The way management, grievance and working practice is dealt with is a very different planet, those who slated my approach are now benefit to the facts and maybe would like to judge differently now?

Whether or not it is working in differant environments I still think you should have been more tactful (not tactile ) but that is my opinion and obviously not yours but that is fair enough

Googlewhacker

SarEl wrote: »

I don't believe that anyone "slated" your approach. several people, quite properly, pointed out that this less than tactful approach could be antagonistic to management and make things worse. A piece of advice which may be true in almost any industry. But since you did not see fit to provide the "facts" until after you had had their advice, then you aren't really in a position to cast aspersions. Also, it is all very well, and nobody would deny that steel workers work in a hard industry. But slagging off office work as "cushy" is similarly indicating that you have no knowledge or empathy with other workers, who have their own problems and issues, which are just as big and just as critical as yours. The way things are dealt with may be different - that doesn't infer that it is better. I have some respect for the blunt approach of certain industries to HR, and in many ways it can be more likely to achieve a solution and/or less stressful than the months or years of protracted "niceness" that grinds people down and damages their health and wellbeing - but that still doesn't mean, even in steelworks, that everyone appreciates it. I have heard the same argument made to suggest that discrimination and bullying are "ok" in some sectors of employment, because that's the way everyone speaks to each other, or acts, or behaves. It's never "ok" and it can come back to bite you in the backside.

That said, if it works for you, then fine. For many people, even those in "production jobs" (which covers a lot more than steel working) it might just have easily led to the door.

Very good points!

Meestapink

GW , again I can't fail to agree with you about the approach however at the time it seemed appropriate given the circumstances and those I expected my complaint to be dealt with, so I upped the ante and put someone who is lets say "coasting" and has about as much managerial ability as my pen on his heels. This is un professional I know, however in this firm seemingly this whitewash and the "this is how its always happened" has been going on for more than at least 8 years. Colleagues I have spoken to are so sucked into the "way its always been" philosophy, so in steps somebody with a fairly good grasp of employment law and boy do they not like it. That is why I am having problems. Not attitude in emails etc, hard mans world, hard words back and that is sorted over a brew. Although the basic rights of hours worked etc are far deeper and without advice off here or kicking up more stink can I help my fellow workers. Yes I am a member of a union but he may as well be tucked up with the managers in bed lol . Any ideas on the hours situation folks? And in reply to having the full story about the way management seem fit to run our gaff, apologies ladies and gentlemen but I would be no longer able to type due to severe RSI. Oh and just to bait them........... Office boy gayer syndrome, ooh watch out for that stapler !!!!!! Just kidding , give it, take it!

MP

DVardysShadow

Googlewhacker wrote: »

If I was the boss I would still accept the points made by the person but I would also warn them of their conduct in terms of addressing colleagues (albeit management).

Hmm. Gross misconduct? Misconduct? The text is below, could you make misconduct stick? You see, if you take exception to it but don't back down quickly, then as boss, you actually begin to look foolish. Now the risk in that is that the boss may then use underhanded means to punish or even remove the writer - which will leave him looking even more foolish and petty. But looking at the text, there really is nothing to object to, apart from a grizzle about the tone.

Meestapink wrote: »

I
Mr Y,
Further to our text message conversation (all of which I have saved) I am disappointed at your response towards me getting paid for stopping on. As we are both aware that Mr X's timekeeping at best is abysmal.Being late for a shift on which you are attending a disciplinary interview just underlines this.
I am not sure at what time the Kronos system has me down as clocking out, (I left site at quarter to 2) but I do expect to be paid at time and a half for this period which is MY TIME. To quote the old adage of "6-2 mate!" is simply not acceptable. All I ask for is a fair days pay for a fair days work and I don't see anything unreasonable about that. None of us are here for the love of it Mr Y and I am sure in my shoes you would feel exactly the same. I understand that Mr X had to stay back to make his time up, which is right. However I have overstayed my time by over an hour and deserve to recompensated as such.
I trust this will happen regardless of your initial response.
As we were working at the time lets remember who was doing who the favour here!
I would of course not jeopardise production and thus was forced to remain in post until such time as Mr X finally decided to turn up. This issue needs sorting once and for all Mr Y, I must have accrued a few shift's worth of extra time during the last 3 years due to his inability to be punctual and it is now at a point where I am no longer going to tolerate the "It's Mr X" standing joke, which is what it is to be fair.
I like Mr X and think he is a good lad and good at his job too, he freely admits his timekeeping is awful, I do not know the answer but as stated above I as an individual am no longer going to tolerate the incumberance of my time not being rewarded by the company.
I have copied XXX in on this email as you can see. I trust this matter can be resolved amicably and financially.

Googlewhacker

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Hmm. Gross misconduct? Misconduct? The text is below, could you make misconduct stick? You see, if you take exception to it but don't back down quickly, then as boss, you actually begin to look foolish. Now the risk in that is that the boss may then use underhanded means to punish or even remove the writer - which will leave him looking even more foolish and petty. But looking at the text, there really is nothing to object to, apart from a grizzle about the tone.

I never said formal warning, it could be informal and would be most likely an informal warning.

It could also go the other way that if a manager kicks off about the manner of the email and then backs down shows then he looks foolish as well.

Personally I would do as the boss has done (and if I recieved emails in that manner in the future then I would send them back asking for them to be rewritten as I am not adverse to employees questionning things but only if they treat me with the respect required) and warn the employee informally about how to address me in any situation and then go through the points with the employee.

DVardysShadow

Googlewhacker wrote: »

I never said formal warning, it could be informal and would be most likely an informal warning.

It could also go the other way that if a manager kicks off about the manner of the email and then backs down shows then he looks foolish as well.

Personally I would do as the boss has done (and if I recieved emails in that manner in the future then I would send them back asking for them to be rewritten as I am not adverse to employees questionning things but only if they treat me with the respect required) and warn the employee informally about how to address me in any situation and then go through the points with the employee.

And I never said you said formal warning. I asked whether you could make misconduct stick. If you can't make misconduct stick, you are totally out of order with a warning, even if it is informal.

You see, it is written to be provocative, perhaps even to rile, but there is nothing to get riled about. There is a genuine problem, where someone is being treated unfairly due to the default of a colleague and the employer is passively condoning the behaviour.

If you were boss and you sent that email back to be rewritten, I would hope that you would very quickly be removed to a place where you did not matter very much. The issue at stake is very much more important than your reaction to the email if you were boss. If the issue is genuine, the boss must deal with it, even if he does not like how the issue is presented. If industry has one prima donna who sends an email back to be rewritten before actually facing up to the issue raised by the email, it is one prima donna too many.

Googlewhacker

DVardysShadow wrote: »

And I never said you said formal warning. I asked whether you could make misconduct stick. If you can't make misconduct stick, you are totally out of order with a warning, even if it is informal. By Informal I mean I would not stand for emails in that manner, I am a reasonable person and as such I would expect people emailing me to email me in the manner. If this didn't happen I would tell the person who emailed to email me in a respectful manner.

You see, it is written to be provocative, perhaps even to rile, but there is nothing to get riled about. There is a genuine problem, where someone is being treated unfairly due to the default of a colleague and the employer is passively condoning the behaviour.
I've never disagreed with the reasons for writing the email, just the fact that the email could have been written better in my opinion
If you were boss and you sent that email back to be rewritten, I would hope that you would very quickly be removed to a place where you did not matter very much. The issue at stake is very much more important than your reaction to the email if you were boss. If the issue is genuine, the boss must deal with it, even if he does not like how the issue is presented. If industry has one prima donna who sends an email back to be rewritten before actually facing up to the issue raised by the email, it is one prima donna too many.I actually do agree with this in real terms so I would as said verbally tell the the OP not to do it again and if it carried on doing this then you would be able to do something about it. [/QUOTE]

Remember if it was the other way around and the boss was sending emails to the employees like the one the OP did on a constant basis it could be construed as harrassment.