sunday working

SarEl

blueye wrote: »

no 5 one week 6 the next. there wernt hours on the job ad it was described as flexible working, you can pick how many hrs you want to work only it turns out its not that flexible, everyone is on the same 0hr contract yet some are better off than others, that is what is annoying. why should i get less time off than others who signed up to exactly the same thing as i did

If you are on a zero hours contract then you are, as others have said, at liuberty to turn down any and all shifts that you do not want to work. On the other hand, your employer is also entitled to refuse to allocate you any shifts, and you cannot insist on them giving you any. If, as you suggested before, you don't really care about loosing your job, then the easiest thing to do is resign - although I am certainly not recommending it.

If you want to continue to work there, then with a contract such as this you should be able to negotiate a reduction of shifts - but this is not the same thing as being able to say that you will only work certain days. If you refuse to work on weekends, for example, the employer can easily retaliate by saying that they refuse to offer you shifts on Monday to Wednesday, reducing the number of hours that you can work to a bare minimum, at which point you may be unable to afford to continue in work because of the reduced wage.

DVardysShadow

SarEl wrote: »

I would draw your attention to the fact that I said in my very first response that I did not know if the response answered the OP's question because what the actual question was was unclear. The OP continued to say simply that she would not work on Sundays - and so the response of myself and others) was confined to the point repeatedly made by the OP that she intended to refuse to work Sundays. If you wish to continue to make sly digs when the question posed was answered, then be my guest but I made no mention of ET's or anything else - I answered what the OP said.

It is not a sly dig, it is a fairly open criticism, muted for the sensitivities of others, due to cowardice on my part.

The question posed was only answered in the narrowest of terms. But it is fairly obvious that there is something quite outside the norm which is causing the OP to work every sunday. You of all people should be aware of 0 hour contracts and the possibilities.

And my comment about the ET stands. You did not mention it, I will agree, but as I see it, your head was in the courtroom when you answered the question. You need to move your head to the OP's workplace before you answer some of these questions.

SarEl

DVardysShadow wrote: »

It is not a sly dig, it is a fairly open criticism, muted for the sensitivities of others, due to cowardice on my part.

The question posed was only answered in the narrowest of terms. But it is fairly obvious that there is something quite outside the norm which is causing the OP to work every sunday. You of all people should be aware of 0 hour contracts and the possibilities.

And my comment about the ET stands. You did not mention it, I will agree, but as I see it, your head was in the courtroom when you answered the question. You need to move your head to the OP's workplace before you answer some of these questions.

This is yet again a wholly uncalled for attack on me personally. SEVERAL posters answered the OP's question - in exactly the same way and giving the exact same correct answer to the question actually posed. Are you suggesting that I and others should have telepathically guessed that there was a zero hours contract? And why not have a go at everyone who said the same thing as I did - why just have a go at me for giving, in the context, the correct answer? There was nothing at all obvious that there was something outside the norm about the OP working Sundays - lots of people do. You seem to have a real issue about lawyers and courtrooms. If you require therapy for this, then see a therapist. Do not continue to turn these threads into attacks on me simply because you have a personal issue. In doing this it is you who is demeaning the OP's thread and not me.

As usual, in the interests of the thread I will not be responding to any further jibes, so feel free to turn it into an attack on me instead of answering the issues raised if you wish.

Jemzie

Ditto - pack it in DvardysShadow. You are showing yourself up with this stalking and harassment. Answer the posts - leave SarEl alone. You have no reason to keep going after her like this and what she does here is valuable for a lot of people. Again I tell you, if you don't like the advice, give your own advice but stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

DVardysShadow

SarEl wrote: »

This is yet again a wholly uncalled for attack on me personally. SEVERAL posters answered the OP's question - in exactly the same way and giving the exact same correct answer to the question actually posed. Are you suggesting that I and others should have telepathically guessed that there was a zero hours contract? And why not have a go at everyone who said the same thing as I did - why just have a go at me for giving, in the context, the correct answer? There was nothing at all obvious that there was something outside the norm about the OP working Sundays - lots of people do. You seem to have a real issue about lawyers and courtrooms. If you require therapy for this, then see a therapist. Do not continue to turn these threads into attacks on me simply because you have a personal issue. In doing this it is you who is demeaning the OP's thread and not me.

As usual, in the interests of the thread I will not be responding to any further jibes, so feel free to turn it into an attack on me instead of answering the issues raised if you wish.

Actually you only assumed that it was a regular hours contract, OP did not say so, so you cannot assume. But you did and came out with the wrong answer.

And now you are so miffed that you have to come out with puerile 'therapist' comments.

Before you came here, people would have questioned the OP a bit and others would have got to asking about the contract involved. But now no one [apart from me] seems to take this stuff any further. I think what we have here is the barrister mindset. You go into court and you argue what you are given. You don't enquire - it could damage your ability to argue a case.

I have no personal issue with you. I have a lot of issue with threads where you give a snap answer and it kills the topic.

Now we have the facts that the OP is on a 0 hour contract, I would invite you to answer the OP's question in the light of the facts. Or to confirm that what has been said is correct. Don't lose sight of the OP's question.

DVardysShadow

Jemzie wrote: »

Ditto - pack it in DvardysShadow. You are showing yourself up with this stalking and harassment. Answer the posts - leave SarEl alone. You have no reason to keep going after her like this and what she does here is valuable for a lot of people. Again I tell you, if you don't like the advice, give your own advice but stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

At which post do you consider me to have stepped out of line? Bear in mind that if I had not become involved in this thread and had not felt that SarEl's answer was missing the point, we might not have discovered the OP's situation.

Or perhaps SarEl is so far above criticism that it does not matter that we get to the bottom of the OP's question?

Jemzie wrote: »

About DVardysShadow. I should have said this before, but I was too worried about ending up with a tongue-lashing from DVS myself, and now I have registered another user name for the site because I am a regular poster here and don’t want to end up being stalked across the site for saying this.

Take the hypocrisy prize. An ID created for stalking.

SarEl

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Actually you only assumed that it was a regular hours contract, OP did not say so, so you cannot assume. But you did and came out with the wrong answer.

And now you are so miffed that you have to come out with puerile 'therapist' comments.

Before you came here, people would have questioned the OP a bit and others would have got to asking about the contract involved. But now no one [apart from me] seems to take this stuff any further. I think what we have here is the barrister mindset. You go into court and you argue what you are given. You don't enquire - it could damage your ability to argue a case.

I have no personal issue with you. I have a lot of issue with threads where you give a snap answer and it kills the topic.

Now we have the facts that the OP is on a 0 hour contract, I would invite you to answer the OP's question in the light of the facts. Or to confirm that what has been said is correct. Don't lose sight of the OP's question.

The question has been answered. And there is no significant change in the answer based on the contractual conditions. The OP has no right to tell the employer what days or hours they will work - regardless of the nature of the contract. There is no "opt-out" for Sunday working available, and they have no right to refuse to work on Sunday simply because it is a Sunday. The fact that this is a zero hours contract does mean, as I have already said, that they can refuse any work at any time. However, as I have already stated, if they do so then the employer is equally able to refuse them any work at all. The OP seems to be happy with the prospect of not having any work at all, so they can by all means refuse whatever hours they want and see what the employers response is. However, if the response is to refuse to provide any shifts at all, then they have no legal recourse to unfair dismissal or any other obligations. But not even having a zero hours contract gives someone the right to refuse to work certain days with impunity.

And you know nothing about how barristers work, and your assumptions are as incorrect as your assumptions that the other people here were in any way influenced by anything other than the information provided by the OP.

laurz121

DVardysShadow grow up and stop following SarEl around the board openly criticising her and attacking her at every opportunity. It makes you look utterly pathetic

DVardysShadow

laurz121 wrote: »

DVardysShadow grow up and stop following SarEl around the board openly criticising her and attacking her at every opportunity. It makes you look utterly pathetic

So I should not have queried the OP and discovered that there appears to be a breach of WTD and that the OP is on a 0 hours contract? And SarEl, a respected legal prfessional gets away with 'therapist' comments. Humbug.

Emmzi

I think you have both added value to this thread but again suggest you take your differences to PM or, if not confident you can resolve this yourselves, ask MSE towers to intervene and give guidance on appropriate advice and behaviour.

The constant bickering must make it even more difficult for people asking for advice to do so - it creates a most unpleasant atmosphere.