Employment Law - unpaid overtime

Print_Screen

Even though some may say that he is lucky to have a job in this climate and that’s just the way it is and he should be grateful he is employed and just put up with it, I disagree.
Stands need to be taken every so often as otherwise nothing would change.
We'd still have children working down't pits and be shoving them up chimneys, where is the line drawn?

If your contract says you may have to do overtime from ‘time to time’ then it should indeed be from ‘time to time’ and not ‘all the time’.

My contract states that I may be required to do any other duties. So if they asked me to clean the building, make tea for all staff as well as my job and in addition work 14 hour days, would that be acceptable?
Of course not as this is not what I was hired for and I would be working many hours over time every night!

Ok this is an extreme example, I realise but it is also why people have got to draw a line somewhere.

teabelly

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Aye - I can read.

A LOW turnover of staff is an indication of GOOD management, so he must be doing something right.

It can also be indicative of a highly specialised industry with few openings available or poor local opportunities so staff don't feel they can leave regardless of the current working conditions.

Nicki

Your husband isn't from what you have said being threatened with the sack if he refuses to do overtime. Isn't it fair that when it comes to bonus and promotion time that these discretionary rewards should go to those who have worked the hardest and shown the most commitment to the company? I'm a SAHM now but when I had a salaried job I was expected to do considerably more unpaid overtime than your OH but was always handsomely rewarded come bonus and promotion time. I'd have been more than a little fed up if someone who had "worked to rule" had benefited in the same way.

Jinx

In my experience most companies don't pay overtime once you reach a certain salary. However, along with that expectation is that the overtime is at a time of need, eg monthend for financial jobs and when pitching for new business or audits - its not meant to be ongoing/daily just because the company is busy. If the work cannot be done within reasonable hours then you need additional staff.

I wouldn't be happy to work an extra 3 hours every day, basically unpaid. In my book thats not a good life/work balance. I'd be looking for a new job, one where the salary is enough and the hours better.... its difficult at this time I know.

Sambucus_Nigra

teabelly wrote: »

It can also be indicative of a highly specialised industry with few openings available or poor local opportunities so staff don't feel they can leave regardless of the current working conditions.

Aye - that's why I said 'indication' and not 'guarantee'.

The OP seems convinced that a low staff turnover is a sign of BAD management and that's just not the case.

HTH.

Gordon_Hose

Technically, his yearly bonus is paying his overtime lol

DVardysShadow

NikNox wrote: »

Working practice is drachonian. They never take breaks, rarely have a lunch hour and no-one is allowed time off for GP or dental appointments. If, for example someone has an appt at say 4pm, meaning leaving work early, the boss insists they take a whole day off. Last year when it was snowy and some couldn't make it into work (my husband did, every day), he was making notes of those not attending and said he would dock them £100 off their yearly bonus for every day not in work. He also docks money off their bonuses if they are off sick.

That stinks. If they are putting in that much unpaid overtime, it is disgustingly mean not to allow time for GP or dental appointments

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

A low staff turnover would be indicative of good management, surely?

It could also be a situation arrived at by filtering - the staff who won't put up with it go, leaving the doormats behind.

Uncertain

I've seen this kind of problem all too often in small but currently successful businesses.

As I've said before on here they tend to operate an unofficial "hire who we like and fire who we don't" policy.

Your husband's firm seem to operate the watered down version!

The problem is that the cost of getting rid of somebody (assuming the firm keep away from the areas of race, sex or disability) are normally quite small. The AVERAGE unfair dismissal award is less that a quarter of your husbands annual salary and most of even these cases could have been settled for less.

Sadly, that is the real world and no amount of digging around in the small print of employment law will change this.

Equally, in this type of setup, the idea of all the staff sticking together, is pie in the sky.

C_Mababejive

Are your husband and his colleagues in a Trades Union?

I'll bet they are not.

http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=140897

For example,Northern Rail would have their workers working bank holidays on flat rate pay.

Becuase the RMT represents them,that isnt going to happen.

Uncertain

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Are your husband and his colleagues in a Trades Union?

I'll bet they are not.

http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=140897

For example,Northern Rail would have their workers working bank holidays on flat rate pay.

Becuase the RMT represents them,that isnt going to happen.

That is all fine in a large organisation but in an owner run business with five staff - get real!

By all means join a union, it will at least provide legal cover if needed but it is not going to sort the problem out.