Staff refusing to work overtime because of tax credits.

paddedjohn

dark_lady wrote: »

Did anyone notice the bad grammar in the original post. And this is supposed to be an employer? The bad grammar makes me wonder if this is a troll.

THIS COMMENT IS COMPLETELY OUT OF ORDER,:mad: SINCE WHEN DOES SOMEONE NEED TO READ AND WRITE PROPERLY TO RUN A BUSINESS? MY FRIEND STARTED HIS BUSINESS ABOUT 20 YRS AGO WITH NO QUALIFICATIONS, NO SPECIAL SKILLS AND ABOUT £2000 IN THE BANK, ITS NOW WORTH ABOUT 5 MILLION AND EMPLOYS AROUND 40 STAFF. NOT BAD CONSIDERING HE CANT WRITE PROPERLY.

melly1980

bitemebankers wrote: »

I read it alright, but I don't deem it relevant.
.

You dont deem it relevant that temp staff might not have the skills to do the role?

You dont deem it relevant that it is unfair to hire permanant people to cover short term work only to get rid of them? Irrespective of any planning you cant change anything if the above statements are true which means you have to rely on what you have. You have no idea of the roles involved.

Christ and you said god help anyone that works for me, you want to look at yourself. Ive done well with plenty of people working for me including situations of short term large increases in work that just have to get done.

Sixer

The onus of ensuring staff cover is the boss's Melly! That's why managers earn more and business owners earn even more (if they are capable of making a success of it).

Employees have no duty to work overtime if it's not in their contract and why should they? They are contracted to do up-to-standard work for a number of hours. And that's it. That's why they earn less.

If an employer doesn't have a good enough ability to foresee the need for overtime and either ensure it's well enough paid to be taken willingly, or to write it into a contract at the outset, I'm afraid that's their look out.

It's called capitalism.

anguk

If the employees don't want to work the overtime they don't have to (unless it's in their contract) but they should be honest and say it's because of childcare or they want the bank holiday off, not lie to their employer about tax credits. At least then the employer will know which members of his staff are unlikely to work overtime.

scooby088

I think the problem here is half @rse management or ownership really, if the busy period is april then surely enough fore thought should've been given to this say a few weeks or even months before. As for overtime even if it were in my contract i would still be hesitant to do it if i have outside work commitments, And no next weeks royal wedding bank holiday needn't be given, so the OP would still have 4 days to play with.

I have never lied to an employer about not wanting to work overtime, i always said no. No reason at all is need, i signed a contract stating i was required to work 40 hours per week and i sure stuck by that, i only ever do overtime when it's to my advantage and not the employer.

FOURCANDLES_2

Speaking as an employer of 3 staff ,this tax credit protest by the original poster is incorrect working a few weeks overtime would not have any effect on the tax credits . May I suggest if you had your employees on the correct contracts you would not have them in work for 3 days next week BANK HOLIDAYS are not compulsory, payment for & or day off in lieu can be given .The Friday ie wedding day need not be given off. Now if you want a decent dedicated work force like me you should treat them properly I need mine to work good friday and the monday and the other may bank holidays I ask who wants to work? myself and my wife will be working also, all said they would I do not think they want to but if you are decent to them it is the good faith is returned .When my staff ask for holidays or the odd day off short notice we try and oblige in almost all cases . We could get away with paying min wage for what they do but never have done apart from the first year we pay them £2 above what is the norm for the role they take on and as such have no high staff turn over, no angry punters, because we have not got the staff to cover what we offer pay your staff well treat them well and they will be worth every penny , treat them badly and they will not help you out. You may well be giving them a job but they have every tight to refuse overtime especially if it exceeds the hours set down in law , you are not above it just because you are busy.

melly1980

Sixer wrote: »

The onus of ensuring staff cover is the boss's Melly! That's why managers earn more and business owners earn even more (if they are capable of making a success of it).

Employees have no duty to work overtime if it's not in their contract and why should they? They are contracted to do up-to-standard work for a number of hours. And that's it. That's why they earn less.

If an employer doesn't have a good enough ability to foresee the need for overtime and either ensure it's well enough paid to be taken willingly, or to write it into a contract at the outset, I'm afraid that's their look out.

It's called capitalism.

correct, and as Ive said several times if business is then lost jobs will also be lost. That falls onto the boss to decide to (because he is paid more). So then it will be ta ra to all the work shy b*****dfs, dont close the gate on the way out, you have reaped what you have sown.

bitemebankers

melly1980 wrote: »

You dont[sic] deem it relevant that temp staff might not have the skills to do the role?

You dont[sic] deem it relevant that it is unfair to hire permanant[sic] people to cover short term work only to get rid of them?

Wind your neck back in and read what I actually wrote.

None of that nonsense is relevant to the fact that the OP didn't plan adequately, and made assumptions that couldn't be made.

Sixer is bang on the money. Blaming the workers for your own management failure is pathetic and you're doing yourself no favours by defending it.

It would be neat if you could learn punctuate too, but that's probably for another thread...

melly1980

scooby088 wrote: »

I think the problem here is half @rse management or ownership really, .

Nope.

Its people who are more concerned with what money they can get for free from TC that ensuring thatb their place of work that pays them is a sucess. As stated in several posts above, thats fine until it comes to reducing staff then the said people can claim lots more of their beloved benefits. Id wave them out the gate with a smille on my face.

melly1980

bitemebankers wrote: »

Wind your neck back in and read what I actually wrote.

None of that nonsense is relevant to the fact that the OP didn't plan adequately, and made assumptions that couldn't be made.
...

Its highly relevant.

Using your assumption that planning was at fault we are then faced with the following. Had planning been rectified there then needs to be something done about it to make this plan work. This then falls down because of the things Ive said because the planning ahead would either bring in someone months in advance only to jib them off after the busy period (unfair) or drag in a load of casual workers at the time (may not be possible depending on the job requirements). So you can repeat the 6 p's bullsh1t all day long but unless you can carry out your plan you are left with the same option, utilising what you have got.