Working in a threatening environment, any ideas/help please?

worriedaboutwork

Right then, I'll explain the problem, and hopefully some of you will have some legal knowledge of how this situation can be sorted out :-) Going to keep exact details as vague as possible, as I don't want to be identified!

I work in one of a chain of "leisure environment" clubs where people hit balls with sticks and we've some dart boards and fruit machines too. You get the idea of the type of club I work in, I'm sure. Im a bar assistant, with no management authority at all.

Until recently, one person staffed the club during the day, between 10am and 5pm (which we accepted, as its pretty quiet during the day), amd then two people came in at 5pm and staffed the club until closing time, at midnight.

Bit by bit, the number of staff-hours dropped, so that now there is only ever one person in the club at one time. So, one person opens the club at 10am, and will run it until either 5pm, 6pm or 7pm. At the time they finish, a new member of staff will come in to run the club for the evening, and the day time member of staff will go home.

Ok, we're aware that this breaches the "4/5 hours of work and you are legally entitled to a break" rule; a break which we can't possibly take as there is no one else in to provide cover, and customers are continually purchasing products from the bar.

Now, working during the day isn't a massive problem, even with lack of breaks, and we all just get on with it. The problem occurs during the evenings.

If we just had to worry about working between 5pm and 12pm (7 hours) without a break, that would be fine, we'd just again get on with it. That would be no big deal.

BUT: the problem is that during the evening, we get what you could call "undesirables" coming in and using the club. Working on your own when they are in here is extremely intimidating, since theyre ALWAYS rude, sometimes aggressive, and they'll never leave at 12 when the club shuts. Sometimes you can't get them out for the best part of three quarters of an hour.

Threaten them with the police, and they aren't bothered.

So, my question, I guess, is this: If I complain to the head office that we are working illegally due to not being able to take breaks, what will they do? Is it likely they'll provide more hours for two staff to work each evening (which is all we want), or is it more likely they'll deem me a whistle-blower and try to get rid? I really don't want to leave the job, I love the job, but working on our own is just unacceptable thanks to these idiots who come in threatening us.

All I want is fair and adequate working conditions (i.e. an acceptable number of staff working the evening shift! Two people working isn't over the top, is it?), surely thats not too much to ask, is it? What laws are they breaking, and how can I best use this to leverage getting two members of staff working at all times during the evening? I know that tonight the only GIRL (young, pretty, harmless, lovely girl, working ON HER OWN, LOCKING UP on her own) went home in tears as yet again she was "set upon" (verbally) by these undesirables.

Any help would be appreciated, cheers!

Emmzi

It's likely they'll bring someone in for 30 mins to cover breaks at best.

1. stop being sexist, the problem is not that your co-worker is female, it is that she cannot cope with the undesirables. Some of the best security staff are female.
2. are you all members of a union?

Dunroamin

Is there a mechanism for abusive members to be barred?

marybelle01

How does complaining about breaks, which is not the problem, get you a solution to being threatened? If you are going to complain about something to your employer, complain about the thing that is the problem - or is that too obvious?

Oh, and GIRL's go to school. Female adults are called WOMEN.

And whilst I agree with you that staff safety is important, be aware that if your facility is not paying its way, and the cost of employing two people is too high, the result of this may be that management simply close the facility and you are made redundant.

dickydonkin

marybelle01 wrote: »

And whilst I agree with you that staff safety is important, be aware that if your facility is not paying its way, and the cost of employing two people is too high, the result of this may be that management simply close the facility and you are made redundant.

So basically you are suggesting that the OP has to put up with a load of abuse because by raising the issue with management might make her lose her job?

'Staff safety' prioritises above everything in my mind.

It is attitudes like this that really get up my nose.

Nobody - and I mean NOBODY should have to go to work to be abused - and abuse at work comes under many guises.

Poor pay, poor safety, disregard to workers rights and welfare are all types of abuse in my opinion - although Bullying, physical and verbal abuse are the types we are all familiar with.

Based on the post - it would seem that the OP would be better off out of the place, however, I appreciate that financial issues may not allow that option as an exit strategy.

From a safety perspective:

As the OP is a lone worker, your employer should have procedures in place to ensure your safety is not compromised.

A lone worker should not be placed at any more of a risk at work than someone who isn't working by themselves.

As this employer is part of a chain, then I would expect that there is a policy in place do deal with abusive and drunk customers - and a lone working policy - if not - well there should be.

If I was in your shoes OP - I would write to your head office expressing your concerns - don't focus so much on your breaks, but mention that certain people who are coming into the club may jeopardise the clubs reputation and who may also cause trouble.

Ask if they have a conflict and lone working policy and that you have concerns for your personal safety - ideally by providing examples..........oh, and keep a copy of your letter as well.
GOOD LUCK.

Edit to add:

This and this might help.

marybelle01

dickydonkin wrote: »

So basically you are suggesting that the OP has to put up with a load of abuse because by raising the issue with management might make her lose her job?
.

No actually, I was not suggesting any such thing at all. It is "get on my soap box and just attack anyone I feel like" attitudes like yours that get right up my nose. I didn't say that staff safety wasn't important. In fact I said it is important. What I was pointing out is that (a) complaining about something that isn't the problem will not get the problem addressed, and (b) the solution to "the problem" may not be the solution that worriedaboutwork wants, and they should realise that.

I don't disagree with any of the positive suggestions you have made at all. But not one of them is a guarantee that the employer will not simply decide that the cost of the facility is more than it is worth and simply dispense with it.

ohreally

It may turn out to be good judgement if you send any communication by e-mail. Don't send to one individual, c.c. in to at least one other suitable recipient, this will lessen the risk of you concerns being ignored. Try and avoid telephone conversations, if they do take place confirm the content be e-mail asap.

I hope you achieve a positive resolution, sooner rather than later, and consider trade union membership.

dickydonkin

marybelle01 wrote: »

No actually, I was not suggesting any such thing at all. It is "get on my soap box and just attack anyone I feel like" attitudes like yours that get right up my nose. I didn't say that staff safety wasn't important. In fact I said it is important. What I was pointing out is that (a) complaining about something that isn't the problem will not get the problem addressed, and (b) the solution to "the problem" may not be the solution that worriedaboutwork wants, and they should realise that.

I don't disagree with any of the positive suggestions you have made at all. But not one of them is a guarantee that the employer will not simply decide that the cost of the facility is more than it is worth and simply dispense with it.

Reading your post:

And whilst I agree with you that staff safety is important, be aware that if your facility is not paying its way, and the cost of employing two people is too
high, the result of this may be that management simply close the facility and you are made redundant.

Sorry - but the additional staff issue is not only related to breaks - or lack of them in this case.

The fact that the OP is working alone in a seemingly hostile environment is a seperate issue and should be addressed by the employer.

Some could read your post as implying that if the employer had to introduce another member of staff to allow breaks, then that could place her position or the facility at risk.

I would say then so be it! That would certainly eiminate the risk of assault and abuse targeted at the OP.

But it isn't just the break issue is it?

It is likely that the employer is quite prepared to cut staff down to the bone at the expense of the safety and welfare of his staff - all too common an occurrence nowadays.

Let's wait and see what the OP decides and how the employer responds.

As suggested earlier, emailing the relevant people is a good option.

marybelle01

dickydonkin wrote: »

Sorry - but the additional staff issue is not only related to breaks - or lack of them in this case. I didn't say it was. In fact the poster seemed to make it very clear that the issue had nothing at all to do with the lack of breaks. He or she was simply hoping to raise the problem of safety by complaining about the lack of breaks, and I was saying that this wasn't sensible since, as Emmzi pointed out, they could respond by just covering the breaks.

Some could read your post as implying that if the employer had to introduce another member of staff to allow breaks, then that could place her position or the facility at risk. "Some" might, and "some" might not. But doubling the staff bill for evening shifts certainly could do so, and it is unrealistic not to point this out. I do not disagree with anything you have said about safety. But worriedaboutwork has made it clear that they also like what they do and do not want to risk their employment.

I would say then so be it! That would certainly eiminate the risk of assault and abuse targeted at the OP. That is all very well for you to say. But it isn't your choice is it? Worriedaboutwork deserves to have the FULL range of risks and options and to make their decision based on what they want, and not what you think should happen. Good health and safety standards ought to be applied in every workplace, yes. But that isn't the real world, and sometimes people make hard choices to keep their jobs.

But it isn't just the break issue is it? Never said it was, did I?

I think you are absolutely right about health and safety, but the real world is that some people really do have to make the choice, and I think it is quite legitimate to point out that since what worriedaboutwork wants is two people working the night shifts, this is not necessarily the result that they will get by complaining.

dickydonkin

marybelle01 wrote: »

I think you are absolutely right about health and safety, but the real world is that some people really do have to make the choice, and I think it is quite legitimate to point out that since what worriedaboutwork wants is two people working the night shifts, this is not necessarily the result that they will get by complaining.

All fair comments of course - but if the venue gets a notorious reputation, then it would very likely close anyway - caused either by a lack of business or they lose their licence.

The OP really should mention her plight to her employer because if anything did go belly up (hopefully it won't) the defence from the employer would possibly be 'well nobody told me what was going on - if I knew, I would have nipped the situation in the bud'.

worriedaboutwork

Dunroamin wrote: »

Is there a mechanism for abusive members to be barred?

Unfortunately not, the manager is very rarely in the club :-(