Can you be sacked for not doing overtime?

princessdon

Mista_C wrote: »

That last comment of yours really puts perspective on your comments of spineless parents and spoilt, whiney kids and shows how little you grasp the kind of situation we're talking about here. This situation isn't about me, it's not even about his Dad, it's about addressing the the ideas children can get in their heads from seeing patterns form around them and addressing them rather then accusing them of whining or calling parents spineless for thinking about their offspring.

Yes but many children (mine included) don't have dad 24/7 and they have zero negativity towards that, it is merely a fact of life for them and they accept it. That said it sounds like in your personal situation there was no WLB. My kids know that dad will spend as much quality time with them as he can and when he can. In fact they have been camping alone with him all weekend in a tent with no outside world communication this bank holiday. He works away a lot, and long hours but has never missed anything "important". He attends most parent evenings, nativities and even managed a few school trips. The trade off is that he can work from 4.30 am to 11 or 12 am 5 or 6 days a week sometimes and can be away for weeks at a time. You take the good with the bad.

The point anyway (as we have digressed) was OP saying he isn't willing to do more than 43 hours a week (and he admitted that this is the case for any job and not just this one) as he likes to be home every night. Fair enough I guess, but many don't see a few hours OT as a negative and TBH it will rule out many higher paid jobs where working away, working long hours and overtime (mainly unpaid) are par for the course.

If he was single or his wife worked full time I'd understand but a few hours a week when his wife works part time is not going to negatively impact a healthy child. In fact I'd argue that a child's mental health and outlook on life is more negatively impacted by parents arguing about money problems, debt and stress associated with no employment.

Mista_C

Welshwoofs wrote: »

No, because the Op has already said on numerous posts and on numerous threads that he works between 41 and 43 hours a week. He's also saying he works 8am-5.30pm. You don't have to be a genius to work out that a 7-day week from 8am-5.30 would equate rather more than 41-43 hours.

Possibly because I haven't seen the read...being that I'm a) not omnipresent and b) not omniscient either.

Nor am I, yet I saw them. It's not unreasonable to think there's a possibility you may have also.

I have as little interaction with kids as I can possibly get away with. I did try and find some place where you can get them to go up your chimney and give it a good clean, but apparently that's 'not allowed' anymore.

But you don't know that do you....unless you've kept your authorships of socialogical studies on the point hidden throughout this thread.

You've taken that completely away from context. I didn't state any such fact, my point was that rather than parents being spineless for wanting to spend time with their kids it is more likely that the effects would be felt by the children. My point still stands.

I didn't say parent child relationships aren't that important when you've got a job. That's a statement you've just invented out of thin air. I am countering YOUR statement that you believe a child is more likely to have a negative attitude towards work if one of their parents works a lot. I asked you for evidence to back up that assertion...and that's been notably lacking.

The key word "believe". So, let's work on that premise. You want me to provide you with proof that I believe a child is more likely to have a negative attitude towards work if (no, not a parent works a lot, don't go changing context again) if that child doesn't get to see that parent because of working lots of OT. Very well, I believe that. Proof enough in my believe? I never stated it as any sort of documented fact, I stated I believed, that's me, in my opinion. The internet would be a very dull place if we couldn't post our opinion and instead could only post results of documented studies. Hence my earlier comment of not playing 'links or it didn't happen'.

I haven't got any evidence that I will get out of bed Friday morning either yet I believe I will. Would you like me to find documented evidence of that on the internet and provide you with the links? Just because it hasn't been studied or documented on the internet doesn't automatically make my belief incorrect, it's just an idea, a thought, an observation.

You're asking me to prove something that something doesn't exist? Don't tell me....you're a Christian

No, I have no religious following. You actually asked me to prove my belief (as above), I then refused and asked you to prove the reverse instead so actually you were the one that asked for some kind of tangible proof of my opinion even though I'd already told you. So far you've been "notably lacking" in providing proof that my belief is incorrect. Could that be because it's simply, my belief, per chance? Don't tell me... you're a troll

Yup - it's something to do whilst having a nice cup of tea when taking a break from planting up hanging baskets.

Mista_C

princessdon wrote: »

Yes but many children (mine included) don't have dad 24/7 and they have zero negativity towards that, it is merely a fact of life for them and they accept it. That said it sounds like in your personal situation there was no WLB. My kids know that dad will spend as much quality time with them as he can and when he can. In fact they have been camping alone with him all weekend in a tent with no outside world communication this bank holiday. He works away a lot, and long hours but has never missed anything "important". He attends most parent evenings, nativities and even managed a few school trips. The trade off is that he can work from 4.30 am to 11 or 12 am 5 or 6 days a week sometimes and can be away for weeks at a time. You take the good with the bad.

It's a good thing he gets some quality time with them, unfortunately that's something some people don't get to have. I think the convo between Welshwoofs and I went a little off-track to be fair, moving away from the OPs situation.

The point anyway (as we have digressed) was OP saying he isn't willing to do more than 43 hours a week (and he admitted that this is the case for any job and not just this one) as he likes to be home every night. Fair enough I guess, but many don't see a few hours OT as a negative and TBH it will rule out many higher paid jobs where working away, working long hours and overtime (mainly unpaid) are par for the course.

I agree, I don't see some OT as a negative thing but I do find the behaviour of some employers despicable over the matter. I could take you to a number of places today where the business is currently held together by people working 70 hour weeks, bullying tactics and the threat of losing their jobs over the silliest things (talking to ex-colleagues, people the CEO doesn't like for example).

If he was single or his wife worked full time I'd understand but a few hours a week when his wife works part time is not going to negatively impact a healthy child. In fact I'd argue that a child's mental health and outlook on life is more negatively impacted by parents arguing about money problems, debt and stress associated with no employment.

Quite probably so but wouldn't it better to avoid such a situation rather than a trade-off? While typing this I remember one time I was stuck in work (around 9pm), rebuilding a RAID array on a server. Meanwhile my son was in hospital with his forehead split open because someone at school had slammed his head into a wall. His Mom was with him but he kept asking for me and my then boss wouldn't let me go. I wish I had the balls at the time to tell my boss where to shove it.

princessdon

Ah you work in IT - yep that is one industry that doesn't promote a WLB very easy and I too can give many situations where my OH has done a similar to ^^^^, gone for 3 days (no sleep due to a DR) or missed something but that really isn't what OP was talking about to that level of out of snyc work life or I'd have a lot of sympathy.

He's unhappy in his job and so wants to refuse OT (that is contractual as reasonable) so he can be at home everynight to tuck them in. His options as has been said are

a) Refuse whilst in probation period and take any consequences including a poor reference and job loss
b) Work it and argue for some time back when it suits him (Ie a job interview or a child's dr's appt), as in make it clear that he will if there is quid pro quo
c) Work it without complaint
d) Leave without a new job and face a sanction on his benefits.

Given how much he clearly dislikes this job and how unwilling to budge they have been to date he really does face some harsh decisions to make.

But many observers who are imartial can't work out why someone who was unemployed for a long period of time, who was clearly in financial difficulty as a result is so willing to be dismissed (therefore no reference and in fact a negative reference) for the sake of a few hours. Guess it's just a different world I live in.

falko89

princessdon wrote: »

Ah you work in IT - yep that is one industry that doesn't promote a WLB very easy and I too can give many situations where my OH has done a similar to ^^^^, gone for 3 days (no sleep due to a DR) or missed something but that really isn't what OP was talking about to that level of out of snyc work life or I'd have a lot of sympathy.

He's unhappy in his job and so wants to refuse OT (that is contractual as reasonable) so he can be at home everynight to tuck them in. His options as has been said are

a) Refuse whilst in probation period and take any consequences including a poor reference and job loss
b) Work it and argue for some time back when it suits him (Ie a job interview or a child's dr's appt), as in make it clear that he will if there is quid pro quo
c) Work it without complaint
d) Leave without a new job and face a sanction on his benefits.

Given how much he clearly dislikes this job and how unwilling to budge they have been to date he really does face some harsh decisions to make.

But many observers who are imartial can't work out why someone who was unemployed for a long period of time, who was clearly in financial difficulty as a result is so willing to be dismissed (therefore no reference and in fact a negative reference) for the sake of a few hours. Guess it's just a different world I live in.

I was unemployed for 4 months or so, not long compared to some on here, as for financial difficulty I am no better of now. As for references, this may be something for fancier type jobs but certainly no one has ever asked me for my references, good job as I don't actually have any.

Mista_C

princessdon wrote: »

Ah you work in IT - yep that is one industry that doesn't promote a WLB very easy and I too can give many situations where my OH has done a similar to ^^^^, gone for 3 days (no sleep due to a DR) or missed something but that really isn't what OP was talking about to that level of out of snyc work life or I'd have a lot of sympathy.

He's unhappy in his job and so wants to refuse OT (that is contractual as reasonable) so he can be at home everynight to tuck them in. His options as has been said are

a) Refuse whilst in probation period and take any consequences including a poor reference and job loss
b) Work it and argue for some time back when it suits him (Ie a job interview or a child's dr's appt), as in make it clear that he will if there is quid pro quo
c) Work it without complaint
d) Leave without a new job and face a sanction on his benefits.

Given how much he clearly dislikes this job and how unwilling to budge they have been to date he really does face some harsh decisions to make.

But many observers who are imartial can't work out why someone who was unemployed for a long period of time, who was clearly in financial difficulty as a result is so willing to be dismissed (therefore no reference and in fact a negative reference) for the sake of a few hours. Guess it's just a different world I live in.

I'm going to accept this as the common sense approach and back off now

Welshwoofs

Mista_C wrote: »

I have suggested no such thing as being the norm. Suggesting it is the norm is an assumption on your part.

You said, and I quote:

"So no, I don't think it causes behavioural problems but I do think when a child is missing one parent through them constantly working OT it has a negative effect in that childs impression of work."

That is a clear generalisation.

You dismissed that parents were becoming spineless for missing time with their children and I merely provided you with an example of how it may affect a child missing a parent absent for lengthy periods.

One anecdotal example. I asked for studies that demonstrate that having a parent being away for long periods has a detrimental effect on them. So far you've been unable to. I'd also add that parents being away for a long time is irrelevant since the op is simply talking about not being home for 'bed time' ... but he's certainly not working away from home.

You're over-thinking the issue here. Children learn by repetitiveness. Dad says he's going to see you Sunday. Saturday he calls and says he can't make it, kid wants to know why. Dad has to work. How many times do you think a kid needs to hear his Dad say that he's been called into work instead of coming to visit him before he associates a pattern?

I'd say you're over-thinking it actually. My parents were divorced when I was less than a year old and Dad phoning up to say he couldn't make it at the last minute due to work was common place. Did I ever associate him not making it with work being a 'bad thing'? Obviously not....since I'm extremely career focused.

This situation isn't about me, it's not even about his Dad, it's about addressing the the ideas children can get in their heads from seeing patterns form around them and addressing them rather then accusing them of whining or calling parents spineless for thinking about their offspring.

It's up to their parents/guardians to dispel any erroneous conclusions they've drawn from such things as Dad having to work late. And I'm sorry, but in my world view spending your time whining that you don't have a job and then spending your time whinging about the job you finally got and how you can't be at home to tuck your kids in to bed and contemplating giving it all up to go on the dole is spineless. The longer term view would be "This job is !!!!!! and I need to do X, Y and Z to make myself more marketable so I'll eat up the overtime in this !!!!!! job to get the money to do driving lessons, get skilled up etc etc and find another job." Sitting around whinging isn't an attractive quality in a man....it gives one the impression that they're weak and there's nothing worse than a weak man. They're as much use as breasts on a bicycle.

princessdon

falko89 wrote: »

I was unemployed for 4 months or so, not long compared to some on here, as for financial difficulty I am no better of now. As for references, this may be something for fancier type jobs but certainly no one has ever asked me for my references, good job as I don't actually have any.

Look its your call clearly and I would personally find it soul destroying to be in a job that I hated (regardless of pay) but 4 mos is a long time to be out of work and the situation isn't any better now.

But only you can do the risk v reward, who knows maybe the right job for you is passing you by because you can't attend the interview or maybe it would be 12 months next time, maybe the lack of reference would negate the perfect job. It's your choice.

But no - I can't ever say on a personal level that it is fine to leave a paid job and rely on benefits, especially when it's my family and others on this thread and society who are paying. Logically you are expecting people to agree that our families who work hard and are often from their children to pay for you to tuck your children in. Sorry but I can't say that is ever something I could support. But it's not your fault that benefits are so high and wages are so low.

Welshwoofs

Mista_C wrote: »

You've taken that completely away from context. I didn't state any such fact, my point was that rather than parents being spineless for wanting to spend time with their kids it is more likely that the effects would be felt by the children. My point still stands.

Why is it more likely? Where is your evidence that it's more likely? You see it's coming back round to this lack of credible sources to back up your point isn't it. In fact what you're doing is using your own, single example, to extrapolate a view that children are somehow going to be damaged by Daddy not being there on time to tuck them into bed.

[quote}The key word "believe". So, let's work on that premise. You want me to provide you with proof that I believe a child is more likely to have a negative attitude towards work if (no, not a parent works a lot, don't go changing context again) if that child doesn't get to see that parent because of working lots of OT. [/quote]

:T Now you see, that's all you had to do in the first place. Insert that one little word ('believe'....or 'my opinion' would have done the job) to indicate that you're simply voicing your thoughts, instead of what you did, which was make statements as though they were fact.

Very well, I believe that. Proof enough in my believe? I never stated it as any sort of documented fact, I stated I believed, that's me, in my opinion.

No, you didn't state that you believed. If you had I'd not have had a fun few minutes picking the bones out of your arguments between my gardening chores.

No, I have no religious following. You actually asked me to prove my belief (as above), I then refused and asked you to prove the reverse instead so actually you were the one that asked for some kind of tangible proof of my opinion even though I'd already told you. So far you've been "notably lacking" in providing proof that my belief is incorrect. Could that be because it's simply, my belief, per chance? Don't tell me... you're a troll

I suggested that it's rather hard to prove a negative...hence me asking if you were a Christian as they're fond of inviting people to prove god doesn't exist which is, of course, impossible. Why did I suggest that? Because I know of absolutely NO studies on the effects of a child's attitude towards work as a result of one parent working away. If there are no studies showing the effects on children's attitudes to work due to parents working away from home I can't very well show them to you can I. Of course, I did actually Google for such studies before asking you to supply evidence......

By the way, whilst you're looking up non-existant studies you may also want to look up the meaning of 'troll' in relation to Internet engagement...then sit down in a dark room and have a little thinking time. I'll give you a cluebie......disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a troll.

falko89

Ive said before I will continue where I am at until I find something better, if they don't let me out for interviews fine, I'll do what I did before phone in sick, but my number one priority is to get out, I certainly don't want to be like my colleagues, there 5/6/7 years and still hating it, I have yet to meet someone who has anything good to say about it, I think it's sad that people can be their that long hating it yet don't do anything about it, I won't be one of them.