Can you be sacked for not doing overtime?

Marie88_2

warehouse wrote: »

I have 3 children and to me they are everything. You only get one chance in your lifetime to be part of them growing up, so missing seeing them most nights and being part of their lives during the week is more important by a long way than any job on the planet.

It seems that some people don't value their life enough, and would rather be exploited by companies, just to give themselves 'self worth, because they are doing something positive', but what they are forgetting is that people work to live, and if you can't live the life you value, why are you working? If your kids are the most important things to you, and you can't see them, what is it all worth?

Sadly the attitude of many of these people in the thread are why people like Falko are getting exploited. If you didn't have such mugs who were willing to take these hours, employers wouldn't be able to get away with making people doing these overtime hours. Sadly because there are these people, everyone else suffers, because of the threats of 'someone else will be happy to work the overtime hours'. The same thing goes for these ludicrous apprenticeships which have no chance of a job at the end, and are taking positions which genuine young people need; but there are way too many mugs taking these positions so employers keep trying it. If everyone stuck to rejecting such scams, there would be no place for them.

princessdon

scooby088 wrote: »

Not only eastern europeans that work for minimum wage but it seems to me that NMW workers seem to get a disservice from all those on higher wages, when some of the service industries and other industries provide such an essential service.

Erm please explain?

And yes Warehouse I agree he needs to leave, but clearly needs to find a new job first because otherwise he's going to be sanctioned and his family need to eat.

Also being sacked isn't a good alternative either as his last comp are no longer trading (so no reference) and this one won't be favourable.

He is between the devil and the sea at the moment, which is why I do feel sorry for him (especially as he was tricked into the job), but his options are limited and saying I won't work 5 hours a week paid overtime at this point isn't likely to help in the long run.

duchy

falko89 wrote: »

Sadly I think that's the way things are at the moment, people motivated by fear of losing their jobs, it might work for the young 20 something living at home etc who would be entitled to nothing, for people like myself we are almost as well off on benefits, so at worst it just won't look good on a CV, I am not prepared to be treated like crap for £6 odd per hour, while I would never walk out or leave a job without having something lined up if I get sacked so be it.

That's fine so long as you don't get sanctioned. Will you then post about the unfairness of that ?

Frankly I'm a little bit weary of self centred egotists who think I'm happy to work and pay taxes so you can tuck your kiddies in at night whilst claiming benefits instead of working. I say this as a parent who worked from the time he was 10 months old and was a single parent from the time he was six. Sometimes this meant I couldn't do everything I'd like to do with my son but it gave him a far better role model than hearing me whine about entitlement or learn that not working is an acceptable lifestyle choice. You have a partner who is more than capable of tucking your kids in -so why not stop whining , man up and get on with it ! Sometimes what we want rather than what we need just doesn't happen-life isn't always fair and perhaps you should finally learn this and stop your constant complaining about everything !! Millions of parents don't get home in time to tuck their kids in -leaving the other parent to do it-people who commute, people who work shifts, armed forces serving overseas, etc etc. It has always been thus and everyone has survived mentally intact !

I suspect even if you get one of these jobs you currently are interviewing for you'll be back yet again finding something else to whine about . It's just who you are and it's very unattractive.

Welshwoofs

Mista_C wrote: »

What's spineless about wanting to spend time with his children?

There are weekends.

Will you be there to defend these parents working away from home for months on end in the next thread that pops up with a complaint about schools being expected to raise kids?

You know the kind where there's no excuse for the parents to be expecting someone else to take responsibility for their kids upbringing or the next time someone asks "where were the parents?" when a group of kids are involved in some unpleasant incident? You'll be the first to say it's not the parents fault, won't you?

People who work away from home for weeks/months do so because they have a partner at home looking after the children. If those children play up at school it's sod-all to do with one parent working away from home, it's about poor boundaries set by the family in general. Presumably you're one of those who believe that the absence of one parent for a bit causes behavioural problems.

If you've taken on a 9-5 job it's not unreasonable to expect your working hours to be 9-5. A couple of hours overtime here and there when needed but not for an employer to be taking the mickey because, in the current climate, employees are too afraid to say no.

It's not taking the mickey if you're getting paid for it.

I'm glad you raised the point about the current climate though because the fact is that jobs are hard to come by.....and thinking of giving up a job in order to with no job to go to is utter madness! I'd also add that if you think that not being around to tuck a child in during the week is bad......it's far worse in my view to give children a lesson that provision for the family can easily be turned over to the taxpayer on a whim if the provider in the family decides on a whim that they don't like their job and would rather be on the dole.

Welshwoofs

TrickyWicky wrote: »

As someone else pointed out, no doubt you in the future will be slating parents who work away for weeks on end for abandoning their parental rights? No doubt you'll be saying parents should be at home?

That's the trouble with assumptions....they're often totally wrong and make the person making them look like a bit of a numpty. I applaud people who get off their butts and work away from home for the betterment of the family unit.

Blame the politicians and people like you who are always looking to blame people for their own misfortune whilst people like you completely mis-manage problematic situations.

Ok - bearing in mind that you know absolutely nothing about me, your rant looks just a little ridiculous. I have no misfortune (far from it) and if I did, I'm really not the kind to blame others for it.....

kj*daisy

The problem is people who say you should just get on with it and suck it up - too many people do that - now employers can demand what they want - because there will always be some mug who will do the hours, rather than say - no - that's not reasonable I'm not doing it.

In your shoes I'd refuse the excessive overtime while you look for something else. Best of luck.

Mista_C

Welshwoofs wrote: »

There are weekends.

As long as you're not being expected to work them.

People who work away from home for weeks/months do so because they have a partner at home looking after the children.

No, not all of them

If those children play up at school it's sod-all to do with one parent working away from home, it's about poor boundaries set by the family in general.

No one said anything about children playing up at school. There was a recent debate on who should teach their children to swim, for example. Don't be so blinkered.

Presumably you're one of those who believe that the absence of one parent for a bit causes behavioural problems.

Presumably you're one of those who think raising a child is easy for one parent. More likely in this day and age both parents are working and both parents are going to be expected to work overtime.
ETA: I'm one of those who has taken on parental responsibility of someone elses child. His real Dad rarely sees him because he's always working. This child has been asking, since around the age of 7, why his Dad doesn't want to spend time with him and would rather spend his time at "stupid work". This child is now 9 and has decided he doesn't want to work when he's older because it will keep him away from his family. His Mom and I are currently trying to drill into him the importance of earning money so he can provide for himself and his family when he's older. 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.

It's not taking the mickey if you're getting paid for it.

Not everything is about money and it is taking the mickey if excessive OT is demanded of you, paid or not.

I'm glad you raised the point about the current climate though because the fact is that jobs are hard to come by.....and thinking of giving up a job in order to with no job to go to is utter madness!

My old boss said pretty much the same thing to me. In fact he even went as far as telling me my job was more important than my health. I've never seen a corpse worry about a job.

Just because a job is hard to come by doesn't mean it gives employers the automatic right to treat employees like slaves or make them fearful for their jobs if they don't do as demanded. Not just because it's a pathetic tactic but also because it's detrimental to the productivity of the staff. I say this as a business owner and as someone who has previous worked in an environment that relied on said tactics to run the business.

I'd also add that if you think that not being around to tuck a child in during the week is bad......it's far worse in my view to give children a lesson that provision for the family can easily be turned over to the taxpayer on a whim if the provider in the family decides on a whim that they don't like their job and would rather be on the dole.

I completely agree with this. Best to find work elsewhere than jump onto the dole.

j.e.j.

falko89 wrote: »

I applied for a totally different job in the company which was earning £80 pw more than I am getting now only to be told it was gone or rather probably didn't exist in the first place, I was offered this job on the spot, if I declined I would bet I'd be no sooner out the door than they'd be on the phone to the job centre = benefits cut, had this all be layed out on the table before hand I wouldn't even of applied, I got badly caught but then thats what they wanted.

This is a well-known tactic used by employers. In America they call it Bait and Switch.

OP as it's still your probationary period I'd get out of there sooner rather than later, as it does seem that, while the company are not doing anything illegal, they are blatantly exploitng you all.

falko89

j.e.j. wrote: »

This is a well-known tactic used by employers. In America they call it Bait and Switch.

OP as it's still your probationary period I'd get out of there sooner rather than later, as it does seem that, while the company are not doing anything illegal, they are blatantly exploitng you all.

I knew there had to be a name for it, it's very clever and well thought out.

Yea the plan is to get out as soon as something else come up, problem is with every week that passes the harder it will be as you get used to it.

j.e.j.

The term is often used in retail/selling but it also applies to employers. Basically they hook someone in by advertising something that looks good, then they tell the person that they no longer have that item/job/whatever and put pressure on them to take something of less value:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch