Being forced to work long hours- what to do?

Notmyrealname

C_Mababejive wrote: »

The WTR is quite clear and i quote..

Daily rest
10.—(1) An adult worker is entitled to a rest period of not less than eleven consecutive hours in
each 24-hour period during which he works for his employer.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), a young worker is entitled to a rest period of not less than twelve
consecutive hours in each 24-hour period during which he works for his employer.
(3) The minimum rest period provided for in paragraph (2) may be interrupted in the case of
activities involving periods of work that are split up over the day or of short duration.

Note the word "entitled to" and not "MUST TAKE."

annie1975_2

Notmyrealname wrote: »

No it isn't. The average working week for a truck driver is 55hrs not including breaks. Many security guards do 60hr weeks.

We are not talking about a truck driver though are we?
If someone is working 6 days a week doing 14 hrs that is 84 hrs.
That to me could be split between 2 people,giving somebody else a job,and giving the poor soul whos doing 84 hours a rest.
Its no wonder there are so many unemployed in this country.

custardy

annie1975 wrote: »

We are not talking about a truck driver though are we?
If someone is working 6 days a week doing 14 hrs that is 84 hrs.
That to me could be split between 2 people,giving somebody else a job,and giving the poor soul whos doing 84 hours a rest.
Its no wonder there are so many unemployed in this country.

you miss the point(from the employers side)
1 employee gives less costs,holidays etc and means when business is quiet they have 40 hours to pay vs 80
right or wrong,thats the reality

sniggings

C_Mababejive wrote: »

But surely the working time regulations 1998 state that workers should be allowed a clear 11 hours rest break between shifts..??

it seems in the Governments wisdom they have made the rules to breaks not apply to the very people who needs them.

People in domestic service, those that work in the tourist trade, etc etc for these people giving them a break at home is enough :eek:

People 50 years ago got better working conditions

sniggings

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Standard to sign an opt out? Why on earth would anyone sign away their legal rights which give minimal protections when you can still retain that right but work over as and when agreed. Why should people in the hospitality and retail industries have lesser rights than anyone else? If people continue to accept abuse then they will continue to be abused.

If you have a family and getting on in years and know that if you loose your job it will be hard to find another, then maybe you too will sign a form when your boss asks you too, you know he is asking for a reason, you know he wants you to sign the form, it would take a strong person to say no, sorry I'm not signing.

Maybe you work in a big company but most people don't, they work beside their boss in a lot of cases, saying no will not go down too well and will most probably have you marked as a trouble maker or even sacked.

getmore4less

You only opt out of the total hours.

Breaks still apply but catering will come under the exclusion.

compensatory breaks should apply but they will be hard to get.

The only solution for the OP and the rest of the team is to indulge in group action, they risk their jobs but they can't sack everyone.

if the places opening was covered by the local paper get them to cover the abuse of staff.

Pennywise2012

I think she's better being open with the managers, and trying to come to a reasonable arrangement.

Personally I would take the tack of, "Look, I love the job, I want the restaurant to succeed as much as you do, and I'd like to work here for a long time. However, these shifts are killing me, and I'm worried I'm going to burn out completely and end up being less effective when I am working. Can we sit down and plan my extra hours over the course of a week, to come up with something that works for both of us?"

That way, she's not threatening them with leaving/working time regs/work to rule, so it shouldn't get their backs up too much. She's showing them she wants to achieve their goals, so she comes across as being 'on their side'. There's also the insinuation that, if they don't help her, they'll end up paying her for 80 hours of rubbishness every week, so it should occur to them that it makes financial sense to reduce her hours.

Obviously, without meeting them, it's difficult to know what tack to take, but my personal instinct would be to go that way. Failing that, she needs to master the art of job-hunting and sleeping at the same time! If she really hates it, she could put some of the extra money aside to create a buffer, so that she could quit and still live for a while, giving her time to look for another job.

sniggings

Pennywise2012 wrote: »

I think she's better being open with the managers, and trying to come to a reasonable arrangement.

Personally I would take the tack of, "Look, I love the job, I want the restaurant to succeed as much as you do, and I'd like to work here for a long time. However, these shifts are killing me, and I'm worried I'm going to burn out completely and end up being less effective when I am working. Can we sit down and plan my extra hours over the course of a week, to come up with something that works for both of us?"

That way, she's not threatening them with leaving/working time regs/work to rule, so it shouldn't get their backs up too much. She's showing them she wants to achieve their goals, so she comes across as being 'on their side'. There's also the insinuation that, if they don't help her, they'll end up paying her for 80 hours of rubbishness every week, so it should occur to them that it makes financial sense to reduce her hours.

Obviously, without meeting them, it's difficult to know what tack to take, but my personal instinct would be to go that way. Failing that, she needs to master the art of job-hunting and sleeping at the same time! If she really hates it, she could put some of the extra money aside to create a buffer, so that she could quit and still live for a while, giving her time to look for another job.

sorry not being rude but do you work? have you worked for a wage that is close or the min wage? did you read the bit were the OP's boss demoted someone for a daft reason? did you read the part were the OP's boss told then to "just get on with it" and "we are doing long hours too".

I understand where your coming from but when the Government can't even see that all employees need a break and 11 hours between shifts etc why would we expect more from employers.

I hope your advice works for the OP but reading what I have about them, I can't see how one min they are making a young person work 14-15 hours a day to go to "ok you can do 8 hours love".

custardy

getmore4less wrote: »

You only opt out of the total hours.

Breaks still apply but catering will come under the exclusion.

compensatory breaks should apply but they will be hard to get.

The only solution for the OP and the rest of the team is to indulge in group action, they risk their jobs but they can't sack everyone.

if the places opening was covered by the local paper get them to cover the abuse of staff.

lol,seen it/heard of it being done many times
mass sacking/or staff pressured out
agency staff brought in or staff brought in through connections(catering is a very small community)

an9i77

Notmyrealname wrote: »

Indeed. We have had two posts in a week from the only people who've become chefs who seem to be the only ones in the job who don't know this.

Maybe all the other chefs are too busy working ridiculous hours to go on MSE?