Some bosses need to take a kindness pill!

NikNox

Wyndham wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks throwing a sickie then going on national radio may not be the most sensible of things to do? Even if the boss doesn't hear it, these things have a way of getting back....

No, you're not. He realised he couldn't do it today because the boss had already told him he couldn't go, and if he'd phoned in sick today then it would be obvious (although it would have been too late anyway). It's not ideal, by far, but if he gets a call from Radio 1 again and is asked to go at short notice, what choice does he have? Well, clearly he has the choice to say 'actually Radio 1, sorry, I can't come as my boss won't let me and I can't throw a sickie cos he'll find out, so I'll forgo this amazing opportunity to be heard by the masses, and please don't call me again'!

For my husband, as far as his work is concerned, it's a no win situation because his boss is never likely to let him take a day off at short notice for such an opportunity. He is going to email the Show's producer though and ask that if a slot arises in the future for which they consider him, if they could give him more than a day's notice it would be appreciated. When he spoke to the Show yesterday, they said they'd never had a boss not allow someone to attend before. Says it all really.

NikNox

KP83 I do see your point, and agree with you, and if hubby was allowing his hobby to interfere with work on a daily basis then I'd be first in line telling him he shouldn't have expected his boss to allow him to go today. But, this is the first time he's ever asked for time off related to his hobby. His hobby does not interfere with his job. His boss thinks it does because my husband leaves at 5pm to come home, but as I've explained in other posts, his contracted hours are 9.5 but he goes in at 8.30 to start work and only takes 20 minutes of his hour's contracted lunch break, so he gives the company an hour and 10 minutes of his own time each day. Therefore, boss cannot complain about him leaving at 5pm. Breaks are a sore point where he works because although contracted, the boss doesn't like them taking breaks so they don't. They only take 20 minutes to eat at lunchtime because the boss glowers at them if they take longer. It's the same where I work, except we don't get bad vibes from the boss! We just don't take breaks because we are exceptionally busy. But, if things go quiet for a few minutes and we kick back to have a coffee and a chat, no-one bats an eyelid. Therefore, if a boss doesn't effectively allow staff to take their allocated contracted breaks because he doesn't like it and vibes them out if they do, then if they chat occasionally in the office amongst themselves he has no right to complain about it.

NikNox

I agree they need to man up and grow a pair with this boss!! But, he's very keen on issuing written warnings for anyone who dares to go against his wishes, so they tend to tread carefully. They haven't got anyone higher than him to complain to either, no HR department, nothing, although I have said in the past that if there are grievances they must complain and that the company should have a grievance policy to which their boss must adhere. So, I'm with you on that one. When we had the boss who was ridiculously strict with toilet breaks, amongst many other things, we all complained and she got moved. Result. But, that was possible and it happened, whereas where my husband works it's not possible to move their boss, cos he is the boss so to speak. They tend to put up and shut up.

The reason my husband goes in early is his choice. He would rather work the extra hours the boss expects at the beginning of the day than at the end of the day. One of his bosses comments to him yesterday was he is expected to work late but leaves at 5pm to come home to do his hobby, hence his hobby interferes with his work, and other members of staff stay on an hour or so at the end of the day. So, when CFC made the point about being flexible, I was pointing out that my husband is flexible and does indeed work overtime, just incorporates it at different times to other members of staff (although he shouldn't incorporate it during a lunch break in my opinion). I would imagine that if extra hours are expected outside of contracted ones, a boss doesn't have the right to dictate when those hours are? My husband will continue to finish work at 5pm, so he is standing up to his boss on that one.

To me, if you are finishing your daily workload by 5pm, then going home at that time isn't an issue.

The break thing does annoy me too, particularly as they all work closely with computers and should take regular breaks from their computer screens.

I'm not aware if their boss has physically told them to finish their lunch early, just that he makes them feel very uncomfortable and it's easier for them if they just go back to work. Perhaps he's aware he cannot do that, legally. Anyway, hubby's going to be taking his full hour from now on and said he will leave the building (which he's allowed to do), even if it's just to sit in the car and read for a while.

scooby088

OP if there is another opportunity to go to radio one take it, fake a few days illness, no matter what you do for a boss or company more often than not it isn't often repaid to the workers.

michaelvintner

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NisCkxU544c

arthurdick

well, that was worth a giggle..cheers for that...:)

denla

NikNox wrote: »

When we had the boss who was ridiculously strict with toilet breaks, amongst many other things, we all complained and she got moved. Result. But, that was possible and it happened, whereas where my husband works it's not possible to move their boss, cos he is the boss so to speak. They tend to put up and shut up.

For toilet breaks all you need to do is stay a few minutes later to make up for the time used to use the toilet. The employer can't refuse employees the right to let nature take its course. Threaten to bring employer to employment tribunal if he attempts to issue a warning just for the toilet. That should scare him. If it doesn't work, really do it.

bluenoseam

I think you are seeing things too much from the proud OH side of things - lets put it this way, over the past lets say 5 years I've worked for three employers, all three major high street names and all three have the same policy - no mobile phones on duty. It was a disciplinary if caught in all three stores (not that anyone ever was), if for any reason we needed to make personal calls during the day we made them on our breaks. The ONLY reason for personal calls either in or out during working hours was for emergencies.

I understand you feel the boss should give the time off, if I was his boss I would have to think about it carefully, but ultimately it's the boss' right to say no. The boss had absolutely no way to cover that shift & was well within his rights to reject the proposal by your OH - it is your OH's boss' job to give a toss about his business, not keep his staff happy. It's a misconception that your boss has to keep you happy - ultimately so long as they're paying you to do a job they really don't have to care if you think he's the biggest see you next Tuesday in the world.

I have sympathy for your OH because it's a hell of an opportunity, but I think you're blowing it out of all sorts of proportion - the written warning is perfectly justified. The short notice rejection of request to take the day as leave was also justified - you'd be screaming if the boss came up to you the day before you went on holiday and asked you to postpone your leave! (infact it would be against the law would it not?) Also pulling a sickie, well that's not a written warning, that would most likely lead to disciplinary proceedings - which can lead to dismissal.

NikNox

Bluenoseam

We did understand why the boss refused time off, and know he was within his rights to do so. As it happens, there was no-one else off today, office at full capacity and hubby up to date with his work, as always. Often there are 2 members of staff off at the same time on leave, which is permitted, sometimes for 2 weeks at a time. So, it seems unfair in the grand scheme of things but at the same time we know the boss wasn't wrong to refuse time off.

As for mobiles at work. Depends on the business I guess. I'm sure no-one wants to see sales/floor staff in High Street stores chatting on their mobiles, nor people at checkouts in supermarkets, so to have a no mobile on person rule in those workplaces is essential. There is not a no mobile rule where my husband works, nor is there a no mobile rule where I work. He's worked there for 6 years and on this one occasion he answered his mobile. Whoopee do, hardly work related crime of the century is it! Therefore, we do feel the written warning is unjustified in this circumstance. If there were a no mobile rule or policy, then fair enough, but there isn't.

As regards your comment about annual leave, his boss has asked him at the last minute to cancel his leave as it happens. He refused of course, but it didn't go down well with his boss. He told him he wasn't thinking of the needs of the company and was being selfish in taking his leave, particularly as we weren't going anywhere!

You may think I'm blowing this out of proportion, but that's your opinion, which of course you are entitled to.

sniggings

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

If someone really wanted to get data out of the office, then they would just do it. Data stick ban or no data stick ban.

So by your argument, airports might as well allow bombs in hand luggage, if they are going to bring a bomb, then they will just do it, bomb ban or not!