Jamie Oliver tells the truth!!!

makeyourdaddyproud

Oooops, I remember I did do a 70hr work week in 1996, and for that I received a 5-figure sum. However, being on call for such a major software rollout is something I would never do again, even for the money.

MacMickster

thedalmeny wrote: »

I honestly don't get this fascination with hours worked per week, perhaps in a sector where your hours are directly linked to the volume but in more complex careers it's not the case.

Long hours can be a definite disadvantage to small businesses in particular.

If I employed 3 people and they regularly worked 70 hours per week each, I would be completely stuffed if one went off sick for a couple of weeks. The other 2 would be unlikely to be able to cover the work.

5 employees working 42 hours each gives far more scope for cover should an unplanned absence occur.

makeyourdaddyproud

... Or even better - 7 working 30 hrs

custardy

PasturesNew wrote: »

I've never understood why bosses are so proud to have workers working 100 hour weeks. Why not have double the staff and work them for 50? You'd get more out of them.

Migrants have a different position: our minimum wage is a fortune to them, so it's easy for them to come over when young and work their nuts off, then go home after a few years and buy a house outright..... and live in HMOs with fellow countrymen of the same ilk.

Brits are trying to establish a life and all the costs that go with that. There's no party and free house after 3-4 years' hard work, just a realisation that there's another 40 years of the drudgery.

Foreigners, working their nuts off are already away from home and not putting down roots - they live with their mates, they're young, it's fun.

Brits have all sorts of family to fit in, plans to make etc, they're not away from home on a big Grand Tour style adventure.

When you aren't paying them extra wages
what do you think?


http://www.jamieoliver.com/jobs/docs/chef-de-partie_170.pdf

no mention of 40 hour weeks here?
I do see 6 shifts though
I posted about this on another thread.
opt out in catering is the norm,just as it was when Jamie was a lad

ruggedtoast

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

In our organisation I'm one step below C-level and still do 100+ hour weeks a dozen or more times a year, with a 60 hour week as a bare minimum.

I'm on call 24/7, I work at least 3-4 hours a day on weekends, and I check emails daily on holidays. My bonus however, regularly exceeds my base salary, and my share awards will allow me to retire very comfortably at 50 if I keep this pace going.

As a junior I did 100+ hours all the time, week in and week out, for the best part of a decade.

And the juniors of today who wish to progress in our industry still do.

I absolutely do not understand the 9-5 Monday to Friday culture.

If that's what you want go and work in the public sector or some useless Quango.

But don't moan about the fact you can't afford a house.... (not aimed at you, just a general rant against the 'entitlement generation')

Progression and financial rewards in the real world takes blood sweat and tears.

And sacrifice.

Career comes before family, personal life, and self-gratification.

There is time to be self-indulgent later..... But the first 20 years out of School or Uni you pay your dues and earn respect and prioritise work above everything.

Here endeth the rant.:o

You'd think Dominos would just hire some more drivers wouldn't you?

makeyourdaddyproud

Which part of that statement does your generic comment apply to? Or is it fashionable to quote the largest posts with the most minuscule riparte?

Loughton_Monkey

MacMickster wrote: »

Long hours can be a definite disadvantage to small businesses in particular.

If I employed 3 people and they regularly worked 70 hours per week each, I would be completely stuffed if one went off sick for a couple of weeks. The other 2 would be unlikely to be able to cover the work.

5 employees working 42 hours each gives far more scope for cover should an unplanned absence occur.

Even better, employ 2 people on 105 hour weeks, and then have 5 or 6 zero-hour bods up your sleeve just in case one of the 2 lads needed a couple of hours off for their mother's funeral or whatever....

spacey2012

I think he got as far as he did because the British people like an underdog, he was never a top Chef by any standards, but he was cheeky and tried it on and folk liked that.
Now he turns around and takes the pee out of the same people who put him where he is.
I have a slight feeling he has bitten the hand that feeds him...

Loughton_Monkey

the_flying_pig wrote: »

......and H's little gems of wisdom on this thread, well, i mean, they're just mindless drivel, obviously. quite aside from the consistency [e.g. i'm sure he's said on here before that he didn't go to university?] and plausibility [the amount of time that he so obviously spends trawling for snippets about/obsessing over/posting about HPI is in no way at all consistent with the schedules of any of the big shot super-professionals who i know... in particular the late night posts, the middle aged guys who I know who put in >60 hour weeks are usually in bed by 10pm at the latest] i fundamentally disagree with his daft moralising about the values & work patterns that he claims to believe people 'should' be working.

Sometimes it's better to get off the fence and say what you mean straight from the heart....

If Hamish has ever referred to being "in Uni", then we should assume he was at one time a member of "Unione Naturisti Italiani". We shouldn't judge his propensity to take his kilt off while on holiday in Italy, even though none of us would do it....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Even better, employ 2 people on 105 hour weeks, and then have 5 or 6 zero-hour bods up your sleeve just in case one of the 2 lads needed a couple of hours off for their mother's funeral or whatever....

Large Gin and Tonics all around.:)