Pay bonus v Time and a half?

buel10

Thank you for all the help.

One more thing - a couple of men who I work with refuse to work over 39 hours overtime per month on the principle of them 'losing out' and want to 'hurt the employer' by not working over 39 hours overtime. I find this ludicrous as they are only hurting themselves.

Any thoughts on this please? If like to use an analogy to show that this is a false economy but can't think of one....

duchy

buel10 wrote: »

Thank you for all the help.

One more thing - a couple of men who I work with refuse to work over 39 hours overtime per month on the principle of them 'losing out' and want to 'hurt the employer' by not working over 39 hours overtime. I find this ludicrous as they are only hurting themselves.

Any thoughts on this please? If like to use an analogy to show that this is a false economy but can't think of one....

It isn't "ludicrous" . They have already done the maths you couldn't do and have realized the company is paying them less under the new scheme for over 39 hours. You may not object to working for less but they do - Overtime isn't compulsory so if they choose not to work over a certain limit that's up to them and it isn't any of your business. They probably think it is "ludicrous" that you are willing to work overtime for less money than before too..... They may have a point !

Why is your work worth less to the company than a month ago ?
My personal time is worth a certain amount to me. I do overtime when it suits me but if my company reduces the incentive by reducing the pay rate for overtime then whether I do it or not depends on the value I put on my personal time . You don't put the same value on your personal time that your colleagues do and are happy to work for less money than before. They aren't . It's personal choice - and to decide their decision is "ludicrous" is a bit silly when you are the one agreeing to work for less cash each month.

Why do you think it is false economy - and why would you need to tell them ? In what way is it your business what they choose to do ?

buel10

duchy wrote: »

It isn't "ludicrous" . They have already done the maths you couldn't do and have realized the company is paying them less under the new scheme for over 39 hours. You may not object to working for less but they do - Overtime isn't compulsory so if they choose not to work over a certain limit that's up to them and it isn't any of your business. They probably think it is "ludicrous" that you are willing to work overtime for less money than before too..... They may have a point !

Why is your work worth less to the company than a month ago ?
My personal time is worth a certain amount to me. I do overtime when it suits me but if my company reduces the incentive by reducing the pay rate for overtime then whether I do it or not depends on the value I put on my personal time . You don't put the same value on your personal time that your colleagues do and are happy to work for less money than before. They aren't . It's personal choice - and to decide their decision is "ludicrous" is a bit silly when you are the one agreeing to work for less cash each month.

Why do you think it is false economy - and why would you need to tell them ? In what way is it your business what they choose to do ?

In short - comparing the current pay to what we USED to get paid may be interesting but is irrelevant. We are on time and a half and that is how it is - by restricting your hours to x amount to 'get back' at the company is ultimately only going to cost YOU money. True or false?

Aquamania

buel10 wrote: »

Thank you for all the help.

One more thing - a couple of men who I work with refuse to work over 39 hours overtime per month on the principle of them 'losing out' and want to 'hurt the employer' by not working over 39 hours overtime. I find this ludicrous as they are only hurting themselves.

Any thoughts on this please? If like to use an analogy to show that this is a false economy but can't think of one....

Under the old system, someone working 39 hours overtime would have recieved £571.82 for that overtime.

Under the new system, someone working 40 hours overtime under the new system would receive £602.10 for that overtime.

Aquamania

buel10 wrote: »

In short - comparing the current pay to what we USED to get paid may be interesting but is irrelevant. We are on time and a half and that is how it is - by restricting your hours to x amount to 'get back' at the company is ultimately only going to cost YOU money. True or false?

Under the new system, you get just over £15 extra for every hour of overtime worked (compared to just over £10 per hour for normal hours worked)

If there are a number of you regularly working over 40 hours overtime per month, it would almost certainly be beneficial for the employer to employ extra staff (and so cut down the overtime, and the premium rates it pays)

buel10

Thank you for that.

However, in my opinion (not worth a great deal, admittedly), comparing what we get paid per x amount of hours to what we used to get may well be frustrating, but ultimately irrelevant. It's like arguing with something that isn't there.
We now get paid what we get paid so by turning down the chance of more overtime simply to 'get back' at the employer, seems pointless.
I think the closest analogy I can think of is 'Biting your nose off to spite your face'.