Employer looking overtime?

n1guy

hyubh wrote: »

I think you need to get out of a rut.

Personally, I have zero sympathy for small business people who complain about the minimum wage, or pensions auto-enrolement, etc. - if a small business can only offer poverty wages, then I'm all for large corporations and government regulation driving them to the wall.

That said... for an actual employee in that sort of business, I'm not sure internalising such views is very helpful. Why are your ambitions so low that you can't see yourself escaping the need for state handouts? Where's your self-respect? Having self-respect doesn't mean accepting the need for doing overtime in a dead-end job... but it probably does entail striving for something else, whether another employer or setting off on your own.

I'm 35 with 3 small children. At my stage in life I just go with the flow, I don't have the time or energy to retrain and changing employer which I recently tried to do is pointless as I am caught in a benefits trap. I'd need to earn roughly £100-£200 per week to get clear on benefits altogether and thats not going to happen without retraining.

Incidentally, my job (cabinet maker) wasn't always minimum wage, I earned the same per hour rate 15 odd years ago, its been devalued I guess.

prowla

I don't blame the OP for asking the question; it is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask.

The employer is asking the OP to do an extra day's work a week in perpetuity, for no gain.

I would decline.

custardy

custardy wrote: »

Evidently it isnt, as you cant pay your living costs from your wages.

n1guy wrote: »

Take HB out of it, say I didn't get it. I would do an hour or 2 just to pass myself, I know some folk love overtime, I am not one of them people, I work to live not the other way about. 40 hours per week is enough for me.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

That'll be the one there. Which was in answer to him saying he shouldn't have to work overtime.

Do you deny that that implies he ought to work more than 40 hours if he is claiming top-up benefits?

Aaaaaand now with context. OP stated it was 'enough for them'. It obviously isnt as their wage doesnt over their basic costs.
If minimum wage doesnt cover their outgoings @40 hours then it isnt enough.

custardy

n1guy wrote: »

I'm 35 with 3 small children. At my stage in life I just go with the flow, I don't have the time or energy to retrain and changing employer which I recently tried to do is pointless as I am caught in a benefits trap. I'd need to earn roughly £100-£200 per week to get clear on benefits altogether and thats not going to happen without retraining.

Incidentally, my job (cabinet maker) wasn't always minimum wage, I earned the same per hour rate 15 odd years ago, its been devalued I guess.

Im on my 3rd 'career'. It makes it sound high flying,it really isnt.
35 is nothing. You have 35 years to retirement.
what if state support dwindles over those years and you are forced to work more hours as you get older?
ts not about long hours.Eg (just because I know)
Part time postie Age 17 £7.40 + 6 months +12 months
Age 18 £9.51 £10.09 £10.57
So straight away a £2.00 lift in hourly rate.
in a year £3.00.
You make £13.887 a year now using Salary calc.
You would need to work 31/2 hours a week to earn the same in your 1st year at RM. 28/29 hours in your next.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

custardy wrote: »

Aaaaaand now with context. OP stated it was 'enough for them'. It obviously isnt as their wage doesnt over their basic costs.
If minimum wage doesnt cover their outgoings @40 hours then it isnt enough.

Did you actually read what you quoted there? He said "40 hours per week was enough". not, "the money I earn for 40 hours a week is enough."

In context your post certainly reads like you believe he should work more than 40 hours a week if he is on top-up benefits - that working 40 hours a week is "Not enough" so he should work more. Which is what I said in the first place. If that wasn't your opinion, you can say so.

custardy

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Did you actually read what you quoted there? He said "40 hours per week was enough". not, "the money I earn for 40 hours a week is enough."

In context your post certainly reads like you believe he should work more than 40 hours a week if he is on top-up benefits - that working 40 hours a week is "Not enough" so he should work more. Which is what I said in the first place. If that wasn't your opinion, you can say so.

A person with 3 kids needs a roof over their head. My opinion (which I have laid out here) is we should aim to pay our way.
Disagree if you wish but aiming to do enough for the state to pick up the pieces isnt acceptable.......a support network that allows it isnt fit for purpose.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

custardy wrote: »

A person with 3 kids needs a roof over their head. My opinion (which I have laid out here) is we should aim to pay our way.
Disagree if you wish but aiming to do enough for the state to pick up the pieces int acceptable.......a support network that allows it isnt fit for purpose.

He's not going to fix the system by allowing his employer to exploit him still further, is he?

You don't seem to get that the only beneficiary from the taxpayer topping up his wages is the employer. He gets nothing from it. That shortfall should be made up by the employer. And if the employer can't pay decent wages, let him go under. Another firm that pays properly will pick up the work. Employers do not create work, they compete for it.

Can you not see that your attitude only serves to prop up and facilitate the system you claim is unfit?

And incidentally, seeing as you have been arguing for hours now that you didn't claim you said he should work harder, have you now conceded that you did?

custardy

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

He's not going to fix the system by allowing his employer to exploit him still further, is he?

You don't seem to get that the only beneficiary from the taxpayer topping up his wages is the employer. He gets nothing from it. That shortfall should be made up by the employer. And if the employer can't pay decent wages, let him go under. Another firm that pays properly will pick up the work. Employers do not create work, they compete for it.

Can you not see that your attitude only serves to prop up and facilitate the system you claim is unfit?

Exploit,by paying his more for the work he does?
Read his posts.
no interest in a new job,no interest in earning more.
So he will be at the mercy of whatever system comes in.
Bleating and crying about a minimum wage employer will do nothing to change that.
Given the OPs apparent drive,i doubt the employer going under will change much for them.
Arguing for hours? I hope you don't bill clients by the hour!

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

custardy wrote: »

Exploit,by paying his more for the work he does?
Read his posts.
no interest in a new job,no interest in earning more.
So he will be at the mercy of whatever system comes in.
Bleating and crying about a minimum wage employer will do nothing to change that.
Given the OPs apparent drive,i doubt the employer going under will change much for them.
Arguing for hours? I hope you don't bill clients by the hour!

So does that mean, "Yes, I was saying he should work harder."?

In which case why did you start by denying it?

custardy

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

So does that mean, "Yes, I was saying he should work harder."?

In which case why did you start by denying it?

I think if you read all my posts the message is work smarter.
Sitting in a dead end job waiting 35 years for retirement
Reliant upon the state,madness.

You slate my view. So feel free to give the OP some guidance...........