Overtime

clacky100

We are sometimes allowed to work overtime when our workload permits,but at the moment we are very quiet.I realise for obvious reasons that I cannot have any overtime,but can my employer stop me working it when we have contract staff in at work.
How can they pay contract staff to do nothing but will not allow permanent staff to do overtime

Dazed_and_C0nfused

Because that's what management have decided is the right (even if odd) option for the business.

Undervalued

clacky100 said:

We are sometimes allowed to work overtime when our workload permits,but at the moment we are very quiet.I realise for obvious reasons that I cannot have any overtime,but can my employer stop me working it when we have contract staff in at work.
How can they pay contract staff to do nothing but will not allow permanent staff to do overtime

Yes.

It is most unlikely your contract give you a right to "first refusal" of any additional work beyond your contracted hours. Assuming that is the case they can give the work to who they please.

Also, as overtime is usually paid at a higher rate (although it doesn't have to be), it may well be cheaper to give it to a contractor or casual / zero hour employee.

If you have greater skills or are willing to do overtime at the normal rate (or even less!) then nothing stops you offering those service to the employer and see what they say.

Jillanddy

clacky100 said:

We are sometimes allowed to work overtime when our workload permits,but at the moment we are very quiet.I realise for obvious reasons that I cannot have any overtime,but can my employer stop me working it when we have contract staff in at work.
How can they pay contract staff to do nothing but will not allow permanent staff to do overtime

This doesn't make sense. You aren't actually complaining about there being no overtime, because the contract staff are, according to you, not doing any work anyway. So nobody is doing overtime! And since the contract staff are doing nothing, even if the employer dispensed with them, there would be no overtime to do. 

I'd suggest being very careful with what you say. If there is no overtime most of the time (since you say it is only available "sometimes") and there is now not enough work for you all, the cheapest and most flexible approach for an employer to take is often to get rid of the employees and keep the contract staff. And before you ask, yes, they can do that perfectly legally. Employers often like this approach because it means that they can expand and contract their workforce at will without lengthy consultations and redundancy / recruitment processes.

TELLIT01

Presumably overtime has to be authorised, the employee doesn't just take the decision themself.  It's entirely up to the employer who they do, or do not, want to work overtime.

I think the question the OP is actually asking is why are contract staff still employed when there isn't enough work.  To get an answer to that question they need to ask the employer.

Jillanddy

TELLIT01 said:

Presumably overtime has to be authorised, the employee doesn't just take the decision themself.  It's entirely up to the employer who they do, or do not, want to work overtime.

I think the question the OP is actually asking is why are contract staff still employed when there isn't enough work.  To get an answer to that question they need to ask the employer.

And as I said, that might well be a dangerous thing to do. If the employer hasn't thought about getting rid of staff (and they may have done) it may not be the brightest idea to suggest it. Nor is pointing out that many of you are sitting around doing nothing. Assuming, of course, that it isn't just the OP sitting around doing nothing!

TELLIT01

The employer may also be expecting an upturn in work and doesn't want the hassle of recruiting again.  Whatever the reason, it's the employer's decision, even if it costs them more and it deprives people of the overtime they want.

getmore4less

A fairly common issue is employed and contact are on different budget/cost centres.