Employer selecting who they enforce rules on?

Undervalued

B0bbyEwing said:

comeandgo said:

But if A arrives to be ready to work on time why would they want him to leave or make an example of them?  Surely the answer is to be on time?

We (everyone) seem to be skipping around the point I made when they're on time but still get called out for being late. Even when they're not.

Says to me that they (the company) want to make an example of them, want them to leave. Why else go at someone for something that just completely isn't true?

Again, focusing totally on the times when they get called out for being late when they're not.

As though the employer sits there with their eyes shut until 8:05, opens them, sees person A & then has a pop at them for being late because they weren't seen before 8:05. 

Being late I totally get, even if it's 8:01. I totally get that. An employer is quite right to talk to someone about that. But if you're due to start at 8:00 and you're ready for 8:00 or earlier then to me, what's the problem?!

Well that rather conflicts with the title of the thread. If this person is on time then they have no valid complaint, on this particular issue at least. He is complying with the rules surely?

Are you really saying that he is sometimes a little late and the firm make a big issue of it and he is aggrieved because they allow other employees more latitude? If that is the case then I refer you to the answer I gave earlier. I explained that the firm is (largely) free to apply the rules tightly in some cases and less so in others.

Despite all this it is fairly clear that, for whatever reason, the firm are less than happy with this employee. Person A needs to try and understand why that may be the case.

Appliance_engineer

Simple solution, person A, just turn up on time. Using the defence that others are equally tardy really isn't an argument.

B0bbyEwing

74jax said:
But they didn't. 

Obviously.
Little difficult to do when it's made impossible to do.

B0bbyEwing

Undervalued said:

Well that rather conflicts with the title of the thread.

I'm sure we should be able to agree that all the situations I gave in the OP cannot be listed in a thread title.

The thread title is just a brief description, it doesn't cover everything. That's where reading the OP in full (and not selecting which bits we respond to) comes in.

Undervalued said:

Are you really saying that he is sometimes a little late 

As I've just said with "in full"....

What I AM really saying is that I am now moving away from responding to any attempt to only discuss being late, even if by a minute, because 1) we've covered that and 2) I fully agree with what's said anyway - late is late. Whether it's 1 minute or 100 minutes.

I am talking about when someone is on time. Say 8:00 is a start time and the person is ready for 7:59, 8:00 but they get pulled on it for being late.

Now if someone was to try and defend 8:01 as pretty much on time, then I would argue no it's not. It's late because 8:00 is the time.
On the flipside, I would say a company should not argue 8:00 is late if 8:00 is the time to start.
The company could say "yes well it's pretty close, you were almost late" ... but almost is not late. If you get 6 numbers on the lotto then you bag the jackpot but you were 1 number away from not winning the jackpot. You "almost" didn't get it. But almost is irrelevant. 

So as it seems to be unclear, I am talking about a company who are saying a start time is 8:00, a person will start AT 8:00 ... and then be accused of being late.
Before it is suggested ... I have also seen the contract. It does not say you need to be ready for 7:55 to give an accepted window to be ready for 8:00, it just says start time of 8:00.

B0bbyEwing

Appliance_engineer said:

Simple solution, person A, just turn up on time. Using the defence that others are equally tardy really isn't an argument.

I agree with it.

However, as in the previous post, it doesn't address the situation where they do start on time, but are got at for being late.

Your response to which could be well start an hour earlier then. Again, it'll tick the box but it avoids the point....

If late is late then on time is on time, so what about when on time is ignored & you're called late anyway?

newlywed

An employment lawyer and tribunal judge once told me something along the lines of: just because something is unfair doesn’t always mean it is against the law.

jimpwarsop

I reckon "they" want rid of employee "A". 

MattMattMattUK

B0bbyEwing said:

Undervalued said:

Well that rather conflicts with the title of the thread.

I'm sure we should be able to agree that all the situations I gave in the OP cannot be listed in a thread title.

The thread title is just a brief description, it doesn't cover everything. That's where reading the OP in full (and not selecting which bits we respond to) comes in.

Undervalued said:

Are you really saying that he is sometimes a little late 

As I've just said with "in full"....

What I AM really saying is that I am now moving away from responding to any attempt to only discuss being late, even if by a minute, because 1) we've covered that and 2) I fully agree with what's said anyway - late is late. Whether it's 1 minute or 100 minutes.

I am talking about when someone is on time. Say 8:00 is a start time and the person is ready for 7:59, 8:00 but they get pulled on it for being late.

Now if someone was to try and defend 8:01 as pretty much on time, then I would argue no it's not. It's late because 8:00 is the time.
On the flipside, I would say a company should not argue 8:00 is late if 8:00 is the time to start.
The company could say "yes well it's pretty close, you were almost late" ... but almost is not late. If you get 6 numbers on the lotto then you bag the jackpot but you were 1 number away from not winning the jackpot. You "almost" didn't get it. But almost is irrelevant. 

So as it seems to be unclear, I am talking about a company who are saying a start time is 8:00, a person will start AT 8:00 ... and then be accused of being late.
Before it is suggested ... I have also seen the contract. It does not say you need to be ready for 7:55 to give an accepted window to be ready for 8:00, it just says start time of 8:00.

A start time means ready for work, not getting through the door and swiping a card at 08:00. Having been a co-worker and manager of these kind of people they are incredibly annoying, arguing that they are "on time" because they managed to lunge through the door with a second to spare, or at 08:00:59. Constantly pushing everything to the last minute is annoying, even more so if they are regularly up to five minutes late as well. This is similar to people in office jobs who stop working 15-30 minutes before they are due to finish so they can log out and run out the door exactly on their finish time.

Your friend needs to stop worrying about other people and make sure that they are at work on time and ready to work ever shift, then the "problem" will go away.

Undervalued

MattMattMattUK said:

B0bbyEwing said:

Undervalued said:

Well that rather conflicts with the title of the thread.

I'm sure we should be able to agree that all the situations I gave in the OP cannot be listed in a thread title.

The thread title is just a brief description, it doesn't cover everything. That's where reading the OP in full (and not selecting which bits we respond to) comes in.

Undervalued said:

Are you really saying that he is sometimes a little late 

As I've just said with "in full"....

What I AM really saying is that I am now moving away from responding to any attempt to only discuss being late, even if by a minute, because 1) we've covered that and 2) I fully agree with what's said anyway - late is late. Whether it's 1 minute or 100 minutes.

I am talking about when someone is on time. Say 8:00 is a start time and the person is ready for 7:59, 8:00 but they get pulled on it for being late.

Now if someone was to try and defend 8:01 as pretty much on time, then I would argue no it's not. It's late because 8:00 is the time.
On the flipside, I would say a company should not argue 8:00 is late if 8:00 is the time to start.
The company could say "yes well it's pretty close, you were almost late" ... but almost is not late. If you get 6 numbers on the lotto then you bag the jackpot but you were 1 number away from not winning the jackpot. You "almost" didn't get it. But almost is irrelevant. 

So as it seems to be unclear, I am talking about a company who are saying a start time is 8:00, a person will start AT 8:00 ... and then be accused of being late.
Before it is suggested ... I have also seen the contract. It does not say you need to be ready for 7:55 to give an accepted window to be ready for 8:00, it just says start time of 8:00.

Your friend needs to stop worrying about other people and make sure that they are at work on time and ready to work ever shift, then the "problem" will go away.

This ^^^^^^^^

diystarter7

This threads reminds me of my days on the production line.
Just forget about it and carry on or move on as it is not worth the stress.