MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Should Theo undercut Duncan's work at double pay?

RuthnJasper · 19 August 2009 at 11:15AM

No, he shouldn't. Duncan got there first, fair and square. It's not as though Duncan stitched up Theo in order to get the overtime. They could make an arrangement to ensure that Theo gets the next lot of overtime, or Theo could approach the boss and explain the situation, saying that he would appreciate an early notification of potential future overtime so that he can bid for it, in view of his circumstances.

If Theo had been more 'on the ball' maybe he would have got the heads-up on this lot of overtime. It'd be too hard on Duncan if Theo did the dirty on him. Plus Theo probably gets Child Benefit to support his sprog. Overtime is an occasional extra and shouldn't be in his budget anyway.

harryhound · 19 August 2009 at 11:22AM

Can see the point in doing the work in the UK where the government helps itself to nearing 50% of the GDP.

Best long term solution might be to outsource the work to somewhere where 100 pounds a month is a good wage and there is no need to pay tax?

loopyloulou_3 · 19 August 2009 at 11:32AM

tara747 wrote: »

I totally agree with these two posts!!! Who decided that people with children should be first in line for everything? Parents make the conscious decision to have children and should be able to support them. Single people (especially those living on their own) often have higher living costs than couples.

Sorry for the rant, this is a pet peeve of mine. I don't see why Theo having children has anything to do with this MMD.

Agreed!!
It is first come first served. If Theo was so strapped for cash he should have got in there first.

blondecaz · 19 August 2009 at 11:36AM

Perhaps Theo could have a chat with Duncan to see if Duncan would generously let him have a few of his hours.

If not, Theo should have a chat with his boss to make sure that he's first on the list next time!

Solomon_Broad · 19 August 2009 at 11:43AM

If money is that tight, Theo should be keeping a closer eye out for overtime. Unless his boss went straight to Duncan, in which case Theo is unlikely to get the overtime anyway.

Perhaps Theo should be looking round for another, part time job, so that he can take advantage of any extra hours he has free by working them.

pineapple · 19 August 2009 at 11:50AM

If overtime is scarce, why is it difficult to find people? At my last place, people were falling over themselves to get overtime - and there was much backbiting and accusations of favouritism over it's allocation.
People without children also have expenses - and lives. Duncan may have already re-arranged commitments to do the work. If people start sneaking around behind each others backs undercutting each other 'dog eat dog', ultimately it will have a bad effect on employee relationships - and in fact the company itself.
Companies need to have a clear and fair policy for allocation of overtime. If Theo has an issue with the way overtime is dished out, he and others need to go to the boss.
This applies to time off as well. But that's a whole other ballgame.....

dbfisokay · 19 August 2009 at 12:32PM

This is not so much a moral dilemma as an ethical one-the difference being that ethics is about what one can do in any given situation whilst morality is about whether or not what one does is right or wrong; good or bad.

Clearly it is permissable in a working environment to legally engage in activities which are connected with profit and loss, so Theo approaching management and offerring to work at a lower rate than Duncan is ethically fine and morally neutral-that is, it is neither good nor bad - that's how business and business ethics work.

Presumably however, once Duncan has agreed with management to work for a certain rate that is a binding contract so if business ethics are adhered to, Theo's approach would be futile unless there was a willingness all round to bring it about so as to allow Theo to get the work. It wouldn't be good or bad for him to approach management just as it wasn't good or bad for Duncan to approach management. It is ethically permissable, so he can but intuitively Duncan is ethically sound and if his contract were undermined that would be immoral and not so much a dilemma as a definite wrong act.

oleander_3 · 19 August 2009 at 12:32PM

Company's a bum (and an idiot) for fostering discontent.
Duncan's a bum for grabbing the work.
What about a nice bit of sharing and harmony!!!

kebab · 19 August 2009 at 12:33PM

Thank god I don't work with any of the people above who think this is fine.

Also if Duncan has negotiated triple pay that is an agreement between him and the company - it wouldn't be any sort of organisation that would reneg on that and say sorry someone else has now said they will do it cheaper. If I was the boss I would be suspicious of someone prepared to cut a colleagues throat in this way. As to the people that say "that's business" - business does not exist in a vacuum where the concepts of morals/scruples are ignored.

Lastly, I agree that the comment "....he has a new baby" is a red herring - what about the other guys personal circumstances ???

glossyhair · 19 August 2009 at 1:24PM

tara747 wrote: »

I totally agree with these two posts!!! Who decided that people with children should be first in line for everything? Parents make the conscious decision to have children and should be able to support them. Single people (especially those living on their own) often have higher living costs than couples.

Sorry for the rant, this is a pet peeve of mine. I don't see why Theo having children has anything to do with this MMD.

I 100% agree. I am SO fed up with hearing "oh, but I have kids". Your choice not mine so why should you be higher up the queue for everything from supermarket parking spaces to state benefits? The world is overpopulated as it is . . . so here's a radical thought . . . perhaps people should be taxed on the number of children they have !!! Sorry, it's my pet rant too.

I wouldn't want to work in the company that allowed one worker to undercut another. It is asking for bad feeling and resentment at many levels. Morals and ethics are important, even if they are consciously ignored. If I was Theo, I would make sure that my availability for any future overtime was clearly known by the decision makers and keep my ear to the ground. If it is purely first come first served, then neither person has any more right to the overtime than the other.

MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Should Theo undercut Duncan's work at double pay?

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free