Starting work on time?
Discussion
Pothole said:
We can all play semantics.
Actually, I play the game. That doesn't have to mean I agree with all the rules, though, does it? I'm sure you'd agree that a reasonable employer who maintains a good relationship with employees (along with all that encompasses) generally gets better results than an uncaring dictator.
I never said anyone has to agree with all of the rules, what i am saying is that giving a bit extra generally benefits the individual and if they can't see that then there is no help for them.Actually, I play the game. That doesn't have to mean I agree with all the rules, though, does it? I'm sure you'd agree that a reasonable employer who maintains a good relationship with employees (along with all that encompasses) generally gets better results than an uncaring dictator.
And yes i would definitely agree that a good employee/employer relationship is key to a more productive work environment. That doesn't mean that the employer should lose 80 hours x ??? employees per year either does it?
It's the whole mentality of certain areas of society, they need to stop b
hing and start helping themselves.chrisb92 said:
Pothole said:
We can all play semantics.
Actually, I play the game. That doesn't have to mean I agree with all the rules, though, does it? I'm sure you'd agree that a reasonable employer who maintains a good relationship with employees (along with all that encompasses) generally gets better results than an uncaring dictator.
I wouldn't expect much from an employee who started late and finished early every shift, for the sake of 10 minutes (tops). I'm not sure a good manager is one who gets dictated by his staff when they start and finish work. He is not ordering them all to have a short back and sides, merely turn up on time and do you 6 hour (oh the slavery) shift.Actually, I play the game. That doesn't have to mean I agree with all the rules, though, does it? I'm sure you'd agree that a reasonable employer who maintains a good relationship with employees (along with all that encompasses) generally gets better results than an uncaring dictator.
I'd love to see some of these work in construction where sometimes the job is 5 minutes from home for an 8am start and sometimes 2 hours from home for an 8am start.
thainy77 said:
Pothole said:
We can all play semantics.
Actually, I play the game. That doesn't have to mean I agree with all the rules, though, does it? I'm sure you'd agree that a reasonable employer who maintains a good relationship with employees (along with all that encompasses) generally gets better results than an uncaring dictator.
I never said anyone has to agree with all of the rules, what i am saying is that giving a bit extra generally benefits the individual and if they can't see that then there is no help for them.Actually, I play the game. That doesn't have to mean I agree with all the rules, though, does it? I'm sure you'd agree that a reasonable employer who maintains a good relationship with employees (along with all that encompasses) generally gets better results than an uncaring dictator.
And yes i would definitely agree that a good employee/employer relationship is key to a more productive work environment. That doesn't mean that the employer should lose 80 hours x ??? employees per year either does it?
It's the whole mentality of certain areas of society, they need to stop b
hing and start helping themselves.They're catering workers on next to minimum wage. I'd say they need it explaining to them. b
hing is human nature. A mutual agreement which is clear to all parties involved would appear to be the best way of resolving the issue. Expecting them to do unpaid overtime on the off chance it might benefit them later is a stretch I reckon, especially given the mug above's experience.I'm sure the OP meant well by his opening post, but if he's not grasped that most of these employees are likely to be bears of little brain, should he be managing them at all?
Pothole said:
Helping themselves to what? I may have read it wrong, but it sounds to me like a place with little or no prospects for advancement.
They're catering workers on next to minimum wage. I'd say they need it explaining to them. bhing is human nature. A mutual agreement which is clear to all parties involved would appear to be the best way of resolving the issue. Expecting them to do unpaid overtime on the off chance it might benefit them later is a stretch I reckon, especially given the mug above's experience.
I'm sure the OP meant well by his opening post, but if he's not grasped that most of these employees are likely to be bears of little brain, should he be managing them at all?
The sort of attitude you present is exactly what's wrong. It shouldn't matter if your a minimum paid chef or the Prime Minister, you should have pride in your job and want to do well. If they turn up on time and crack on with a days work, maybe unpaid God forbid for 15 minutes, it will do no harm in them being considered for a promotion OR getting a better paid job in another company with better prospects.They're catering workers on next to minimum wage. I'd say they need it explaining to them. b
hing is human nature. A mutual agreement which is clear to all parties involved would appear to be the best way of resolving the issue. Expecting them to do unpaid overtime on the off chance it might benefit them later is a stretch I reckon, especially given the mug above's experience.I'm sure the OP meant well by his opening post, but if he's not grasped that most of these employees are likely to be bears of little brain, should he be managing them at all?
If they're too thick to realise this on their own, then why would you even want them working for you.
Ask anyone who earns over 50/60k if they have ever worked unpaid overtime and see if it's beneficial to career development and progression. No one I know who is well paid, or who wants to be well paid works 9-5 with no extra hours.
Pothole said:
Helping themselves to what? I may have read it wrong, but it sounds to me like a place with little or no prospects for advancement.
They're catering workers on next to minimum wage. I'd say they need it explaining to them. bhing is human nature. A mutual agreement which is clear to all parties involved would appear to be the best way of resolving the issue. Expecting them to do unpaid overtime on the off chance it might benefit them later is a stretch I reckon, especially given the mug above's experience.
I'm sure the OP meant well by his opening post, but if he's not grasped that most of these employees are likely to be bears of little brain, should he be managing them at all?
I'm sure most people have been in a similar type of job before, minimum wage, limited prospects etc. But to my mind why wouldn't you put the time in, learn, then move up through the ranks? there may not be career prospects in that particular company but there will be in other similar companies and the more skills and experience you can take with you the better.They're catering workers on next to minimum wage. I'd say they need it explaining to them. b
hing is human nature. A mutual agreement which is clear to all parties involved would appear to be the best way of resolving the issue. Expecting them to do unpaid overtime on the off chance it might benefit them later is a stretch I reckon, especially given the mug above's experience.I'm sure the OP meant well by his opening post, but if he's not grasped that most of these employees are likely to be bears of little brain, should he be managing them at all?
Being dumb doesn't entitle you to come in when you feel like it.
I agree on setting out the working hours but don't think the employer needs to be agreeing anything with the employee though, it just needs to be communicated and adhered to.
chrisb92 said:
Pothole said:
Helping themselves to what? I may have read it wrong, but it sounds to me like a place with little or no prospects for advancement.
They're catering workers on next to minimum wage. I'd say they need it explaining to them. bhing is human nature. A mutual agreement which is clear to all parties involved would appear to be the best way of resolving the issue. Expecting them to do unpaid overtime on the off chance it might benefit them later is a stretch I reckon, especially given the mug above's experience.
I'm sure the OP meant well by his opening post, but if he's not grasped that most of these employees are likely to be bears of little brain, should he be managing them at all?
The sort of attitude you present is exactly what's wrong. It shouldn't matter if your a minimum paid chef or the Prime Minister, you should have pride in your job and want to do well. If they turn up on time and crack on with a days work, maybe unpaid God forbid for 15 minutes, it will do no harm in them being considered for a promotion OR getting a better paid job in another company with better prospects.They're catering workers on next to minimum wage. I'd say they need it explaining to them. b
hing is human nature. A mutual agreement which is clear to all parties involved would appear to be the best way of resolving the issue. Expecting them to do unpaid overtime on the off chance it might benefit them later is a stretch I reckon, especially given the mug above's experience.I'm sure the OP meant well by his opening post, but if he's not grasped that most of these employees are likely to be bears of little brain, should he be managing them at all?
If they're too thick to realise this on their own, then why would you even want them working for you.
Ask anyone who earns over 50/60k if they have ever worked unpaid overtime and see if it's beneficial to career development and progression. No one I know who is well paid, or who wants to be well paid works 9-5 with no extra hours.
You'd maybe not want them working for you, but who else are you going to get?
How many people do you know who do similar jobs to the ones the OP describes?
Du1point8 said:
Sorry dude... you were the mug on that one.
There is doing the odd hour here and there to get noticed, maybe pull the 1am once... but then you need to know when the management is looking to progress you or take the piss out of you.
In your case the latter and I would have simply told them either sort it out (other staff/more resource/etc) or I go back to my 9-5:30 and they can like it or lump it.
Why didnt you challenge them and just stop doing it?
I totally know I was the mug but it was the job and I knew that when I started. The odd late evening for a deadline turned into every project which was every week. There is doing the odd hour here and there to get noticed, maybe pull the 1am once... but then you need to know when the management is looking to progress you or take the piss out of you.
In your case the latter and I would have simply told them either sort it out (other staff/more resource/etc) or I go back to my 9-5:30 and they can like it or lump it.
Why didnt you challenge them and just stop doing it?
I did challenge, lots of times but then the best work started to get passed to the other designers who were more willing to stay late.
Eventually I handed in my notice and moved on. They asked why and I explained and apparently it's much better now according to some old friends who still work there. I'm just glad to be working for myself where pulling all nights or getting up early lines my pockets and not some random director somewhere.
matsoc said:
Before entering the shopfloor area in our plants there is an electronic time clock, They pass there with their RFID badges after having been in the dressing rooms, ready to start work, that is the entrance time considered for their wages. There is also a maximum 3 minutes delay tolerance, otherwise their paid work starts from the next half hour.
You may wish to have a think about this practice. From the BBC reporting of Mike Ashley in Parliament today:Has he looked into staff who clock onto work a minute late being docked 15 minutes pay? "You ask me what I think, I think that's unacceptable," he says and confirms that to his knowledge it's been changed.
21TonyK said:
one "B" in particular making a song and dance about being "5 minutes early" or very loudly proclaiming they wont be claiming for overtime if they can leave 15 minutes early on Friday as they started a few minutes earlier than they think they should a couple of days.
Deal with this person, leave everyone else alone. Blanket communication to all when dealing with one problem winds me up no end.
schmunk said:
You may wish to have a think about this practice. From the BBC reporting of Mike Ashley in Parliament today:
Has he looked into staff who clock onto work a minute late being docked 15 minutes pay? "You ask me what I think, I think that's unacceptable," he says and confirms that to his knowledge it's been changed.
Unacceptable, but you would have to be bloody stupid to do it a second or third time! Has he looked into staff who clock onto work a minute late being docked 15 minutes pay? "You ask me what I think, I think that's unacceptable," he says and confirms that to his knowledge it's been changed.
There is law on the uniform issue:
Employers have to compensate employees for the time spent putting on uniforms or protective gear if it is integral to performing the “principal activities” of the job. -
See more at: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca...
Employers have to compensate employees for the time spent putting on uniforms or protective gear if it is integral to performing the “principal activities” of the job. -
See more at: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca...
footnote said:
There is law on the uniform issue:
Employers have to compensate employees for the time spent putting on uniforms or protective gear if it is integral to performing the “principal activities” of the job. -
See more at: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca...
I was thinking, maybe contract employees to clock in at 7:45, rather than 8, so they have 15 mins to get changed and get crackingEmployers have to compensate employees for the time spent putting on uniforms or protective gear if it is integral to performing the “principal activities” of the job. -
See more at: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca...
Type R Tom said:
MarshPhantom said:
Granfondo said:
I cannot believe that anyone can argue that starting at 8 and finishing at 2 means starting at 8.10 and finishing at 1.50.
Or would it be ok for the employer who said they would pay £8 ph to pay £7.90 ?
And we all know the answer to that!
If your getting paid from 8 until 2 it's unreasonable to expect people to be there outside of those times. If the employer must start at 8 then pay them from 7.45.Or would it be ok for the employer who said they would pay £8 ph to pay £7.90 ?
And we all know the answer to that!
Simple.
thainy77 said:
Type R Tom said:
True but out of interest, how much time per day do you feel is acceptable to "work" unpaid? Not including commuting, self employed, breaks etc.
It's a difficult question to answer and it does depend on the role as you mentioned above but for this subject i don't see 20 minutes as unreasonable. In previous managerial roles i have held 10-15 hours a week was relatively common but i always had the current end goal in sight.
thainy77 said:
All that jazz said:
Not really a valid argument. In office environments your progression up the career ladder is usually decided by whether or not your face fits, not your work ethic.
Your face usually fits because your work ethic is good.Pothole said:
But you can believe (adult) employers who can't suck up 10 or 20 minutes a day when not doing so is a good place to start losing their 'most valuable resource'? As Gloria Estefan said, it cuts both ways. I've worked in call centre type roles for many years and I've been on both sides of this. I've pushed very hard when in management roles to get IT in place that doesn't take 10 or 15 minutes to get a workstation ready to operate, but senior management appear to generally take your attitude that said setting up time should be unpaid as operators need to be available to take their first call at their shift start time. Approximately 80 hours a year unpaid? FTS!
Edited by Pothole on Tuesday 7th June 10:34
Edited by mph1977 on Tuesday 7th June 15:33
I think it depends on the job and its prospects. A friend of mine worked at a garden centre and there was no potential for advancement. Their policy was to only recruit managers externally.
So as a result most people turned up at 8:59.59 and left at 5:00.00 exactly, come hell or high water. There was literally no point in trying to do well; no scope for advancement or pay rise.
In a job like that you can't really get the most out of people, just the way it is.
However in a job with prospects, the same people would perform better.
So as a result most people turned up at 8:59.59 and left at 5:00.00 exactly, come hell or high water. There was literally no point in trying to do well; no scope for advancement or pay rise.
In a job like that you can't really get the most out of people, just the way it is.
However in a job with prospects, the same people would perform better.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff