Can employer force you to stay on site during PAID break?
Discussion
ATG said:
Your manager should tell your HR people to stop being so bloody stupid.
Yeah, good luck with that one. The workround is above, the manager authorises him to leave site for 10 minutes, gives him a ticket, then the safety/clock issues are answered. If HR want to take on the manager for letting him leave site on a ticket, then they can come and have a go if they think they're hard enough.ali_kat said:
Do they provide an onsite canteen, fully suited to catered to your dietary needs?
Eg vegan, no nuts in the kitchen, coeliac etc
Not a requirement. Requirement is for a place to sit, away from the workplace (if reasonably practicable blah blah), a fridge for your own food, a microwave for warmimg up food and the means of making a hot drink. This is H&SAWA, relevant regs *used to be* in OSRP Regs (now repealed) but are now elsewhere in General Reqmts.Eg vegan, no nuts in the kitchen, coeliac etc
Flooble said:
Realistically if HR can cause trouble all the way down through a site and line manager to the worker, then it's not a company with whom you want a long term relationship.
The tail is wagging the dog and there will doubtless be more pettiness to come.
With something like this it is very likely that HR are acting on the request of management rather than it being of their own instigation. Very few practitioners want to deal with the fallout of implementing daft policies.The tail is wagging the dog and there will doubtless be more pettiness to come.
Having some principles to stick to is all well and good, but unless you have a better job lined up to go to now, its often better to play the HR game in the short term and wait it out, until someone either blinks, or a better job comes along
...
Buy your sandwiches for the next day on the way home from work, stick them in your fridge at home overnight and buy a sandwich sized coolbag to take them to work in.
Then spend ALL 20mins of your break, doing your own thing, until someone else volunteers to clock out and go to the shop every day.
.
...
Buy your sandwiches for the next day on the way home from work, stick them in your fridge at home overnight and buy a sandwich sized coolbag to take them to work in.
Then spend ALL 20mins of your break, doing your own thing, until someone else volunteers to clock out and go to the shop every day.
.
Petrolhead_Rich said:
at least until I can find somewhere else to work!
Certainly, it's the sort of rule that will encourage good employees to be more likely to get a job elsewhere especially when they're getting a better offer and considering whether to stay or not, meaning Little Miss Hitler in HR will have more work to do recruiting a replacement or 20.chrisb92 said:
battered said:
Your point is neither here nor there. What you may want is not what is required. An employer doesn't have to pander to your wants, only your rights.
Why the f
k would anyone want to work for a company like that?k do you think most people get a choice?bga said:
With something like this it is very likely that HR are acting on the request of management rather than it being of their own instigation. Very few practitioners want to deal with the fallout of implementing daft policies.
Practitioners? HR rarely deal with the fallout, that's for the line management and, possibly, the middle management. You may be correct that there is a directive from the senior management to keep people on site and HR have taken this and pushed it down, but I feel it is highly unlikely that the line manager and site manager mentioned were the ones who instigated this and are now blaming HR!battered said:
chrisb92 said:
battered said:
Your point is neither here nor there. What you may want is not what is required. An employer doesn't have to pander to your wants, only your rights.
Why the fk would anyone want to work for a company like that?k do you think most people get a choice?I was saying why would anyone want to work for a company or person who just sticks to your rights and doesn't in anyway try and treat you well? I guarantee no one works hard for this type of company. At least not as hard as they would for a company who went out their way a little to treat them well. I'm sure they would make more money in improved productivity due to motivated and happy staff than they would spend on achieving this.
If OP was allowed his break to walk to the shops, which I think we would all agree is extremely reasonable then I'm sure he would be more inclined to work harder should it be required (I'm not suggesting OP doesn't work hard). When companies start behaving in a way that adheres only to 'rights' you start seeing the employees act in the same way. I.e not starting a minute early and clocking off the second your hours are done and productivity nose dives as they start doing the minimum work required.
Do you own your own company or are you in a managerial position?
chrisb92 said:
battered said:
chrisb92 said:
battered said:
Your point is neither here nor there. What you may want is not what is required. An employer doesn't have to pander to your wants, only your rights.
Why the fk would anyone want to work for a company like that?k do you think most people get a choice?I'm also saying that in any circumstance where you allow an individual freedom you have to balance the positive effects of this freedom against the possibility of that freedom being abused by others. I have been in a position where I had to withdraw a freedom (exactly this freedom, as it happens!) because one member of staff abused it.
This balance will depend on the people in your employ.
chrisb92 said:
Do you own your own company or are you in a managerial position?
Both, in a sense. I run a consultancy in food manufacturing, which is a company that I own, and the positions I fill are generally managerial and about making things happen in factories. Making the right things happen in factories, ideally. Today's bit of management is about controlling access to the engineering workshop. We allowed some freedom, and it's been abused. So now it's going to be withdrawn. If we don't then someone is going to get hurt, and then who's to blame? Flooble said:
bga said:
With something like this it is very likely that HR are acting on the request of management rather than it being of their own instigation. Very few practitioners want to deal with the fallout of implementing daft policies.
Practitioners? HR rarely deal with the fallout, that's for the line management and, possibly, the middle management. You may be correct that there is a directive from the senior management to keep people on site and HR have taken this and pushed it down, but I feel it is highly unlikely that the line manager and site manager mentioned were the ones who instigated this and are now blaming HR!battered said:
Both, in a sense. I run a consultancy in food manufacturing, which is a company that I own, and the positions I fill are generally managerial and about making things happen in factories. Making the right things happen in factories, ideally. Today's bit of management is about controlling access to the engineering workshop. We allowed some freedom, and it's been abused. So now it's going to be withdrawn. If we don't then someone is going to get hurt, and then who's to blame?
I totally see you point re abusing the freedom placed in employees and I write this post as en employee. I suppose it is a completely different line of work to what I do, which is purely office based and there aren't many rules in place due to H&S.Would it not be beneficial to all in the case of OP to allow him offsite for his sandwich for him and the boss once a day to maintain the feeling of goodwill. It doesn't seem like there has been any abuse of the freedom to go offsite, so it would seem a little harsh on OP. Provided he is back working within the same time as everyone else on their break why should it matter what he does he where he goes during that break? I'd hate to know I was stuck on site all day and couldn't go and get some lunch from elsewhere.
I do not own my own company so I'm not talking from any experience of having to implement any rules myself, but having been on the receiving end of petty rule changes in a previous job it left a lot of staff feeling hard done by and there was a noticeable downturn in productivity as a result. This was one of many reasons for changing job completely.
chrisb92 said:
Would it not be beneficial to all in the case of OP to allow him offsite for his sandwich for him and the boss once a day to maintain the feeling of goodwill. It doesn't seem like there has been any abuse of the freedom to go offsite, so it would seem a little harsh on OP.
Absolutely, yes. This is why I suggested the workaround earlier where the guy's boss authorises him to go out for 10 minutes and makes a note of it and accounts for his movements off site while clocked on in case there is an emergency. That's why I also say that if HR want to take this up with the guy's maager then they can come and have a go. Have a guess what I would say to HR.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff