Working Hours & Rights !!!

[Hobo]

We are currently employed as M&E contractor on a project which was due to start 3 weeks ago. An element of works was scheduled to take 6 weeks, however as there is a 3 week delay to programme we now only have 3 weeks in which to undertake the works.

The client has asked us to 'accelerate' the works by our men working 84 hour weeks (Mon to Sun, 12h per day) for the remaining 3 weeks, instead of the normal 42 hours per week.

I have a number of concerns with this, but am interested to know where I stand legally:

1) Can we, the employer, make our employees work 84 hours a week, 3 weeks in a row
2) Should we, the employer, make our employees work 84 hours a week, 3 weeks in a row
3) Is it possible for a person to work 84 hours a week, manual work, 3 weeks in a row & maintain high productivity

The client wants the same people working all the time to avoid new people coming to site who don't know the projects, hence reducing non productive time. I can understand this, however surely that cannot enforce this ?

Lastly, if we don't allow say 10 people to work 84 hour weeks for the 3 weeks, and therefore say need 20 people working 42 hour weeks, but don't employ 20 people within the organisation, can I be 'forced' to take more staff on to undertake the works ?

[cazzer]

Who cause the delayed start?

[Hobo]

Our clients, client. The main contractor (we are a lowly sub-sub contractor).

[Ganglandboss]

Hobo said:

1) Can we, the employer, make our employees work 84 hours a week, 3 weeks in a row
2) Should we, the employer, make our employees work 84 hours a week, 3 weeks in a row
3) Is it possible for a person to work 84 hours a week, manual work, 3 weeks in a row & maintain high productivity

1. You should have your employees to opt out of the European working hours directive. They can opt back in at any time by giving you notice. The notice period should be in the opt out agreement and can be up to 3 months. You cannot force them into this agreement. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/W...
2. Absolutely not. People have families and commitments other than work. I work as an M&E consultant and there is no way on earth I would allow these sort of hours on any of my sites; this works out as 12 hours a day 7 days a week. Having people on site working at height, with power tools and working on electrical or gas installations etc. whilst tired is very dangerous.
3. No chance.

[Hobo]

Ganglandboss said:

Hobo said:

1) Can we, the employer, make our employees work 84 hours a week, 3 weeks in a row
2) Should we, the employer, make our employees work 84 hours a week, 3 weeks in a row
3) Is it possible for a person to work 84 hours a week, manual work, 3 weeks in a row & maintain high productivity

1. You should have your employees to opt out of the European working hours directive. They can opt back in at any time by giving you notice. The notice period should be in the opt out agreement and can be up to 3 months. You cannot force them into this agreement. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/W...
2. Absolutely not. People have families and commitments other than work. I work as an M&E consultant and there is no way on earth I would allow these sort of hours on any of my sites; this works out as 12 hours a day 7 days a week. Having people on site working at height, with power tools and working on electrical or gas installations etc. whilst tired is very dangerous.
3. No chance.

That was kind of what I was getting at in the 3 question. I agree in full with your comments, I am just a little concerned about what I am being asked to do, and even more so at the consequences of what will happen if I choose to say I cannot do it.

[Hobo]

Ganglandboss said:

I would allow these sort of hours on any of my sites; this works out as 12 hours a day 7 days a week. Having people on site working at height, with power tools and working on electrical or gas installations etc. whilst tired is very dangerous.

I will comment on this seperately.

- They are wanting us to work 8am until 8pm Monday to Sunday for 3 consequtive weeks
- The build is 8 storey, the works in question being on levels 5, 6 & part of 7 (all pretty much open to elements), albiet floor to ceiling height being roughly 3m
- The works are small bore heating & domestics, so no real 'power tools' but obviously if tiredness were to set it & a simple joint carried out incorrectly which resulted in a leak, could end in X00,000's of damages, which would be no doubt booked to our account

[Ganglandboss]

Hobo said:

Ganglandboss said:

I would allow these sort of hours on any of my sites; this works out as 12 hours a day 7 days a week. Having people on site working at height, with power tools and working on electrical or gas installations etc. whilst tired is very dangerous.

I will comment on this seperately.

- They are wanting us to work 8am until 8pm Monday to Sunday for 3 consequtive weeks
- The build is 8 storey, the works in question being on levels 5, 6 & part of 7 (all pretty much open to elements), albiet floor to ceiling height being roughly 3m
- The works are small bore heating & domestics, so no real 'power tools' but obviously if tiredness were to set it & a simple joint carried out incorrectly which resulted in a leak, could end in X00,000's of damages, which would be no doubt booked to our account

Even still, those hours are knackering and it is not ideal having people on a building site who are tired. You will be pretty much screwed by the working hours directive anyway - the only way they are going to get this done quicker is to have more man-power on site.

[530dTPhil]

Hobo said:

That was kind of what I was getting at in the 3 question. I agree in full with your comments, I am just a little concerned about what I am being asked to do, and even more so at the consequences of what will happen if I choose to say I cannot do it.

This should really be the least of your worries!
If an accident were to happen, it would almost inevitably be attributed by the HSE to the excessive working hours. You would most likely be deemed to be negligent for allowing this to happen.

Sensible option is to decline the request and explain the reasons behind it -- unless, of course. you like the prospect of prison food!

[Hobo]

I acknowledge your thoughts about HSE, and were greatly concerned about this.

The problem with saying I am not willing to let our, say, 10 men work these hours, is that our client will then no doubt say "well, put 20 men on the project". This is all well & good, but where does one find the additional 10 men that would currently be required, but not employed, by next Monday ?

We could go the 'agency' route, however as we have learnt from experience, to find 10 good men could mean going through 20-30 agency men & cost x'000's in abortive works. Given the timescales involved, agency really isn't an option either.

I do a great deal of work for the client in question, however on this occasion feel they are trying to push too far & somewhat trying it on. I do also however understand that in the current climate they will get someone willing to undertake the works if we do not, and that will put future works at jeoporday (rightly or wrongly).

Its appears, as the saying goes, I am "damned it i don't, and damned it I do".

[530dTPhil]

Would it be feasible to approach someone else in your industry who does not have a full order book at present and hire some of their labour for the period? If this isn't a runner, perhaps contact companies that made redundancies over the last eighteen months for potential good staff? As you can probably gather, I know little about your industry; just trying to throw some ideas around.

[MonkeyHanger]

Hobo said:

We could go the 'agency' route, however as we have learnt from experience, to find 10 good men could mean going through 20-30 agency men & cost x'000's in abortive works. Given the timescales involved, agency really isn't an option either.

Don't even consider using an Agency. You might get lucky and get some quality bodies. Equally you might get 6 numbers up on the next rollover. Agency labour has caused me countless headaches in the past and frequently leaves you with more problems that it solves..frankly i'm glad i'm out of it now.

As for your current Workforce doing the hours. Yes, the hours can be done physically and i've done it in the past but don't expect them to run around like their arses are on fire for 3 weeks. That's without getting into the issues caused by Euro-meddling.

The only way around this is to throw bodies at it. Would your current team know any people who need a few week's work ?

[Bullett]

I have no experience of your industry but I do have similar slippage issues.

Even if they could dump you they would still be in a situation where they would need to find and train and deliver the project in 3 weeks. Lets be generous here, it takes them a week so now they need 30 people to do the job plus possible quality issues.

Not going to happen, the project if going behind schedule. The best I think you can do is off to up the working hours of your team to a reasonable level and attempt to bring in additionals where possible. I assume that your 6 weeks included some slippage anyway? (I include 10-25% depending on the project). I'd say you'll do what you can but it's best endevours to hit the target 3 weeks and will most likely be the original 6 weeks agreed.

[Mattt]

Do you already have the contract? What does it state (if anything) regarding acceleration of works?

Have you spoken to the MC regarding your concerns?

[bogwoppit]

There's no way in hell I'd be messing around with those sorts of hours. It'd be no good for anybody, including the client. You can at least talk to the client to explain your concerns, and come to a compromise. Probably involving sub-contracting and a hike in the fee.

[segg250]

Ok well from an engineers viewpoint its doable to do those kinds of hrs sustainably and to do the work well BUT its a case of how your eng on the ground doing the hrs will feel about it more than anything else. If they are consulted by you and agree to do the work in the timescale required and are rewarded for doing so you are in gravy however if they are put upon to do the work they will not meet the target date and work would be sloppy on top of that.

As for euro directives regarding whether they are legally allowed to work those hrs i have no idea. Where H&Stupidity is concerned also no idea but you can bet your ass they will have a miriad of reasons etc for it not to be allowed etc etc i would guess.

[Ganglandboss]

segg250 said:

As for euro directives regarding whether they are legally allowed to work those hrs i have no idea. Where H&Stupidity is concerned also no idea but you can bet your ass they will have a miriad of reasons etc for it not to be allowed etc etc i would guess.

Personally I think it's pretty sensible. They do not say you cannot work long hours - they just require you to consent to it (although certain jobs do not have the option - driving, medicine etc.). When I started my job I signed a waiver, as have many people I know. If it ever got to the point that I was being forced to work long hours, I have the option to say no without fear of disciplinary action.

[segg250]

Ganglandboss said:

segg250 said:

As for euro directives regarding whether they are legally allowed to work those hrs i have no idea. Where H&Stupidity is concerned also no idea but you can bet your ass they will have a miriad of reasons etc for it not to be allowed etc etc i would guess.

Personally I think it's pretty sensible. They do not say you cannot work long hours - they just require you to consent to it (although certain jobs do not have the option - driving, medicine etc.). When I started my job I signed a waiver, as have many people I know. If it ever got to the point that I was being forced to work long hours, I have the option to say no without fear of disciplinary action.

All sounds perfectly sensible to me. Point i was trying to get across here is the people who will make the difference here is his guys doing the actual labour. Try make them or sneak it past them etc etc they will make him regret it. Clear it with them before agreeing to the shortened timescale and they will do what they can to make it happen.

Before wasting time on whether directives h&stupidity etc speak to the guys who will actually be doing the work and get their approval and say so on whether the targets are actually achievable within timeframe. Otherwise you are just wasting your time.

[a boardman]

are they willing to pay extra for the overtime, say 1.5 times past the normal day and double time for weekends.

[Hobo]

All operatives have been approached, and adequate numbers agreed to make it viable (subject to them being suitably reimbursed obviously).

Figures have been submitted to undertake the works, and this include overtime rates, additional supervision, reduced productivity due to extensive hours, etc, etc.

Just need to wait now to see if figures are accepted. Nothing will be done without written consent.

Cheers for advice.

[segg250]

Hobo said:

All operatives have been approached, and adequate numbers agreed to make it viable (subject to them being suitably reimbursed obviously).

Figures have been submitted to undertake the works, and this include overtime rates, additional supervision, reduced productivity due to extensive hours, etc, etc.

Just need to wait now to see if figures are accepted. Nothing will be done without written consent.

Cheers for advice.

Good to hear. I apologise if it seemed like i was trying to teach you to suck eggs merely pointing out what i have seen and been involved in as an engineer on the ground. Too many times i have come across projects estimated by someone in an office ex tools etc who thinks they know timescales etc but is out of touch with present practice. The only people who really know how long itll take to do is the people doing the work.