Working hours extended. Is there anything that can be done?

wmpdd3 wrote: »

If you contract says you can be asked to do up to 40 hrs, this is what you agreed to.

This is what seems to be the way. Of course, such things can be thwarted by 'implied in practice' though. You don't sign your contract, but you continue to work for a year, then it is implied that you agree to the contract. Similarly, a contract may state the 40 hour week, but in practice over a long period of time, it is implied that the working week is 35 hours. This isn't a few months, this is over 20 years!

If you have a very vocal union you may be able to argue 'working pattern' but the best you would get is more notice that the hours will be changing as apposed to more money.
Are you paid per hour or you paid a salary?

Its salary, (and this case is not actually about me). No union. Realistically, they need only one person in the team in the office 'til 5.30 (if at all), so a proposal is to be made to do a bit of a shift pattern so that the extra time burden will only occur for one week in the month per person. Company just want to increase work hours though, and don't really care about morale or flexibility. So unfortunately, not even some reasonable dialogue do I foresee. It would be great if there was SOMETHING legally though, so its not just begging bowl stuff. It would mean it could be approached reasonably, and to the benefit of both the employer and the employee, but if the employer was being unreasonable and rigid for the sake of it, the legalities could be reluctantly mentioned.

murphym7 wrote: »

Looks like the old company were happy plodding along, paying their employees full time salary for 35 hours of work. New company has noticed this and wants to get value for money. They want their employees to work a full week, which up to now has not been the case.

Ah yes, the generic bean counter. A common breed unfortunately. Anyway, my question was quite precise so I'd appreciate if such opinion was kept to yourself.

I would love a full time salary for 35 hours work.

Funilly enough, I have had many a full time job that is 35 hours a week, as you'll find many others do too. Of course, if you go round thinking nothing short of 40 hours is a full time job, you'll probably not find one.

If I bought the company I would do the very same. In fact they are still not being asked to work the contracted 40 hours, they are still getting away with 37.5 – nice, I’d take it.

Again, just textbook bean-counting. The worst kind of management. You'll probably go a long way:) Oh how many companies I've seen cut off their own noses due to the 'one size fits all' regressive management policies.

Progressive management ftw.

jimoc wrote: »

Considering the way some companies are going I would be counting yourself lucky that they dont make you work back (or pay back) all the extra half hours you haven't been working for the past 20 years

TBH, thats a big issue at the moment (not the scenario above obviously:) ). People are allowing themselves be taken advantage of because of the fear factor hanging over employee's at the moment. 'You're lucky to have a job' is being used implicitly by many companies at the moment to take advantage of a staff that are in fear. Thankfully though, I still have experience with progressive companies (contractor here) who are reasonable (The scenario in the OP is not me). Most people realise if things are bad, and are mostly willing to be flexible with a company. Its always better than coercion IMO:) I have dealt with so many different companies, and the difference in the efficiency of flexible progressive companies is immense. Staff morale is a very, very underestimated commodity. Textbook management very rarely takes human elements into account, or at least doesn't give it enough credit, and companies suffer for it in my experience.
A recent experience of mine: A company had the contract for supplying skilled staff to a certain company. This staff were greatly valued by the company they were working in, but the company who were actually placing them there were regressive and rigid and lost a very valuable member of the team because of it. In turn, they lost the tender, and the company approached the person who left and asked him to tender for the contract. If they saw the importance of the human element (and he was not demanding anything unreasonable), they would have kept a very valuable contract, not to mention a very valuable staff member.

Once again, progressive management ftw:)

TheInquisitor wrote: »

You keep saying progressive management ftw? What do you want them to do? Reduce your working hours or something!?

Eh, no. I would like them to stay as they are (again, the OP is not actually about me), or at least enter into consultation with the people that its affecting. Upping the hours for the sake of it does nothing but lower the morale of the team, makes a mess of peoples childcare arrangements, impacts on their transport home etc (missing express services, trains etc means a lot more than a half hour in commute terms. for people with children, this is a HUGE deal) So when management ignores the impact it actually has on its staff, it is being regressive. A department that has maintained efficiency and profit throughout these turbulent times. Has always been willing to put the hours in when required etc is now simply being thrown into a one size fits all regressive management step. You get more bees with honey, then you do with a shotgun as they say. This isn't an unreasonable team, but that extra half hour at the end of the day has such an impact, yet the company wont even let that extra half hour be worked at the start of the day, or shaved off lunch hour, or covered by a shift pattern etc. Inflexibility is an enemy to both an employer (though some don't see it so), and an employee, usually borne out of mistrust or lack of vision and innovation.

You signed a contract so agreed that it was possible in the future you might have to work longer hours in the future. They don't define the future as being 3/4 years. Its at any time in the future things can change and you agreed to that.

Again it wasn't me, and I realise that this seems to be the case legally. So if you have any input regarding my question rather than your statements about my stand being unreasonable I'd appreciate it. Its not like I don't realise that there are myriads of people that think like you. Heck, most of you are in management positions:) I'm specifically looking for info on if there is a leg to stand on in relation to the matter.

9:00 to 17:30 are standard business working hours.

Indeed, I've worked many differing hours myself. 8 - 4, 8 - 4.30, 8.30 - 5.30, 9 - 5, 9 - 5.30 etc. Standard working hours take many forms.

Heres an example of progressive management in regards to working hours changes.

I worked from 9 - 5 at a certain place a few years ago. Now, there was no business need for it to be specifically 9 - 5, so I approached management with the following request. 'It takes me an hour to get to work, and about an hour 20 mins to get home (driving)' If I were to work from 8 - 4, my commute would be 25 mins each way. Now a regressive management, would simply parrot 'Company policy, company policy', but thankfully, I was working with progressive management, and they took my request and said, 'Let us consider it'. The result? Within 2 weeks, they granted my request, and I was a very happy staff member who really appreciated my company. I spent 3 very happy years there, before I finally emigrated to see the big bad world.

The company in the OP did the following to a member of its staff. One of the women has a child with special needs, and for reasons I wont go into, required, for a time, to start at 9.30 in the morning instead of 9, and she said she'd obviously work until 5.30 instead of 5. Now there was absolutely no tangible reason why they could not be flexible, but out came the dreaded regressive, 'Company policy'. This wasn't even to be a permanent thing, just for over a couple of months while their particular circumstance was sorted out (She also requested to split her holidays into consecutive half days, but that too was rejected. She could take half days some of the time but not for the duration she needed). Her stress was palpable, and ended up with shingles which was allegedly related to the stress she was under. She ended up leaving the firm, and the morale of the whole team was shot. Some had offered to take any calls that may have come to her between 9 - 9.30 (which was a virtual non occurrence anyway) Of course, she signed her contract didn't she. Why should she expect such 'special' treatment?? If she can't fulfil her contract, well then she should leave shouldn't she? Answer yes to those questions, and you are regressive. I think there may have been legal recourse in the above scenario, but thats only based on an assumption that surely any employment tribunal would see such unfairness. You never know though, they might just point to contracts too.

In the UK, the government now state as a matter of law, that a company MUST consider such requests, and if such requests are not granted, a good business reason must be presented for it. A lot of companies are copping on that a happy workforce is a productive one, and don't need government intervention to show them. However, there are still those regressive ones who put policy before people, even to their own detriment, on the basis of out dated management styles, and authoritarianism.

So once again, progressive management ftw.:)

murphym7 wrote: »

Its got nothing to do with bean counting or regressive management. People who think it is are very much mistaken. This is about business, clear and simple. Why would I as the new owner of a company pay my employees for 40 hours and only expect them to work 35 hours? That kind of business makes no sense at all.

Heh heh, said like a textbook bean counter

Sorry for not answering your question in my previous post. Here it is: Yes they can increase the hours, its in the contract of employment signed by each employee and the employer - the company is doing nothing wrong here - the employees need to stand up and meet their end of the legal agreement they signed. Why sign a contract if they are not prepared to be held to it - there is an Inherent dishonesty on the part of the employees not prepared to hold up thier side of this legal agreement.

Grand, thanks.

Sorry you are not getting the answer you wished for here,

No, I am getting input that I do wish for actually. People have said that its the companies entitlement etc, this answers the OP. Of course its not the answer I hoped for, but if its the right answer then why would I have issue with it?

and as for my opinions. I, like others here, are free to express them all over Boards if we wish.

Indeed you are, I simply request that your opinion relating to 'being dishonest' etc is kept to yourself. Like anyone, you are free to ignore this simple request, but I simply seek you to honour the request. I know you disagree with my politics on the matter, and you are free to do that. You are certainly not alone, you may even be in the majority, but I didn't ask the question I did in order to defend my politics on the matter. The people that answered first could share your opinions, but simply stuck to giving the answer to the question asked. I appreciate that and would like if others did the same. Again, thats not a command, just a simple request that I would appreciate you honour. Of course its up to you though:)