Boss asked staff to do extra hours

grizzly

I wonder what is the best way to handle this? My friend, lets call him Greg, was told that due to economic blah, blah, blah he'd be asked to work an extra 10 hours a month (unpaid), starting soon. He currently works 160 hours per month and has a contract stating so. Should he ask for a new contract? At the moment it is put as a verbal agreement.

All 8 employees are being asked the same thing and the boss has said one of them will be let go soon (maybe as an incentive to agree to extra unpaid hours!?).

Wondering how people would approach this one. Keeping in mind that it wouldn't be very easy to say féck off and get another job.

miju

as much as it sucks if I just had to work an extra 30 mins a day to keep my wages the same and not get paid for those extra 30 mins I'd do it no probs in the current climate.

grizzly

It goes by shifts (12 hours each) so it works out at an extra 10 days per year (not 30 mins per day). But I suppose the difference is academic.

Thanks for the reply.

doolox

In my opinion it is probably better to work the 10 hours extra a month for now or at least agree to do it. I was always too open faced and straight up on what I would do or not do at work and resented having to do extra when asked to do it.
The attitude didn't do me any favours.
We are now in a climate where bosses can let go thousands at the drop of a hat and there isn't a blessed thing the unions, workers, government, Santa Claus or "they" can do about it.
Some call it unfortunate others call it realpolitik.

grizzly

doolox wrote: »

In my opinion it is probably better to work the 10 hours extra a month for now or at least agree to do it. I was always too open faced and straight up on what I would do or not do at work and resented having to do extra when asked to do it.
The attitude didn't do me any favours.
We are now in a climate where bosses can let go thousands at the drop of a hat and there isn't a blessed thing the unions, workers, government, Santa Claus or "they" can do about it.
Some call it unfortunate others call it realpolitik.

So what your saying is; it's a "sellers market" in the working world so just keep the head down. Fair point, not a whole lot of point kicking up a stink. Would just make the managements choice easy with who to get rid of first.

I remember years ago there were stories of people in certain industries having such a pick of job offers that they could make ludicrous requests from prospective employers (I'm thinking IT, but there were probably others). I suppose the shoe is very firmly on the other foot now.

thielfer

the problem is who's the boss and what sort of mental jerk sits inside of his/her head
unfortunately:

• they are on top
• we're at the bottom (if we like it or not)
• situation is bleedin' bad so they use it

the only advice I have when I get in that kind of a problem is to agree until you find something else - let's say it clear - if boss becomes a jerk nothing will change it in the future - he/she learned how to fck people/blackmail and will always use it to help himself/herself

it's hard but try to look for another opportunity to move, during the last hours for your employer sad but real

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Although it sucks to work for nothing, I would probably agree if my job was at risk. I would ask your employer, in the nicest way possible, if your wages would go back to normal after the year is out, or when the economy gets better. It's not right, but sacrifices need to be made sometimes, you know?

jaffa20

I'm not you but if it was me, i certainly wouldn't agree to work for nothing. If the work needs to be done, the boss should expect to pay the minimum wage at least for whatever is worked. And if it is over your weekly hours, it is overtime.

Rex Manning

Suppose the thing to be asking is what'll happen after things pick up? will your friend still be expected to work the extra hours without pay once things improve?
He could always ask for a compromise, that he'd work the extra hours in exchange for an few days holidays a year

20goto10

grizzly wrote: »

I wonder what is the best way to handle this? My friend, lets call him Greg, was told that due to economic blah, blah, blah he'd be asked to work an extra 10 hours a month (unpaid), starting soon. He currently works 160 hours per month and has a contract stating so. Should he ask for a new contract? At the moment it is put as a verbal agreement.

All 8 employees are being asked the same thing and the boss has said one of them will be let go soon (maybe as an incentive to agree to extra unpaid hours!?).

Wondering how people would approach this one. Keeping in mind that it wouldn't be very easy to say féck off and get another job.

Does Greg ever have to do more than 40 hours in one week? If he does then its illegal. Being let go because you refuse to break this law is also illegal. Personally, I would point out the law to my boss, refuse to do the time and then start looking for a new job. If all the workers affected could get together and do this as a group then all the better.

My apologies, this is incorrect. The maximum is 48 hours a week over a 4 month average.

mountainyman

Your friend should contact a union and look at getting his unfair dismissal case together. He shouldn't point it put to his boss he should really plan his campaign and get his 70K in compo.

By the way as 'de buildins' wasn't exactly IT intensive it doesn't follow that a downturn there would affect IT related job prospects.

Maglight

With respect brim4brim, you have posted to a lot of threads already this morning. Perhaps your manager has a point about you needing to work a bit harder - unless you are on holiday of course!

spadder

Tell Greg to stop moaning, work the extra time and be grateful he has a job.
If not, quit, and try unemployment for a while, far more soul destroying than worrying about 10 hrs a month.

professore

The boss is stupid. He should just initiate a 10% pay cut across the board (or whatever the equivalent is that would cover the costt) and then pay overtime. That way no one would moan.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Most of the people who gave you advice OP are not living in Ireland, they all live in a community near the center of the Earth which isn't affected by the economic climate. Their ignorance to current affairs is so obvious.

If you take their advice, Greg is in with the chance of losing his job, and I can guarantee you this, it won't be easy getting a new job, no matter how sh!t cool he is.

He may be made redundant, if he is working for more than one year and has the law on his side. In the long run he will still lose.

AARRRGH

I would work the extra hours and start looking for a new job...

10% cut might go under min wage tho.

Mr. Incognito

They have a word for this, extortion.

Slavery was abolished 150 years ago.

I would never work for free unless i was self employed.

AARRRGH

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

They have a word for this, extortion.

Slavery was abolished 150 years ago.

That's a bit dramatic...

I would wonder though what will happen when one of the staff members gets made redundant. Will they need to start doing more than 10 unpaid hours per month?

andrewh5

Most employers put a clause in their contracts that employees can be asked to do additonal unpaid hours. Refusal to do hours when requested - without extremely good reasons - is an excellent way to lose your job in this climate.

Serafijn

Changes to your working hours need to given in writing as an ammendment to your contract. You friend should mention this to his boss and ask him for this, and also find out what the boss has planned for if/when things return to normal. I would expect something along the lines of a one year change, subject to review after this time.

As others have suggested, he should probably avoid rocking the boat at the moment and not kick up too much of a stink about the extra hours. It won't do him any favours when they're deciding who will be let go first...

jhegarty

andrewh5 wrote: »

Most employers put a clause in their contracts that employees can be asked to do additonal unpaid hours. Refusal to do hours when requested - without extremely good reasons - is an excellent way to lose your job in this climate.

We have a minimum wage in Ireland , so any employer who did would find themselves in front a tribunal.

andrewh5

jhegarty wrote: »

We have a minimum wage in Ireland , so any employer who did would find themselves in front a tribunal.

I am aware of the minimum wage. I do live here! It doesn't stop the clause in conttracts though. Mine has one and had one in my last 2 jobs as well. Read the small print.

Mr. Incognito

That's a bit dramatic...

It's not really. It's not their company, it's their employment. They made a deal on their employment contract but 10 hours each, a month is excessive. What happens to those profits- they are going in the bosses pockets and his costs are zero.

I know it's a drastic line but they're just a cog in the wheel. It's like when people refer to their place of employment and "we" are doing this, "we" are doing that. "We" are doing nothing. Your place of emplyment, unless you are in a small family run company gives less than a **** about you.

Did their employer give them raises when his profits go up? Did he feck. He is running a business and must assume the risk of profits going down not pass it onto the backs of his employers for free. And what will one lucky contestant get after all his unpaid labout- unpaid redundancy too. Yipee. I'd tell this greddy little tycoon where to go tbh.

ntlbell

andrewh5 wrote: »

I am aware of the minimum wage. I do live here! It doesn't stop the clause in conttracts though. Mine has one and had one in my last 2 jobs as well. Read the small print.

contracts can't overwrite law.

e.g. if it had in sall writing at the bottom he could at anytime ask you to comit murder you might have a tough time getting off it court :P

contracts != law

ntlbell

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

It's not really. It's not their company, it's their employment. They made a deal on their employment contract but 10 hours each, a month is excessive. What happens to those profits- they are going in the bosses pockets and his costs are zero.

I know it's a drastic line but they're just a cog in the wheel. It's like when people refer to their place of employment and "we" are doing this, "we" are doing that. "We" are doing nothing. Your place of emplyment, unless you are in a small family run company gives less than a **** about you.

Did their employer give them raises when his profits go up? Did he feck. He is running a business and must assume the risk of profits going down not pass it onto the backs of his employers for free. And what will one lucky contestant get after all his unpaid labout- unpaid redundancy too. Yipee. I'd tell this greddy little tycoon where to go tbh.

I guess in times like this you have to weigh it up yourself.

If the company was good to me over the years and they were genuinley in trouble and I could possibly lose my job I would work some extra hours and hope everyone would chip in so we can all keep our jobs.

in most industrys now you can't get too fussy or you could very easiliy find yourself on a 3 month waiting list for the dole.

on the other hand if the company were announcing big profits and were just trying to use the climate to take advantage I might not put in as much effort.

if you don't have a large mortgage or car loan live with mammy etc then maybe a year out on the dole might suit.

Blinder

20goto10 wrote: »

Does Greg ever have to do more than 40 hours in one week? If he does then its illegal. Being let go because you refuse to break this law is also illegal. Personally, I would point out the law to my boss, refuse to do the time and then start looking for a new job. If all the workers affected could get together and do this as a group then all the better.

This is incorrect.
The maximum working hours is an average of 48 hours over a twelve week period
This does not apply to some profession ( they can work over the limit)

seanybiker

tell the boss to go piss for himself.

blinding

You have to do what is best for yourself and your family.

But anyone that does not think that quite a few bosses are going to use the present economic hard times to their advantage does not understand how the minds of some of these bosses work.
They will use it to their advantage whether their is a genunine need to further exploit their employees or not.

Capt'n Midnight

depending on the nature of the job, check that there are no health and safety considerations, for example if someone was more tired

The 170 hours is less than 48 per week , but check that the 11 hour and 35 hour breaks still apply
http://www.eic.ie/legislation/working_time.htm

What are the main provisions of the current working time directive?

The Directive provides a minimum guarantee of:

* a maximum average working week (including overtime) of 48 hours (Article 6)
* a minimum daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours in every 24 (Article 3)
* breaks when the working day exceeds six hours (Article 4)
* a minimum weekly rest period of 24 hours plus the 11 hours daily rest period in every seven-day period (Article 5)
* a minimum of four weeks paid annual leave (Article 7)
* night work is restricted to an average of eight hours in any 24-hour period (Article 8)

...
The maximum week of 48 hours is calculated as an average over a standard reference period of four months (Article 16).

Bluefoam

tell you boss that you refuse to work the extra hours unless he pays you accordingly.

then put another thread on board about why you lost you job & blame your boss...

or grow up and take some responsibility for your job and the company that continue to pay your wages when so many others are losing their jobs and aren't given the opportunity to help the company to stay afloat...

grizzly

Thanks for all the (mostly) good input, lots of food for thought here.

jhegarty

One thing that springs to mind.

If business is bad, why isn't the boss trying to reduce payroll by cutting hours or pay. I have never heard of business failing , but having extra business that necessitates more hours from it's employees.

mikemac

Both sides have fair points so realy all I'll say is you are going to take on this extra time, I'd want a new employment contract.

Because imagine if a miraculous boom happened in 6 months and business was fantastic. Ain't going to happen but just imagine. Do you think your boss would immediately agree to get rid of this new practice? Like **** he would and you'd have to fight like crazy to get back to where you were and to the first contract you signed.

So maybe it's worth doing, but get it in writing

ScouseMouse

I have to say, a lot of the advice on this thread is bloody awful. IF the company is feeling the strain (and who isn't), and IF the boss is genuine in trying to ride out the storm, a lot of the replies here are pretty unhelpful.

For someone in a small company (eight employees) who is asked to help safeguard the future of the company, they should be willing to help. I have slimmed down my company from 14 staff to 6 and lead "from the front", not from "above", my staff are aware that in the current climate, if they loose their jobs, THERE ARE NO MORE.

Now I dont have to explain to them this. Every rep thats comes into my place is telling us of more staff gone and and four reps that visit me are gone also. They can see and hear this themselves. If we - or anyone - is to get through this crap, then it will take a combined effort to do it.

Talk of new contracts, illegal hours (which is wrong), refusing, and the like, is only going to aggravate the mess this country is in.

So, to the people talking about contracts and unions, cop yourselves on, the union won't help you down at the dole hall !!!

As for GREG, agree to it. You should be able to see for yourself the state of business and will see if it is really necessary.

jaffa20

superscouse wrote: »

I have to say, a lot of the advice on this thread is bloody awful..

As an employee who works to earn a living, i have to say that working for nothing is bull****. We are just coming from different perspectives though!:rolleyes:

ScouseMouse

At least you would have a job, try asking the staff of First Active would they like to work a few hours extra or get the boot, I dont believe they would look at it your way....

Can anyone name a bank that may take them on ?

Can anyone name any business in this country that would even be suitable for financial people to join in the current climate ?

Answers welcome, cause I dont have any...

jaffa20

superscouse wrote: »

At least you would have a job, try asking the staff of First Active would they like to work a few hours extra or get the boot, I dont believe they would look at it your way....

Can anyone name a bank that may take them on ?

Can anyone name any business in this country that would even be suitable for financial people to join in the current climate ?

Answers welcome, cause I dont have any...

Ulster bank

I actually work in banking at the moment and i've heard nothing yet about my job. We're actually really busy.

You can't expect people to work outside their legal contract in order to keep their job. That is why we have contracts

ScouseMouse

jaffa20 wrote: »

Ulster bank

But Ulster Bank is TAKING their jobs ! They are both Royal Bank of Scotland and its because Ulster Bank is getting their customers, they no longer need a lot of the First Active staff - hence the redundencies.

Did you not hear the news today about the jobs gone? Try listening to the radio.

Try again.

jaffa20

superscouse wrote: »

But Ulster Bank is TAKING their jobs ! They are both Royal Bank of Scotland and its because Ulster Bank is getting their customers, they no longer need a lot of the First Active staff - hence the redundencies.

Did you not hear the news today about the jobs gone? Try listening to the radio.

Try again.

It is voluntary redundancies which are going to be offered. Things like this were expected when ulster bank are a stronger bank but it will be staff from both ulster and first active which are offered to leave.

So, i was answering your question when you asked who will want first active staff... Ulster bank will because of the voluntary redundancies that people will take.

Mrs OBumble

Is Greg on an hourly wage or a salary?

Either way, in the current climate he should accept the new arrangement. And probably it should be documented as an agreed variation to the contract. (the only way I'd suggest not taking it would be if he was hourly, and the new arrangement would see him getting less than the minimum wage).

How he acts after that depends on the business, and his perception of it. Is this a genuine business-and-job-saving act from the boss, and the company's been good to workers overall etc etc? In that case, treat it in good faith and re-negotiate over the hours when business is looking healthier. Or is this a big business with mega-revenues and profits who are just looking to screw people as much as possible - in which case, start job-hunting tomorrow.

ScouseMouse

Ok. I will ask the question a different way.

750 people get voluntary redundancy / let go / whatever you want to call it, by the merger of First Active and Ulster Bank branches.

So who in this country would be willing to take on these people?

They are probably highly qualified, specialised and intelligent, but in the current climate, businesses are cutting staff not taking them on. Out of all the banks here now, they only one I can think of, who may be in a position to do this is Halifax, but they and BOSI have their own problems with their parent company.

This comes back to my original question, if your company was in difficulty, as an awful lot are at present, is it not worth two hours a week to safeguard your position ?

ScouseMouse

JustMary wrote: »

Is Greg on an hourly wage or a salary?

Either way, in the current climate he should accept the new arrangement. And probably it should be documented as an agreed variation to the contract. (the only way I'd suggest not taking it would be if he was hourly, and the new arrangement would see him getting less than the minimum wage).

How he acts after that depends on the business, and his perception of it. Is this a genuine business-and-job-saving act from the boss, and the company's been good to workers overall etc etc? In that case, treat it in good faith and re-negotiate over the hours when business is looking healthier. Or is this a big business with mega-revenues and profits who are just looking to screw people as much as possible - in which case, start job-hunting tomorrow.

Some very good points there, but the OP did state there were only about 8 other employees, so it seems small enough. The important thing to remember in this economic crisis, and crisis it is, is that everyone will have to sacrifice a little.

professore

Blinder wrote: »

This is incorrect.
The maximum working hours is an average of 48 hours over a twelve week period
This does not apply to some profession ( they can work over the limit)

48 hours is the max you can be forced to work. You can agree with your employer to work more hours if you want.

jaffa20

JustMary wrote: »

Is Greg on an hourly wage or a salary?

.

Why would it make a difference if he was getting an hourly wage or a salary. The point is that he'd be working for nothing, which would reduce his hourly wage or yearly salary by a great proprotion for the amount of hours that were orginally stipulated in his contract.

professore

jaffa20 wrote: »

Ulster bank

I actually work in banking at the moment and i've heard nothing yet about my job. We're actually really busy.

You can't expect people to work outside their legal contract in order to keep their job. That is why we have contracts

Hate to burst your bubble but the time before you are let go is often the time you are most busy. You are closing out stuff before being given the boot.

professore

I worked as a programmer for many years. i had nominally a 40-hour week. It has always been normal anywhere I worked to work 60+ hour weeks unpaid overtime when projects were hitting deadlines. No wonder this country is in the state it is - we have become far too lazy.

jaffa20

superscouse wrote: »

This comes back to my original question, if your company was in difficulty, as an awful lot are at present, is it not worth two hours a week to safeguard your position ?

How can you be sure it would safeguard your position if businesses are really in a lot of trouble. There is no safeguard. It may come down to a corrupt boss trying to take advantage of vulnerable staff by using the excuse of this never ending recession to surge their profits. Not all businesses are going bust you know.

jaffa20

professore wrote: »

Hate to burst your bubble but the time before you are let go is often the time you are most busy. You are closing out stuff before being given the boot.

Well i hate it anyway to be honest. I'm only doing it to save money for going back to college. It's not my career path so to speak.

Tony Broke

Just do it.

2 hours unpaid a week is nothing.

Forget about the internet warriors here, they are probably just 19 year old college students with no worries.

Blackjack

Tony Broke wrote: »

Just do it.

2 hours unpaid a week is nothing.

Forget about the internet warriors here, they are probably just 19 year old college students with no worries.

Have to agree with the above. There will be plenty of blocks of 10 hours a month doing nowt if things keep going the way they're going.

It's 30 minutes extra per working day - hardly a lifetime.