Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

3 Day Week.

  • 26-09-2012 2:48pm
    #1
    JR23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭


    Hi, hopefully i am postin this in the correct forum. This is my query, does a company have any legal right to put an employee on a three week even though the company has shown a profit in its last financial year. Thanks for any input.


Comments

  • #2
    Agent_99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 918 ✭✭✭Agent_99


    JR23 wrote: »
    Hi, hopefully i am postin this in the correct forum. This is my query, does a company have any legal right to put an employee on a three week even though the company has shown a profit in its last financial year. Thanks for any input.

    Companies can change terms and conditions to contract at will as long as they stay within the legal framework.
    Just because they made a profit last year, does not mean they have up and coming work on the books. The profit may have come from the sales of equipment as well as goods in order to keep it afloat.


  • #3
    JR23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭JR23


    Thanks for the reply agent 99, there was no sale of equipment to keep the company afloat, there has already been severe cut backs at the start of this year(3 day week and redudancies). The company also built an extension onto its factory during the summer, i feel that they're just chancing their arm this time.


  • #4
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Argue it through your union. If you don't have a union then make the case yourself but be aware it might tip them into deciding they need to make more people redundant.


  • #5
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,288 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    How long have you been there?

    I guess their other option is to make you redundant, and hire a part-timer ... That would save them some cash too, as the employer-PRSI rate is lower for lower-income workers.

    It probably depends on how you want to play things.


  • #6
    JR23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭JR23


    I've been working there for eleven years just mary. The trade union rep was always looking for alternatives to redundancies the last time we had discussions over cutbacks. I felt he was looking to keep trade union members rather than look after any jobs.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,288 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    JR23 wrote: »
    I've been working there for eleven years just mary. The trade union rep was always looking for alternatives to redundancies the last time we had discussions over cutbacks. I felt he was looking to keep trade union members rather than look after any jobs.

    A union official will almost always try to retain members. That's simple customer-service.

    And if members want jobs, and are happy to put up with inconveniences like a 3-day week in order to keep more of them in place, then that's what the union official shoud argue for.

    Now if some of you want to argue for redundanies to allow the remaining people to stay full time, then it's a bit trickier, and will depend on the union policies as well as what you want. There's also the vexing quesiton of who exactly gets the redundancy ....


Advertisement