Continuous increases in work without any consultation.

Quadrivium

I work in the security industry and as such our company supplies staff to various organisations around the country.

But sometimes clients seem to think security are there as general dogs body's who should be available to take on any and all extra duties if and when they decide, regardless of the fact these extra duties have nothing to do with the position I am employed for.

Is it legal for employers to force employees to continually take on extra duties without any agreement? Should I complain to HR or take a case to the Rights commissioner?

Any and all opinions are much appreciated.

Mrs OBumble

Does your contract say "other duties as required" (most do)? If so, then it's absolutely legal.

Are the other things which clients are asking for actually stopping you doing the security work? If so, you need to be talking to your manager, so they can re-set the client's expectations.

But really, most security guards I see look as though they're bored out of their brains, and would welcome any extra entertainment.

Quadrivium

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Does your contract say "other duties as required" (most do)? If so, then it's absolutely legal.

Are the other things which clients are asking for actually stopping you doing the security work? If so, you need to be talking to your manager, so they can re-set the client's expectations.

But really, most security guards I see look as though they're bored out of their brains, and would welcome any extra entertainment.

But other duties as required is so vague, do you really think other duties would cover such things as cleaning, manual labour? I would expect the other duties would have to be relative to security.

That would appear to contradict the Terms of Employment Act 1994 to 2001.
No persons can unilaterally change contracts of employment.

Stheno

Quadrivium wrote: »

But other duties as required is so vague, do you really think other duties would cover such things as cleaning, manual labour? I would expect the other duties would have to be relative to security.

That would appear to contradict the Terms of Employment Act 1994 to 2001.
No persons can unilaterally change contracts of employment.

That's why the term is there.

It's to cover doing any additional duties that may arise.

And if it's there it's already part of your contract so it's not a change

LegacyUser

Perhaps you need to inform your company that as a result of the other duties your primary duties cannot be properly done?

That way you are not refusing the other duties, simply highlighting that you can't be in two places at once.

Of course it won't stop them from making sure you are kept busy.

Quadrivium

Guys, do you really think the term 'other duties as required' involves cleaning and other non security related tasks?
Do you think this would stand up in the employment appeals tribunal?
So basically, once 'other duties as required' is on any contract that means you are expected to do any and all extra duties regardless of the nature or how many there are?

Mrs OBumble

Quadrivium wrote: »

Guys, do you really think the term 'other duties as required' involves cleaning and other non security related tasks?
Do you think this would stand up in the employment appeals tribunal?
So basically, once 'other duties as required' is on any contract that means you are expected to do any and all extra duties regardless of the nature or how many there are?

Yes,i do, provided the other duties dont stop you doing the coee job.

Quadrivium

Well then let's be straight, contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on then are they.
So, the system is set up so the employer can exploit workers and not have to pay any extra for extra work.
This is an absolute farce!

the_syco

Quadrivium wrote: »

I work in the security industry and as such our company supplies staff to various organisations around the country.

Ask your employer about these duties, not the company that you're working in. But ask if your employer is paid for the extra work. I'm thinking not.

Quadrivium wrote: »

But sometimes clients seem to think security are there as general dogs body's who should be available to take on any and all extra duties if and when they decide, regardless of the fact these extra duties have nothing to do with the position I am employed for.

Look to see if the duties that they're getting you to do can compromise your ability to do your job. If yes, then your employer may look into it, but of not, your employer may tend to turn a blind eye to it, so pick your battles wisely.

Quadrivium

the_syco wrote: »

Ask your employer about these duties, not the company that you're working in. But ask if your employer is paid for the extra work. I'm thinking not.


Look to see if the duties that they're getting you to do can compromise your ability to do your job. If yes, then your employer may look into it, but of not, your employer may tend to turn a blind eye to it, so pick your battles wisely.

The company know about it, they never say no to a client and it is myself and my colleagues who have to take on these extra duties as a result. It's got to the stage now where it is an expectation, we're not even asked.
Whenever an extra duty is added we just get told 'from now on you will also be doing x'

The vast majority of the extra duties have nothing to do with the job we are initially employed to do. It's a total piss take!

the_syco

Quadrivium wrote: »

The company know about it, they never say no to a client

Time to either look elsewhere for a job, or check with mates at work to see if it's commonplace in your industry since maybe 3 or 4 years ago.

Michael D Not Higgins

Speak to your manager about the escalating expectations. Since they're already aware of the extra duties, suggest to them that either more staff are required or more pay is.

Be prepared for them to ignore you and maintain their current practices, and look elsewhere for a job if you're not happy with that.

No Pants

I'm not sure if more pay is needed as long as the priority of all tasks is understood by all. For example, I don't work in security, I'm a project manager at present. My manager, my account management and the client can all come to me with additional work requests. I always scope the work and find out how important it is and make it very clear that there's a cost attached. I'm not referring to money, more to the fact that if I have 8 hours of work planned and they give me something else to do that takes 4 hours, then only half of the original work gets done today.

TL;DR they have 40 hours of me to spend however they wish. Additional me may be purchased if available.

Michael D Not Higgins

No Pants wrote: »

I'm not sure if more pay is needed as long as the priority of all tasks is understood by all.

It's more a bargaining chip to use in negotiations with the manager. It's very unlikely they'll agree to a salary increase, similarly it's unlikely they'll agree to a staff increase, but perhaps they'll listen to the concerns of their staff and come up with a mutual agreement.

hardCopy

Are you required to work extra unpaid hours to get these tasks done, or are you just moved to another area temporarily?

Quadrivium

hardCopy wrote: »

Are you required to work extra unpaid hours to get these tasks done, or are you just moved to another area temporarily?

No extra hours needed, just additional duties to be completed within my normal working hours. All of which have nothing at all to do with security.

Mrs OBumble

OP, you've never said whether any of these additional duties stop you from doing your security duties.


And I wonder if you have an overly-limtied view of what "security" means. I would absolutely see that cleaning is a core part of health-and-safety, which is surely one aspect of security, ie keeping people safe?

Quadrivium

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

OP, you've never said whether any of these additional duties stop you from doing your security duties.


And I wonder if you have an overly-limtied view of what "security" means. I would absolutely see that cleaning is a core part of health-and-safety, which is surely one aspect of security, ie keeping people safe?

Mrs O Bumble, it is irrelevant if it effects security duties. Health and safety is everyone's business but you don't see accountants cleaning the tables where they work.

I know well what is involved in security work and my view is not limited but informed. It appears it is you who has the limited view of security and what it means. Nowhere in any security course is cleaning mentioned or taught. Cleaning is a totally separate function/service.

This is just another instance of parasitic exploitative employers trying to extract the urine, all too common these days.

Mrs OBumble

Quadrivium wrote: »

Mrs O Bumble, it is irrelevant if it effects security duties.

Ahh, no, it's totally relevant.

You can only realistically complain about being asked to do "extra" if doing so stops you from doing your primary job, or requires skills you haven't got and cannot reasonably be expected to learn.

The "I'm a XXX so I can't do YYY" mentality is extremely career limiting in almost all jobs, and totally doesn't fly in small companies.

Quadrivium

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ahh, no, it's totally relevant.

You can only realistically complain about being asked to do "extra" if doing so stops you from doing your primary job, or requires skills you haven't got and cannot reasonably be expected to learn.

The "I'm a XXX so I can't do YYY" mentality is extremely career limiting in almost all jobs, and totally doesn't fly in small companies.

I suspect you are in some part involved in this sort of exploitation, hence your extremely biased opinion. Based on nothing more than that, your opinion.

I have no interest in a career in security, it is a stop gap job and a job that pays barely above minimum wage, it is exploitation to expect someone who is hired for a primary task such as security to do an infinite amount of extra non security related tasks for which they are not payed for.

Don't assume I am some sort of idiot because I work as a security guard, I am very highly educated and well informed on employment law and its application.

Irish workers are increasingly being exploited by unscrupulous parasitic employers who think people are little more than economic commodities to be used, abused and discarded, particularly in the service industry.

This type of attitude is abhorrent and will ultimately lead to the demise of such employers, the recession will not last forever, as soon as things pick up even slightly there will be an exodus of these employees to jobs with better pay and better conditions and many of these companies will fold, rightly so in my opinion.

doolox

I remember working for a particularly mean and dysfunctional boss who had us doing cleaning jobs etc as part of our work. We were qualified technicians some with many years experience in the industry and had to clean our areas during each shift to save money on contract cleaners.
The office and admin staff, many of whom were less qualified and less senior than us, did not have to do this work in their areas as it would involve a certain obligation on more senior management to "pitch in" and help with this undesirable work.

We got a new and more knowledgeable supervisor who vetoed the managers insistence on technically qualified staff having to do unreasonable quantities of cleaning work because it was a waste of skilled resources and bad for morale in view of the office staff being given preferential treatment.

In another job it was amusing to find that while the Hardware techs had to carry in and out most of the goods and parts needed for the jobs the software staff did not have to although many had equal qualifications. Efforts made by senior management to spread the heavy lifting around were met with mixed results, some would cooperate and some would not. At least my immediate managers were making an honest effort to enforce equality of duties against awkward opposition from some people.

As regards modern cleaning jobs, many are now specialised jobs requiring training and handling hazardous chemicals. While I might sweep or move light objects out of harms way for a brief period of time in a security role, I would be unwilling to engage in cleaning toilets, for example, or operating vacuum cleaners, floor polishers etc ( need training in industrial settings) or anything involving cleaning chemicals, industrial machinery etc. Prioritising my main role of watching for breaches of security would be my main concern.

AngryHippie

Quadrivium wrote: »

Well then let's be straight, contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on then are they.
So, the system is set up so the employer can exploit workers and not have to pay any extra for extra work.
This is an absolute farce!

Get back to work.

Or jobsbridge.

Any questions ?

AngryHippie

Quadrivium wrote: »

I suspect you are in some part involved in this sort of exploitation, hence your extremely biased opinion. Based on nothing more than that, your opinion.

I have no interest in a career in security, it is a stop gap job and a job that pays barely above minimum wage, it is exploitation to expect someone who is hired for a primary task such as security to do an infinite amount of extra non security related tasks for which they are not payed for.

Don't assume I am some sort of idiot because I work as a security guard, I am very highly educated and well informed on employment law and its application.

Irish workers are increasingly being exploited by unscrupulous parasitic employers who think people are little more than economic commodities to be used, abused and discarded, particularly in the service industry.

This type of attitude is abhorrent and will ultimately lead to the demise of such employers, the recession will not last forever, as soon as things pick up even slightly there will be an exodus of these employees to jobs with better pay and better conditions and many of these companies will fold, rightly so in my opinion.

You are paid to work.

If your security guarding skills aren't required at a particular moment in time, then work as directed, unless there is something you need training to do or safety equipment you don't have.

Its pretty simple, you are not getting paid to do nothing.

pretty simple. You provide a PRESENCESERVICE to your employer, they give you a financial award.

You don't get paid for just showing up.

Get back to work:rolleyes:

Quadrivium

AngryHippie wrote: »

You are paid to work.

If your security guarding skills aren't required at a particular moment in time, then work as directed, unless there is something you need training to do or safety equipment you don't have.

Its pretty simple, you are not getting paid to do nothing.

pretty simple. You provide a PRESENCESERVICE to your employer, they give you a financial award.

You don't get paid for just showing up.

Get back to work:rolleyes:

Hahaha, you sound like exactly the type of reprobate that is hell bent on destroying hard fought for workers rights and conditions. I bet you wouldn't be so quick with your mouth if the shoe were on the other foot.

Security guarding is a form of insurance, sure the security guard may not have much to do some of the time but when the smelly stuff hits the fan and several scum bags try to enter a premises or venue then it is the security staff and the security staff alone who will have to confront and deal with this threat until the Gardai arrive. If security staff have to put themselves in harms way even just once they've earned their money for the year.

Also, we have job titles and job descriptions for a reason. Any employer who seeks to exploit workers and is not willing to pay staff a premium for extra work is acting in an immoral and unjustified manner, that behaviour makes such an employer little more than vermin.

Michael D Not Higgins

OP, have you asked your manager about the situation yet? What was their response?

Bandana boy

In fairness the problem appears to be about the type of work not workload OP is doing.

Your Customer and the company who pays your firm is asking for the Security function to be flexible and cover other roles through the day ,this would be pretty standard practise nowadays as Security tenders are quite competitive.

This is not an evil company asking you to do "extra" work but a company trying to maximise the return on the service they are paying for .

While frustrating that your security job also involves cleaning and the like the reality is that unskilled labour jobs are easily filled so a stance of "not my job" with your company will not end well and as other security firms will offer this type of flexibilty your firm will need to continue being flexible in the future.

hardCopy

Quadrivium wrote: »

Hahaha, you sound like exactly the type of reprobate that is hell bent on destroying hard fought for workers rights and conditions. I bet you wouldn't be so quick with your mouth if the shoe were on the other foot.

Security guarding is a form of insurance, sure the security guard may not have much to do some of the time but when the smelly stuff hits the fan and several scum bags try to enter a premises or venue then it is the security staff and the security staff alone who will have to confront and deal with this threat until the Gardai arrive. If security staff have to put themselves in harms way even just once they've earned their money for the year.

Also, we have job titles and job descriptions for a reason. Any employer who seeks to exploit workers and is not willing to pay staff a premium for extra work is acting in an immoral and unjustified manner, that behaviour makes such an employer little more than vermin.

There is NOTHING exploitative about asking you to do some cleaning on your downtime. If a bunch of scumbags enter the building you drop the mop and go help. You just don't want to because you think you're above cleaning the floors.

You should leave the job, your boss won't miss you.

Quadrivium

hardCopy wrote: »

There is NOTHING exploitative about asking you to do some cleaning on your downtime. If a bunch of scumbags enter the building you drop the mop and go help. You just don't want to because you think you're above cleaning the floors.

You should leave the job, your boss won't miss you.

Yes, it is exploitative. Yours is exactly the type of attitude that is destroying working conditions and wages across all industries.

You know nothing about me or what I do, you know little of what my job entails. Your assumptions are very telling. I don't want to do it because I already do a lot for the money I get paid, I already do several other jobs that have nothing to do with security in any way and this is the straw that will break the camels back.

So you really think a worker should willingly do an infinite amount of tasks regardless of the fact they were not originally employed for such tasks?

That's a ridiculous notion.

Quadrivium

Bandana boy wrote: »

In fairness the problem appears to be about the type of work not workload OP is doing.

Your Customer and the company who pays your firm is asking for the Security function to be flexible and cover other roles through the day ,this would be pretty standard practise nowadays as Security tenders are quite competitive.

This is not an evil company asking you to do "extra" work but a company trying to maximise the return on the service they are paying for .

While frustrating that your security job also involves cleaning and the like the reality is that unskilled labour jobs are easily filled so a stance of "not my job" with your company will not end well and as other security firms will offer this type of flexibilty your firm will need to continue being flexible in the future.

Well of course it's the type of work, but it's not just that.
I already do at least 5 other tasks every day that I am not employed to do, as such the responsibility for these additional tasks has fallen to me as well as the consequences involved if they are not done.

It is unfair to expect an employee of any type to do endless tasks and take on endless responsibilities, all of which are sticks to beat the employee with if something goes wrong with any of them.

Where is the line? At what point is it too much?
Many of you here are obviously in positions were you are either exploiting employees in this manner or have done, as such your views are totally one sided and warped and your assessments are certainly not based on the entirety of the situation.

AngryHippie

I think if you are showing up for an 8 or 10 hour shift, then you should be doing something productive for the bulk of that time.

If you don't like the job, quit. simples. There are more people than jobs in this world, long story short, someone will do it if you won't, and by not doing it, you are keeping someone productive out of a job, so how about you suck it up or pack it in.

I worked quite a few jobs like this over the years, (not security) but where my primary job description was one thing (Barman, lifeguard, usher etc.) but was written plus other duties as required.
All of those jobs at some stage involved cleaning work areas, toilets, windows, minor maintenance, runs for change, procurement, heavy manual labor, and security. I never whinged about it, as I considered it all part of a days work.


Take a look at the tasks that need to be performed in the workplace. If someone had to be employed for each of them, there would be a dozen slackers standing are round jawing about the weekend all the time.
Ireland's labor laws have in fact made this situation worse by having permanent part-time positions, which removes any flexibility that employers may have. Casual work needs to be re-introduced.

To be honest your sense of entitlement smacks of public sector to me. Generally the hideout of the lazy and incompetent. (they don't always start out that way, but the culture drags them down) (also not saying that every civil servant is either lazy or incompetent, but if the good ones look left, and then right, they'll see someone that is one or the other or both).

Anyway, I don't think your attitude will change until such time as you are running your own enterprise. At that stage I suspect the penny will drop.

Best of luck with it.

Quadrivium

AngryHippie wrote: »

I think if you are showing up for an 8 or 10 hour shift, then you should be doing something productive for the bulk of that time.

Why are you assuming I am not productive? I am very productive, I already do many extra tasks that are in no way related to my position.

If you don't like the job, quit. simples. There are more people than jobs in this world, long story short, someone will do it if you won't, and by not doing it, you are keeping someone productive out of a job, so how about you suck it up or pack it in.

If only was that "simples" That's part of the proble too, an over supply of labour and an increasing amount of cheap foreign labour pouring into the country to the glee of exploitative employers. Again, you are presuming I am not productive which is an error on your part, but if it makes you feel more comfortable with your exploitative attitude feel free to continue coming to false assumptions.

I worked quite a few jobs like this over the years, (not security) but where my primary job description was one thing (Barman, lifeguard, usher etc.) but was written plus other duties as required.
All of those jobs at some stage involved cleaning work areas, toilets, windows, minor maintenance, runs for change, procurement, heavy manual labor, and security. I never whinged about it, as I considered it all part of a days work.

Well if it was only 1 or 3 extra tasks that would be fine, but if you were willing to work an infinite amount of tasks for no extra compensation then that makes you a fool, there's no honour in being exploited. The fact you considered it all part of a days work gives an insight into your frame of mind, sheep like without the ability to form opinions based on critical analysis.

Take a look at the tasks that need to be performed in the workplace. If someone had to be employed for each of them, there would be a dozen slackers standing are round jawing about the weekend all the time.
Ireland's labor laws have in fact made this situation worse by having permanent part-time positions, which removes any flexibility that employers may have. Casual work needs to be re-introduced.

You've managed to contradict yourself here in spectacular fashion.
If the jobs in a workplace need to be performed and someone needs to be employed to do these jobs then it's likely they wouldn't be standing around discussing the weekend, they would be busy doing those jobs that need to be done.

As for labour law in Ireland, it doesn't go nearly far enough. Employers get off very lightly in Ireland. I've seen employers get away with little more than a slap on the wrist for employing illegal immigrants, not paying basic entitlements or pay etc. We need harsher punishments for employers who continually flout employment law.

To be honest your sense of entitlement smacks of public sector to me. Generally the hideout of the lazy and incompetent. (they don't always start out that way, but the culture drags them down) (also not saying that every civil servant is either lazy or incompetent, but if the good ones look left, and then right, they'll see someone that is one or the other or both).

Again with the assumptions, I've never worked in the private sector and I certainly don't have any sense of entitlement, other than a sense of entitlement for my basic rights as a worker. You obviously have a serious gripe against public sector workers, you sound like a begrudger.

Anyway, I don't think your attitude will change until such time as you are running your own enterprise. At that stage I suspect the penny will drop.

Best of luck with it.

I have had my own company, I've employed between 10 and 13 people and I always treated them with respect and they received every entitlement and allowance they were entitled to and deserved. Due to the serious downturn in the economy in 2009

This company I work for repeatedly flout employment law, don't pay allowances they should, don't pay overtime allowances they should and they have a history of exploiting workers, both legal and illegal workers. Considering all this do you really think this company deserves the continued good will of its employees?

AngryHippie

Quadrivium wrote: »

If only was that "simples" That's part of the proble too, an over supply of labour and an increasing amount of cheap foreign labour pouring into the country to the glee of exploitative employers.

You can't see the wood for trees here pal. This is what I am getting at. Ireland has very protective labor laws, and powerful unions. I am not saying that this is a bad thing, but the unions take the p!ss.

As for overseas labor pouring in, look at the amount of highly trained and skilled workers pouring out of Ireland.
The over supply of labor is a global issue, not a national one, and it's not going away. That is why you need to get over your sense of entitlement and get on with the job.

If you don't have time to do what you are being asked to do, that is a different matter. Then it is up to you to discuss that with the supervisor/manager that is directing you, and ensure they know that x will be done at the expense of y not being done. That is your responsibility as an employee, if you are not capable or do not have time to complete a task assigned, you report it. Put it in writing if that makes you feel better. Having a whinge here isn't going to sort it out.

Quadrivium wrote: »

Well if it was only 1 or 3 extra tasks that would be fine, but if you were willing to work an infinite amount of tasks for no extra compensation then that makes you a fool, there's no honour in being exploited. The fact you considered it all part of a days work gives an insight into your frame of mind, sheep like without the ability to form opinions based on critical analysis.

I'm not the one that can't handle my workload mate. Thanks for the personal opinion on my frame of mind though. Really helpful

Quadrivium wrote: »

You've managed to contradict yourself here in spectacular fashion.
If the jobs in a workplace need to be performed and someone needs to be employed to do these jobs then it's likely they wouldn't be standing around discussing the weekend, they would be busy doing those jobs that need to be done.

Contradicted myself how exactly ?
I was actually alluding to the fact that Ireland's wonderful protectionist labor law has been so busy pigeonholing everyone, and deciding what the skill-sets were and how much people need to be paid for them, that they have lost sight of the fact that private sector enterprise would rather pay one person a little more to do a wide range of jobs, than to pay 3 different people to do their own little patch of work.
There are benefits to both sides on this:
One person gets full-time employment instead of 3 people getting cruddy part time work
The company has a skilled and motivated worker to dedicate to whichever task is most urgent instead of 3 slackers doing set hours for jobs that may require varying resources.

Are there more benefits for the employer than the employee.....yes
Is it exploitation....yes, in the second definition of the word: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=exploitation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gfe_rd=cr&ei=goLYUrTTAcuN8Qe3ooCQCg

Quadrivium wrote: »

Employers get off very lightly in Ireland. I've seen employers get away with little more than a slap on the wrist for employing illegal immigrants, not paying basic entitlements or pay etc. We need harsher punishments for employers who continually flout employment law.

:pac::pac::pac::pac: Exactly where have you worked overseas ? :rolleyes::D

Try the 80% of countries in the world that we classify as 3rd developing world countries. FFS you are starting to sound like you don't have a notion of exactly how lucky you are.
You sound like the type of person that I would personally hunt out of any company I work for. A sh!t stirring liability.

Quadrivium wrote: »

Again with the assumptions, I've never worked in the private sector and I certainly don't have any sense of entitlement, other than a sense of entitlement for my basic rights as a worker. You obviously have a serious gripe against public sector workers, you sound like a begrudger.

I'll assume that is a typo.

As for no. 2 Irish water, CRC, Dublin Corporation, Leinster House, the HSE , IBTS (back in the day).....the list goes on. Criminality, bribery corruption, back-handers, cronyism, embezzlement, incompetence.
And the average civil service wage is currently the highest in Europe.
Wake the fcuk up.

Quadrivium wrote: »

I have had my own company, I've employed between 10 and 13 people and I always treated them with respect and they received every entitlement and allowance they were entitled to and deserved. Due to the serious downturn in the economy in 2009

I'm assuming things went awry in 2009. I am genuinely sorry to hear that, but do you think that if the labor laws were a little bit more coherent that your business may have survived ?

Quadrivium wrote: »

This company I work for repeatedly flout employment law, don't pay allowances they should, don't pay overtime allowances they should and they have a history of exploiting workers, both legal and illegal workers. Considering all this do you really think this company deserves the continued good will of its employees?

To speculate on your company's performance and activities, without even knowing who they are would be a little bit silly of me wouldn't it ?

Based on the statement you have made, there are some pretty serious accusations, and they don't sound like a company I would like to work for, but again, that is speculation on my part, and probably some reliance on hearsay on yours.

Nobody is forcing you to work for them. It's a free country. Tackle your problems directly, and if that doesn't work, seek alternative employment.

I do feel for your situation, but I think you might be able to manage it better, and I still don't think that your evil employer is responsible for it. They are just an easy target.

Welcome to the layer cake

Gone West

Quadrivium wrote: »

but you don't see accountants cleaning the tables where they work.

I am not trying to sound shítty here, this is written from an economic perspective, not a humanist view, because our society doesn't work on "fair play", rather it works based on a flawed implementation of capitalism.

It's difficult to become an accountant, and most people can't do it, so they earn a reasonable wage and their time is highly valued for the most part.

It's not very difficult to do a security course and get into that industry.
Most people could do it if they wanted to.
Their time is not highly valued. A little more than somebody paid to clean or do manual labour.

From time to time an accountant will have to do more menial tasks, like fill in simple forms.
From time to time an accountant will get to shine and be creative and make important decisions.

From time to time a security guy will have to do donkey work.
From time to time a security guy will have to protect people's lives and make serious decisions.

It's the economics of supply and demand.

Quadrivium

AngryHippie wrote: »

You can't see the wood for trees here pal. This is what I am getting at. Ireland has very protective labor laws, and powerful unions. I am not saying that this is a bad thing, but the unions take the p!ss.

Powerful Unions? Maybe on paper they are, but our unions have long ago signed up to partnership with the government, they're compromised and corrupt and do not serve the worker. As for labour laws, they leave a lot to be desired.

As for overseas labor pouring in, look at the amount of highly trained and skilled workers pouring out of Ireland.
The over supply of labor is a global issue, not a national one, and it's not going away. That is why you need to get over your sense of entitlement and get on with the job.

As I have already explained, the only sense of entitlement I have is for basic working rights.

I'm not the one that can't handle my workload mate. Thanks for the personal opinion on my frame of mind though. Really helpful

I never said I can't handle anything, I said it's not right to expect employees to take on countless additional tasks without compensation.

Contradicted myself how exactly ?
I was actually alluding to the fact that Ireland's wonderful protectionist labor law has been so busy pigeonholing everyone, and deciding what the skill-sets were and how much people need to be paid for them, that they have lost sight of the fact that private sector enterprise would rather pay one person a little more to do a wide range of jobs, than to pay 3 different people to do their own little patch of work.
There are benefits to both sides on this:
One person gets full-time employment instead of 3 people getting cruddy part time work
The company has a skilled and motivated worker to dedicate to whichever task is most urgent instead of 3 slackers doing set hours for jobs that may require varying resources.

Not at all, these days most employers would expect that one employee to do the work of the 3 people or else they would take on a naive person on a scam bridge scheme and exploit them for 6 to 9 months without contributing a penny to their wage

Try the 80% of countries in the world that we classify as 3rd developing world countries. FFS you are starting to sound like you don't have a notion of exactly how lucky you are.
You sound like the type of person that I would personally hunt out of any company I work for. A sh!t stirring liability.

That is laughable ignorance and fallacious logic. So just because conditions are terrible in the third world I should be happy getting exploited by an employer that has a track record of flouting employment law?

That is a totally illogical view.



I'll assume that is a typo.

As for no. 2 Irish water, CRC, Dublin Corporation, Leinster House, the HSE , IBTS (back in the day).....the list goes on. Criminality, bribery corruption, back-handers, cronyism, embezzlement, incompetence.
And the average civil service wage is currently the highest in Europe.
Wake the fcuk up.

I'm assuming things went awry in 2009. I am genuinely sorry to hear that, but do you think that if the labor laws were a little bit more coherent that your business may have survived ?

Labour laws had nothing to do with it, it was the lack of credit and cash flow. It happened so quick it was not possible to plan for it. That's life, you keep pushing forward. No doubt I'll be an employer again some day and like before my employees will be afforded all of their rights and will not be exploited.

To speculate on your company's performance and activities, without even knowing who they are would be a little bit silly of me wouldn't it ?

Based on the statement you have made, there are some pretty serious accusations, and they don't sound like a company I would like to work for, but again, that is speculation on my part, and probably some reliance on hearsay on yours.

Nobody is forcing you to work for them. It's a free country. Tackle your problems directly, and if that doesn't work, seek alternative employment.

I do feel for your situation, but I think you might be able to manage it better, and I still don't think that your evil employer is responsible for it. They are just an easy target.

Welcome to the layer cake

You are right, nobody is forcing me to work for them, hence the reason i will be changing jobs very soon. But that still doesn't make it acceptable for a company to exploit staff who are still working with the company.

Quadrivium

Fuzzy wrote: »

I am not trying to sound shítty here, this is written from an economic perspective, not a humanist view, because our society doesn't work on "fair play", rather it works based on a flawed implementation of capitalism.

It's difficult to become an accountant, and most people can't do it, so they earn a reasonable wage and their time is highly valued for the most part.

It's not very difficult to do a security course and get into that industry.
Most people could do it if they wanted to.
Their time is not highly valued. A little more than somebody paid to clean or do manual labour.

From time to time an accountant will have to do more menial tasks, like fill in simple forms.
From time to time an accountant will get to shine and be creative and make important decisions.

From time to time a security guy will have to do donkey work.
From time to time a security guy will have to protect people's lives and make serious decisions.

It's the economics of supply and demand.

I understand all that and agree. But that aside, workers should still be afforded basic working rights and employers should be bound to abide by them. I've seen this company tell a foreign national he had to work 70 hours per week. I've seen them not pay the same guy a penny overtime, not pay his proper public holiday entitlements or his proper holiday allowance. I also know they've been caught employing illegal immigrants who had no visa to be in the country, more than once. None of that behaviour is excusable in any way.

AngryHippie

Quadrivium wrote: »

I understand all that and agree. But that aside, workers should still be afforded basic working rights and employers should be bound to abide by them. I've seen this company tell a foreign national he had to work 70 hours per week. I've seen them not pay the same guy a penny overtime, not pay his proper public holiday entitlements or his proper holiday allowance. I also know they've been caught employing illegal immigrants who had no visa to be in the country, more than once. None of that behaviour is excusable in any way.

Finally we get to the nub:

None of the above are acceptable
None of the above are happening to you

Your bitchy because they want you to clean the HR, Admin, AR and AP work areas while you'd rather be scratching your hole somewhere, so you decide to take up arms for your fellow worker against your evil employer......

Thread title is was : Continuous increases in work without any consultation

Not "my company exploits some migrant workers or illegal immigrants"

Bit of a fail there.

On another note though, your company do sound like a bunch of pr!cks, and yes, they probably should be reported for their activities, particularly withholding payments due.
Sometimes it is a matter of simply putting in a written request to HR that they pay what you are owed.
If that doesn't work, then yeah, go commissioner or union or solicitor.
It all depends on the contract that you have signed.

Mrs OBumble

Please keep this polite please. There are a couple of posts above that had me hovering over the personal-abuse yellow flag button.

/moderation.

Quadrivium wrote: »

Well of course it's the type of work, but it's not just that.
I already do at least 5 other tasks every day that I am not employed to do, as such the responsibility for these additional tasks has fallen to me as well as the consequences involved if they are not done.

It is unfair to expect an employee of any type to do endless tasks and take on endless responsibilities, all of which are sticks to beat the employee with if something goes wrong with any of them.

Where is the line? At what point is it too much?
Many of you here are obviously in positions were you are either exploiting employees in this manner or have done, as such your views are totally one sided and warped and your assessments are certainly not based on the entirety of the situation.

Ahh, there's a big difference between five other tasks and "endless tasks".

No one is saying you should take on infinite amounts of extra work: among other things, your core duties would never get done if that happeend.

"The line" is about what it is possible for you to do in the time available.

Also no one is saying that it's ok to break labour laws, not pay required wages or allownaces, etc.

But asking someone who has time available to do extra things .. no problem with that.

And let's think about the types of security guards who most of us see:

There's the uniformed guy in Lidl: every time I'm there, he is busy watching the scummers who are trying to steal stuff. A couple of weeks ago, I watched him catch a couple of 'em red handed. I don't think it's reasonable to ask him to do anything extra during shop hours, because if there are customers present, there are things for him to do.

There are the non-uniformed people in retail, doing the same thing covertly. Again, I'd expect they're busy when the shop is open, and not rostered to be there when it's closed.

There are the uniformed folks in places like Supermacs or pubs. Again, they're only rostered on when there is work for them to do. And part of being effective for them is to look like a guard. I'd never ask one of them to mop a floor etc if there were customers (even well behaved ones) there, because it diminishes their image.

Then there are the uniformed folks at the door of lots of major companies. These places often have a guard there 24x7. They're busy checking IDs, watching faces, maybe doing random bag checks or issuing property passes at peak work start/end times. They have to do the same things very intermittenly outside peak times. But often there is very little for them to do in between times. These folks are prime candidates for extra duties as required - and provided they have the time and skills or training, then I don't see why they shoudn't be asked to do extra jobs. And it may just give them the opportunity to develop skills get a better paying job.

Quadrivium

AngryHippie wrote: »

Finally we get to the nub:

None of the above are acceptable
None of the above are happening to you

Your bitchy because they want you to clean the HR, Admin, AR and AP work areas while you'd rather be scratching your hole somewhere, so you decide to take up arms for your fellow worker against your evil employer......

Thread title is was : Continuous increases in work without any consultation

Not "my company exploits some migrant workers or illegal immigrants"

Bit of a fail there.

On another note though, your company do sound like a bunch of pr!cks, and yes, they probably should be reported for their activities, particularly withholding payments due.
Sometimes it is a matter of simply putting in a written request to HR that they pay what you are owed.
If that doesn't work, then yeah, go commissioner or union or solicitor.
It all depends on the contract that you have signed.

You're wrong, again.
I was just giving examples of the type of treatment that has become common in this company. I don't believe I am paid enough money to justify my doing infinite tasks, if I was on decent money then yeah but not for just above minimum wage.

Quadrivium

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Please keep this polite please. There are a couple of posts above that had me hovering over the personal-abuse yellow flag button.

/moderation.





Ahh, there's a big difference between five other tasks and "endless tasks".

No one is saying you should take on infinite amounts of extra work: among other things, your core duties would never get done if that happeend.

"The line" is about what it is possible for you to do in the time available.

Also no one is saying that it's ok to break labour laws, not pay required wages or allownaces, etc.

But asking someone who has time available to do extra things .. no problem with that.

And let's think about the types of security guards who most of us see:

There's the uniformed guy in Lidl: every time I'm there, he is busy watching the scummers who are trying to steal stuff. A couple of weeks ago, I watched him catch a couple of 'em red handed. I don't think it's reasonable to ask him to do anything extra during shop hours, because if there are customers present, there are things for him to do.

There are the non-uniformed people in retail, doing the same thing covertly. Again, I'd expect they're busy when the shop is open, and not rostered to be there when it's closed.

There are the uniformed folks in places like Supermacs or pubs. Again, they're only rostered on when there is work for them to do. And part of being effective for them is to look like a guard. I'd never ask one of them to mop a floor etc if there were customers (even well behaved ones) there, because it diminishes their image.

Then there are the uniformed folks at the door of lots of major companies. These places often have a guard there 24x7. They're busy checking IDs, watching faces, maybe doing random bag checks or issuing property passes at peak work start/end times. They have to do the same things very intermittenly outside peak times. But often there is very little for them to do in between times. These folks are prime candidates for extra duties as required - and provided they have the time and skills or training, then I don't see why they shoudn't be asked to do extra jobs. And it may just give them the opportunity to develop skills get a better paying job.

You're assuming these security guards don't have skills, I have a degree from one of the best universities in Ireland, I also have a trade which took me 4 years to learn. The problem is there are no opportunities in Ireland so people like me are left with no option but to sign on the dole or work a job such as security. I earn about €8ph after tax, if you think I'm going to go out of my way to do extra work and the possibility of infinite tasks on that wage then your sadly deluded, if you think I should then you need your head examined.

I do a very good job for the money I earn, I create more value than it costs to employ me. So, no I won't be cleaning or doing any other menial task I am not directly employed to do.

The_Captain

Quadrivium wrote: »

Guys, do you really think the term 'other duties as required' involves cleaning and other non security related tasks?
Do you think this would stand up in the employment appeals tribunal?
So basically, once 'other duties as required' is on any contract that means you are expected to do any and all extra duties regardless of the nature or how many there are?

If you're a static guard, then your job DOES involve cleaning as you are responsible for HS&E problems. Basically they can ask you to clean up anything that may constitute a 'hazard' which could be anything from wet floors to misplaced merchandise.

Many, many store managers will treat you like a general employee. Don't be afraid to say no. Remember, the store manager isn't your boss, you're employed by the security company. If he tells you to do something you genuinely feel isn't part of your job, tell him to contact your supervisor and if they tell you to do it, then you'll do it.

Quadrivium

The_Captain wrote: »

If you're a static guard, then your job DOES involve cleaning as you are responsible for HS&E problems. Basically they can ask you to clean up anything that may constitute a 'hazard' which could be anything from wet floors to misplaced merchandise.

Many, many store managers will treat you like a general employee. Don't be afraid to say no. Remember, the store manager isn't your boss, you're employed by the security company. If he tells you to do something you genuinely feel isn't part of your job, tell him to contact your supervisor and if they tell you to do it, then you'll do it.

Been a long time and I just seen this lol

No, I wouldn't do it if told to by a Supervisor if it was a menial job that I wasn't initially employed to do. As for store managers, they would be told the same. This isn't a hierarchical or cast society, you don't get to decide on a whim, unilaterally what an employees duties are, it doesn't work that way and if you employ or manage people and think it does then I would guess you're pretty bad at your job/business and as such the business suffers a lot of turnover which is never a good thing.