Overtime

[deadlylampshade]

... but 4 hours a day unpaid travel? It does sound like they are being exploited to me and I can understand why they are upset by it.

It's the norm for some of us and "management" don't like it when you still ask for it because others accept it as they don't want to "rock the boat" or be thought difficult.

[Dinosaur]

...Whilst you may be getting your wages paid through your original employer, all H&S legislation and employment law says that for the time you are engaged on that job you are an employee of the company that are contracting your services in. Therefore whilst you may have a contract that has terms and conditions that are applicable to your original employment for the time you are contracted out you should be seeking clarification of your employment rights, terms and conditions and H&S procedures from the contracting employer....

Does that mean that employees of two seperate companies who have set up a JV operating contractually as a seperate company should therefore be being treated the same, since they are now effectively all employees of the new third company? - have heard a few complaints.....:face-stir:

[Martin Locock]

I would disagree with Kevin about the employer issue: I think that if you used to work for Unit A, and are still under contract to Unit A and are paid by Unit A, you are employed by Unat A, even if Unit A is contracted by Unit B to supply labour rather than a direct client. You shoukd point your employer towards the Working Time Directive which prevents employers requiring staff to work more than 48 hours a week (whcih time would include travel from your normal place of work).

[BAJR]

It may be worth checking though, for drivers especially, that they are insured if they are not on the clock for a 4hour chunk of the day and what would happen in the event of an accident?

this is of most concern to me.

Legal position.... what is the Driving at Work policy from the company - there must be one if you are expected to be a driver, especially for people who are then also working in the intervening period. It can be argued that those who are driving are actually working wheras those in teh transport are not... it is one of those moot points. HOWEVER.... if there is an accident, then teh company is usually found responsible if it does not have a clear policy on this. if people are injured or god forbid killed then the company itself will bear the responsibility. Talk... and talk now with the management. Have you Union representation? As they are an RO, contact the IfA and ask for some clarification.

Personally - if I was expected to drive people 2 hours there and 2 hours back... I would not be fit to work all day and then drive back WITH passengers. Think about it - the company may want to work with you on this.

http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Vehicles_at_Work/D..._for_Work/

and consider this:

Commuting to work is not generally classified as driving for work, except where the person’s journey starts from their home and they are travelling to a work location that is not their normal place of work.
In the case of journeys taken in a vehicle provided an employer, such as a van, jeep or fleet car, an employer has a duty of care to ensure the safety of employees using the vehicle. Employers should have appropriate policies and procedures in place to ensure safety when employees drive a work-provided vehicle or drive their own vehicle for work.
Driving for work involves a risk not only for drivers, but also for fellow workers and members of the public, such as pedestrians and other road users. As an employer or self-employed person, you must, by law, manage the risks that may arise when you or your employees drive for work. Employers should have systems in place to ensure that Driving for Work activities are road safety compliant. Employers cannot directly control roadway conditions, but they can promote and influence safe driving behaviour and actions by their employees.

[Dinosaur]

Whatever other problems BAJR might have with my employer, we have a strict driving policy whereby anyone sent to a distant job (can't remember the distance/driving time offhand but its not anything unreasonable) can bill the company for overnight accomodation if it hasn't already been provided, but also we can do the same if we feel too tired at the end of the day to drive - the eventuality (which rarely comes up) is just costed in as a reasonable part of 'overheads', far more reasonable than accidents - and in a commercial sense cheaper too, although that sounds a bit harsh! We'd certainly never expect people to commute 2 hrs each way and do 8 hrs digging in between, that's outrageous!

[RedEarth]

This all sounds particularly grim, made grimmer by the apologists who say things like 'well a job's a job' and 'I regularly do that/worse', thanks for condemning the rest of us! I'm no fan of unions but the anti-union is even worse. I know times are hard but this is sort of thinking is a slippery slope.

How this sort of thing is considered at all acceptable I really don't know, and yet it seems to happen all the time. What happened to reasonable travel time of up to an hour each way? Even that seems a lot sometimes. Not only that but how many jobs are advertised as '37 hours a week' or similar, only to then have four hours per day added on? How many companies are reported for this to BAJR? How many jobs are won on the basis of no accommodation and this sort of travelling? That is called exploitation!

Isn't this breach of contract anyway? And surely they are still contracted to organisation A even if they have been subcontracted (presumably without being consulted) to organisation B. It's just disgraceful!

[trowelfodder]

then unionise - and be aware that the actions that you take have much wider implications. Once some people take what is thrown at them then it becomes aceptable - it becomes the norm.

[GnomeKing]

I have made my views on this know before ;

this absolutely is Exploitation !!! it is UNACCEPTABLE !!! -

use the union middle-person if you can - but remember ALL employees have the right to act Collectively at ANY time...

The idea that "these are hard times" or that the company itself is hard up against 'the wall' is a total DEAD END !
The concept if the 'criss of capitalism' is hardly new - however now we face a Business World that has adopted the concept as an excuse and justification for whatever they want ("sorry, its the recession...")


Unfortunately, if companies can not operate in manner consistent with our (Non-Existent) Charter and remain financially viable, then they MUST go bust (sorry)
(same as on the larger scale: i.e. some banks also need to fail, and European nations to default en mass)
Managers/Executives must be forced into the embarrassment of explaining to a client why they only get 5.5 hours on site a day, or why the costs must go up to meet the requirement for equitable employment conditions.

The collapse of companies that can not meet the requirements for a sustainable future for archaeologists (not to mention equitable pay and conditions NOW) will create the space for better systems to be put in place.

This is not a new issue : 10+ years, not an awful lot changed - people need to take a stance, make a stand NOW, even though it might not benefit them immediately, or even perhaps never directly....

2 hours unpaid travel time (on standard archaeological salary) is absolutely unacceptable > maybe the company (and any others operating the same) should be named (but not here!) and reported to the IFA, and any other relevant employment law body....
!

[kevin wooldridge]

I would disagree with Kevin about the employer issue: I think that if you used to work for Unit A, and are still under contract to Unit A and are paid by Unit A, you are employed by Unat A, even if Unit A is contracted by Unit B to supply labour rather than a direct client. You shoukd point your employer towards the Working Time Directive which prevents employers requiring staff to work more than 48 hours a week (whcih time would include travel from your normal place of work).

Martin I wouldn't dispute that. What I said was that employment law and H&S law states that sub-contracted staff are to be treated as 'employees' for the time that they are employed i.e they can't be treated less preferentially to 'normally' employed staff in terms and conditions etc. This would also be the same with agency or other staff bought in on short term or temporary contract staff.

[Dinosaur]

You might want to mention that to some large construction firms then, on a certain recent road scheme most of the agency guys seemed to be making around half as much as the 'normal' employees, not so much on their basic wages (though they were significantly lower) but on all the additional allowances - one of the foremen I was talking to, who was agency, was taking home around ?200/week less than the guy immediately below him!