Cotswold Job

[The Debauched Sloth]

Quite right about my maths, i winced when i read my post back in the cold light of day. My only excuse is it had been a long day and i was feeling pretty .... debauched.
The Invisible Man has really raised the question i was trying to highlight. Which is that if your overtime is paid at your standard rate, are we likely to see a rise in what effectively become the standard working hours? While overtime is not forced, I have worked on sites where pressure was certainly put on employees to work additional hours.
As people have pointed out long hours particularly on pipelines are part of the job, but so too has been overtime pay for those long hours. The basic hourly rate of a digger is not sufficient to make long hours in the summer and a lay-off in the winter a feasible option, and certainly not if addition pay for overtime is not paid.
My worry is that if this situation is expected and accepted due to the recession, in time it will become the norm and conditions will stay the same when the recession is over.

[randy13]

yes i totally agree, which is why every1 needs to say NO until we get proper overtime rates. It is no gd if ppl r still gna take it. I kno the job ur talking abt & i believe it was just an extra hr not 4! Also, every1 can keep saying it but i still don't believe that a) i cd wrk shit loads of extra hrs 4 standard rate or b) get no overtime & get shit pay r reasonable options.

[Dinosaur]

.....The basic hourly rate of a digger is not sufficient to make long hours in the summer and a lay-off in the winter a feasible option....

If the normal pay for normal hours is a liveable income in your world, then if you spend 8 months doing normal hours x 1.5 you've got your money for the other 4 months over the winter covered and you can head off to the beach in Goa knowing your rent's covered? - or dig over the winter too and make the chancellor and your bank manager happy? Or alternatively just stay poor :face-crying:

[Dirty Boy]

While overtime is not "forced", it would be interesting to see how many staff are taken on who want to work as 48 hr max week, although I suppose if the firm gets more applications from staff who want extra hours than jobs, thats fine.

Never did see the point in longer days though. Productivity drops off dramatically as you increase hours in work, and it always seemed better to have more staff on site working "normal" hours.

[The Debauched Sloth]

If the normal pay for normal hours is a liveable income in your world, then if you spend 8 months doing normal hours x 1.5 you've got your money for the other 4 months over the winter covered and you can head off to the beach in Goa knowing your rent's covered? - or dig over the winter too and make the chancellor and your bank manager happy? Or alternatively just stay poor :face-crying:

But we are talking about doing overtime at normal rates (which is what's being offered) NOT at x 1.5.
Also as x 1.5 is only paid on the overtime worked in excess of normal hours, not for a full 8 months work, your maths is a bit off. Overtime is a useful way of earning a bit extra but it is never (even at x 1.5) going to be enough to cover a winter lay off. So this Sloth will be carrying on working all year round and picking up his overtime (when offered) which hopefully will continue to paid as such.

[Dinosaur]

Err, read my post more carefully, NORMAL HOURS x 1.5 (extra hours), not PAY x 1.5 (overtime pay), ie your doing one and a half times as many hours and getting one and a half times as much money at the end of it.

However, am not going to turn down overtime when it's offered

[Jack]

While overtime is not "forced", it would be interesting to see how many staff are taken on who want to work as 48 hr max week, although I suppose if the firm gets more applications from staff who want extra hours than jobs, thats fine.

Never did see the point in longer days though. Productivity drops off dramatically as you increase hours in work, and it always seemed better to have more staff on site working "normal" hours.

I heartily agree, in fact on my last job I refused to do overtime as it was not at time and a half...which (unfortuneately) restricted the diggers opportunities to do overtime on my site (sorry guys). But I felt it important to stand up for my legal rights. Time and a half or don't do it!

[Dinosaur]

I heartily agree, in fact on my last job I refused to do overtime as it was not at time and a half...which (unfortuneately) restricted the diggers opportunities to do overtime on my site (sorry guys). But I felt it important to stand up for my legal rights. Time and a half or don't do it!

Am getting a little confused by all this. I thought the whole thing, fundamentally, was a communal group winge about not getting paid enough (which I agree with heartily!). Overtime's all very nice and well, but if it's not on the table on a job (and let's face it, you didn't have to sign the contract in the first place) what's the problem with doing more hours and earning more money anyway, not as much admittedly, but if that's all that's on offer then why not take it. Now we've got a supervisor/PO/whatever coming on saying he actually prevented his workforce from earning a living if they wanted to just cos he had some personal objection! If I'd been digging on that job I'd have been livid !

[Austin Ainsworth]

Good on ya, Jack.

A principled decision not to be exploited should be applauded. If we let employers get away with flat rate for overtime it will soon become the norm.

How did that job work out for your bosses when nobody was doing the overtime? Was the job extended or did the site crew have to do more work within the basic working week?

[Jack]

I was standing up for my right not to be forced into doing overtime I didn't want to do at a rate of pay I wasn't prepared to accept (as is everyones right under the employment law) There was still opportunities for the workforce to do some overtime at time if they wanted, just not as much as if i'd rolled over and accepted the dictates of the client whos was being deliberately stingy. It turned out that their workers were getting time and a half for overtime.

What's next, doing overtime at half pay? Its still extra money. Your employer has no legal requirement to pay you at all for overtime,

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/E...G_10028439