Feel like I should correct my previous "outburst" now that I've been able to talk with management and work through some difficulties and frustrations. Everything has been addressed and I'm satisfied with the steps that are being taken. If only all managers were like that!
This may not be the correct thread , however I would like to ask people's interpretation of working laws. I'll try to keep this brief and too the point. The law states that you must have 24hr unbroken period during a 7 day working week or ... Under "exceptional circumstances" you can work up to 12 days but have an unbroken 48hr rest period. Now , my company states that we can work 20 days in a row before we are entitled to time off. This is how they calculate it. If I'm off work say the 1st abs 2nd day of the month, then I can work 20 days straight before I'm entitled to time off. They look at this at by suggesting that if I have 2 days off then work another 12 straight that's a 14 day period, however I can the continue from the back of that into the next 14 day period and have 2 days off at the end of that . 24 days .. 4 days off even though I would have physically worked 20 days . Do anyone have any experience or an explanation as to why this is allowed to happen or have I misread the government website in some way? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
Because they're chancing their arm. What they're doing is very, very illegal, to my understanding. You're being taken advantage of.
www.hcrlaw.com/blog/working-time-many-consecutive-days-can-workers-lawfully-work-without-weekly-rest-break/ WTD is Europe, WTR is UK implementation of WTD. There has been a European test case of effectively "doubling up" the shorter 7 day period, by taking the breaks at the start of week 1, and end of week 2. Which does set precedence for doing the same with the longer period too. However, I can't find any UK test cases or any cases where doing this for the longer period was tested (I've only had a cursory look though). Seems to be a very, very grey area, but it sounds pretty dodgy, especially if this is happening regularly.
Thank you. I thought as much .. sadly we have many people with children and families who won't speak up. I need clarity and then challenge it. I get 3 to 4 days a month off work ... Yes they pay me well but I've suffered as much of this as I can take.
Yes!! This is what it's being based on! We were discussing it in the office and this is her interpretation.
Did you have any mention of or addendums to your contract pertaining to working outside of the norm? I don't expect that this overrides any actual employment law of course. In any case, possibly time to start looking elsewhere. I'd see fighting it as a temporary solution at best.
I never had a contract. Honestly... And even that is the norm these days. I've been there 12 years , hold a highly responsible role in our office and as we are a shipping company are expected to drive plant / flt at weekends to discharge our own ships on our own quay . I've been doing this 12 years and could count my sickness on 1 hand during that period. I have no real ill feeling towards this company, in the pocket it's been very kind to me. But the big one , the one that stings is the fact I work most weekends probably around 30 a year, not always both days but many occasions where you can go 21/24 days straight. Most times you don't know which day , time until Friday or even on the day because of tides. There is only so much you can accept. Now for the past 10 months we have a HR woman ... This is the first of its kind within this company. However it's the bad information and complete lack of responsibility that is getting me , having her tell me that this is so when my own logical thinking does not agree! I'm not an overly intelligent chap , but to have this HR woman piss on my head and tell me it's raining is about as much as I think I can take ... Ofc I don't want to sack myself in the process.
Not to get too doomsayer about this, but that is much more likely to bite you in the arse than them. If they ever want to make you redundant - no contract saying what your redundancy terms are. Leave allowance - not written down. Hours of work (current point of concern) - not written down. It makes you highly vulnerable and much easier for them to exploit. I would be demanding a written contract ASAP with clear definition of your working pattern. Then if it isn't in accordance with UK labour laws - report them! Edit: Arse isn't censored - who knew!
What are people's general thoughts on looking elsewhere (actively or passively) whilst in a role, in theory to keep up with the market/be in a more knowledge/potentially better position when it comes to reviews etc? Would you talk with a recruiter, actually have an interview whilst happy with your job?
What's the purpose of looking? Bored, looking for more money? Talking with a recruiter isn't ever a bad idea IMO.
I think there is no harm in keeping up to date on what is out there, making sure CV is still good/ interview skills are sharp. Whilst you may be happy with your job now, that may not always be the case. I am one for more of a passive outlook on it though, if something comes along that sounds good I'll have a look but I don't see the point of expending effort when I'm in a good place. It happened to me about a month ago too, a recruiter got in contact, sent some details over, sounded good so they forwarded my details on to the company. Ended up not getting it but was good interview experience and a slight ego boost at being invited for interview in the first place.
My wife has just started a new job on £3000 more with a LOT more benefits because of doing this. Where she used to be was fine, they appreciated her, paid her decently and so on. She had a recruiter ask if she wanted to interview at another place, she thought why not and tried it out. Now she is working full time from home (needed due to fibromyalgia), speaking Dutch again (instead of German - she is Dutch) and on £30,000 a year with staff discounts, paid sick leave, more holidays, all good. I did interview a while ago with a lightning protection installation company whilst still being happy where I am now, but what they were offering didn't match or exceed what I had at the time where I am. Still worth looking though, and it was nice to meet a few people that I have known over the phone and emails for years.
Potentially a better package yeah, as the market seems to have moved in a positive direction. Yeah I tend to ignore or decline, but last week decided to pick up the phone/respond to an email or two just to get a feel for things, got an interview lined up tomorrow but realised not sure I can be bothered/if it'd actually be worth doing, seemed like a good idea on paper, seeing what's available to put myself in a good position come my upcoming review, but now I've actually got to do it I'm not so keen as it seems like a lot of effort haha.
I had something similar, I had done 2 rounds of interviews and then I got to a final round interview with the CIO about 3 or 4 months ago. After two rounds didn't feel it and cancelled my interest in the role (recruiter was annoyed but it wasn't offering me anything new over what I'm doing now).
I sat down with our HR woman and asked for clarifying what I have been told in writing ... Ooof it's upset the MD! however I now have it. I'm told that they can legally exercise the right to make me work 24 days straight and only 2 days off either side. I earn 50k per year plus bonuses. Yes it's nice! But I'm being told that these rules apply to EVERYONE in the UK . my response to this was that if it's not written ... Then it's not law. I've been informed that I won't find anything written about such things but if I believe I'm not being treated lawfully then this is not the job for me . What would you do ...?
Go book a 30 minute free appointment at a local solicitor, sounds like a potential constructive dismal case...
@Spanky Just had a quick look and it looks like, technically, you can be required to work 24 days in a row so long as a 48 hour rest period is given either side (rather than 24 in 7) and all other WTD rules are adhered to. It sounds like that is what they're referring to but any instance could be challenged (not least on h&s and/or risk grounds I reckon) I found that at this solicitors site https://www.hcrlaw.com/blog/working...-lawfully-work-without-weekly-rest-break/amp/ Edit: fwiw if any employer asked me to work 24 days straight I'd tell them to go feck themselves. Life is more important than any job, I'm not going to lay on my deathbed thinking about all those good jobs I did or how I wish I'd worked more.
