Reverse Seniority

[blas87]

*work related, figured it was unsafe and too touchy for CS*

So, there was a whole bunch of whining and crying of "unfair" last time around that we were on required extra hours at work of how it's assigned and done. It used to be that you were told what time frame the hours needed to be done in, and it went by the most senior person to the least senior person, all the way down, until every extra spot was full.

Yes, the whining was coming from newer people who are at the lower end of the totem pole of seniority.

So, to be fair, the least senior people get to pick first for a while now. The most senior person in the work area gets the last pick, usually the least desired hours. How's that for all your years of dedication and working here?

I'm getting up there on the list. With the every so many years of a revolving door of turnover, it didn't take me long to get further up the pole.

Funny thing, when I was a newer person with only a year or two in, since I was at the bottom, if there were layoffs or forced weeks/days off, guess who HAD to take them if the more senior people didn't want them? Yeah. No playing "fair" just to make the newer people happy.

Seniority is earned through time spent at a job, and should be rewarded as such. That's my opinion.

Oh, also, my shift lead also believes that seniority goes in the order of how much she likes her subordinates. So, that puts me and my group of friends....right at the bottom. When subordinates cannot agree on divying out who goes to break when, it's supposed to go by seniority. Nope. She made up a BS story about how since my friend took a shift transfer last season, he "lost" his seniority in her mind, and I had to choose if it was more important to go to break with my friend or be "right" with my seniority.

[HYHYBT]

I'm sorry your..."superiors" are nuts.

[tropicsgoddess]

That's ridiculous. The ones that have been there longer should get first dibs, that's the way it's always been for one. And to top it, that's not right nor is it fair that the n00bs get stuff that the senior people worked for and have waited for so long to have.

[blas87]

I know. It makes me upset.

[bara]

Im of the opinion that seniority should only come into play after looking at work performance.
Say two employees work at an equal level, then you take seniority.
But if a new person is a better worker then he/she gets first pick.

It always annoyed the crap out of me to see other people get better hours and more pay just because they had been there longer. I can understand the pay, yearly raises and all. But if they arent willing to do the work, then get some one who is willing to work.

[blas87]

There is no way they'd be able to divy the hours that way. Even if that seems the most fair way to do it, that screams nepotism. We aren't allowed to share our marks, let alone have the boss arrange us in order of whose marks are the highest. There's no way that could even stay a secret.

Sorry to shoot you down, but that would be just too much personal info divulged and there'd be a shitstorm.

[mikoyan29]

Given all the other dynamics of the workplace, seniority is probably the only fairest way to divy up things like that. I mean you have your people that are favored by the boss for a myriad of other reasons besides that they do the job better and it's hard to sort that sort of thing out.

[bara]

Sorry to shoot you down, but that would be just too much personal info divulged and there'd be a shitstorm.

You're not. Its not nepotism at all to base decisions off of work performance.
Understanding it wouldn't work for all types of jobs. But there are many in which it would that have measurable performance standards.
And if some one is reliable and does a good job, why is it a problem to tell people that?


Its not like your giving out SS numbers, phones numbers, addresses. Work scores are work scores. Nothing personal about it.
But the same as seniority, it only works if the boss lets it work and keeps their personal opinion out of it.

[HYHYBT]

There's also a fair amount of subjectivity in performance appraisals, especially when you're trying to rank people absolutely. Whereas it's much less likely two people who have been there long enough to have built up significant amounts of seniority were hired at exactly the same time.

It depends on what the reason is. Promotions should go to best performers... or, ideally, to whoever seems most likely to do better in the new job they don't have yet. But letting your longest-serving employees within one job have first pick at the schedule (or of similar things like work location, depending on the business) as a reward for sticking around and encouragement for others to do the same makes perfect sense to me.

[Hyena Dandy]

Yeah...

I mean, even if I were to agree with the idea that it's 'not fair' that people who have been there longer are rewarded for it... Then it would STILL be unfair for the new people to have a better shot. Make it a lottery or something, if you want to be 'fair'.

[Jetfire]

From what I understand, two Public Transit Unions have gone on strike recently (Halifax just last month, and Ottawa a few years ago) partly because they allocated bus runs (and thus hours) on a seniority pattern like that, and the cities involved wanted to move to a assigned run pattern instead.

Personally, and this is coming from someone who hasn't worked hourly nor on a changing schedule since my last part time job, so maybe I don't see the full picture; I find the idea of setting up a work schedule by seniority to be crazy. There may be other advantages to it I don't know of. But the cons against it seem too risky. (The risk of not having enough experienced folks to cover a shift, people cherry picking shifts that they know never go into OT, or often go into OT depending on their preferences, etc...).

[blas87]

It's always been my experience that it's a reward for the longest standing employees to have the best pick of hours, last ones chosen for layoffs or furloughs, stuff like that. It's a perk of staying loyal to the company the longest.

At one time, I was the newbie and the lowest on the totem pole. I've done my time and as I move up the ladder, maybe I'm getting an entitlement mentality, but I feel I should have first choice over someone newer than me, just because they may have a more upbeat Yes Man attitude, and want to challenge authorita and make things more "fair". Well, ya know what? I didn't cry "unfair" when I was first on the chopping blocks in layoffs past, nor did I scream unfair when I had to do the least desired OT hours. I swallowed my pride and let time go by and as I gained more seniority, looked to the day when I would be up on the list. And now that I am, I feel I'm still on the bottom because now we are supposed to go by a new version of "fair" and ratings by perkiness.

[HYHYBT]

...people cherry picking shifts that they know never go into OT, or often go into OT depending on their preferences...

Why do you list that as a negative?

[bara]

Why do you list that as a negative?

A single guy or gal may not mind working extra OT.. I know I dont.
But single/married/kids whatever your situation, you may not be able to work a lot of OT if any at all for a plethora of reasons.

And just wanting some time off to sit and read a book or something is a perfectly valid reason. But if you are in a job that has mandatory OT and you cant work it then you are at risk for losing your job altogether which most people cannot afford. Thats one of the reasons why I prefer a system that takes account other things than just seniority for these decisions.

In a couple places I have worked, the absurd laziness of a lot of old time employees was one of the causes for OT. I didnt mind at the time, I was younger and had more get up and go, but now.. not so much.