Hey you shortchanged me!?!?

[jackfaire]

I hate when people complain if things are unfair towards them but not if they are being unfair to the other party the following examples clarify.

1) A customer who doesn't say a word when the cashier gives them too much change even if it is by a lot but if they are shortchanged a penny it's a federal case.

2) An employee pissed because she is expected to be ready to do her job at the time she starts which means having her computer ready to go and be sitting at her desk ready to sign in because in her mind anytime before work is her time and she will either be paid for it or they can wait for her to be on the clock to do anything. Same person then handles personal business during work hours.

3) An employee who promised a minimum of 16 hours due to the union will insist on getting paid a full 16 hours even if they worked less but complain if they worked more hours and were shorted on their paycheck.

The first it's called karma.

The second if you feel that way then technically you shouldn't be showering or driving to work until they are paying you on the clock to do those things.

The third I am sorry I understand your union gives you a minimum of 16 hours and you fudge your time to make up that if you get less but that should entitle said company to dock pay when you get more than 16 hours to make up the difference.

[Flyndaran]

I call it simple theft when you take what is not yours to take.
As a rationalist, I don't believe in karma.

[BroomJockey]

3) An employee who promised a minimum of 16 hours due to the union will insist on getting paid a full 16 hours even if they worked less but complain if they worked more hours and were shorted on their paycheck.

<snip>

The third I am sorry I understand your union gives you a minimum of 16 hours and you fudge your time to make up that if you get less but that should entitle said company to dock pay when you get more than 16 hours to make up the difference.

I think you misunderstand what goes on in that situation, if that's your point of view.

What that is supposed to be is a guaranteed minimum number of hours you're scheduled, so that you can make a living wage. If the company chooses not to use those pre-allotted hours, they still need to pay.

A metaphor, if you will, would be your cell phone contract. You have 100 day time minutes, let's say. You pay the same amount whether you use 1 minute, or 100 minutes. You don't get to pay less just because you chose not to use them. However, if you need, you can go over those 100 minutes, but you'll pay extra. You don't get to say "Hey, last time I only used 50 minutes, but paid for 100, so this time I get to use 150 minutes, but only pay for 100."

Yes, I know about roll-over minutes, and such, but we're talking about a metaphor here. You're paying a minimum amount, whether you use it or not, and pay more for using more, same with scheduling an employee in this instance.

[kiwi]

2) An employee pissed because she is expected to be ready to do her job at the time she starts which means having her computer ready to go and be sitting at her desk ready to sign in because in her mind anytime before work is her time and she will either be paid for it or they can wait for her to be on the clock to do anything.

If I am expected to be at my workstation setting up for work before I am being paid then..... I'm not going to be there long.
Turning on the computer/logging in should be on the companies dime in my opinion. I HAVE to do these things for work so my employer should compensate me for that time.
Walking to my desk, going to the bathroom and making personal calls should be on MY dime.

[jackfaire]

If I am expected to be at my workstation setting up for work before I am being paid then..... I'm not going to be there long.
Turning on the computer/logging in should be on the companies dime in my opinion. I HAVE to do these things for work so my employer should compensate me for that time.
Walking to my desk, going to the bathroom and making personal calls should be on MY dime.

My issue isn't getting paid or not we do get paid that five minutes before hand. My issue is that this employee complained vehemently when told the 5 min before rule without being told the getting paid part, because she interrupted them. This same employee then during our training session ignored the trainer and surfed the web on their dime and never saw an issue doing personal things during work time.

As for the five minutes the reason it is that way is because our company is an outsourcer and our client is paying us to be on the phones taking calls for 8 hours not spending five minutes setting up. That five minutes comes out of our company's pocket.

I think you misunderstand what goes on in that situation, if that's your point of view.

I understand it I just don't agree with it. In cell phones or in companies. I think arrangements like that are inherently unfair. I think things should be fair to both the employees and the company. often others do not share this opinion even when they are a member of a company they see it as a big evil entity out to screw them over.

I am concerned about the bottom line even though my job is the bottom of the totem pole because that bottom line means whether or not I have a job tomorrow. If my company is losing money in a practice that favors the employees over the company rather than making them equal then I get to watch my job disappear.

[BroomJockey]

. I think arrangements like that are inherently unfair. I think things should be fair to both the employees and the company. often others do not share this opinion even when they are a member of a company they see it as a big evil entity out to screw them over.

I see it as a way of making sure someone isn't at the mercy of a manager with a grudge. If you're supposed to be working at least 16 hours a week, and you're not getting scheduled for that consistently, then the following:

1. You're going to need a second job.

2. Most managers who won't schedule you for 16 hours min. aren't going to be too appreciative of you trying to work around a schedule.

3. Trying to work a second job when your availability fluctuates wildly like in this case is damned near impossible.

So the rule is in place to make sure someone can actually afford to eat without going insane trying to get a second job. And if a manager can't schedule someone for sixteen hours a week (that's only two days at 8/day, or four at 4/day), then he's got bigger fucking problems than "the bottom line," mainly he's a complete moron and jackass. Because I'm sorry, but if you know you need to schedule 5 people, at 16 hours each, those are the FIRST people to go on the schedule. There's no excuse for being stupid enough to not schedule them. If you don't, then in the name of protecting the bottom line, you should be fired out of a cannon, in to the sun. It's not exactly quantum physics. My nephew could probably figure it out, and he's twelve.

[Boozy]

If my company is losing money in a practice that favors the employees over the company rather than making them equal then I get to watch my job disappear.

You may also see your job disappear if the scale tips the other way -- and it is far more likely to do so.

Employee protection laws are important because you are not as powerful as your company. You have less money and less clout. If you want employees and companies to be "equal" as you say, then some of these rules are absolutely necessary to level the playing field.

However, I agree with you wholeheartedly when you say:

An employee pissed because she is expected to be ready to do her job at the time she starts which means having her computer ready to go and be sitting at her desk ready to sign in because in her mind anytime before work is her time and she will either be paid for it or they can wait for her to be on the clock to do anything. Same person then handles personal business during work hours.

I have worked with several whiny brats in the past that refused to start work even one second early. That's fair, right? I mean, no one should work for free.

But they need to understand this: If I'm not a pedantic little shit about time, neither is my boss. If I show up ten minutes early on a regular basis, then I don't get in crap if I run late on my lunch hour and take a few extra minutes. If I stay a few minutes past the end of my shift in order for the shift change to run smoothly, then no one really complains when I make a few personal calls on the clock.

But if you want to punch in at 9 am sharp and punch out at 5 pm sharp, then your lunch break had better be 30 minutes and not a second longer. And when you're getting paid, you had better be working. Every second. If you're a dick about time, then so is the company.

[jackfaire]

I agree with labor laws. I don't agree with Unions hurting people.

I had a friend working at a store that was treating him well and it was a great place to work. Another location went on strike because at that store they were being mistreated. The union decided every union store had to go on strike but the union was only paying the people at the original store.

My friend wasn't allowed to work but wasn't getting money either.

Also I have other friends who strongly believe in unions and think working 8 hours is too much and that we should all work less time.

I understand people out there trying to protect me but when do I get to decide if I feel I am being screwed over or if I think I am being treated fairly?

[Lace Neil Singer]

I usually arrive at work roughly ten minutes early. If there's just one person manning the tills and a giant queue is forming, I will see nothing wrong with jumping on a till and helping them. They'd do the same for me.

However, I will close the petrol station on time or as close to time as possible, and I will not stay open any later, just cuz Ms Special Snowflake couldn't get her fat arse over to the petrol station during the period when it was open (7am - 10pm). If I have been there all day, I want to go home. I will certainly make sure that the place is in order so that the morning shift aren't stuck with a pile of crap to clear up, but I won't pander to a selfish SC who thinks that all shop workers are lowly peons.

[LewisLegion]

*shrug* I get paid to set up. I generally arrive at work anywhere from 15 minutes to half an hour early. If I spend this time chatting or having breakfast, that's one thing. But if I boot up and log in and get my programs set, I get paid overtime. This comes straight from HR who threw a fit when they found out I was booting up and logging in before my shift and said I had to get paid for it. And I was just logging in to the system, not to where I was actually taking calls and working. So who'm I to argue? It adds up to two hours overtime each pay period

[Peppergirl]

Where I work, the schedule is 3 12-hour days on, then 4 days off.

It caused a bit of controversy/drama recently when one of our managers indicated to one of the 3rd shift workers that she should be checking her email during the week for important work updates. The worker asked if she should clock in during those times and was told 'no'. The worker then flatly refused to do so, and advised the manager that if anything were that important, she should contact her at home.

I am torn on this issue. I don't mind checking (and responding to) my work email once a day on my off days for the following reasons:

-This is how OT is offered thoughout the week
-If I made a mistake on my weekend shift and am emailed for clarification on Monday, I can usually clear it up before it becomes a gigantic cluster-fuck of an issue
-I figure all the time inbetween calls when we're slow and I'm surfing the 'net (like now), or puttering around my kitchen on company time MORE than makes up for the hour or so a week I spend off the clock checking and responding to email. Its quid pro quo. They don't get on us about internet/slacking off as long as the work is getting done, so I don't bitch about not getting paid to check email on my off days

Now, I can see the 3rd shift worker's point of view too. In theory, why should she be expected to read and respond to email on her time off?

Now - ready for the kicker, and the ironic part???? The manager who got on the worker for not checking her email...SHE is the WORST offender of not checking email on her days off. Hypocrite, much?

[BroomJockey]

Now - ready for the kicker, and the ironic part???? The manager who got on the worker for not checking her email...SHE is the WORST offender of not checking email on her days off. Hypocrite, much?

Depending on the 3rd shifter, that might actually be the reason they're refusing. Do you think that's possible? A sort of "the boss doesn't, so I won't" thing?

[Peppergirl]

Depending on the 3rd shifter, that might actually be the reason they're refusing. Do you think that's possible? A sort of "the boss doesn't, so I won't" thing?

Knowing her personality, yes - I suspect this is the primary reason for her refusal.

Further irony is that the 3rd shifters have the most 'downtime' of any of us between calls, and therefore more time to do non-work related things, like surf the net, clean, etc. And this particular person tends to be on FB quite a bit during her shift, and plays various games on there. I certainly can't talk because I do quite my own share of goofing off, but I try to 'pay it forward' a bit when management asks me to do something.