It's bullshit you don't have the right to waive your rights

[Sun Devil 92]

Um no 80 hours would be 2 more full time employees

No. 41 hours is two more full time employees. 81 would be three. 121, four. You get the picture. If you have the availability of that much OT you need more FTEs.

Maybe you only need it for a while.

Most tax accountants work pretty hard for the first part of the year.

 

[Anathema]

Maybe you only need it for a while.

Most tax accountants work pretty hard for the first part of the year.

We're going on thirty months of this OT availability and there are four contractors working full time on a project that should be part of our work as well. We have eight employees in our department and should probably have fourteen to sixteen.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Um no 80 hours would be 2 more full time employees

No. 41 hours is two more full time employees. 81 would be three. 121, four. You get the picture. If you have the availability of that much OT you need more FTEs.

If the company regularly has 40 hours OT a week how the hell do you figure that 2 full time people are needed to do 40 hours worth of work?

 

[Anathema]

If the company regularly has 40 hours OT a week how the hell do you figure that 2 full time people are needed to do 40 hours worth of work?

Not 40 hours. 41 hours. That 1 hour makes all the difference because it exceeds the normal scheduled hours for one individual.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If the company regularly has 40 hours OT a week how the hell do you figure that 2 full time people are needed to do 40 hours worth of work?

Not 40 hours. 41 hours. That 1 hour makes all the difference because it exceeds the normal scheduled hours for one individual.

1 hour of OT a week does NOT warrant another 40 hour employee

 

[Anathema]

1 hour of OT a week does NOT warrant another 40 hour employee

Over 40 weeks it does because its cumulative. 1 hour of work not getting done each week accumulates. Especially when a worker has to be pulled off something else to do that work and it ends up taking more than an hour to do down the road.

 

[dblack]

It's funny how often these discussions degenerate into claims about what 'should' be. When the entire debate is over whether government should have the power to dictate what should be in the first place. I don't get what's so wrong about letting people decide for themselves what they "should" do.

 

[Anathema]

It's funny how often these discussions degenerate into claims about what 'should' be. When the entire debate is over whether government should have the power to dictate what should be in the first place. I don't get what's so wrong about letting people decide for themselves what they "should" do.

Let me give you an example..... My coworkers and I fought to be removed from a particular Storm Duty that was not really related to our job responsibilities. It took us 4 months to get it straightened out with Management. Suddenly one person in the Department wants to volunteer to do it because it would offer him the availability of more OT.

I had to drag him into a meeting room to explain to him that if he did so he would be undoing 4 months worth of conversations because it would force all of us to do the work we'd just gotten out of. AND it would open him up to Union discipline (inckuding dismissal) when the other 7 of us filed charges against him.

 

[dblack]

It's funny how often these discussions degenerate into claims about what 'should' be. When the entire debate is over whether government should have the power to dictate what should be in the first place. I don't get what's so wrong about letting people decide for themselves what they "should" do.

Let me give you an example..... My coworkers and I fought to be removed from a particular Storm Duty that was not really related to our job responsibilities. It took us 4 months to get it straightened out with Management. Suddenly one person in the Department wants to volunteer to do it because it would offer him the availability of more OT.

I had to drag him into a meeting room to explain to him that if he did so he would be undoing 4 months worth of conversations because it would force all of us to do the work we'd just gotten out of. AND it would open him up to Union discipline (inckuding dismissal) when the other 7 of us filed charges against him.

What does that have to do with the topic?

 

[Anathema]

What does that have to do with the topic?

Its a reminder that what you want to do can affect others and there may be unpleasant backlash because of it.

 

[dblack]

What does that have to do with the topic?

Its a reminder that what you want to do can affect others and there may be unpleasant backlash because of it.

Sure. Any time someone tries harder it affects the people they're competing with. But should that be illegal?

 

[Anathema]

Sure. Any time someone tries harder it affects the people they're competing with. But should that be illegal?

When they are unnecessarily exceeding the requirements of their job and thereby negatively impacting those of us who are doing our jobs as they were intended.

They might find their car damaged, or their face.

 

[dblack]

Sure. Any time someone tries harder it affects the people they're competing with. But should that be illegal?

When they are unnecessarily exceeding the requirements of their job and thereby negatively impacting those of us who are doing our jobs as they were intended.

They might find their car damaged, or their face.

There's always the risk of pissing off violent thugs. And that's what we need government to protect us from, rather dumb laws "protecting us" from our own willingness to work harder.

 

[Anathema]

There's always the risk of pissing off violent thugs. And that's what we need government to protect us from, rather dumb laws "protecting us" from our own willingness to work harder.

No. We need to protect ourselves from insane morons who have no lives and therefore replace their lives with excess focus on work to the detriment of their coworkers and therefore possibly themselves.

 

[dblack]

There's always the risk of pissing off violent thugs. And that's what we need government to protect us from, rather dumb laws "protecting us" from our own willingness to work harder.

No. We need to protect ourselves from insane morons who have no lives and therefore replace their lives with excess focus on work to the detriment of their coworkers and therefore possibly themselves.

As long as you don't resort to violence, or pass laws to inflict the violence via government.

 

[Anathema]

As long as you don't resort to violence, or pass laws to inflict the violence via government.

I work in a Union position. Two weeks ago we were sent to a different office for Storm Duty. Before sending anyone to that office i reminded them that if they were caught doing Core work during Storm duty I would file charges against them myself.

 

[dblack]

As long as you don't resort to violence, or pass laws to inflict the violence via government.

I work in a Union position. Two weeks ago we were sent to a different office for Storm Duty. Before sending anyone to that office i reminded them that if they were caught doing Core work during Storm duty I would file charges against them myself.

Fine. We're talking about laws regarding non-union employees, not personal anecdotes about union rules.

 

[Anathema]

Fine. We're talking about laws regarding non-union employees, not personal anecdotes about union rules.

Even prior to my department going Union in 2009 I had issues with a co-worker who decided that he wabrmted to do work outside abd beyond the scope of our job description. Especially after i got asjed by a supervisor why I wasn't doing the same, as if I should be.

 

[Skull Pilot]

1 hour of OT a week does NOT warrant another 40 hour employee

Over 40 weeks it does because its cumulative. 1 hour of work not getting done each week accumulates. Especially when a worker has to be pulled off something else to do that work and it ends up taking more than an hour to do down the road.

Sorry but no

One full time employee gets paid for 2000 hours of work plus that employees costs more than his salary alone

52 hours of overtime spread out over a year among several employees is nowhere near as expensive as hiring a 2000 hour employee for 52 hours of work

 

[Anathema]

Sorry but no

One full time employee gets paid for 2000 hours of work plus that employees costs more than his salary alone

52 hours of overtime spread out over a year among several employees is nowhere near as expensive as hiring a 2000 hour employee for 52 hours of work

Then that's 52 hours of work that shouldn't get done each year.

As the Steward I suggest my don't guys work OT. I won't until the department is properly staffed. I've made that very clear to the Company for several years. A couple do work some OT but nowhere near what the Company wants us to work.