Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
-
Posts
-
By honeybee13 · Posted
We only suggest writing if and when you get a Letter Before Claim/Action that's headed as such. Before that you're likely to get letters from debt collectors and possibly lawyers, but LBC is the thing to watch for. If you're not sure, come back here and we'll confirm whether you need to do something or not. It might be a good idea to read some other parking threads for a refresher on how it all works. HB -
The client wants workers under 48 hours. The client pays the wages. End of story. -
By The Carpet Cleaners · Posted
Thank you all for your comments.... What do I do now? do I just ignore them? or is there a letter I can send? -
Guys/gals, There's been a misunderstanding and for that I apologise. I didn't answer the initial questions because my appeal was just a couple of days away and didn't want to get bogged down with extraneous things that were not factors. I also - perhaps erroneously - got the impression that the questions were stabs in the dark hence my "if you don't know just say" response. Plus I thought my OP answered the questions however upon re-reading it I can see it may not to non-employees. Finally, didn't want to make myself identifiable if my employer is reading (hence my redacted OP). I wasn't intending to seem difficult. Short version: My employee has limitless OT to spare - it just wants to restrict people to WTR limits because that's what the client wants. They're happy for me to work OT once I'm under the 17 week WTR average. My appeal has been delayed from to this week so any help is appreciated. I am one of the protected characteristics as stated in post #14. Longer version (including answers to questions/points raised) Why do you think other employees are able to work paid overtime hours without prior approval from the employers? Because they're not at risk of >48 hours. I am and that's why I've been told that I must have my OT pre-authorised so that I don't >48 hours. They were happy for me to work 60+ hours a week until I did so for 3 months in a row and hit the WTR limit. That's when it came to light that the client we work for states that employees must stick to WTR and my employer appears to not want to upset the client. Ironically, when I checked their relevant HR page everything was factual in relation to WTR, it just assumed everyone would stay in WTR and didn't mention the right to opt-out. Also, when my employer took up the fight for me with the client and explained that I'd opted out, the client reportedly said they were unaware that employees can opt out. Have you picked arguments with the company managers previously about any issues? Are you in a more senior position and thus more expensive? No to both. It's simply because they don't want me to exceed WTR limitations on working hours. We work on a contract for another company who stipulate their own employees must abide by WTR and therefore we must too. My employer was initially happy for me to log as many hours as I want and only changed their mind when the client pushed back. They're happy for me to work OT just as long as I stay under the WTR limit of no more than an average of 48 hours across 17 weeks. The company may be doing it for your welfare - do they think you are stressed, taking too much on? They may not think your output justifies doing so many hours so can refuse. They may want to free up some OT hours so others can do a few. None of these reasons apply and there is limitless OT on offer so it's not a case of wanting to share it around. About 10% of employees do OT and the company would be delighted if it was 100%. They just don't want any one person working >48 hours. Anyone can work any hours they wish outside of their normal schedule as long as they don't breach WTR. So last week we had the situation of my employer desperately begging people to work OT as they had a massive shortfall on hours and were not going to meet their commitments to the client and everyone was eligible except me. As much as they wanted to include me, as much as they would have gleefully accepted my 20 hours of OT, they felt that they couldn't and it was lose-lose for both of us. In summary I felt it was discriminatory because: 1) The site is open 120+ hours a week and has an open-door policy on OT - the more the better and the company constantly begs for it and falls short of client requirements for number of logged hours. 2) They're initially happy for agents to work as much OT as they want and for months on end. Until you hit the WTR limit - even if opted-out 3) They insist on forcing employees to stay within WTR limitations despite employees opting out and OT being available - in which case employees are being denied not for valid issues (eg: welfare, performance issues, limited OT hours available) but because they just don't want that particular employee working the OT that a) is available and b) ends up being unfulfilled 4) So to me, it's discrimination to admit they need the hours working, they'd be happy for me (an opted-out employee) to work them if I hadn't hit the 17 week WTR average, and are only enforcing WTR because the client wants it 5) As it stands, they'd accept requests from every employee except me to work 4pm to 11pm on Friday. Likewise, they're canvassing every employee (except me). 6) They say my opting-out of WTR doesn't give me a legal right to work >48 hours but that is exactly what it does. If you have not opted out then it is illegal for you to work >48 hours therefore opting-out absolutely gives the legal right to work >48 hours. That doesn't mean a company is obliged to offer OT when it normally wouldn't or to extend it's opening hours to accommodate an employees demands for OT but it does, by default, give the legal right to work >48 hours if they OT is available. And the OT is available at my work. 7) As far as I know I am the only person of my protected characteristic and I am also the only one prevented from working >48 hours. Maybe there's a link, maybe there isn't. -
Jamie [email protected] So @MarcusRashford had to shame the government in to feeding hungry children while Boris was trying to build £150,000 treehouse for a six month old child? and That actually should say So @MarcusRashfordhad to shame the government in to feeding hungry children while Boris was trying (to get someone else) to pay to build £150,000 treehouse for his six month old child?
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
-
Our picks
-
Contacting loved ones in Ukraine
45002 posted a topic in Telecoms - mobile or fixed,
Contacting loved ones in Ukraine. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/446558-contacting-loved-ones-in-ukraine/&do=findComment&comment=5156526- 0 replies
-
Post in Hermes parcels scandal continues - plus Times Radio interview audio file
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
- Jenny Kleeman and Luke Jones with Times Radio Breakfast Times Radio The Times and The Sunday Times.mp3
-
-
Post in Hermes parcels scandal continues - plus Times Radio interview audio file
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
- Jenny Kleeman and Luke Jones with Times Radio Breakfast Times Radio The Times and The Sunday Times.mp3
-
-
Buy a homeless person Christmas Dinner - Social Bite
stu007 posted a topic in Homelessness,
Buy a homeless person Christmas Dinner - Social Bite. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/443900-buy-a-homeless-person-christmas-dinner-social-bite/&do=findComment&comment=5145464- 0 replies
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 4292 days.
If you need to add something to this thread then
Please click the "Report " link
at the bottom of one of the posts.
If you want to post a new story then
Please
Start your own new thread
That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help
Thanks
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Recommended Posts