' The new face of slave labour'

[Gamma Ray]

The BBC news website is currently running a high profile story called ' The new face of slave labour'. It's about the amount of unpaid overtime that people in this country work. I've noticed this over the past few years, and it makes me angry. If you're a few minutes late on a regular basis you might get the sack, but your employer will think nothing of making you work a few extra minutes unpaid just as often. The full article is here, but this is what interested me -

You could say those affected - predominantly the increasing number of white-collar workers in the UK - are providing their services voluntarily every day from 1 January to 25 February. That overtime is worth £23bn to employers, says the TUC's analysis of the Labour Force Survey.

So companies are stealing £23 billion that is by rights owed to their employees. Stealing may be an emotive word, but whom does the money go to, huh? The title of the article is an emotive title, and rightly so - if you can't get worked up about your life's work then what can you get worked up about?

The article goes on to quote 'occupational psychologist' Sherridan Hughes as to some of the reasons why this situation has arisen -

People often tire of being told on a Friday night that they suddenly haven't got a weekend.

But it takes a brave person to stand up and say that. Their job could be at risk, and if there was ever a question of redundancies it would be more likely that they were the person to be shown the door.

Indeed. Of course that isn't always the case - people may work longer hours through sheer dedication, or because they're scared to go home and face their psychotic flat mates, but I'd wager that fear of losing their job is a big motivational factor. And what worth a company that doesn't value its employees (at least beyond purely financial terms)? Are we to believe that profit is more important than human well-being? Evidently so. Still, autistic thinking like that has it's own pitfalls, as the article concludes -

The irony is the UK ranks poorly when it comes to productivity compared to other European nations with shorter working hours, says Paul Sellers [a TUC working time policy officer].

He added: "We know, and it is obvious why, that people who work more hours do less per hour."

Aye ... as this thread testifies. There aren't many people that I come across (in an office/commercial context leastways) that are passionate about their jobs. And why should they be? What is there in most companies to inspire passion? Money, perhaps ... you tell me. Perhaps as Pinball says it is in our interests that companies do well so that we all have a pension, but you know I'd rather be able to enjoy my life whilst I'm young.

The picture that I see is of companies that don't treat their employees as human (or at least not in a sense that I recognise) and (no doubt as a reaction to this) employees who do not buy in to their company, i.e. do not work to their potential. As Pinball said in another thread -

Aren't humans ridiculous??

Sure, people created these businesses and now they let the businesses control them - why? Anyhow, I'd be interested to hear about your attitudes to the company that you work for, and what you think about their attitude to you. And, of course, any other thoughts that you might have on this topic ...

[fanny splendid]

Work to rule.

[Gamma Ray]

Work to rule.

That's not a phrase that I'm familiar with, but the internet told me this.

It done said -

They start complaining when you take an extra 1/2 hour of lunch. What do you do? If others start watching your clock, watch it for them. Get in at exactly 8:30 and have your coat on by 5:30 on the dot. Do no more than your job description requires. Never volunteer. Turn off your beeper at night. Document your bathroom breaks.

Oké ... what I find ridiculous is that the company and the employees are fucking with each other when they should be working in tandem. Surely everyone would benefit?

[skibz]

Oké ... what I find ridiculous is that the company and the employees are fucking with each other when they should be working in tandem. Surely everyone would benefit?

You've obviously not read enough Dilbert cartoons :)

[untitled_london]

Work to rule.

i agree but, making it stick in a tribunal isn't an easy task

both sides need to be able to negotiate around "reasonable adjustments".

an ace notion, if you think reasonable adjustments should mean, you'll get stuck like a pig at a BBQ if you try and use that term in a tribunal to defend your "needing" some leeway from them.

the same term is usually used to show that your an inflexible ingrate when you were unable to donate some if your weekend to them.


2p

[fanny splendid]

I never said it would be easy to convince a tribunal that you were correct. Tribunals are set up top protect the company in all but the most obvious and damning of situations. As you say, the term is used derogatorily, to demean the fact that the little man might be standing up for himself. It's designed to make him look stupid in front of his peers, because the boss of the company knows only too well what happens when the workers stick together.

Oké ... what I find ridiculous is that the company and the employees are fucking with each other when they should be working in tandem. Surely everyone would benefit?

The only person to truly benefit will be the owner of the company. You might earn overtime, but that's just getting paid for the work you have done. If you don't think that you are being adequately recompensed for the your labour, then losing even more of your precious free time to benefit someone else's bank account, will not have you jumping for joy. Most people are paid for their time, in regards to how long it takes to complete a task. What happens if you make your company successful, is that the company is then required to hire more staff, because little old you can only work so many hours in the day before you drop dead. You can't physically earn any more money.

Of course, it depends upon the actions of your boss, whether or not you feel that you are teated fairly and equally.

[hencole]

The trouble is that most people don't care that they are underpaid and wrok to many hours. They seemed resigned to that fact. A bizzare example is at my Mums work. She works as a 6th form college lecturer and found out recently that due to payroll dept. rounding percentages to the nearest whole number that most staff members have been underpaid by as much as £500 a year for the last 5 years! Having brought this up at numerous meetings she has found only one other person agrees that it is outragous and is prepared to get to the bottom of it. The rest just shrug and don't seem to care.

[Borboski]

heh like richard pryor in superman 3 right?

[slim]

The lot of you, get back to work!

Bloody kids.

[Gamma Ray]

Oké ... what I find ridiculous is that the company and the employees are fucking with each other when they should be working in tandem. Surely everyone would benefit?

The only person to truly benefit will be the owner of the company. You might earn overtime, but that's just getting paid for the work you have done. If you don't think that you are being adequately recompensed for the your labour, then losing even more of your precious free time to benefit someone else's bank account, will not have you jumping for joy. Most people are paid for their time, in regards to how long it takes to complete a task. What happens if you make your company successful, is that the company is then required to hire more staff, because little old you can only work so many hours in the day before you drop dead. You can't physically earn any more money.

Of course, it depends upon the actions of your boss, whether or not you feel that you are teated fairly and equally.

Hmmm, I can see that you've thought this through, and I'd hazard a guess as to that's why you're self employed ;¬)

Anyhow, I take your point. Even if the company and the workforce come to an agreement where the employees are happy, and this results in better production and expansion of the company, the company owner will ultimately benefit most. I think that the employees benefit though, because I think that feeling valued and part of the company that you work for is very important. To measure your happiness purely in terms of money seems, like I say, a little autistic.

Still, for that to change we'd need crazy ideas like companies that exist for more than pure profit (like quality of service or social benefit). I guess that if you're going to play the game, you got to play by the rules. I still don't understand why we don't re-write them though, or all y'all happy with your employment?

[slim]

I think that the employees benefit though, because I think that feeling valued and part of the company that you work for is very important. To measure your happiness purely in terms of money seems, like I say, a little autistic.

There's also the issue of employees whose pay is partly made up of shares in the company. It's got to be one of the cleverest motivational tools I've heard of for workers - work harder, increase profits, earn more. That way both the company and employee benefit with better productivity, although preumably the company more so.

[fanny splendid]

Hmmm, I can see that you've thought this through, and I'd hazard a guess as to that's why you're self employed ;¬)

Heh, yes, exactly!

You see, whenever I worked for anyone else, I never gained the sense of value or company pride that others talk about. I worked for one reason only, and that was for money. The minute you can pay your rent in self-worth, and Tesco accept company loyalty in exchange for their goods, and the pub takes a tipped cap in exchange for a pint, then I'll play that game.

I agree with what you say, that there is no reason that companies and employees can't both truly gain from a proper partnership. However, we are constantly told, that the bosses can't  motivate themselves to create companies and jobs unless they have the freedom to exploit! The joke is that the people who most vocally express this opinion seem to be the Uriah Heeps of this world who so humbly know their place within it, yet with the good grace of their betters, they might improve their position.

I guess that if you're going to play the game, you got to play by the rules. I still don't understand why we don't re-write them though, or all y'all happy with your employment?

Good question, anybody care to answer?

[slim]

I guess that if you're going to play the game, you got to play by the rules. I still don't understand why we don't re-write them though, or all y'all happy with your employment?

Good question, anybody care to answer?

I'll try! I reckon fear, ineptitude or laziness. Probably in that order.

[Gamma Ray]

I guess that if you're going to play the game, you got to play by the rules. I still don't understand why we don't re-write them though, or all y'all happy with your employment?

Good question, anybody care to answer?

I'll try! I reckon fear, ineptitude or laziness. Probably in that order.

And yet you feel like this ...  What are you scared of, and why? What is it that you don't think you're capable of, and why? Who is fit to judge your worth? And as for laziness ... laziness is a cheap way to opt out of life. Why would you want to do that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see your response - these aren't things that can easily be worked out individually. I'm also intrigued by that thread you posted about fluency of thought, so I'll go and read the rest of it now.

[napoleon dynamitee-hee]

personally speaking, this is one of the many reasons why i have always preferred to work in shift-based roles...  as soon as i have completed a handover to my shift counterpart, i can leave the building relatively on time and with a clean conscience that i dont have to even think about it until i get back in again...

admittedly, not every job in this world IS shift based, but in the industry i work in, im hard pushed to find a job which ISNT, and it suits me just fine...     The only times ive hard to work late are when my cover is late, and when that happens, i come in the same amount late to compensate - everyone's happy

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Does anyone on here know a bit about unions/union rights?

In theory, does everyone have the right to set up an independent union at their workplace and take strike action over pay and conditions? Can a manager sack people for doing this?

[slim]

And yet you feel like this ...  What are you scared of, and why? What is it that you don't think you're capable of, and why? Who is fit to judge your worth? And as for laziness ... laziness is a cheap way to opt out of life. Why would you want to do that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see your response - these aren't things that can easily be worked out individually. I'm also intrigued by that thread you posted about fluency of thought, so I'll go and read the rest of it now.

Ah, well I was actually answering on why I thought most of the populace were still tied the the work machine. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

For me personally it's because, at the moment, I enjoy my job and I feel good about working for the public. I have fanciful notions of doing something else that doesn't require a 9-5 life, but if I'm honest that's writing and I know I'm not good enough yet. I think I need a fair bit more life experience and time to hone my literary skills before I'd be able to attempt it as a career. I think there are good reasons why some careers are best started late!

So in summary: I will try and opt out one day, but there's no need yet as I'm not unhappy.

[Evil Knevil]

I guess that if you're going to play the game, you got to play by the rules. I still don't understand why we don't re-write them though, or all y'all happy with your employment?

Good question, anybody care to answer?

I'll try! I reckon fear, ineptitude or laziness. Probably in that order.

You know, 20 years ago the answer would have been socialism. Hmm. Pity that turned out to be a crock.

[thomasina]

I guess that if you're going to play the game, you got to play by the rules. I still don't understand why we don't re-write them though, or all y'all happy with your employment?

Good question, anybody care to answer?

I'll try! I reckon fear, ineptitude or laziness. Probably in that order.

You know, 20 years ago the answer would have been socialism. Hmm. Pity that turned out to be a crock.

Someone tried it, did they?  Funny, I didn't notice.  I work for a charity because I didn't want to spend 35-40 hours a week of my life doing something of no use to anyone except a bunch of shareholders.