Today I'm angry about.....

[Dujon]

I have some experience of public sector/ex public sector clients at work. I was amazed when I overhead a conversation where one person was admonishing a colleague for still working at about 5.08pm and demanding that they go home.

You're not alone, Beefy. I have never forgotten the day when my father came home in a bit of a stew over a work incident. He was a surveyor with one of the state government departments at the time. Over the evening meal he explained what had happened. It seems that his boss had approached him that afternoon and had asked him to 'slow down'. The request was nothing to do with the quality of my father's work, just the volume; he was supposedly 'showing up' his colleagues. Talk about pathetic management!

[Lord Kangana]

I have some experience of public sector/ex public sector clients at work. I was amazed when I overhead a conversation where one person was admonishing a colleague for still working at about 5.08pm and demanding that they go home.

Sounds quite civilised to me.

Generally, the harder you work people, the more their productivity goes down. Most long hours workers just aren't using their time effectively. I work in an industry with a ridiculous long hours culture, and its something I've spent a lot of time trying to tackle. It requires more organisation, which is a big ask for a lot of people, but it is possible.

The most resistance I get is from the kind of people who couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, and are happy to bumble along spending 16 hours a day playing on Facebook, just to be seen at work. They are generally referred to as managers, though I think the epithet copers is more applicable. I'm finally making headway where I currently am, but the idiocy (institutionalised) that I have to overcome is breathtaking.

[Beefheart]

I have some experience of public sector/ex public sector clients at work. I was amazed when I overhead a conversation where one person was admonishing a colleague for still working at about 5.08pm and demanding that they go home.

Sounds quite civilised to me.

Generally, the harder you work people, the more their productivity goes down. Most long hours workers just aren't using their time effectively. I work in an industry with a ridiculous long hours culture, and its something I've spent a lot of time trying to tackle. It requires more organisation, which is a big ask for a lot of people, but it is possible.

The most resistance I get is from the kind of people who couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, and are happy to bumble along spending 16 hours a day playing on Facebook, just to be seen at work. They are generally referred to as managers, though I think the epithet copers is more applicable. I'm finally making headway where I currently am, but the idiocy (institutionalised) that I have to overcome is breathtaking.

Yeah, not saying there is anything wrong with it, I was envious! The long hours thing is definitely a cultural thing here. It's more important to look like you're working a lot, than actually doing a lot. Still, it's my last day on Friday

[Bruce Rioja]

So, besides me, who else is signed off of the EU Working Time Directive?

[Worthy4England]

So, besides me, who else is signed off of the EU Working Time Directive?

By signed off of, do you mean opted out?

[bobo the clown]

So, besides me, who else is signed off of the EU Working Time Directive?

There you go with the "off of" again !!


I've not head of one prosecution for this, ever. We couldn't produce opt-out forms quick enough when the brothers realised it would affect their overtime.

[Beefheart]

That's odd, I haven't ever opted out, nor know of anyone else in the office having opted out, though I'm sure everyone at sometime has breached it several times.

[Bruce Rioja]

So, besides me, who else is signed off of the EU Working Time Directive?

By signed off of, do you mean opted out?

Is 'opt out' correct? I mean I was happy to sign it but the wording was along the lines of 'You are paid to work X amount of hours per week but you hereby agree to works as many hours as are necessary in the completion of your duties for which you'll be getting nowt'.

But yeah, that.

[bobo the clown]

That's odd, I haven't ever opted out, nor know of anyone else in the office having opted out, though I'm sure everyone at sometime has breached it several times.

Check your contract. Also check the small print in any handbooks. Also the small print on any pay-slips.

Further, I'd guess you'd describe yourself as a professional and with managerial responsibilities ... in which case you are deemed to be in control of your own working hours and times, within reason. So this is less likely to impact you as it's for yourself to control ..... or not.

I despair of office workers and professionals who clock watch. I really do.

[Beefheart]

That's odd, I haven't ever opted out, nor know of anyone else in the office having opted out, though I'm sure everyone at sometime has breached it several times.

Check your contract. Also check the small print in any handbooks. Also the small print on any pay-slips.

Further, I'd guess you'd describe yourself as a professional and with managerial responsibilities ... in which case you are deemed to be in control of your own working hours and times, within reason. So this is less likely to impact you as it's for yourself to control ..... or not.

I despair of office workers and professionals who clock watch. I really do.

Yeah, that's pretty much true. I was just thinking of the number of timesheets submitted with far more than 48 hours on them.

[TANGODANCER]

I despair of office workers and professionals who clock watch. I really do.

Never mind, managers apart that's only about 90% of all workers, office or otherwise

[Worthy4England]

So, besides me, who else is signed off of the EU Working Time Directive?

By signed off of, do you mean opted out?

Is 'opt out' correct? I mean I was happy to sign it but the wording was along the lines of 'You are paid to work X amount of hours per week but you hereby agree to works as many hours as are necessary in the completion of your duties for which you'll be getting nowt'.

But yeah, that.

I neither signed the form nor stick to less than 48 hours (we weren't actually sent a form). We can point out that in a rolling 17 week period, we've averaged out at more than 48 hours per week, in which case you get the option to sign the form or be reassigned. I've never come across on occasion where anyone has done this.

I disagree with Bobo, to the extent that if the intention is that you work any hours necessary to complete an undefined series of tasks, then that should be covered in your Contract, without using superficial words like "occasionally" (this may be higher to meet the needs of the business), or other suchlike weasel words that HR think are appropriate.

If you're employing me at salary X to work hours Y and that's what the Contract says, then regardless of managerial position, that should be what predominantly happens. What actually occurs is a form of Corporate bullying. Because Fred works 118 hour weeks, it's expected that everyone does what Fred does. HR should be ashamed of themselves every time they use blx phrases like work/life balance. They part of a Corporate machine and a set of shysters. (Present company excepted )

[bobo the clown]

That's odd, I haven't ever opted out, nor know of anyone else in the office having opted out, though I'm sure everyone at sometime has breached it several times.

Check your contract. Also check the small print in any handbooks. Also the small print on any pay-slips.

Further, I'd guess you'd describe yourself as a professional and with managerial responsibilities ... in which case you are deemed to be in control of your own working hours and times, within reason. So this is less likely to impact you as it's for yourself to control ..... or not.

I despair of office workers and professionals who clock watch. I really do.

Yeah, that's pretty much true. I was just thinking of the number of timesheets submitted with far more than 48 hours on them.

Then, probably, if you look at these timesheets there will be some reference to you accepting these hours. I'm surprised that people deemed in control of their working hours are required to sign a time sheet ... unless it's for attendance monitoring or it's a budgetary device so your hours are all allocated.

[bobo the clown]

I disagree with Bobo, to the extent that if the intention is that you work any hours necessary to complete an undefined series of tasks, then that should be covered in your Contract, without using superficial words like "occasionally" (this may be higher to meet the needs of the business), or other suchlike weasel words that HR think are appropriate.

If you're employing me at salary X to work hours Y and that's what the Contract says, then regardless of managerial position, that should be what predominantly happens. What actually occurs is a form of Corporate bullying. Because Fred works 118 hour weeks, it's expected that everyone does what Fred does. HR should be ashamed of themselves every time they use blx phrases like work/life balance. They part of a Corporate machine and a set of shysters. (Present company excepted )

How very dare you

Yes, it should be spoken of, clearly, in your contract. The contract you get as a job offer can obviously cover relatively little ... the main 'pertinent points'. It will cover your contracted hours and maybe a reference to payment outside of those. On top of that letter are endless extra bits in various handbook, policies & procedures.

I don't think I've ever said the words "work life balance" ... I'm not sure they'd emanate from my mouth in any understandable, coherent form. But if you do, as a professional ... I'm not talking about hourly paid guys here ... you are in on the squeak of starting time and out of the place like a champagne cork at whatever your version of 5pm is then don't be too surprised if you aren't thee one getting the plaudits, the variable bonus' and the promotions.

[Beefheart]

That's odd, I haven't ever opted out, nor know of anyone else in the office having opted out, though I'm sure everyone at sometime has breached it several times.

Check your contract. Also check the small print in any handbooks. Also the small print on any pay-slips.

Further, I'd guess you'd describe yourself as a professional and with managerial responsibilities ... in which case you are deemed to be in control of your own working hours and times, within reason. So this is less likely to impact you as it's for yourself to control ..... or not.

I despair of office workers and professionals who clock watch. I really do.

Yeah, that's pretty much true. I was just thinking of the number of timesheets submitted with far more than 48 hours on them.

Then, probably, if you look at these timesheets there will be some reference to you accepting these hours. I'm surprised that people deemed in control of their working hours are required to sign a time sheet ... unless it's for attendance monitoring or it's a budgetary device so your hours are all allocated.

It's so you can charge your time to whichever client you're working on, so that cost is recorded, and then they can recognise revenue based on that against the fee agreed with each client.

You're right, I'm sure it's something I agreed to when I signed the contract.

[Worthy4England]

I disagree with Bobo, to the extent that if the intention is that you work any hours necessary to complete an undefined series of tasks, then that should be covered in your Contract, without using superficial words like "occasionally" (this may be higher to meet the needs of the business), or other suchlike weasel words that HR think are appropriate.

If you're employing me at salary X to work hours Y and that's what the Contract says, then regardless of managerial position, that should be what predominantly happens. What actually occurs is a form of Corporate bullying. Because Fred works 118 hour weeks, it's expected that everyone does what Fred does. HR should be ashamed of themselves every time they use blx phrases like work/life balance. They part of a Corporate machine and a set of shysters. (Present company excepted )

How very dare you

Yes, it should be spoken of, clearly, in your contract. The contract you get as a job offer can obviously cover relatively little ... the main 'pertinent points'. It will cover your contracted hours and maybe a reference to payment outside of those. On top of that letter are endless extra bits in various handbook, policies & procedures.

I don't think I've ever said the words "work life balance" ... I'm not sure they'd emanate from my mouth in any understandable, coherent form. But if you do, as a professional ... I'm not talking about hourly paid guys here ... you are in on the squeak of starting time and out of the place like a champagne cork at whatever your version of 5pm is then don't be too surprised if you aren't thee one getting the plaudits, the variable bonus' and the promotions.

Like the new clown avatar btw.

I have some clauses in my Contract that override various elements of "various handbooks, policies and procedures", including how variable bonus works - HR love this.

Most businesses will work folks as hard and for as long as they can get away with, even where this leads to higher levels of attrition and therefore additional recruitment, training and job familiarization costs (some of which aren't even measured by HR - they can generally measure the cost of attrition and training - they generally don't have a good handle on the cost of internal coaching etc. opportunity costs lost by IP in folks heads leaving the building etc.). On this basis, I tend to believe like LK that the hidden costs behind attrition are never well articulated and rather the trying to promote levels of attrition as being a key indicator, they should be focused on no attrition and getting the working environment right.

We once set a hard target of folks not working more than 45 hours a week. You be surprised at the innovation they bought to the table to get somewhere near this. (We didn't achieve it, but we got folks working a whole lot smarter)

[Salford Trotter]

No Virgin Media broadband locally for upto 48 hrs due to server issues....thinking of switching so any recommends?

[Worthy4England]

No Virgin Media broadband locally for upto 48 hrs due to server issues....thinking of switching so any recommends?

That used to happen every year with AOL after the clock adjusted. Used to throw out their network time protocols. I think Virgin are housed in the same DC in Irlam.

None of the consumer broadband services by anyone come with a guaranteed Service Level, so in that sense they're all just as likely to drop for some periods of time and apologise for it.

I switched from AOL to BT infinity about 18 months back. Some niggles, but no major outages so far and generally jitter free for streaming stuff. Expensive though if you just use it predominately for email...

[Bijou Bob]

We're with BT who are ok, but at my own house I had Plusnet. Have to say, they were excellent and very cheap. They're from Yarkshire though....

[Hoboh]

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/an ... ar-BBcJqYk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And some think my shoot the bastards is OTT!!