Overtime Question

[midvillain]

Would you say that overtime should be shared out equally, regardless of contracted hours, or would you say the fairest thing to do would be to make sure those on less hours be allowed the opportunity to earn a similar amount of money to their more fortunate full-time colleagues?

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

shared out equally using an aggregate list, just because someone is on a contract with less hours doesn't mean that people who have been getting that overtime in some cases for over 10 years should suddenly accept a pay cut

[midvillain]

It's not a question of anyone getting a pay cut. I suppose I have to abide by what the majority wants, even if it goes against my own principles

[motherhubbard]

I agree that p/t staff should get the bulk of the overtime.
If you use an aggregate system - when the year starts and everyone is put at zero, someone on a 30 hour contract should be put on minus 500.
Someone on a 25 hr contract should be put to minus 750.
I don't think anything else would be fair.
Obviously the old full timer who gets his 2 hours every Wednesday for staring at himself in the mirror and scratching his nuts won't be happy but who cares?

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

Obviously the old full timer who gets his 2 hours every Wednesday for staring at himself in the mirror and scratching his nuts won't be happy but who cares?

but that doesn't make it fair, that old timer took on the job years ago knowing he would get that ot every week for life(that's what it looked like back then) same can be said for the part timer they took on that 24 hour contract knowing that's what they would get, everyone that wants ot should get an equal share regardless of contracted hours

it would also be age discrimination, ft contract holders tend to be older, so giving ot to generally younger members of staff on pt contracts would be discrimination

[midvillain]

I find it hard to deal with things like this, so I suppose it just has to go down to what the majority want, and sod the rest

[motherhubbard]

Obviously the old full timer who gets his 2 hours every Wednesday for staring at himself in the mirror and scratching his nuts won't be happy but who cares?

but that doesn't make it fair, that old timer took on the job years ago knowing he would get that ot every week for life(that's what it looked like back then) same can be said for the part timer they took on that 24 hour contract knowing that's what they would get, everyone that wants ot should get an equal share regardless of contracted hours

it would also be age discrimination, ft contract holders tend to be older, so giving ot to generally younger members of staff on pt contracts would be discrimination

Nothing is fair.
Generally those people didn't choose a p/t contract over a f/t job. That is all that was on offer.
I would be happy to see no overtime available to anyone, because at least then we would know that every job was filled.
However if you have a situation where vacancies are deliberately left unfilled to allow for overtime opportunities, then I don't see how giving the p.t staff preferential treatment in the allocation of that overtime is wrong. And I think you are talking bollocks when you start going on about discrimination.
What is the union for? I would hope to see everyone on a living wage. A 25 hour contract isn't a living wage and they shouldn't have to then fight for what overtime is available.
And someone on a 39 hour permanent contract with all the advantages that brings for pro rata this and that and pensions etc should understand that.

[motherhubbard]

I find it hard to deal with things like this, so I suppose it just has to go down to what the majority want, and sod the rest

I too find it difficult.
I don't think the majority protecting their own interests at the expense of a minority should be acceptable.

But maybe I just listen to too much Green Day:

I want to be the minority
I don't need your authority
Down with the moral majority
'Cause I want to be the minority

[franco1]

The way things are going at RM you can be certain there will be enough O/T for EVERYONE!

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

Obviously the old full timer who gets his 2 hours every Wednesday for staring at himself in the mirror and scratching his nuts won't be happy but who cares?

but that doesn't make it fair, that old timer took on the job years ago knowing he would get that ot every week for life(that's what it looked like back then) same can be said for the part timer they took on that 24 hour contract knowing that's what they would get, everyone that wants ot should get an equal share regardless of contracted hours

it would also be age discrimination, ft contract holders tend to be older, so giving ot to generally younger members of staff on pt contracts would be discrimination

Nothing is fair.
Generally those people didn't choose a p/t contract over a f/t job. That is all that was on offer.
I would be happy to see no overtime available to anyone, because at least then we would know that every job was filled.
However if you have a situation where vacancies are deliberately left unfilled to allow for overtime opportunities, then I don't see how giving the p.t staff preferential treatment in the allocation of that overtime is wrong. And I think you are talking bollocks when you start going on about discrimination.
What is the union for? I would hope to see everyone on a living wage. A 25 hour contract isn't a living wage and they shouldn't have to then fight for what overtime is available.
And someone on a 39 hour permanent contract with all the advantages that brings for pro rata this and that and pensions etc should understand that.

bollocking? its indirect discrimination

http://m.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1841" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Indirect discrimination
Can occur where there is a policy, practice, procedure or workplace rule which applies to all workers, but particularly disadvantages people of a particular age.

and there are lots more examples, any policy which causes disadvantage due to age is discrimination, hence why seniority is also not allowed to be used to decide who gets over time as that would be discrimination against younger members of staff

[motherhubbard]

We have part timers who are in their sixties.
Being on a p/t contract doesn't mean you are younger than anyone else.
On the other hand we don't have anyone with 30 years seniority who is in their 20s.
So I don't see how it could be classed as age discrimination and last time I looked being on a f/t contract was not a protected characteristic.

[halfull]

The way things are going at RM you can be certain there will be enough O/T for EVERYONE!

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

We have part timers who are in their sixties.
Being on a p/t contract doesn't mean you are younger than anyone else.
On the other hand we don't have anyone with 30 years seniority who is in their 20s.
So I don't see how it could be classed as age discrimination and last time I looked being on a f/t contract was not a protected characteristic.

being on a ft contract is not the protected characteristic, age is the protected characteristic, generally FT contract holders are older and PT contract holders are younger, yes there are older PT staff and younger FT staff as well, but in general because new starts generally start on PT contract there is an age imbalance on PT and FT contracts over the company, and its this age diference is the protected characteristic, if you work in anything from a medium sized office upwards it is easy to see, and because of this age imbalance you cannot apply a policy which has a negative affect on FT staff or alternatively on PT staff the policy has to be equal to both sets of staff

[bogstandard]

ot is voluntary and all volunteers are treated equally.
As everybody starts on zero hours for the reference period it would be unfair to introduce a criteria which doesn't apply to all. Like not having the skills or being trained. if there was only 1 piece of ot that you (with the lowest hours) were not trained to do you should get trained on that task, either before th day in question or on the day itself by if needs be the next most senior person with the lowest hours and skills required and who has expressed a preference via the overtime volunteer sheets.

[motherhubbard]

ot is voluntary and all volunteers are treated equally.
As everybody starts on zero hours for the reference period .

I think this is the point being made in the first post.
Not everybody is being treated equally because some people take home a basic 39 hr week salary and others only 25 hours.
So why not, like with horse races, introduce a "handicap" so some start the reference period at minus whatever to even up the playing field.
Or are the horses being discriminated against?