Overtime Question

[motherhubbard]

Given your previous postings, your opinion is that people on pt contracts should get first dibs on ot, therefore if it is followed through the person on the lowest contracted hours gets first dibs on ot[.

No - what I suggested is they got first dibs until they were on a parity with their f/t colleagues.
And so instead of having an overtime aggregate you would have a total hours worked aggregate. Like this.

Postie A is on a 39 hour contract.
Postie B is on a 25 hour contract.

Week 1 there are 2 vacant duties attracting 6 hours each. Postie B signs for them both (as we start the reference period using reverse seniority)
Postie A has now worked 39 hours and postie B 37.

Week 2 - there are 3 vacant duties displayed.
Postie B still has the lower aggregate hours and signs for them all.
Postie A does a stint in the callers getting 5 hours.

Total aggregate now:
Postie A - 83 hours (2x39 plus 5)
Postie B - 80 hours (2x25 plus 30)

Week 3 - there are 3 vacant duties which are signed for by Postie B as he still has the lowest aggregate.
Week 4 - Postie A begins with an aggregate of 122 (3x39 plus 5)
Postie B begins with an aggregate of 123 (3x25 plus 48)
So Postie A now gets first dibs.

Seems much fairer to me.
And while someone on a f/t contract may be in greater need of the overtime than a colleague on a p/t contract I would bet a lot of money that in most cases the opposite is true.
And while most people may use a system similar to the one you have outlined, how many offices have updated their "overtime rules" to reflect the greater number of p/t staff and the increasingly lower contracted hours?

[bogstandard]

Given your previous postings, your opinion is that people on pt contracts should get first dibs on ot, therefore if it is followed through the person on the lowest contracted hours gets first dibs on ot[.

No - what I suggested is they got first dibs until they were on a parity with their f/t colleagues.
And so instead of having an overtime aggregate you would have a total hours worked aggregate. Like this.

Postie A is on a 39 hour contract.
Postie B is on a 25 hour contract.

Week 1 there are 2 vacant duties attracting 6 hours each. Postie B signs for them both (as we start the reference period using reverse seniority)
Postie A has now worked 39 hours and postie B 37.

Week 2 - there are 3 vacant duties displayed.
Postie B still has the lower aggregate hours and signs for them all.
Postie A does a stint in the callers getting 5 hours.

Total aggregate now:
Postie A - 83 hours (2x39 plus 5)
Postie B - 80 hours (2x25 plus 30)

Week 3 - there are 3 vacant duties which are signed for by Postie B as he still has the lowest aggregate.
Week 4 - Postie A begins with an aggregate of 122 (3x39 plus 5)
Postie B begins with an aggregate of 123 (3x25 plus 48)
So Postie A now gets first dibs.

Seems much fairer to me.
And while someone on a f/t contract may be in greater need of the overtime than a colleague on a p/t contract I would bet a lot of money that in most cases the opposite is true.
And while most people may use a system similar to the one you have outlined, how many offices have updated their "overtime rules" to reflect the greater number of p/t staff and the increasingly lower contracted hours?

you are advocating the introduction and use of a practice or policy which is not applicable to all and as such is discriminatory. perhaps discriminartory is harsh but nontheless it does not apply to all and is therefore unfair. Plus they continue to get first dibs until they have increased their hours in line with the ft postie. People do ot for all sorts of reasons and as has been said before ot is voluntary.
What you propose is to preferential treatment of those on pt contracts purley because they are on pt contracts. i don't think its unfair, it's unfair.

[motherhubbard]

you are advocating the introduction and use of a practice or policy which is not applicable to all and as such is discriminatory. perhaps discriminartory is harsh but nontheless it does not apply to all and is therefore unfair.

I am sure that was the response of some people when votes for women was first mooted.
Perish the thought of disrupting the status quo.

[bogstandard]

you are advocating the introduction and use of a practice or policy which is not applicable to all and as such is discriminatory. perhaps discriminartory is harsh but nontheless it does not apply to all and is therefore unfair.

I am sure that was the response of some people when votes for women was first mooted.
Perish the thought of disrupting the status quo.

thanks for that i now understand that even you don't know what you're on about

[motherhubbard]

and as has been said before ot is voluntary.

A very typically male style of argument. I've said it before and I will say it again therefore it must now be true.

If you are on a 25 hour contract and you have the rent /mortgage to pay and 2 kids to feed then ot is not voluntary, it is a necessity.
Ask the part timers in your office if they do overtime to indulge in a wasteful extravagant lifestyle or if they do it simply to make ends meet.

And if we gave them that little advantage, as I have outlined, it would also give the reps at local, Area and Divisional level a little bit more ammunition when the contracts are reviewed.
We could actually improve their lives - and isn't that the trade union way?
But of course a better contract for a part timer might mean less overtime for a full timer and we couldn't have that now could we?

I will just go back to the kitchen now and leave all the important decisions to you men.

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

A very typically male style of argument. I've said it before and I will say it again therefore it must now be true.

If you are on a 25 hour contract and you have the rent /mortgage to pay and 2 kids to feed then ot is not voluntary, it is a necessity.
Ask the part timers in your office if they do overtime to indulge in a wasteful extravagant lifestyle or if they do it simply to make ends meet.

And if we gave them that little advantage, as I have outlined, it would also give the reps at local, Area and Divisional level a little bit more ammunition when the contracts are reviewed.
We could actually improve their lives - and isn't that the trade union way?
But of course a better contract for a part timer might mean less overtime for a full timer and we couldn't have that now could we?

I will just go back to the kitchen now and leave all the important decisions to you men.

The problem is what you want to do is discriminatory, yes you may feel that pt staff are being treated unfairly over ft staff but to do what you suggest and let them get the bigger share of ot is discriminatory and to quote yourself from another thread

Being treated unfairly and being discriminated against are two entirely separate things.

so you would need to find a solution that isnt giving more ot to a certain group of people, you have alluded to a solution but dont seem to have seen the bigger picture, when contracts are reviewed due to ot being worked on a regular basis,

if extra hours are thrown up those hours will not necessarily go to the person who has been working them, so pt postie A may be working an extra 5 hours a week on ot sorting in the morning, so after the review it is agreed to increase the hours in the office by 5 hours, those hours then go to the most senior pt postie B, so then lets take that a little further, if ft staff are working regular hours extra ot in the office, fair enough, office hours should be reviewed so those hours should be put into the office and given to most senior pt staff on contract, the exact same way it would happen for pt staff working extra, that way the hours have been removed from the ft staff and given to the pt staff in a way that doesnt discriminate with a protected characteristic, regular OT is converted to contractual hours, hard part is going to be finding a fair and good enough rep to fight for it

[zzzidane]

When do contracts get reviewed???!!! I've bin on a 25 hour contract since i started over 2 years ago & on average, i work over 40 hours every single week. My contract has never bin reviewed!

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

When do contracts get reviewed???!!! I've bin on a 25 hour contract since i started over 2 years ago & on average, i work over 40 hours every single week. My contract has never bin reviewed!

Have you asked for it to be reviewed?

[bogstandard]

there is none so blind than those who refuse to see.

[zzzidane]

Yes, ive asked for it to be reviewed. Twice this year alone! Asked around the start of this year, rep said he'd look in2 it & a manager said no chance, the RM only want people on 25 hr contracts or less. Asked rep again last month & also got in touch with area rep who gave me the usual..... we r looking into it in our meetings with management over the coming weeks & hopefully we'll get some PT made up to FT etc. We all knw thiswont happen, none of our PT have bin made up for over 6/7 years, despite loads of retirements, VR's & the odd sacking. PI$$ TAKERS

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

Yes, ive asked for it to be reviewed. Twice this year alone! Asked around the start of this year, rep said he'd look in2 it & a manager said no chance, the RM only want people on 25 hr contracts or less. Asked rep again last month & also got in touch with area rep who gave me the usual..... we r looking into it in our meetings with management over the coming weeks & hopefully we'll get some PT made up to FT etc. We all knw thiswont happen, none of our PT have bin made up for over 6/7 years, despite loads of retirements, VR's & the odd sacking. PI$$ TAKERS

Have you put the requests to dom and the union in writing?

also you said it's 40 hours on average, is it 40 hours every week or just most weeks

[zzzidane]

I emailed the cwu local rep, so tht is in writing. Ive nt put it in writing to the DOM because he's already told me theres no point. But i thought the best way to go about sorting out a review would be by going to the union first, which is what i have done. I work, 44 hrs 1 week, thn 49, 51, 45, 39, 42, 47 etc, depends if i work my day off, which invariably, i do.
Even if i was doing say, 34 hrs, thn 38, 36, 34, 33 etc, a contract review which would give me, i dnt know, say a 34 hour contract, i would be happy with that. Just don't think its fair that there is an agreement in place to give you a contract which reflects the actual hours you work but this never happens so you are stuck with your 25 hour contract. Ive never done a basic 25 hour week since i started working for the RM!!!!

[zzzidane]

Also, if i did put it in writing to the DOM, what if this rubbed him up the wrong way & he started making sure i was only working the 25 hours a week my contract says i should?? I'd then be screwed! He could give the extra hours i work to another 25 hour part timer whos not bothered about trying to get an improved/fair contract. I feel like i cant win!!

[motherhubbard]

Is overtime voluntary?
Given that the business model is based on a model week with the necessity to flex up when traffic levels are above that figure, there is a very real expectation that overtime will be available and will need to be worked most of the year. Otherwise the business model falls apart.
You can have skeleton staffing but sometimes you need to put some flesh on the bones.

Now zx says the proposal I made is discriminatory. Bogstandard says that is too harsh a word.
They can't agree and neither are I presume qualified to give an authoritative judgement.
Where does it state that if you are on a full time contract you have to be given an equal access to overtime opportunities along with your part time colleagues?

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

Is overtime voluntary?
Given that the business model is based on a model week with the necessity to flex up when traffic levels are above that figure, there is a very real expectation that overtime will be available and will need to be worked most of the year. Otherwise the business model falls apart.
You can have skeleton staffing but sometimes you need to put some flesh on the bones.

Is over time voluntary? Seriously asking that? Yes it is, there is no legal means to make it compulsory within rm

Now zx says the proposal I made is discriminatory. Bogstandard says that is too harsh a word.
They can't agree and neither are I presume qualified to give an authoritative judgement.
Where does it state that if you are on a full time contract you have to be given an equal access to overtime opportunities along with your part time colleagues?

Ok so you want another example:

http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-inform/employm ... fault.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"A difference in treatment of part-time workers could also lead to a claim of indirect sex discrimination as more women than men work part-time."

So taking from that page, and simply substituting a protected characteristic in this case age for sex discrimination and younger and older for men and women you can see it is equally applicable to age discrimination by treating ft and pt contract workers differently