DGH wrote:Gosh, let's think . . .joewyan wrote:Yes that’s true but why would you take a part time job if you can’t afford to live on those hours?
Maybe because you have been instructed by the JobCentre to get any job that is going?
Maybe because working 20 hours for RM is as good as 30 hours at min. wage and so you changed jobs so you could in fact do more overtime, which you needed to do anyway on your min.wage job to make ends meet?
Maybe because crap as RM often is, it's actually miles better as a job than most of the 'self-employed' jobs out there that are really just licensed corporate exploitation.
If you're on 39 hours at RM you almost certainly don't need your overtime as desperately as someone on 20 hours probably does. You may want it as desperately, but that's a different thing.
Morally speaking nobody on 39 hours should get any overtime unless all the part-timers have declined it because heaps of the p/t staff actually need it.
Yes quite agree 20 hours at RM is as good as 30 at minimum wage but DON’T take a job if you can’t live on the wage without overtime. Surely that’s common sense! As a part timer I think your claim that FT staff shouldn’t get overtime until all PT staff have what they want is ridiculous, why should FT staff be disadvantaged because other people have less contracted hours.