Continuous increases in work without any consultation.

Quadrivium

I work in the security industry and as such our company supplies staff to various organisations around the country.

But sometimes clients seem to think security are there as general dogs body's who should be available to take on any and all extra duties if and when they decide, regardless of the fact these extra duties have nothing to do with the position I am employed for.

Is it legal for employers to force employees to continually take on extra duties without any agreement? Should I complain to HR or take a case to the Rights commissioner?

Any and all opinions are much appreciated.

Mrs OBumble

Does your contract say "other duties as required" (most do)? If so, then it's absolutely legal.

Are the other things which clients are asking for actually stopping you doing the security work? If so, you need to be talking to your manager, so they can re-set the client's expectations.

But really, most security guards I see look as though they're bored out of their brains, and would welcome any extra entertainment.

Quadrivium

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Does your contract say "other duties as required" (most do)? If so, then it's absolutely legal.

Are the other things which clients are asking for actually stopping you doing the security work? If so, you need to be talking to your manager, so they can re-set the client's expectations.

But really, most security guards I see look as though they're bored out of their brains, and would welcome any extra entertainment.

But other duties as required is so vague, do you really think other duties would cover such things as cleaning, manual labour? I would expect the other duties would have to be relative to security.

That would appear to contradict the Terms of Employment Act 1994 to 2001.
No persons can unilaterally change contracts of employment.

Stheno

Quadrivium wrote: »

But other duties as required is so vague, do you really think other duties would cover such things as cleaning, manual labour? I would expect the other duties would have to be relative to security.

That would appear to contradict the Terms of Employment Act 1994 to 2001.
No persons can unilaterally change contracts of employment.

That's why the term is there.

It's to cover doing any additional duties that may arise.

And if it's there it's already part of your contract so it's not a change

LegacyUser

Perhaps you need to inform your company that as a result of the other duties your primary duties cannot be properly done?

That way you are not refusing the other duties, simply highlighting that you can't be in two places at once.

Of course it won't stop them from making sure you are kept busy.

Quadrivium

Guys, do you really think the term 'other duties as required' involves cleaning and other non security related tasks?
Do you think this would stand up in the employment appeals tribunal?
So basically, once 'other duties as required' is on any contract that means you are expected to do any and all extra duties regardless of the nature or how many there are?

Mrs OBumble

Quadrivium wrote: »

Guys, do you really think the term 'other duties as required' involves cleaning and other non security related tasks?
Do you think this would stand up in the employment appeals tribunal?
So basically, once 'other duties as required' is on any contract that means you are expected to do any and all extra duties regardless of the nature or how many there are?

Yes,i do, provided the other duties dont stop you doing the coee job.

Quadrivium

Well then let's be straight, contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on then are they.
So, the system is set up so the employer can exploit workers and not have to pay any extra for extra work.
This is an absolute farce!

the_syco

Quadrivium wrote: »

I work in the security industry and as such our company supplies staff to various organisations around the country.

Ask your employer about these duties, not the company that you're working in. But ask if your employer is paid for the extra work. I'm thinking not.

Quadrivium wrote: »

But sometimes clients seem to think security are there as general dogs body's who should be available to take on any and all extra duties if and when they decide, regardless of the fact these extra duties have nothing to do with the position I am employed for.

Look to see if the duties that they're getting you to do can compromise your ability to do your job. If yes, then your employer may look into it, but of not, your employer may tend to turn a blind eye to it, so pick your battles wisely.

Quadrivium

the_syco wrote: »

Ask your employer about these duties, not the company that you're working in. But ask if your employer is paid for the extra work. I'm thinking not.


Look to see if the duties that they're getting you to do can compromise your ability to do your job. If yes, then your employer may look into it, but of not, your employer may tend to turn a blind eye to it, so pick your battles wisely.

The company know about it, they never say no to a client and it is myself and my colleagues who have to take on these extra duties as a result. It's got to the stage now where it is an expectation, we're not even asked.
Whenever an extra duty is added we just get told 'from now on you will also be doing x'

The vast majority of the extra duties have nothing to do with the job we are initially employed to do. It's a total piss take!

the_syco

Quadrivium wrote: »

The company know about it, they never say no to a client

Time to either look elsewhere for a job, or check with mates at work to see if it's commonplace in your industry since maybe 3 or 4 years ago.

Michael D Not Higgins

Speak to your manager about the escalating expectations. Since they're already aware of the extra duties, suggest to them that either more staff are required or more pay is.

Be prepared for them to ignore you and maintain their current practices, and look elsewhere for a job if you're not happy with that.

No Pants

I'm not sure if more pay is needed as long as the priority of all tasks is understood by all. For example, I don't work in security, I'm a project manager at present. My manager, my account management and the client can all come to me with additional work requests. I always scope the work and find out how important it is and make it very clear that there's a cost attached. I'm not referring to money, more to the fact that if I have 8 hours of work planned and they give me something else to do that takes 4 hours, then only half of the original work gets done today.

TL;DR they have 40 hours of me to spend however they wish. Additional me may be purchased if available.

Michael D Not Higgins

No Pants wrote: »

I'm not sure if more pay is needed as long as the priority of all tasks is understood by all.

It's more a bargaining chip to use in negotiations with the manager. It's very unlikely they'll agree to a salary increase, similarly it's unlikely they'll agree to a staff increase, but perhaps they'll listen to the concerns of their staff and come up with a mutual agreement.

hardCopy

Are you required to work extra unpaid hours to get these tasks done, or are you just moved to another area temporarily?

Quadrivium

hardCopy wrote: »

Are you required to work extra unpaid hours to get these tasks done, or are you just moved to another area temporarily?

No extra hours needed, just additional duties to be completed within my normal working hours. All of which have nothing at all to do with security.

Mrs OBumble

OP, you've never said whether any of these additional duties stop you from doing your security duties.


And I wonder if you have an overly-limtied view of what "security" means. I would absolutely see that cleaning is a core part of health-and-safety, which is surely one aspect of security, ie keeping people safe?

Quadrivium

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

OP, you've never said whether any of these additional duties stop you from doing your security duties.


And I wonder if you have an overly-limtied view of what "security" means. I would absolutely see that cleaning is a core part of health-and-safety, which is surely one aspect of security, ie keeping people safe?

Mrs O Bumble, it is irrelevant if it effects security duties. Health and safety is everyone's business but you don't see accountants cleaning the tables where they work.

I know well what is involved in security work and my view is not limited but informed. It appears it is you who has the limited view of security and what it means. Nowhere in any security course is cleaning mentioned or taught. Cleaning is a totally separate function/service.

This is just another instance of parasitic exploitative employers trying to extract the urine, all too common these days.

Mrs OBumble

Quadrivium wrote: »

Mrs O Bumble, it is irrelevant if it effects security duties.

Ahh, no, it's totally relevant.

You can only realistically complain about being asked to do "extra" if doing so stops you from doing your primary job, or requires skills you haven't got and cannot reasonably be expected to learn.

The "I'm a XXX so I can't do YYY" mentality is extremely career limiting in almost all jobs, and totally doesn't fly in small companies.

Quadrivium

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ahh, no, it's totally relevant.

You can only realistically complain about being asked to do "extra" if doing so stops you from doing your primary job, or requires skills you haven't got and cannot reasonably be expected to learn.

The "I'm a XXX so I can't do YYY" mentality is extremely career limiting in almost all jobs, and totally doesn't fly in small companies.

I suspect you are in some part involved in this sort of exploitation, hence your extremely biased opinion. Based on nothing more than that, your opinion.

I have no interest in a career in security, it is a stop gap job and a job that pays barely above minimum wage, it is exploitation to expect someone who is hired for a primary task such as security to do an infinite amount of extra non security related tasks for which they are not payed for.

Don't assume I am some sort of idiot because I work as a security guard, I am very highly educated and well informed on employment law and its application.

Irish workers are increasingly being exploited by unscrupulous parasitic employers who think people are little more than economic commodities to be used, abused and discarded, particularly in the service industry.

This type of attitude is abhorrent and will ultimately lead to the demise of such employers, the recession will not last forever, as soon as things pick up even slightly there will be an exodus of these employees to jobs with better pay and better conditions and many of these companies will fold, rightly so in my opinion.

doolox

I remember working for a particularly mean and dysfunctional boss who had us doing cleaning jobs etc as part of our work. We were qualified technicians some with many years experience in the industry and had to clean our areas during each shift to save money on contract cleaners.
The office and admin staff, many of whom were less qualified and less senior than us, did not have to do this work in their areas as it would involve a certain obligation on more senior management to "pitch in" and help with this undesirable work.

We got a new and more knowledgeable supervisor who vetoed the managers insistence on technically qualified staff having to do unreasonable quantities of cleaning work because it was a waste of skilled resources and bad for morale in view of the office staff being given preferential treatment.

In another job it was amusing to find that while the Hardware techs had to carry in and out most of the goods and parts needed for the jobs the software staff did not have to although many had equal qualifications. Efforts made by senior management to spread the heavy lifting around were met with mixed results, some would cooperate and some would not. At least my immediate managers were making an honest effort to enforce equality of duties against awkward opposition from some people.

As regards modern cleaning jobs, many are now specialised jobs requiring training and handling hazardous chemicals. While I might sweep or move light objects out of harms way for a brief period of time in a security role, I would be unwilling to engage in cleaning toilets, for example, or operating vacuum cleaners, floor polishers etc ( need training in industrial settings) or anything involving cleaning chemicals, industrial machinery etc. Prioritising my main role of watching for breaches of security would be my main concern.

AngryHippie

Quadrivium wrote: »

Well then let's be straight, contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on then are they.
So, the system is set up so the employer can exploit workers and not have to pay any extra for extra work.
This is an absolute farce!

Get back to work.

Or jobsbridge.

Any questions ?

AngryHippie

Quadrivium wrote: »

I suspect you are in some part involved in this sort of exploitation, hence your extremely biased opinion. Based on nothing more than that, your opinion.

I have no interest in a career in security, it is a stop gap job and a job that pays barely above minimum wage, it is exploitation to expect someone who is hired for a primary task such as security to do an infinite amount of extra non security related tasks for which they are not payed for.

Don't assume I am some sort of idiot because I work as a security guard, I am very highly educated and well informed on employment law and its application.

Irish workers are increasingly being exploited by unscrupulous parasitic employers who think people are little more than economic commodities to be used, abused and discarded, particularly in the service industry.

This type of attitude is abhorrent and will ultimately lead to the demise of such employers, the recession will not last forever, as soon as things pick up even slightly there will be an exodus of these employees to jobs with better pay and better conditions and many of these companies will fold, rightly so in my opinion.

You are paid to work.

If your security guarding skills aren't required at a particular moment in time, then work as directed, unless there is something you need training to do or safety equipment you don't have.

Its pretty simple, you are not getting paid to do nothing.

pretty simple. You provide a PRESENCESERVICE to your employer, they give you a financial award.

You don't get paid for just showing up.

Get back to work:rolleyes:

Quadrivium

AngryHippie wrote: »

You are paid to work.

If your security guarding skills aren't required at a particular moment in time, then work as directed, unless there is something you need training to do or safety equipment you don't have.

Its pretty simple, you are not getting paid to do nothing.

pretty simple. You provide a PRESENCESERVICE to your employer, they give you a financial award.

You don't get paid for just showing up.

Get back to work:rolleyes:

Hahaha, you sound like exactly the type of reprobate that is hell bent on destroying hard fought for workers rights and conditions. I bet you wouldn't be so quick with your mouth if the shoe were on the other foot.

Security guarding is a form of insurance, sure the security guard may not have much to do some of the time but when the smelly stuff hits the fan and several scum bags try to enter a premises or venue then it is the security staff and the security staff alone who will have to confront and deal with this threat until the Gardai arrive. If security staff have to put themselves in harms way even just once they've earned their money for the year.

Also, we have job titles and job descriptions for a reason. Any employer who seeks to exploit workers and is not willing to pay staff a premium for extra work is acting in an immoral and unjustified manner, that behaviour makes such an employer little more than vermin.

Michael D Not Higgins

OP, have you asked your manager about the situation yet? What was their response?

Bandana boy

In fairness the problem appears to be about the type of work not workload OP is doing.

Your Customer and the company who pays your firm is asking for the Security function to be flexible and cover other roles through the day ,this would be pretty standard practise nowadays as Security tenders are quite competitive.

This is not an evil company asking you to do "extra" work but a company trying to maximise the return on the service they are paying for .

While frustrating that your security job also involves cleaning and the like the reality is that unskilled labour jobs are easily filled so a stance of "not my job" with your company will not end well and as other security firms will offer this type of flexibilty your firm will need to continue being flexible in the future.

hardCopy

Quadrivium wrote: »

Hahaha, you sound like exactly the type of reprobate that is hell bent on destroying hard fought for workers rights and conditions. I bet you wouldn't be so quick with your mouth if the shoe were on the other foot.

Security guarding is a form of insurance, sure the security guard may not have much to do some of the time but when the smelly stuff hits the fan and several scum bags try to enter a premises or venue then it is the security staff and the security staff alone who will have to confront and deal with this threat until the Gardai arrive. If security staff have to put themselves in harms way even just once they've earned their money for the year.

Also, we have job titles and job descriptions for a reason. Any employer who seeks to exploit workers and is not willing to pay staff a premium for extra work is acting in an immoral and unjustified manner, that behaviour makes such an employer little more than vermin.

There is NOTHING exploitative about asking you to do some cleaning on your downtime. If a bunch of scumbags enter the building you drop the mop and go help. You just don't want to because you think you're above cleaning the floors.

You should leave the job, your boss won't miss you.

Quadrivium

hardCopy wrote: »

There is NOTHING exploitative about asking you to do some cleaning on your downtime. If a bunch of scumbags enter the building you drop the mop and go help. You just don't want to because you think you're above cleaning the floors.

You should leave the job, your boss won't miss you.

Yes, it is exploitative. Yours is exactly the type of attitude that is destroying working conditions and wages across all industries.

You know nothing about me or what I do, you know little of what my job entails. Your assumptions are very telling. I don't want to do it because I already do a lot for the money I get paid, I already do several other jobs that have nothing to do with security in any way and this is the straw that will break the camels back.

So you really think a worker should willingly do an infinite amount of tasks regardless of the fact they were not originally employed for such tasks?

That's a ridiculous notion.

Quadrivium

Bandana boy wrote: »

In fairness the problem appears to be about the type of work not workload OP is doing.

Your Customer and the company who pays your firm is asking for the Security function to be flexible and cover other roles through the day ,this would be pretty standard practise nowadays as Security tenders are quite competitive.

This is not an evil company asking you to do "extra" work but a company trying to maximise the return on the service they are paying for .

While frustrating that your security job also involves cleaning and the like the reality is that unskilled labour jobs are easily filled so a stance of "not my job" with your company will not end well and as other security firms will offer this type of flexibilty your firm will need to continue being flexible in the future.

Well of course it's the type of work, but it's not just that.
I already do at least 5 other tasks every day that I am not employed to do, as such the responsibility for these additional tasks has fallen to me as well as the consequences involved if they are not done.

It is unfair to expect an employee of any type to do endless tasks and take on endless responsibilities, all of which are sticks to beat the employee with if something goes wrong with any of them.

Where is the line? At what point is it too much?
Many of you here are obviously in positions were you are either exploiting employees in this manner or have done, as such your views are totally one sided and warped and your assessments are certainly not based on the entirety of the situation.

AngryHippie

I think if you are showing up for an 8 or 10 hour shift, then you should be doing something productive for the bulk of that time.

If you don't like the job, quit. simples. There are more people than jobs in this world, long story short, someone will do it if you won't, and by not doing it, you are keeping someone productive out of a job, so how about you suck it up or pack it in.

I worked quite a few jobs like this over the years, (not security) but where my primary job description was one thing (Barman, lifeguard, usher etc.) but was written plus other duties as required.
All of those jobs at some stage involved cleaning work areas, toilets, windows, minor maintenance, runs for change, procurement, heavy manual labor, and security. I never whinged about it, as I considered it all part of a days work.


Take a look at the tasks that need to be performed in the workplace. If someone had to be employed for each of them, there would be a dozen slackers standing are round jawing about the weekend all the time.
Ireland's labor laws have in fact made this situation worse by having permanent part-time positions, which removes any flexibility that employers may have. Casual work needs to be re-introduced.

To be honest your sense of entitlement smacks of public sector to me. Generally the hideout of the lazy and incompetent. (they don't always start out that way, but the culture drags them down) (also not saying that every civil servant is either lazy or incompetent, but if the good ones look left, and then right, they'll see someone that is one or the other or both).

Anyway, I don't think your attitude will change until such time as you are running your own enterprise. At that stage I suspect the penny will drop.

Best of luck with it.

Quadrivium

AngryHippie wrote: »

I think if you are showing up for an 8 or 10 hour shift, then you should be doing something productive for the bulk of that time.

Why are you assuming I am not productive? I am very productive, I already do many extra tasks that are in no way related to my position.

If you don't like the job, quit. simples. There are more people than jobs in this world, long story short, someone will do it if you won't, and by not doing it, you are keeping someone productive out of a job, so how about you suck it up or pack it in.

If only was that "simples" That's part of the proble too, an over supply of labour and an increasing amount of cheap foreign labour pouring into the country to the glee of exploitative employers. Again, you are presuming I am not productive which is an error on your part, but if it makes you feel more comfortable with your exploitative attitude feel free to continue coming to false assumptions.

I worked quite a few jobs like this over the years, (not security) but where my primary job description was one thing (Barman, lifeguard, usher etc.) but was written plus other duties as required.
All of those jobs at some stage involved cleaning work areas, toilets, windows, minor maintenance, runs for change, procurement, heavy manual labor, and security. I never whinged about it, as I considered it all part of a days work.

Well if it was only 1 or 3 extra tasks that would be fine, but if you were willing to work an infinite amount of tasks for no extra compensation then that makes you a fool, there's no honour in being exploited. The fact you considered it all part of a days work gives an insight into your frame of mind, sheep like without the ability to form opinions based on critical analysis.

Take a look at the tasks that need to be performed in the workplace. If someone had to be employed for each of them, there would be a dozen slackers standing are round jawing about the weekend all the time.
Ireland's labor laws have in fact made this situation worse by having permanent part-time positions, which removes any flexibility that employers may have. Casual work needs to be re-introduced.

You've managed to contradict yourself here in spectacular fashion.
If the jobs in a workplace need to be performed and someone needs to be employed to do these jobs then it's likely they wouldn't be standing around discussing the weekend, they would be busy doing those jobs that need to be done.

As for labour law in Ireland, it doesn't go nearly far enough. Employers get off very lightly in Ireland. I've seen employers get away with little more than a slap on the wrist for employing illegal immigrants, not paying basic entitlements or pay etc. We need harsher punishments for employers who continually flout employment law.

To be honest your sense of entitlement smacks of public sector to me. Generally the hideout of the lazy and incompetent. (they don't always start out that way, but the culture drags them down) (also not saying that every civil servant is either lazy or incompetent, but if the good ones look left, and then right, they'll see someone that is one or the other or both).

Again with the assumptions, I've never worked in the private sector and I certainly don't have any sense of entitlement, other than a sense of entitlement for my basic rights as a worker. You obviously have a serious gripe against public sector workers, you sound like a begrudger.

Anyway, I don't think your attitude will change until such time as you are running your own enterprise. At that stage I suspect the penny will drop.

Best of luck with it.

I have had my own company, I've employed between 10 and 13 people and I always treated them with respect and they received every entitlement and allowance they were entitled to and deserved. Due to the serious downturn in the economy in 2009

This company I work for repeatedly flout employment law, don't pay allowances they should, don't pay overtime allowances they should and they have a history of exploiting workers, both legal and illegal workers. Considering all this do you really think this company deserves the continued good will of its employees?