The reaction of your employer to Ophelia

Pintman Paddy Losty

weldoninhio wrote: »

Section 20 of the Organisation of Working Time Act renders it illegal to "dock" someone annual leave at such short notice. So he literally docked them pay.

Wrong again. As usual.

My business was open for business. I was there. Employees were free to come in if they wanted or could take leave. It wasn't enforced leave.

Doctor Nick

weldoninhio wrote: »

Section 20 of the Organisation of Working Time Act renders it illegal to "dock" someone annual leave at such short notice. So he literally docked them pay.

Yep, I said docking annual leave is the same as docking pay in my opinion. Wasn't sure of the legal implications of this.

Pintman Paddy Losty

I must say it's great to get so much legal and management advice from people who couldn't run an egg and spoon race let alone a business. I've been doing it wrong all these years.

Despite managing to keep a building materials and supplies store operating during the worst recession in our history I'm the one who is wrong.

Cienciano

mariaalice wrote: »

Your actions are even worse than someone who insisted that employees come to work, because you want it both ways and do not want to take any responsibility or make a decision.

If they came in and were killed or injured by a fallen tree you can could clam it was their decision to come in, its weaselly.

You're a boards member since 2006. Surely you notice a certain pattern with some posters by now?

mariaalice

Cienciano wrote: »

You're a boards member since 2006. Surely you notice a certain pattern with some posters by now?

Its the ones who are asking boards members to metaphysically beat them up are fascinating it like a form of public confession.

DeanAustin

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

I must say it's great to get so much legal and management advice from people who couldn't run an egg and spoon race let alone a business. I've been doing it wrong all these years.

Despite managing to keep a building materials and supplies store during the worst recession in our history I'm the one who is wrong.

Your approach seems like you're focused on short termism above everything else to me. "Look after the pennies..." and all that which I believe can do you some long term harm.

That said, it's your business and your money and you've done something (run a business for many years) that few people on here have done. It's easy for us to pontificate when we aren't risking our own money so fair play to you.

I don't agree with the approach you've outlined here but it's easy for me to say from behind a computer screen. You've earned the right to run your business as you see fit and some of the comments against you on here are unnecessarily harsh and idealistic.

A_Sober_Paddy

My employers response was a disgrace. I'm hoping to get my hands n the memo that went around and i'll be posting it online(names redacted).

Basically our stores only closed because the shopping centres they were in kicked us out. And one center had to threaten legal action and the HSA in order for the store to close.

Absolute disgrace from the big bosses:mad:

Company is worth close to $2 billion but were more concerned about being opened and endangering its staff and the staff of shopping centres they are based in

witchgirl26

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

I must say it's great to get so much legal and management advice from people who couldn't run an egg and spoon race let alone a business. I've been doing it wrong all these years.

Despite managing to keep a building materials and supplies store operating during the worst recession in our history I'm the one who is wrong.

Curiosity here as you skipped over my last post replying to you. If there had been an accident due to the storm that injured an employee in your work place, did you not consider the impact this would have on your insurance premium and that you would be liable for costs relating to same injury?

This was the reason a lot of places closed doors. Sure partially out of altruism but also practicality of it costing them a lot more than it was worth potentially.

Also I'm not questioning your ability to run a business in general - if you've kept head above water in this industry over the past 10 years than fair play. I'm more questioning your response to an unprecedented national event that had the leader of the country appearing on tv telling people to stay indoors unless it was absolutely necessary to travel.

Deusexmachina

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Wrong again. As usual.

My business was open for business. I was there. Employees were free to come in if they wanted or could take leave. It wasn't enforced leave.

On what basis do people feel entitled to an employers money because there is a storm? Surely he/she should only have to pay money for actual work done?
It’s not the employers fault the wind is blowing.
The sense of entitlement is astonishing. ‘How dare you not pay me for staying at home’.
Jokers.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Deusexmachina

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Dead right. Everyone can stay at home. Don’t be expected to be paid though. Why should you?

.......

This post has been deleted.

DaeryssaOne

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Dead right. Everyone can stay at home. Don’t be expected to be paid though. Why should you?

Because it's not everyone 'can' stay at home, it's everyone 'should' stay at home (for their own safety)
What the Taoiseach actually said has a very different meaning to 'Hey everyone I'm giving the country the day off tomorrow, don't bother showing up!'

Deusexmachina

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Salary or not - someone is paying you for the work you do. That’s fair and reasonable isn’t it?
You dont expect to be paid for not working, or do you?
Why should being salaried entitle you to be paid for not working while you agree with clocked workers not being paid?
Nonsense.

weldoninhio

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

I am talking about during very wet days (we get a lot of these in ireland) when my employees spend their time sitting on boxes in the store room chewing gum and talking about soccer because theres very few customers coming through the door. I still pay them full wages despite the business not making money. They know that they'll also work hard during busy days.

Thats horseshit and you know it. Of course you pay them full wages. They are in work for the hours you scheduled them. Its not their fault that you have no customers. But you have also said you expect them to stay for free if something has to be done, you want to have your cake and eat it.

Free labour for you in a work emergency, free nothing for the staff when there's a national emergency. You are a spoofer.

DeanAustin

Deusexmachina wrote: »

On what basis do people feel entitled to an employers money because there is a storm? Surely he/she should only have to pay money for actual work done?
It’s not the employers fault the wind is blowing.
The sense of entitlement is astonishing. ‘How dare you not pay me for staying at home’.
Jokers.

There's a real sense of entitlement off some people alright.

It's easy, like me, if you manage a team in a big company that isn't yours. Giving staff the day off is a nice thing to do but the company makes hundreds of millions so the effect is not huge. I suspect a lot of people are looking at it through that lens.

Its different if it's your business and your money. If you're making a living but not a fortune from it and you've lost a days business, would you take that loss completely knowing it comes out of your pocket? In that context, i.e. giving the staff annual leave, I don't think the fella is acting unreasonably.

The comments about him bringing his staff for a Christmas meal and drink also reek of entitlement. It's probably costing him, personally, the bones of €500 even allowing for the tax write off.

How many managers on here spend that much on their employees. And I mean out of their own pocket, not on a company credit card/expense account. I've not seen many in my time in various companies.

Deusexmachina

DeanAustin wrote: »

There's a real sense of entitlement off some people alright.

It's easy, like me, if you manage a team in a big company that isn't yours. Giving staff the day off is a nice thing to do but the company makes hundreds of millions so the effect is not huge. I suspect a lot of people are looking at it through that lens.

Its different if it's your business and your money. If you're making a living but not a fortune from it and you've lost a days business, would you take that loss completely knowing it comes out of your pocket? In that context, i.e. giving the staff annual leave, I don't think the fella is acting unreasonably.

The comments about him bringing his staff for a Christmas meal and drink also reek of entitlement. It's probably costing him, personally, the bones of €500 even allowing for the tax write off.

How many managers on here spend that much on their employees. And I mean out of their own pocket, not on a company credit card/expense account. I've not seen many in my time in various companies.

Exactly. It’s very tough to employ people as a small business, very often staff get paid before the owner - and if cash flow is poor then the boss has to do without - staff get paid first.

jmayo

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Of course. That goes with the job. I also don't stop the clock and stop paying them when it's quite inclement weather and I've very few people coming in.

This business ebbs and flows. My employees are well aware of this and muck in when they need to as they know there are plenty of oither times when it's very quiet. If it was a very wet week I'd be well within my rights to reduce staff hours and send people home, but I don't. I keep them on the same hours.

For instance we had a busy couple of days this week after the storm and people knew they may not get their full break and would be flat to the mat. They also know they might have it a lot handier next week when the rain comes.

You have been blattering on about how great a businessman you are and how you have kept your type of business going even though huge downturn in construction.
You even lament how you have to pay staff when there aren't customers.

And yet you open up shop on a day when all the people in the state have been advised by Met Service and told by the leader of the state to stay indoors and not go out.

How many customers did you expect to get on Monday ?
How many builders were out looking for materials on one of the supposed windiest days in decades ?
How many deliveries did you expect to get ?

You complain about having staff sitting around doing nothing and that is what you probably got on Monday.
Oh and added to that you had to pay for lighting, heating, electricity, etc on the day with the added chance that someone could sue the fooking ar** off your insurance if the storm had lived up to it's expectations and there were any major injuries.

For someone with such a great business acumen you can't see the bigger fooking picture and exhibit the same mentality that has been all too evident in the history of this state.
And probably why down through the years we have created fook all enterprises that compete globally unlike similar countries.

And of course it didn't take long for the other little business moguls to appear lauding you and lambasting employees as having a sense of entitlement.

arctictree

I think DeanAustin has hit the nail on the head here.

For large profitable businesses, its not unreasonable for staff to expect to be paid for events of this nature.

For small businesses, where the owner is down a days income, its not unreasonable for him to not pay staff for that day. He still has other fixed costs to pay.

jmayo

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Exactly. It’s very tough to employ people as a small business, very often staff get paid before the owner - and if cash flow is poor then the boss has to do without - staff get paid first.

I wonder would also believe in the reverse, you know where the staff get to share in the profits. :rolleyes:

Ginger83

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

No. As I've stated at least ten times now, I didn't force anyone to come in to work.

Jesus imagine working with an attitude like that.

Your place must be like Ryanair, a real stopshop until something better comes along.

It sounds like you need to take a course in people management skills.

weldoninhio

arctictree wrote: »

I think DeanAustin has hit the nail on the head here.

For large profitable businesses, its not unreasonable for staff to expect to be paid for events of this nature.

For small businesses, where the owner is down a days income, its not unreasonable for him to not pay staff for that day. He still has other fixed costs to pay.

If ALL of his staff had turned up on Monday, he probably still would have had zero customers or income.

.......

This post has been deleted.

meeeeh

We were open in the morning because the storm wasn't due till mid day and nobody is relying on public transport. After securing the premises and making sure everything was ok we all left and all employees were paid for the day. I might have different opinion if it went on for longer period because it would be hard for us to afford it. However one day I really don't think should be such an issue.

I'm not saying we are employer of the year but it's a lot easier to deal with people who don't think you are out to get them at every step.

titan18

Health insurance company in Cork. Had a text on Sunday night and we were told to be in Monday and that it is business as usual. About 25% of staff turned up in the morning, so at 10am as storm started getting bad, were told to go home.

Getting paid for it at least, and anyone who turned up will get lieu time for the time they were in and paid for day.

Employees weren't too happy really.

amcalester

weldoninhio wrote: »

If ALL of his staff had turned up on Monday, he probably still would have had zero customers or income.

Exactly, he missed an opportunity here to gain some goodwill from his staff.

Plus, he's likely to be very busy as a result of the storm so would likely have made up the loss anyway and banked some goodwill.

As it is he's likely just annoyed his staff and no doubt will be expecting from flexibility from this week as he will be quite busy with people making repairs.

I wonder how many of his employees will be happy to stay on the 20 minutes if a delivery arrives just before shift end.

Assetbacked

Our office closed in full and word was sent around Sunday night after the nine o'clock news.

I know of three large law firms which issued a "your safety is the priority but we're open for business", covering themselves emails which is not unexpected from law firms where employment rights are not usually given.

Deusexmachina

jmayo wrote: »

I wonder would also believe in the reverse, you know where the staff get to share in the profits. :rolleyes:

You spin the wheel as a small business. Would the employees be prepared to stump up if there were losses? They would in their ****e

Deusexmachina

amcalester wrote: »

Exactly, he missed an opportunity here to gain some goodwill from his staff.

Plus, he's likely to be very busy as a result of the storm so would likely have made up the loss anyway and banked some goodwill.

As it is he's likely just annoyed his staff and no doubt will be expecting from flexibility from this week as he will be quite busy with people making repairs.

I wonder how many of his employees will be happy to stay on the 20 minutes if a delivery arrives just before shift end.

‘An opportunity here to gain some goodwill from his staff’. He is already paying them for working in the business. Ffs

Deusexmachina

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah right. I am sure you really rack up those extra hours.

Karangue

He got trivially annoyed and blamed the Healy Rae’s.

GhostyMcGhost

This poor women got fired. Headline is misleading, wasn’t over “shoe shopping” per se, but, because the child minder did not want to risk putting the kids in danger bringing them anywhere

And that clown of a mother, with her “it’s lovely day”... don’t get me started.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/childminder-fired-after-refusing-to-take-kids-shoe-shopping-during-storm-ophelia-36243130.html

the_pen_turner

you can really see the difference in this thread between employee attitudes and employer attitudes .

I cant see how any employee in a small company can expect to be paid for a day off like this. ideally yes they would but most small businesses couldn't afford it. for maybe 100 wages its costing maybe 200 . that adds up fast.

dresden8

At the end of the day your employer will go down the tubes if you don't turn up.

Right up until the day you get killed travelling to work.

Two months later they won't even remember your name.

That German guy. Frankfurt7 was it?

Ginger83

dresden8 wrote: »

At the end of the day your employer will go down the tubes if you don't turn up.

Right up until the day you get killed travelling to work.

Two months later they won't even remember your name.

That German guy. Frankfurt7 was it?

Never a truer word spoken.

amcalester

Deusexmachina wrote: »

‘An opportunity here to gain some goodwill from his staff’. He is already paying them for working in the business. Ffs

He is, and fair play to him. It's not easy running a business.

But he did say he would expect them to stay back after work if needed, no mention of whether this was paid or not. That requires goodwill.

Edit:

He also said we would expect his staff to work through breaks at busy times, his logic being that they get extra breaks when it's quiet. That also requires goodwill.

Without it, morale will drop and it could become a crappy place to work. That would hurt the business. I don't want to labour the point but goodwill between employer and employee is very important and shouldn't be under-estimated.

weldoninhio

amcalester wrote: »

He is, and fair play to him. It's not easy running a business.

But he did say he would expect them to stay back after work if needed, no mention of whether this was paid or not. That requires goodwill.

It’s unpaid, he said they get the time back during the week when it’s not busy. So in his eyes they get time “back” during working hours. It’s laughable.

rizzee

The morning and afternoon shifts got to stay at home while us night shift had to go in because the weather calmed down a little.

Everyone got paid anyway. Safe to say we were a little pissed off.

Pintman Paddy Losty

rizzee wrote: »

The morning and afternoon shifts got to stay at home while us night shift had to go in because the weather calmed down a little.

Everyone got paid anyway. Safe to say we were a little pissed off.

What time did the evening shift start? Why were you pissed off? Depending on your location the storm had passed at that point.

flexcon

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

What time did the evening shift start? Why were you pissed off? Depending on your location the storm had passed at that point.

I'd imagine they are pissed off as the morning shift got paid for staying at home and their shift had to come to work for that pay.

Hector Bellend

Go home.

Relax.

Have a good ****.

Have a cup of tea

Paddy Cow

flexcon wrote: »

I'd imagine they are pissed off as the morning shift got paid for staying at home and their shift had to come to work for that pay.

And if they were one of the morning crew who didn't come into work in the morning, they'd be p1ssed off if they didn't get paid. Employers are damned if they do and damned if they don't :pac:

Austria!

Cork. Company opened. Anyone not showing up not paid or allowed to take annual leave. Some people left early, I overheard management lamenting that because it was more than a couple disciplinary action would be impractical, the phrase "just a little bit of wind" was used.

Assumed every company would be like this, reading the thread was interesting.

Ineedaname

Austria! wrote: »

Cork. Company opened. Anyone not showing up not paid or allowed to take annual leave. Some people left early, I overheard management lamenting that because it was more than a couple disciplinary action would be impractical, the phrase "just a little bit of wind" was used.

Assumed every company would be like this, reading the thread was interesting.

That's the funny thing I've learned over the years. People are so used to being treated like crap that often they can't even comprehend it any other way.

FishOnABike

weldoninhio wrote: »

If a delivery arrived late, and your staff were due to finish up, would you expect them to stay to help you unload/store the delivery??

This is why the shorterm penny pinching attitude rarely pays off in the long term. Treat employees like a commodity and they will do their job, but no more. An employer would get back more in good will and flexibility than a days pay would have cost.

Rosie Rant

As soon as the red alert (I hear the Star Trek noise every time that phrase is used) was extended to the whole country, we were given the day off and assured that everyone would be paid.

FishOnABike

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

This poor women got fired. Headline is misleading, wasn’t over “shoe shopping” per se, but, because the child minder did not want to risk putting the kids in danger bringing them anywhere

And that clown of a mother, with her “it’s lovely day”... don’t get me started.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/childminder-fired-after-refusing-to-take-kids-shoe-shopping-during-storm-ophelia-36243130.html

I'd hazard a guess that childminder could have a case for wrongful dismissal, unpaid holiday pay and, depending on how long she was working there, pay in lieu of notice as she may be entitled to a minimum notice period. Clown is an understatement.

Deusexmachina

FishOnABike wrote: »

This is why the shorterm penny pinching attitude rarely pays off in the long term. Treat employees like a commodity and they will do their job, but no more. An employer would get back more in good will and flexibility than a days pay would have cost.

Do you really think that’s true? A small company allows staff to stay at home due to storm. Still pays them in full (that costs them a lot- not pennies).

Based on the majority of posts on here the employees see this as their absolute right. I don’t see how the employer ‘will get back more in goodwill’ in that circumstance? Do you honestly?

FishOnABike

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Do you really think that’s true? A small company allows staff to stay at home due to storm. Still pays them in full (that costs them a lot- not pennies).

Based on the majority of posts on here the employees see this as their absolute right. I don’t see how the employer ‘will get back more in goodwill’ in that circumstance? Do you honestly?

Yes, one day is less than half of one per cent of their pay. I know myself I have worked through lunch hours, come in early or stayed back fir conference calls, worked hours of unpaid overtime in evenings, worked until after midnight and been back in before 8 a.m. the next morning or worked weekends when a deadline had to be met or a problem had to be fixed. Why, because my employer reciprocated by being flexible too. I didn't watch the clock and neither did they.

Another company I worked for announced plans to extend clock in + out timekeeping system to exempt employees but reconsidered their plans when the engineering staff were almost unanimous in their support for the idea. Why do you think? Because the company realised with working hours legislation we wouldn't have been able to work the hours we did if they were on the clock and they stood to gain much more by being more flexible with time and attendance.

On the other hand I know of more than one restaurant who have trouble with high staff turnover because of poor management style. As a result they have received poor online reviews and that hits the bottom line.

A little bit of good will goes a long way for both employer and employee.

Miike

Do you think employers would have taken the same approach if they were responsible for insurance of the employee on their way to and from work?