Job Scope (non union shop)

Strumms

In my last job we were pretty vulnerable to the economy in terms of how busy we were and understandably when the recession hit and we became less busy the managers decieded that because of the nature of the business (aviation) which for some tasks required a minimum of two / four people working a task and signing off there couldn’t be redundancies but noted an expected upsurge in ‘downtime’ during the day.

Our team leader had a ‘brainwave’ which meant that during this downtime we’d be assisting (doing the work of) another department which they also managed. This at the beginning caused some rankour and even more when it seemed like we were being assimilated rather then augmenting them during busy times for them and quiet ones for us. It became difficult for us to get the time needed to complete our work and they gave not one shît, instead us augmenting them at busy periods meant they freed two people or more up to go off and commmence tasks that were not due from them for hours, and often 30 or 45 mins before they were due to clock off they were done because of this and could leave early and still get paid while we struggled to get our stuff done.

We queried the legality of this as but got told that because this extra work was assigned to be done by people on lower grades that we could be assigned to do it as long as this work was not in excess of 75% of our shift.

It smelled like BS to me but because a few of the older guys who citing car loans and mortgages to pay refused to rock the boat this was facilitated. The result was us falling out of there at the end of the week on our knees pretty much and a couple of us developed health problems as a result of this stress and stress / workload. I’ve since left the company but I’m wondering if this was at all legal on their behalf, I’m guessing no but I’d be glad of any feedback or any stories of folks who may have experienced similar and how that was dealt with.

beauf

Do their work so badly they don't want you do to it.

Do everything so well they want you concentrate that instead.

Do it before anyone else thinks of it. Or you'll be left behind.

OMM 0000

It sounds totally legal. Usually employment contracts say something like "You are required to do whatever tasks are assigned to you".

You were free to leave. You were not forced.

Being busy is not illegal.

I would try to move on.

Strumms

Being busy isn’t illegal but I think that when you apply for job x and end up doing job x & y & z on a routined and regular basis by virtue of some legal technicality it shouldn’t be on. If a doctor or Garda ended up being given some marigolds and told to go off doing the gardening, painting and what not during quieter times I think there would be an outcry. So from the point it should apply to any and every profession, do what you are hired to do, do it well, flexibility is all well and good but taking the piss and remember...any agreement you enter into with an employer should be a two way street, legally and every way. When they stop being flexible...so do you... when they take the piss you do too....

OMM 0000

Strumms wrote:

If a doctor or Garda ended up being given some marigolds and told to go off doing the gardening, painting and what not during quieter times I think there would be an outcry.

But how would that be illegal?

What law would be broken?

Again, if the contract you signed says something like "You are required to do whatever tasks are assigned to you", then you agreed to it.

I completely understand it is annoying and frustrating having to do work for another department, and if it were me I'd be demoralised as hell, but I would be free to quit and I would probably quit.

Strumms

OMM 0000 wrote: »

But how would that be illegal?

What law would be broken?

Again, if the contract you signed says something like "You are required to do whatever tasks are assigned to you", then you agreed to it.

I completely understand it is annoying and frustrating having to do work for another department, and if it were me I'd be demoralised as hell, but I would be free to quit and I would probably quit.

If you were presented with that contract and signed it you’d need locking up. Anyone joining a company is reasonable in expecting the company set out expectations for them and to them both verbally and in writing of the job they are being hired for and the conditions etc... wanting MORE due to changes in the economy, company ethos etc isn’t on..

OMM 0000

You don't think you need to be flexible due to the economy changing and the company losing a lot of customers?

You're not being reasonable.

Strumms

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You don't think you need to be flexible due to the economy changing and the company losing a lot of customers?

You're not being reasonable.

You are being completely reasonable. Nobody signs a contract with a company that includes a ‘flexibility clause’. That guarantees you do extra x, y & z in case the company only makes x money. You agreed to work in X company because you agree to a two way agreement...you will be paid xxxxx amount of money to complete *list task and responsibilities* you agree and sign contract. If the company looses customers it needs to overcome and adapt, work harder to sell its products and services,save money elsewhere ie. a courier company in a recession will be doing less mileage, thus saving on fuel, overtime, vehicle running costs such as services etc..however..the company must understand it WILL make less profit and position itself to save money as I have stated by those and various means ie. cutting back on admin costs, management bonuses,indeed performance related bonuses accross the board.

OMM 0000

Using your logic, they should have just made you redundant.

Again, you are being very unreasonable.

I'm exiting this conversation now.

Odelay

Strumms wrote: »

You are being completely reasonable. Nobody signs a contract with a company that includes a ‘flexibility clause’. That guarantees you do extra x, y & z in case the company only makes x money. You agreed to work in X company because you agree to a two way agreement...you will be paid xxxxx amount of money to complete *list task and responsibilities* you agree and sign contract. If the company looses customers it needs to overcome and adapt, work harder to sell its products and services,save money elsewhere ie. a courier company in a recession will be doing less mileage, thus saving on fuel, overtime, vehicle running costs such as services etc..however..the company must understand it WILL make less profit and position itself to save money as I have stated by those and various means ie. cutting back on admin costs, management bonuses,indeed performance related bonuses accross the board.

All companies have a flexibility clause. It is common sense to have it.
If you don’t like it, don’t sign it. They won’t hire you.

Strumms

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Using your logic, they should have just made you redundant.

Again, you are being very unreasonable.

I'm exiting this conversation now.

The problem wasn’t when we were quiet but when the recession ended with a bang and we were back to our own old levels of busy. We were still expected to augment the other crew AND complete our own work on time, every time to a 100% standard given the industry. It was a tug of war between us getting enough time, space and resources to do our job correctly and efficiently and ON TIME and the other crew wanting us to augment them when it suited them so they could assign some guys to other jobs which would enable an easier day and an earlier finish.