A hypothetical situation

[Ed62]

This kind of goes along the lines of the labor union thread, but it could also pertain to a non-union job. Tell me what you think of this. It might be a tough call for some of you.

A group of employees are working for (you name the company). This group knows the ins and outs of their department. Once every other week there is a really nasty cleaning job that needs to be done to keep things working properly. It is so bad that most people wouldn't think of doing it unless it was a very high paying job. This group of employees was not hired to do the job in question, but they have been given the chance to do it with overtime pay. The company also has the option to bring in outside help to tackle the job.

Lower and middle management knows just how bad this job is. They tell the group of employees that if they will do the job, they can go home when the job is finished. They know the job will take 4 - 6 hours to complete, but they will pay 8 hours overtime to get the job done. They also know that since the employees know the ins and outs of the department, they will do a better job than an outside contractor would. Not only that, but an outside contractor would cost them 3 times what they could get it done for by using their own employees. Even though they know it's against company policy to pay someone for time they are not on the job, they agree to pay the 8 hours overtime, and the employees accept it. The job gets done better and for less cost than having the outside contractor do it.

Is it wrong to do it this way? If so, who's at fault? The employees for accepting the job, with the understanding they could go home when finished, while getting 8 hours overtime pay? Management for offering the opportunity to the employees? Or is it a win/win situation? Does anybody lose, or does everybody win?

Ed

[pelligrini]

I'd say it was a win/win situation, but the company has just opened itself to some possible future problems by overriding their policy of paying for time not on the job.

It probably would have been better to pay overtime for the time actually worked plus a 'nasty job bonus'.

[Greg in Maryland]

Certainly this is a good situation for the employees involved ("honey dippers") and perhaps even the company. However, there is real risk to the employer in this situation.

Consistency is the name of the game -- management must follow the rules that they setup and not make exceptions on the fly. Under this scenario, the company would not win a suit brought against it if an employee were disciplined under the no work, no pay rule. All that employee would have to do is point to the "honey dippers" as an example of capricious and arbitrary enforcement. This is the kiss of death for defending your actions.

The idea of compensating workers for performance above the "call of duty" is a win/win situation for the employer and employee, the implementation under this scenario is full of pitfalls.

A better alternative would be to give the workers a performance bonus for the dirty job. Can't be argued with or sued over using this scenario.

Just my $0.0002.

Greg

[dkerfoot]

I'd think the usual solution to this would be to hire illegal aliens to do the job...

OK - more seriously: I'd say this is a situation where seniority rules actually work. "You want a job kid? You'll have to earn your dues. But, if you tough it out, once we hire someone newer than you, you'll never have to do it again..."

I believe in giving raises and laying people off based on performance, not seniority but I'm all for initiating the new guy...

[Richard in Smithville]

Where I work, we have a quota system. We produce "x" number of packages valued at "x" man hours. The company also recognises that we can produce at 125% efficiency meaning that we can cover ten hours of work in an eight hour period. Yes we do get paid for ten hours. If we are scheduled for eight hours of work, we can leave after six and a half hours if all the work is done. The ten hour day( in eight hours) allows the company two extra hours of production with out paying overtime. It also give us the chance to gain extra earnings without having to stay past quiting time.

[Daryl]

The employee is going to get the shaft in this deal. If he signs a time slip for eight hours of over time when he only worked four hours of regular? Maybe managment will take the rap or maybe they will cover their butts when the department is audited.

[tribalwind]

plus a 'nasty job bonus'.

ha! , i feel like i shoulda gotten that one at a Few of my old jobs!!!
that or a 'dealing with nasty boss,coworkers,clients'

[jackellis]

In a rational world, I'd say paying them 8 hours of overtime for 6 hours work if it sends up saving money is smart. However I agree that defying company policy by paying for time not clocked creates a number of problems. Middle managers should get permission from their bosses to either pay bonuses or make an exception to the "on the clock" rule.

[crokett]

Have the employees do the job in 4 hours. Then pay them to sit and do nothing, or go the store or go work from home for the rest of the time, but they need to come back and clock out after the 8hr shift. Now the company is still not paying for the employees not being on the clock but the employees are getting paid the overtime.

[Richard in Smithville]

I've been thinking. What about the mechanic who fixes your car? He has a book that tells him it should take four hours of labour to replace the gizmo in the engine. He has a good day and it only takes him two and a half hours. Does he charge you less? No, you pay for four hours of labour. Is he going to sit down and not work on another car for the next hour and a half? I think not.

[leehljp]

Rules are made for those who don't know what they are doing.

I would think that empowering Management to make some decisions that benefit all, but don't fit specific rules (and maybe go against others) would be in order.

We have rules and stick to them pretty close. However leeway is given to proven workers who are very observant to opportunities that arise that don't fit under a rule. Usually these people will report back to senior supervisors and give detail account. If this works well, then rules are changed.

I realize that this will not work with a lot of "union" type of work situations. Some large companies have what is called a "skunk works" dept. which is R&D without the red tape. Management needs this kind of "out" for working situations where all can be benefitted but not under current rules.

[shoottx]

I think we should get the guys who travel by corporate jets to do the nasty job. It might be the appropriate punishment for insensitivity

[gjat]

I would ask permission to make an exception to the rule. Company Policy can be over-written if the employees and company both benifit. That's what MANAGEMENT is for. There could be qualifications that upper management must approve and the employees must volunteer, with preference to senority. It's STUPID to fail to manage the assests of company money and manpower in a wasteful and negative manner when a company Policy over-rides fair and reasobable common sense. You should be ably to comply with company policy by paying a flat rate for the job as incentive for special case situations.

[Tom Slick]

I think Greg hit the nail on the head as to the ideal way to set up the system. The rules of the game are already plainly written, if they need to be bent then they need to be bent "officially" and fairly according to the company policies.

If the original scenario did have to play out I'd find management at fault for setting up a situation that doesn't comply by company rules.

[herb fellows]

I would ask permission to make an exception to the rule. Company Policy can be over-written if the employees and company both benifit. That's what MANAGEMENT is for. There could be qualifications that upper management must approve and the employees must volunteer, with preference to senority. It's STUPID to fail to manage the assests of company money and manpower in a wasteful and negative manner when a company Policy over-rides fair and reasobable common sense. You should be ably to comply with company policy by paying a flat rate for the job as incentive for special case situations.

You would have to be very careful of how you made up those qualifications. If an employee can make it look as if the job was tailored to specifically exclude or include anyone, this could turn out to be a liability if that employee ever takes you to court over it. The qualifications would be characterized as 'capricious and arbitrary'.
I don't think you could have this job done within the regularly scheduled 8 hour period and come away with no worries. You would have to set it up as a separate entity on a day off or similar.