A hypothetical situation

[gjat]

What a sad state of affairs this country is in when such a situation could be reasonably addressed and unreasonable people can screw it up for everyone so easily.

In reality, the ones who would complain or find a problem with it are most likely sorry workers. The ones who would benefit the most, are the productive & good workers. Fundamentally, any problem would be because of crappy workers wanting more than they deserve and resenting hard workers from recieveing what they deserve for their effort.

Either way, in no case should lower or middle management ever put the workers in a position of getting in trouble for breaking company policy at lower management direction. Either get the blessing of upper management or make sure you accept all the liability of potential consequences.

[430752]

I've no problem with it as it is, and I'm the union side lawyer. Any client (union) came to me and said is this legit, I'd say absolutely and go to it, tiger, if that's what you want.

I'd then also tell him to get it in writing some how because this is what will happen in 6-18 months, guaranteed: these guys will do the job three of four times and do it well, then someone higher up in mgmt will figure it out or ask about it or whatever, and wonder why paying more than actual hours worked. Nothing illegal about it at all, just not fiscally prudent the higher up muckety-muck will say. So the guys will be told it is still o/t work, just not for 8, only actual hours worked. Now one of two things is likely to happen: either the guys will now refuse, in which case they'll be disciplined for refusing work. They won't be able to claim it ain't their work cuz now the company has a history of it being their work. THe other option is that the o/t guys will drag their feet to keep the deal originally promised them, that is they'll stretch the work from 6 to 8 hours anyway. This will last one or two cycles, with them claiming "this time it was worse, boss", but by third time they'll be disciplined. So, our guys will now by stuck doing this job as on o/t job for actual hours worked. But it gets better, about a month or two after this shake-out I just described, someone in payroll will wonder why they're paying o/t when the employee isn't over 40 hours in a week. Usually the payroll person is either new, up for a promotion, or under scrutiny for something else. So, this gets kicked up the chain and someone else looking to save a buck will send down the message that this work is now to be done one the regular schedule at straight time. And so it will be, with either the guys refusing and being disciplined or stretching it out and being disciplined. This tiime, the guys will likely be fed-up cuz there is no way they're doing that job for straight pay. There will be terminations or resignations, and the employer will hire new people who will be told from the front door that this is their job duties, mandatory. In the end two or three good guys will quit or get terminated, new guys will get extra work that shouldn't have been theirs, and the company will have saved a boat-load of money and gotten what it wanted. I guaran-dam-tee it.

How's that for ya?

[Gator95]

Is this 'dirty job' something that either requires new training, or is in any way hazardous? Seems like once it's done a couple times by the current employees with some succes it becomes part of their job.

Messing with hours worked vs. charged seems like a really really bad idea for hourlies. Just asking for trouble in an organization where the supervisor isn't the business owner.

Would the employees who are willing to do the job for a few extra $$ be willing to take a 'certification class' (can be anything really) that 'qualifies' them to do the dirty job, and then be paid a higher hourly wage as an incentive, with the justification that their higher wage is because if their higher skill set due to the 'certification'?

This seems to grease everyones skids and cover everyones butt if there is any oversight or review by upper managment.

[just started]

It's called being a salaried employee! When I was still working I was paid 'x' dollars per year and it didn't matter if I worked 10 hours or 60 hours a week, I got the same check each week.

[bfrikken]

I'd call Mike Rowe.

[paintandbodtman]

[QUOTE=bfrikken;381351]I'd call Mike Rowe.[/QUOTE


I am a firm believer in your job description is , this,this,this and whatever else is deemed nessacerary to get the job done. As long as you are not asked to do something illegal or that could cause bodily harm to you or someone else an employer has every right to expect you to do whatever has to be done to get the job done.If you don't like it find yourself another job.

wayne