Since when does them needing you to work overtime, mean you need to work overtime?
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
585 points (97.7% liked)
Memes
45637 readers
1134 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Since if you decline they fire you. Yeah, this doesn't make sense since now they're still out someone for that shift AND out other shifts. But managers aren't logical or reasonable when they pull shit like this: they're vindictive.
In their eyes, it's more important to serve notice to the general workforce on what happens if you refuse versus the importance of any particular shift.
Luckily they can't fire you for that in Germany. To fire you, they would have to sue you.
Toxic work culture. Don't comply and they'll not only hold it against you but discriminate against you in the future
"sure boss, though my overtime pay just became 200%, I'm sure you understand"
COUGH COUGH COUGH we had a shift together, I think I've got what he has
Wtf Bob?! He got diagnosed with an Anus Infection.
"Well you've been riding all our asses, so who do you think it traces back to, Steve?"
Even more depressing when you think about how, overtime is extra money that they're losing by making you work.
At my job (pizza place, so maybe bad example), we have effectively only 2 night time managers, which means at the end of the week, whoever has the most hours goes home first, so that franchisee doesn't have to pay the extra money.
"so why not just close early if it costs owner too much to pay you?"
Well, because. Just because, that's all. Last time I cut orders at 5-or-10-to-close, the next day our owner (who I usually only see twice a year for MAYBE 20mins) came in and said I'd be fired if it happened again.
People with money don't give a single fraction of a flying freaky fuck about their employees. Unfortunately for me, I work in one of the (ten poorest) states in the US that enforces 'right-to-work' laws, which I recently learned, don't mean that you have the right to work, but instead means my employer is under no legal or contractual obligation to recognize, let alone pay Union fees.
Unionizing isn't illegal, but good luck finding anybody that will do anything pro-union in one of those places.
But you're gonna pay me for the overtime, right?
"lol no were gonna pull you off of another shift so that you don't go over 40 hours"
This is what Walmart does lmao
"Uhh . . . yeah, I'm gonna be leaving at 5, like it says on my schedule and since you're the manager, you're gonna need to manage your way out of this situation without me."
I'm in management, if I need someone to stay late I'll say please and ask, and if they say no, I respect it. I don't expect anybody to work outside of their scheduled hours.
That's class solidarity. None of us are owners, we are all the labor.
Crazy how businesses pull this shit. Yet where I work they won't let us work overtime cause they don't want to pay us. But then get shitty when the work is not done ...
Hey, I worked at a place that had me working overtime, but they wanted to put my hours on different paycheques because they weren't supposed to be letting me work overtime. Nice, huh?
Very illegal
So illegal
The worst bit: "But hey, we'll give you Tuesday off so you don't ho over 40h for the week."
Nah, Imma clock out at my normal time.
As a Dylan I must admit, that is totally my style
"No"
Anything... for a price.
In our contract we have it that no one has to work overtime, unless no one else who has worked more overtime than you rejects it.
Luckily, we've had some people fall into some legal trouble, so they grab up all the overtime that others don't want. But there are two people who have worked zero overtime this fiscal year, and I really want to organize my shop into making them both work some really shitty overtime shift.
No one has to work overtime unless everyone ahead of them refuses and there's no one else behind them, right? And the order of the line is whoever's worked the most OT. I mean that seems fair though?
The system works like this. You get credit for the overtime you work. The people with the least amount of worked overtime are at the top of the list, and the most are at the bottom.
When opportunities for overtime are offered, we work down the list starting with the people who have worked the least overtime.
If we go though the list twice, and the number of people requested to work isn't fulfilled, whoever is at the top is then forced to work the overtime. And we do that until we have the people.
That seems like a pretty fair way to share the load.
Why does it bother you? If they don't want to work overtime, let the people who want them take those hours.
Because those people are shitty workers as it is, and no one wants them around anymore. And sometimes a cherry assignment for overtime comes around and everyone else wants it, but they get first dibs because of how our system works.