Workers able to ask for flexible hours

[Richard McKenzie]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/workers-able-ask-flexible-hours-013108138.html

I think they tried it in the 70's where they took it a bit further and
wanted
to be paid for no work!

[Michael Swift]

In article
<b8ddeb0a-d704-42a6...@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
Richard McKenzie <richardm...@googlemail.com> writes

All very well if you're sat in an office all day, what about the
industry I worked in, production depending on several processes all
inter linked, QC needing to check production.

Another mad cap scheme thought up by politicians who haven't a clue how
industry works.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange

[tim.....]

"Michael Swift" <mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote in message
news:86o3GUAV...@ntlworld.com...

> In article
> <b8ddeb0a-d704-42a6...@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> Richard McKenzie <richardm...@googlemail.com> writes
>>http://uk.news.yahoo.com/workers-able-ask-flexible-hours-013108138.html
>>
>>I think they tried it in the 70's where they took it a bit further and
>>wanted
>>to be paid for no work!
>
> All very well if you're sat in an office all day, what about the industry
> I worked in, production depending on several processes all inter linked,
> QC needing to check production.

So the request will be turned down.

>
> Another mad cap scheme thought up by politicians who haven't a clue how
> industry works.

ITYF that the rules do understand this.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Michael Swift" <mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote in message
news:86o3GUAV...@ntlworld.com...

> In article
> <b8ddeb0a-d704-42a6...@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> Richard McKenzie <richardm...@googlemail.com> writes
>>http://uk.news.yahoo.com/workers-able-ask-flexible-hours-013108138.html
>>
>>I think they tried it in the 70's where they took it a bit further and
>>wanted
>>to be paid for no work!
>
> All very well if you're sat in an office all day, what about the industry
> I worked in, production depending on several processes all inter linked,
> QC needing to check production.
>
> Another mad cap scheme thought up by politicians who haven't a clue how
> industry works.

Or bus drivers, train drivers etc. Offices can be just as bad...

I worked (briefly) in a 9-5 office where flexi-time was brought in, but they
just opened an hour earlier and shut an hour later because they refused to
heat and light the building outside of those hours. It was good for building
up time off, I worked 8-6 for 4 days and took Fridays off.

But the problem was, overall the company could lose up to 4 hours
productivity a day. If I came in at 8am and needed to do something with
another department, they might not be in till 10am. Or they might have gone
home at 4pm and I finished at 6pm, I could be twiddling my thumbs for hours
(not that I minded!). Or they might not have come in at all. I think the
worst part was the flexibility (!) of it all, you never knew who would be in
and when. Some would wake up on Monday and not feel like work so they'd take
the day off and make it up later which meant I could only work with them for
3 days because I was off on Fridays. It's a logistical nightmare for any
business where people have to work with one another to get stuff done.

I don't know if you have to "pre-arrange" your flexi hours these days but
when I did it, you just had to clock in and out, as long as you did your 40
hours in a week, nobody seemed to bother us.

[Richard McKenzie]

On Nov 13, 1:02 pm, "Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Michael Swift" <mike.sw...@yeton.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:86o3GUAV...@ntlworld.com...
>
> > In article
> > <b8ddeb0a-d704-42a6-801e-759fcc967...@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> > Richard McKenzie <richardmckenzi...@googlemail.com> writes

I worked at a company and as long as there were someone present within
the department between 9-5
than peopl could come and go. I and a female member of staff were the
only ones on the department.
As she had a kid she turned up when ever she felt like and would
depart early too. I was not given the opportunity.

I think that that is where the issue lies, those with children (who
choose to have kids) will see it as a right to
come and go while passing the buck on others. And if they are passed
over for promotion or pay rise they will claim
discrimination.

Hell there are female police officers who get the nightime bonus even
though they work 9-5 because they have kids.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Richard McKenzie" <richardm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:0b1c029b-0cd0-4583...@y6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

IT always gets iffy when you have mothers at work.

What you say is true, if you're unreliable for any other reason than having
kids, you get fired.

[Nightjar]

On 13/11/2012 12:01, Michael Swift wrote:
> In article
> <b8ddeb0a-d704-42a6...@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> Richard McKenzie <richardm...@googlemail.com> writes
>> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/workers-able-ask-flexible-hours-013108138.html
>>
>> I think they tried it in the 70's where they took it a bit further and
>> wanted
>> to be paid for no work!
>
> All very well if you're sat in an office all day, what about the
> industry I worked in, production depending on several processes all
> inter linked, QC needing to check production.

There are several different forms of flexible working. In most cases, it
is simply a matter of operating the type that suits the business best
and, if none do, the application can be rejected.

Under the current rules for carers, which will probably be the model, a
statutory application for flexible working can be rejected for one of
the following reasons:

extra costs which would damage the business

the business wouldn’t be able to meet customer demand

the work can’t be reorganised among other staff

people couldn’t be recruited to do the work

flexible working would have an effect on quality and performance

there’s a lack of work to do during the proposed working times

the business is planning changes to the workforce

Colin Bignell

[Nightjar]

On 13/11/2012 13:02, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
...
> I worked (briefly) in a 9-5 office where flexi-time was brought in, but
> they just opened an hour earlier and shut an hour later because they
> refused to heat and light the building outside of those hours. It was
> good for building up time off, I worked 8-6 for 4 days and took Fridays
> off.
>
> But the problem was, overall the company could lose up to 4 hours
> productivity a day. If I came in at 8am and needed to do something with
> another department, they might not be in till 10am. Or they might have
> gone home at 4pm and I finished at 6pm, I could be twiddling my thumbs
> for hours (not that I minded!). Or they might not have come in at all. I
> think the worst part was the flexibility (!) of it all, you never knew
> who would be in and when. Some would wake up on Monday and not feel like
> work so they'd take the day off and make it up later which meant I could
> only work with them for 3 days because I was off on Fridays. It's a
> logistical nightmare for any business where people have to work with one
> another to get stuff done.

That is a fault with that particular implementation of flexible working,
not with the concept. Where I had workers who needed to work together, I
organised them into teams and each team had to agree what hours they
were going to work between them.

Colin Bignell

[allantracy]

>
> Another mad cap scheme thought up by politicians who haven't a clue how
> industry works.
>

Yep Nick Clegg proving, once again, that he's never employed anyone or
ever had experience of a proper job.

The best thing that could be done to help parents with kids is home
working.

Obviously not practical in a lot of jobs but it would be in a lot of
those office based roles down in London.

There's a kind of madness down there where thousand commute, often
very long distances every day, just to sit at a desk in front of a
computer.

The UK has been very slow to pick up on home working, compared to say
the US, thanks to an outdated management culture or even just plain
old shit British management.

Obviously we don't want politicians poking their nose into business,
with anything compulsory, but tax breaks could certainly help to push
things along a bit.

[tim.....]

"Mentalguy2k8" <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k7tgdg$s2q$1...@dont-email.me...

>

>
> I don't know if you have to "pre-arrange" your flexi hours these days but
> when I did it, you just had to clock in and out, as long as you did your
> 40 hours in a week, nobody seemed to bother us.

Companies work with whatever system suits their needs.

But AIUI this "right to request" is to change to a different set of fixed
hours, not a right to request random flexi-time.

tim

[tim.....]

"Mentalguy2k8" <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:k7tj2q$c51$1...@dont-email.me...

You can thank NL for that. It was they who introduced the rule that sacking
someone for this reason was unlawful.

tim

[tim.....]

"allantracy" <allanb...@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:0dc959f9-8945-459a...@p11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...

>>
>> Another mad cap scheme thought up by politicians who haven't a clue how
>> industry works.
>>
>
> Yep Nick Clegg proving, once again, that he's never employed anyone or
> ever had experience of a proper job.

But it isn't always like that.

As a software developer it doesn't make any difference to my productivity
what hours I work within a working day and most companies that I work for
run a flexi system with core hours so that meetings can be arranged.

But every now and again I get interviewed by some old fashioned sweat shop
who say, you clock on at 8:30 and go home at 5:00 and I think WTF!

tim

[Owain]

On Nov 13, 1:02 pm, "Mentalguy2k8" wrote:
> But the problem was, overall the company could lose up to 4 hours
> productivity a day. If I came in at 8am and needed to do something with
> another department, they might not be in till 10am. Or they might have gone
> home at 4pm and I finished at 6pm, I could be twiddling my thumbs for hours
> (not that I minded!).

That sounds typical of local government.

Owain

[Nightjar]

If they follow the existing model for carers who work, flexible hours
could mean one of several different things: flexitime, part time
working, working from home, job sharing, compressed hours, annualised
hours or staggered hours.

Colin Bignell

[AndyW]

On 13/11/2012 12:01, Michael Swift wrote:

> In article
> <b8ddeb0a-d704-42a6...@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> Richard McKenzie <richardm...@googlemail.com> writes
>> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/workers-able-ask-flexible-hours-013108138.html
>>
>> I think they tried it in the 70's where they took it a bit further and
>> wanted
>> to be paid for no work!
>
> All very well if you're sat in an office all day, what about the
> industry I worked in, production depending on several processes all
> inter linked, QC needing to check production.
>
> Another mad cap scheme thought up by politicians who haven't a clue how
> industry works.

Nonsense, they know how it works which is why it will only be applied in
certain situations. The tabloids love to kick anything new and were
proposing all sorts of ridiculous scenarios like ambulances not turning
up because everyone wanted a long lie or your morning train being
removed from the schedule because the drivers all wanted to do the
school run.

People can ask for flexible working hours, if it is not suitable or
appropriate then they will not get them. If there is a dispute then
various levels of arbitration and grievance can sort it out.

Overall it is a good idea if it is possible and appropriate, clearly if
a task requires 2 people and one wants to start work at 7am and the
other at 10am then we have a problem.
I work a job where I can start between 7am and 9:30am,accrue flexi time,
take off the occasional flexi day. It works for my job but not for
others in my company so I get it and they do not but then they get 15
minutes suiting up and washing up at each end of the day and I do not
get it as I work in the office.

Andy

[Cynic]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:19:50 -0000, "tim....."
<tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>As a software developer it doesn't make any difference to my productivity
>what hours I work within a working day and most companies that I work for
>run a flexi system with core hours so that meetings can be arranged.

>But every now and again I get interviewed by some old fashioned sweat shop
>who say, you clock on at 8:30 and go home at 5:00 and I think WTF!

That can in fact be a perfectly justified position.

If almost everyone else in the company are doing jobs where it would
*not* be practical to allow flexible hours, giving that advantage to
one or two employees can create a lot of resentment, because it is
seen as a significant "perk" that they are being denied.

--
Cynic

[allantracy]

I've seen a lot of companies with flexible working, especially in the
IT industry, where flexible working amounts to no more than being at
the beck and call of their bosses, twenty four hours a day.

[Jethro_uk]

Indeed. Many years ago, starting off in the IT world, I went for a job in
a support position. The company involved had a contract with British Gas,
and you were expected to be able to travel from the Midlands to London,
at an hours notice. You also had to be "available" 2 weekends out of 4.
If you were called out you got paid overtime. However this of course
meant you had to be ready to drive to London at an hours notice. So
effectively you had to leave those weekends blank. For no pay. Oh, and
you had to use your own car, which you were expected to keep roadworthy.

Sadly they went out of business :(

[allantracy]

>
> Nonsense, they know how it works which is why it will only be applied in
> certain situations.

Yes and we all know those certain situations will be anyone working
for the state and we just know they will make a right old meal out of
implementing it.

So, state productivity goes through the floor, up go our taxes and
along comes another Labour government to create a million extra public
sector workers (all with gold plated T&Cs) and bang goes our economy
again

[tim.....]

"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:50a39ffe....@127.0.0.1...

But it's not 1 or 2 workers.

It's every one of the white collar workers and the people who are denied the
flexibility are the blue collar workers.

And there's a reason why I think that I should have better terms and
conditions that them. It's because I have a harder to gain (and this
replace) skill than they do (quite apart from the fact that working flexibly
allows ME to do my job better).

And TBH there's no reason at all that they are on the same site, except that
the company have decided to make it that way.

tim

[Ste]

On Nov 14, 3:58 pm, "tim....." <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Cynic" <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

>
> news:50a39ffe....@127.0.0.1...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:19:50 -0000, "tim....."
> > <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>As a software developer it doesn't make any difference to my productivity
> >>what hours I work within a working day and most companies that I work for
> >>run a flexi system with core hours so that meetings can be arranged.
>
> >>But every now and again I get interviewed by some old fashioned sweat shop
> >>who say, you clock on at 8:30 and go home at 5:00 and I think WTF!
>
> > That can in fact be a perfectly justified position.
>
> > If almost everyone else in the company are doing jobs where it would
> > *not* be practical to allow flexible hours, giving that advantage to
> > one or two employees can create a lot of resentment, because it is
> > seen as a significant "perk" that they are being denied.
>
> But it's not 1 or 2 workers.
>
> It's every one of the white collar workers and the people who are denied the
> flexibility are the blue collar workers.
>
> And there's a reason why I think that I should have better terms and
> conditions that them.  It's because I have a harder to gain (and this
> replace) skill than they do (quite apart from the fact that working flexibly
> allows ME to do my job better).

If you possess those skills and others do not, that suggests you were
likely to have found it easier than most to acquire those skills, and
should therefore be rewarded least for possession of them.

[tim.....]

"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:14ba762b-6ed1-4149...@s14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

don't be silly

It's because I studied for longer at my own expense than someone who left
school at 16 and went into a "metal bashing" job and got trained up at the
employers expense - at least that's how it used to happen :-)

Tim

[Richard McKenzie]

On Nov 14, 8:30 am, AndyW <A...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/11/2012 12:01, Michael Swift wrote:
>
> > In article

> > <b8ddeb0a-d704-42a6-801e-759fcc967...@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> > Richard McKenzie <richardmckenzi...@googlemail.com> writes

Surely though it offers the right to ask, which i find odd as i could
easily ask my employer any question regarding my employment,
do you not think this is the first step in a similar law that would be
mandatory.

I,e If they have children you must allow them time to dropp them off
and
pick them up from school etc.

[Ste]

On Nov 15, 12:04 am, "tim....." <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

So then it follows, you were the one who found it easiest to continue
studying and not to work when you left school. And assuming you were
educated in the UK before 1990, you likely didn't pay a penny to be
educated and were in fact paid a maintenance grant whilst doing so.

That said, I can see that some jobs involve a particularly long period
or arduous level of training or effort, and need either special
incentives to train/accept that work, or they need special protections
from job insecurity or redundancy because it's an essential skill but
only needed in small amounts (and may not be needed at all in future).

But I don't accept that this explains to any great extent the range of
incomes between top and bottom. By all accounts we now have a
massively over-educated (or over-trained, for training is what
'education' increasingly appears to do) workforce, with degree-level
candidates often performing straightforward administrative or manual
work in the economy.

It seems there is no shortage of those willing to engage in additional
training. What does appear to be in shortage, are decent jobs at the
other end that actually make use of the training. Hence the need to
incentivise training, cannot account for the discrepancy in wages that
we observe. Indeed, governments seem to be doing everything they can
to disincentivise training, by increasing costs that individuals must
pay when decent jobs at the end are increasingly uncertain, and by
making education increasingly irrelevant to both the workplace and to
liberal education ideals.

And meanwhile, those running "metal bashing" operations increasingly
moan about being unable to attract new candidates of sufficient
motivation and positive attitude - no doubt because their job offers
are derisory in pay and conditions - and governments increasingly talk
about having to "make work pay" by cutting benefits and harassing the
unemployed even though the wages available to such people in the
market are already rock bottom.

There is clearly something else going on.

[®i©ardo]

But it's something else that Nick CLegg doesn't understand.

--
Moving things in still pictures