Employment Law.

Speirs

Speirs

Speirs

Associate
Joined
31 Jan 2008
Posts
928
I have done my job for 10 years.
I haven't got a problem with being asked to do jobs out of my job description and have done them to my best ability.
Recently I've been coerced into being trained in said jobs as part of my every day job.
I have a contract which states I do XYZ.
They want me to do A to Z.
Where do I stand?
 
If you don't want to do the "new role" you've left it a bit late to tell them to do one as they'll pull "custom and practice" on you due to you having agreed to do them in the past.

Ask for a new job description to reflect your new responsibilities and make sure it's recorded in your performance apraisal correctly.

Brian8bit said:
Tell them you hope the pay raise they're going to give you for doing the extra work is worth it.
Click to expand...


Pay rises/promotions are usually awarded due to an increase in responsibility, not an increase in workload.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
do you realise how things are in the job world atm? i'd do them if i were you aslong as they are not asking you to do stuff which requires extensive training that they are not willing to give
 
Brian8bit said:
Tell them you hope the pay raise they're going to give you for doing the extra work is worth it.
Click to expand...

Why more money?
Unless the extra stuff you do is of a higher grade or will mean more time at work, then you should just accept that they are giving you more training. If they could pay you to do XYZ only then they would, clearly they need people to do A-Z.
Evolve or lose out :p
 
cm1179 said:
do you realise how things are in the job world atm? i'd do them if i were you aslong as they are not asking you to do stuff which requires extensive training that they are not willing to give
Click to expand...

No doubt he does. I don't see a problem with having slight objections with increased responsibility that might be out of the scope of his job description with no increased reward (OP hasn't told us about the latter yet).
 
Last edited:
Speirs said:
I've thought of that and will be.
Just want some direction and thoughts of people in the know.
Click to expand...

Employers have the right to make reasonable changes to contracts:-

Employees are expected to adapt to new working methods or techniques, but this must not alter the work that the employee is required to do to such an extent that the work involved is no longer of the kind they were employed to do.
Click to expand...

Have a think about whether this is a reasonable change and if it significantly changes your original role.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
You do realises that those two things are synonymous with each other, right?
Click to expand...

No they are not. As I've (and many others) been promoted I've had an increase in responsibility but my workload (and hours) has reduced.
 
amigafan2003 said:
No they are not. As I've (and many others) been promoted I've had an increase in responsibility but my workload (and hours) has reduced.
Click to expand...

To increase someone's workload is to increase their responsibility. They are now responsible for more workload after all. :)

To try and sell it any other way is a manager's conjuring trick.
 
cm1179 said:
do you realise how things are in the job world atm? i'd do them if i were you aslong as they are not asking you to do stuff which requires extensive training that they are not willing to give
Click to expand...

I do realise how things are in the job world atm and so do employers and I feel that I and amongst others are being taken advantage of.
Three years ago, I wouldn't be asking for this advice.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
To increase someone's workload is to increase their responsibility. They are now responsible for more workload after all. :)

To try and sell it any other way is a manager's conjuring trick.
Click to expand...

Crisp pakcer A packs 400 bags in 7 hrs on a normal day.
Crisp Packer B does the same.
Mgmt now wants crisp packer A to pack 450 bags in the same 7hr day.
They also want crisp packer B to monitor crisp packer A's work - effectively making them a line manger, but due to the exta work, crisp packer B will only have to pack 350 bags a day themselves.

Who deserves a pay rise/promotion?
 
amigafan2003 said:
Crisp pakcer A packs 400 bags in 7 hrs on a normal day.
Crisp Packer B does the same.
Mgmt now wants crisp packer A to pack 450 bags in the same 7hr day.
They also want crisp packer B to monitor crisp packer A's work - effectively making them a line manger, but due to the exta work, crisp packer B will only have to pack 350 bags a day themselves.

Who deserves a pay rise/promotion?
Click to expand...

They both do.

However, packer C packs 400 bags a day, but has now been asked to pack 300. In the spare time he now has, he has to move the 300 bags to another area.

Packer c (the op in this case) does not deserve a payrise :p
 
amigafan2003 said:
Crisp pakcer A packs 400 bags in 7 hrs on a normal day.
Crisp Packer B does the same.
Mgmt now wants crisp packer A to pack 450 bags in the same 7hr day.
They also want crisp packer B to monitor crisp packer A's work - effectively making them a line manger, but due to the exta work, crisp packer B will only have to pack 350 bags a day themselves.

Who deserves a pay rise/promotion?
Click to expand...

Neither do, it is simply a restructuring of work practices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom