Sanctions to hit part time workers
- Thread starter spankingtexan
- Start date
I know someone who did exactly this. It meant they were better off working less.
The Tory war on the poor continues
Didums...
Well how else do you expect them to live in manor houses talking about how they are a superior breed while their downtrodden slaves do all the work?
Just because the law has changed, doesn't mean anything else has, the standard of living for minimum wage workers these days, they might as well be on the plantations.
Are you paying them to do 5-10 hours extra or expecting them to do it out of the goodness of their hearts?
If you're paying then who cares if it's overtime? Hire more people.
If not - why would they do extra work? In what possible realm would that benefit them "I'll give up my spare time to make my boss some money" no, not gonna happen.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 17,557
- Location
- Newcastle U/T
So your waiting for them to be forced to work more for you? bit harsh
Surely if they're part time then 5/10 hours could be a considerable increase in working hours to them? Typically part time is what 15-20 hours a week?
So thats what a 25-50% increase in work.
What's their contracts state about additional hours?
Can't you offer them a better pay/package?
just explain it's now at the point where it's counter productive to the business and more work hours are needed, if this involves taking on full time members of staff then you may be forced to make redundancies?
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2013
- Posts
- 916
Yeah but then they'd have to make the rich pay up, and they can't have that no matter what.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
Why do I get the feeling this Government is doing everything it can to make itself unelectable?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
and couldn't he just hire some more part time staff? if he wants a couple of his staff to do 10 hours more each then surely he could just hire another part timer for 20 hours, problem solved, unless he wants the extra work for free.
You are obviously employing the wrong type of people. Sounds like your are employing housewives that want to get out the house and earn a bit of pin money while the well paid husband is at work.
The people who are after a job to earn a living are either working all the hours they can or are looking for full time work.
Did anyone honestly not see this coming? First it was "You aren't looking hard enough for a job, you're scum, and we're going to cut your benefits. Work needs to pay after all!"
Now it's, "You aren't working hard enough at your menial part-time job to be offered a promotion that doesn't exist, so you aren't getting enough hours. You're scum, and we're going to cut your benefits. Work needs to pay after all!"
The current system of making a crap part-time/zero hours job pay enough money to exist on by government top-ups is rotten to the core. Attacking the people who are relying on it isn't the way to reform it.
Now it's, "You aren't working hard enough at your menial part-time job to be offered a promotion that doesn't exist, so you aren't getting enough hours. You're scum, and we're going to cut your benefits. Work needs to pay after all!"
The current system of making a crap part-time/zero hours job pay enough money to exist on by government top-ups is rotten to the core. Attacking the people who are relying on it isn't the way to reform it.
You cannot earn a living on minimum wage in some parts of the country. Some employers simply don't pay enough for people to live, so employees turn to the state to have their wages subsidised to cover their housing costs. Hence the tax payer covers the stingy employer, not that the employee is scrounging.