Overtime Restriction Question - Is this allowed?

Every company I have ever worked for has expected the salaried staff to work as much as is reasonably possible with no extra pay. Hourly paid get the overtime and earn far more than all but the top management.

5-10 hours a week is deamed reasonable.

My company only rarely pays overtime- usually it's time off in lieu. I can't remember the last time I got overtime pay. Well over a decade ago.

If I wasn't getting anything back (and I can be gracious when the need arises), I'd not do it. Simples!

If people are constantly having to do do overtime, it's possibly that the work isn't resourced properly or the work isn't being handled efficiently. Of course, in the current climate, I expect that's more than common.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by DanAbnormal

Yep, these are still hard times but I also get the feeling that companies play on this. I am lucky to work for a very succesful network company. Just paid out 100% bonuses and we've got 3 free days off between xmas and NY and also got some gift vouchers through the post for all employee's. We are also one of few companies in our sector still hiring. About time I had some luck, been made redundany twice previous.

My CV is available ...

[timwilky]

Overtime, what a quaint old custom. I take the view you are paid to do a job. If the job requires more hours you put them in.

Originally Posted by timwilky

Overtime, what a quaint old custom. I take the view you are paid to do a job. If the job requires more hours you put them in.

And get paid for them, thats why it's called work and not a hobby.

[timwilky]

I grew up seeing my father spend his Sunday morning dictating reports, overtime for the self employed was a hot cup of coffee if he was lucky. When I was a junior engineer at Leyland back in the early 80s we did receive overtime payments, but only if the work was authorised in advance.

Since about 1982 I have never received overtime payments or asked for them. It is part and parcel of the job. I remember some years ago one of my team being very upset, I had given him a pay rise and as a result he was now £18/year over the threshold and complained he had been given a £3,000/year pay cut. My response was enjoy the pay rise and spend more time with your family.

Even my place is looking carefully at overtime...... only allowed to do it if there's no alternative. Will still be paid if done, but we're having to justify it more fully at the moment.

It's the times we live in.

Originally Posted by timwilky

Overtime, what a quaint old custom. I take the view you are paid to do a job. If the job requires more hours you put them in.

Even if your company takes on more orders than you (and your depleted band of colleagues) can reasonably get out the door in a working day?

I don't know if the european workngi-time directive is still in force, but I know you had to 'opt out' of working the maximum 48 hours allowed, which might be an issue.

Being a public servant, and not having any running costs much beyond bare salaries, we can't claim any overtime becasue we simply don't have the funds (and important people like me aren't entitled to it anyway). But I do make sure they go home on time or take time off in lieu if we have to do a late session in Parliament, for example.

Some interesting responses here, thanks for all. Like previously said it really does not bother me or affect me. However I was quite surprised to be handed the memo because our company at this time is doing exceptionally well indeed. The orders have rolled in thick and fast this year, so to land a restriction in such a busy period for us is quite amazing really. It transpires that an individual has been doing far more than a reasonable amount of extra time, so now the general ranks of staff will suffer for this persons doings. The hours were being put in but no performance or deals were being completed on the back of it. One person took the p**s and others get their balls kicked, I would have thought the management would have issued a warning and capped the overtime of this individual whos name has been freely advised by them so we all know who has created this rule.
I dont have issue with the rule, just how it was justified and delivered gets my goat. Still, rant over and I did my extra hour tonight as I will tomorrow and on and on.
merry Christmas all...

Originally Posted by SV-net

It transpires that an individual has been doing far more than a reasonable amount of extra time, so now the general ranks of staff will suffer for this persons doings. The hours were being put in but no performance or deals were being completed on the back of it. One person took the p**s and others get their balls kicked, I would have thought the management would have issued a warning and capped the overtime of this individual whos name has been freely advised by them so we all know who has created this rule.

Now that's my real bugbear too. They've just taken off our entitlement to time off in lieu (has always been limited to 7hrs mind) because some people were taking the pee and sitting around for an extra 10 mins every day then taking a day off in lieu.

Which disproportionately hits the people like myself and my team who regularly put in a lot of overtime to get the job done, despite getting virtually none of it back. Well now we get none of it, thanks for that!

Sign of the times I guess. And has anyone else noticed that they always seem to bring these things in when people are just feeling lucky to have a job, and therefore less likely to complain??