• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Political Compass

I think a four-day week, with people working slightly longer hours could work for us. So much so, in fact, that I'm going to consult with the team about giving it a trial. We find recruitment a bit of a problem (not so much retention as people tend to stay a while once they're here) so anything that can make us a bit more attractive to candidates would be good.
 
Our place is open 24 hours a day 7 days a week, there's absolutely no way a four day week would work. Plus I'd miss the ludicrous benefits of working 23 hours overtime a week.
 
A 32 hour week works on so many levels. Less childcare, less travel, less pollution, more jobs as 4 jobs become 5.It works best with universal basic income
 
How does my 61 hour week being cut to 32 hours work for me on any level?
 
This is of no interest to me seeing as how I'm retired & have a 7 day a week weekend anyway :)
 
b3h said:
Every level apart from money..?
Click to expand...

Money's what I need most at the moment hence me working the hours I do. Losing that much money at the moment would fuck everything else up, so no, no level at all really.
 
My point was a shorter week and ubi. That much overtime should not be offered or available. If you were driving on those hours which ius basically 12 hours work a day you must be knackered by day 5. If something happened after working those hours for such a period of time the company would, quite rightly, have some duty of care questions to answer. That is exactly what the working time directive is designed to avoid. Your firm needs to employ more people not flog its existing ones to 13 hours over the working time directive each week. The fact you are happy to do it is a moot point. You shouldn't be able too.
 
Cyber-_-man said:
My point was a shorter week and ubi. That much overtime should not be offered or available. If you were driving on those hours which ius basically 12 hours work a day you must be knackered by day 5. If something happened after working those hours for such a period of time the company would, quite rightly, have some duty of care questions to answer. That is exactly what the working time directive is designed to avoid. Your firm needs to employ more people not flog its existing ones to 13 hours over the working time directive each week. The fact you are happy to do it is a moot point. You shouldn't be able too.
Click to expand...

Completely wrong on virtually every aspect mate. Our company is massive on EH&S for starters. The fact I'm happy to do it isn't moot at all seeing as I opted out of the working time directive for good reason. You can't level a four day week across the board without understanding each and every company's needs and the wishes of the employees. Personally once I've reached my goal I'll stop working such long hours, but for the time being needs must in a very big way.

And I'm up this early because I work weekends as well, not 12 hours a day for five days. Of course, if I could earn in 32 hours what I do in 61 then I'd be all over it but it's not going to happen, and circumstances currently dictate that I really need to maximise my income and I'm prepared to work hard to do that.
 
That Honest Brew bill won't pay itself......
 
See, I knew someone would understand.
 
Boozad said:
Completely wrong on virtually every aspect mate. Our company is massive on EH&S for starters. The fact I'm happy to do it isn't moot at all seeing as I opted out of the working time directive for good reason. You can't level a four day week across the board without understanding each and every company's needs and the wishes of the employees. Personally once I've reached my goal I'll stop working such long hours, but for the time being needs must in a very big way.

And I'm up this early because I work weekends as well, not 12 hours a day for five days. Of course, if I could earn in 32 hours what I do in 61 then I'd be all over it but it's not going to happen, and circumstances currently dictate that I really need to maximise my income and I'm prepared to work hard to do that.
Click to expand...

OK. I take your point. I think you're nuts to do it but its your call to opt out of the wtd and even ten grand a year ubi won't make up your shortfall. There are tough laws on drivers hours hence my citing them and I know in public service the wtd is non negotiable for pretty much everyone as if any thing goes wrong and you're working outside it there would be hell to pay. Imagine the outcry if a police firearms officer had been working 60 hours a week consistently for three months and then shot someone. Even if their actions were proved to be 100% correct there would be questions about the high hours worked and reasons why. The wtd is there for a reason. To protect workers from exploitation and to protect the public from overtired employees who may present a danger to themselves or others are 2 reasons I woulkd place high value on. I do not know what you do for a living so maybe tiredness or long hours is not an issue?
 
Paddingtonwolf said:
The WTD basically doesn't exist in the NHS.
Click to expand...

The main features are:
• an average of 48 hours working time each
week, measured over a reference period of 26
weeks for doctors (unless an individual chooses
to ‘opt out’ of this requirement)
• 11 hours continuous rest in 24 hours
• 24 hours continuous rest in 7 days (or 48 hrs in
14 days)
• a 20 minute break in work periods of over 6
hours
• 5.61
weeks annual leave (pro-rata for part-time
staff)
• (for night workers) an average of no more than
8 hours work in 24 over the reference period

If people opt out well ............http://www.nhsprofessionals.nhs.uk/download/login-documents/working-time-directive.pdf
 
Good luck finding junior doctors or casualty nurses meeting those.
 
Paddingtonwolf said:
Good luck finding junior doctors or casualty nurses meeting those.
Click to expand...

My point is though they Must therefore have opted out then? If they opt out then its their choice. They cant have it both ways. If I dont wear a seat belt provided for my protection and I have an accident surely , even if the accident is not my fault, I have some culpability if I have any injury that a seat belt may have prevented?

Doctors complaining or nurses complaining about wroking too many hours when they have opted out of the WTD cannot be right can it?
 
WTD was a nightmare for our engineers when working in Dublin. Instead of them getting on with the job they were sitting in a hotel twiddling their thumbs and were away from their families for longer than they needed to be.

They were also unhappy that they couldn't work Sundays and earn double time.
 
Cyber-_-man said:
My point is though they Must therefore have opted out then? If they opt out then its their choice. They cant have it both ways. If I dont wear a seat belt provided for my protection and I have an accident surely , even if the accident is not my fault, I have some culpability if I have any injury that a seat belt may have prevented?

Doctors complaining or nurses complaining about wroking too many hours when they have opted out of the WTD cannot be right can it?
Click to expand...

Nope, you just don't understand the way the medical profession works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top