excessive overtime

[cbg]

Thank you, Tim. It's nice to know that we've been able to help, and I appreciate your clarifications. I'm sure I speak for Beth on that as well. Keep us posted.

The at-will concept works both ways. The employee can quit for any reason whatsoever; an employer can fire for any reason not limited by law. I know that to a certain extent, it appears that the employer has more power because he's the one writing the paychecks, and I'm not denying the truth of that, at least at the present time and in the present economy. But an employer who puts too many restrictions on his employees may soon find that he either is having to deal with a union, or alternately is putting most of his time and effort into replacing employees who quit. It wasn't that long ago that employers were beating the bushes looking for someone, anyone, to fill the empty spaces, and at that time the employee had most of the power - there would be no one to replace him if he quit. Employers were bending over backwards to make their work environments acceptable because they didn't want their employees to leave. The pendulum swings and it will swing again.

BTW, just as a point of interest, on another board I am talking with an individual who is complaining because he is never granted overtime. A lot depends on your point of view.

 

[Beth3]

No problem, Tim.

 

[damntim66]

cbg: I agree that it appears that the employer has all the power, but in reality, its not true. Regarding my friend's situation (and my previous employer), the employee has an equal amount of leverage. This is because of the at "will" thingie. Since employers are not really bound by "terms of employment," it follows that employees are not either. So if my friend doesn't want to work the "mandatory" overtime, she is not obligated to, even if the company has an overtime policy covering this specific issue. Let them "write her up" and "counsel" her all they want, since all they can do is terminate her, which they can do at any time for any reason anyway. Sure, she runs the risk of negative performance reviews, but since she is at top scale this is inconsqeuential. The only drawback I can see to this attitude is the possiblity of of negative references should she seek employment elsewhere. I also see this as easily explained to any intervewier, especially if she states this as being the reason for termination on her appliaction.

I can understand how some might view this overtime situation as enviable. Lots of people are stuck in dead-end jobs with low pay and no hope of ever earning more outside of seeking other employment. I (and many others) feel that the this specific situation is not optimum for the tasks at hand, and creates huge turnover, workload, and myriad other issues. Its not the employee's fault that the company doesn't manage itself better.

I do have another question, as I don't want to be seen as simply arguing for arguments sake. (Although I do enjoy it)

What rights do employees have regarding the formation of collective bargaining agreements or unions? Are those the same thing?

Also, I seem to remember being required to sign something prior to employment about not participating in union activities. Is this legal? If i recall correctly, this is a right specifically granted and protected by law. Can an employer require you to waive your right to this?

Thanks again

Tim

 

[cbg]

Tim, you're absolutely right about at-will swinging both ways. Since you're into semantics, note that I said "seems to have"; I did not say "has". It's appearance only.

A collective bargaining agreement is the actual document containing the agreement between the union and management.

My union experience is limited, and almost 20 years back. However, as I recall, the employer cannot require that you waive your union rights; however, in some states the union cannot force you to join or pay dues if you choose not to. This is what is meant by a "right to work" state, which many people confuse with at-will.