Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 3616 to 3621 (20th to 24th November 2017)
Jeemy:
Although my knowledge of UK employment law is not great, I've employed 50+ people over the last 20 years and in all the contracts, we have a clause that states your normal working hours are X but that you agree to work more than 48 hours on occasion and to work from different offices.
Its against the law to make somebody work more than 48 hours a week, averaged over a 17-week period. This exemption doesn't apply to some jobs such as full-time carers, army, some police positions, all emergency services, as per BenRG's post. Whether against the law or unreasonable, I don't know but its also frowned upon in some way to change their working location permanently or regularly.
But you can ask employees to voluntarily agree to exceed both this 48-hour limit and the working location limitation "on occasion". As I say, this has been in every contract I've ever seen - mainly so if they end up working a long week, or you ask them to go to London to work for a week, no laws are broken when they agree, and they can't disagree because it was intimated that this might happen when you employed them. They can choose not to accept this clause or cancel their agreement at any time with 7 days notice if you are abusing it. But its completely commonplace in all employment contracts I've ever seen, as its much harder to impose these things 3 years down the line than at point of employment.
hakko504:
--- Quote from: BenRG on 23 Nov 2017, 01:32 ---At least here in the UK, you can have 'on call' jobs where you are required by contract to be available out-of-hours. They're most common in the medical and social care industries.
--- End quote ---
That's sort of true here in Sweden as well, however, the time you're on-call does not count as working hours.
--- Quote from: Jeemy on 23 Nov 2017, 02:24 ---Although my knowledge of UK employment law is not great, I've employed 50+ people over the last 20 years and in all the contracts, we have a clause that states your normal working hours are X but that you agree to work more than 48 hours on occasion and to work from different offices.
Its against the law to make somebody work more than 48 hours a week, averaged over a 17-week period. This exemption doesn't apply to some jobs such as full-time carers, army, some police positions, all emergency services, as per BenRG's post. Whether against the law or unreasonable, I don't know but its also frowned upon in some way to change their working location permanently or regularly.
But you can ask employees to voluntarily agree to exceed both this 48-hour limit and the working location limitation "on occasion". As I say, this has been in every contract I've ever seen - mainly so if they end up working a long week, or you ask them to go to London to work for a week, no laws are broken when they agree, and they can't disagree because it was intimated that this might happen when you employed them. They can choose not to accept this clause or cancel their agreement at any time with 7 days notice if you are abusing it. But its completely commonplace in all employment contracts I've ever seen, as its much harder to impose these things 3 years down the line than at point of employment.
--- End quote ---
In Sweden the law is that normal working time is 40h/week, and you may work overtime, up to 150h/year. The overtime may not exceed 48h on a 14 day basis or 50h per month.
My point is that there is no way any law in Europe would allow a single person to be working or on-call 24/7/365 as a salaried employee. There is of course people who own their own businesses, politicians etc. where the line between a private life and a public life is non-existent but that's not the point here. Here, at one point sooner or later, Hannelore would have to tell Tilly, "Go home, your working hours are over for today/this week" etc. Is there such a point in the US?
Tova:
I'm getting the impression that the people who hate Tilly do not actually want her to learn and become a better, more sympathetic person. They'd rather continue to hate her, I guess. Or that she go away. What's up with that? I find it slightly surprising.
Marco:
--- Quote from: Tova on 23 Nov 2017, 04:14 ---I'm getting the impression that the people who hate Tilly do not actually want her to learn and become a better, more sympathetic person. They'd rather continue to hate her, I guess. Or that she go away. What's up with that? I find it slightly surprising.
--- End quote ---
I agree. It's not that Tilly has done something really horrible, by QC standards. Pintsize's behaviour is, on average, way worse. And, before someone says "oh, he's just an mechanical sidekick, whereas Tilly is an human being and should know better", think of the way Faye and Dora (both humans) treated COD costumers, not long ago. Should we ask them to leave the comic, too?
WoaLG:
--- Quote from: Marco on 23 Nov 2017, 04:30 ---
--- Quote from: Tova on 23 Nov 2017, 04:14 ---I'm getting the impression that the people who hate Tilly do not actually want her to learn and become a better, more sympathetic person. They'd rather continue to hate her, I guess. Or that she go away. What's up with that? I find it slightly surprising.
--- End quote ---
I agree. It's not that Tilly has done something really horrible, by QC standards. Pintsize's behaviour is, on average, way worse. And, before someone says "oh, he's just an mechanical sidekick, whereas Tilly is an human being and should know better", think of the way Faye and Dora (both humans) treated COD costumers, not long ago. Should we ask them to leave the comic, too?
--- End quote ---
I agree with you, but I would like to point out that part of the customer appeal of COD was the way that they treated customers. I can't find any specific pages, but I vaguely remember one of the customers specifically asking to be abused.
Edit: Found it: 653, 654, 655
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version