LTB 312/24 – SISO Overtime Management – Business Recovery, Transformation & Growth Agreement (Appendix 5 – Data Use and Performance Management)

[Smoothbackground]

In what world, other than RM, would anyone consider it "right" to expect O/T payments for time when they weren't working?

It’s been like this for a long time because our overtime rate is rubbish and the extra time “made” makes it a higher rate. We have people running around all day as they are doing an extra job on overtime, I think the company will have a shock if they pull the rug on pre agreed overtime as nobody will bother anymore.

Probably the sole good thing about the new contract (when compared against the old contract, that is) is that new-contract posties receive time and a quarter for all overtime performed above 40 hours, and so there is no shortage of posties on new contracts mopping up overtime.

[Barnacle]

The fair and logical outcome is that Bob loses out on most if not all overtime as he is a slow coach and costs the company more in OT as a result.

And then RM would be bombarded with age discrimination claims for breaking the terms of the Equality Act. Slow Bob is 51. Average age for a postie apparently.

[Smoothbackground]

The fair and logical outcome is that Bob loses out on most if not all overtime as he is a slow coach and costs the company more in OT as a result.

And then RM would be bombarded with age discrimination claims for breaking the terms of the Equality Act. Slow Bob is 51. Average age for a postie apparently.

But we’re only now, at this stage, introducing into the equation Bob’s age and the prospect of age discrimination. Employers can use selective criteria that include things like productivity or work rate/efficiency without there being age discrimination. Of course, if 51 is the average postie age then Betty is likely to be of a similar age, perhaps reducing any perception of age discrimination.

[Barnacle]

The fair and logical outcome is that Bob loses out on most if not all overtime as he is a slow coach and costs the company more in OT as a result.

And then RM would be bombarded with age discrimination claims for breaking the terms of the Equality Act. Slow Bob is 51. Average age for a postie apparently.

But we’re only now, at this stage, introducing into the equation Bob’s age and the prospect of age discrimination. Employers can use selective criteria that include things like productivity or work rate/efficiency without there being age discrimination. Of course, if 51 is the average postie age then Betty is likely to be of a similar age, perhaps reducing any perception of age discrimination.

Betty is 23 and runs marathons in her spare time.

RM would love to introduce work rate data etc into the equation but thankfully, the Equality Act is there to stop them getting rid of anyone of an age where they are no longer as fast as Betty.

[Smoothbackground]

The fair and logical outcome is that Bob loses out on most if not all overtime as he is a slow coach and costs the company more in OT as a result.

And then RM would be bombarded with age discrimination claims for breaking the terms of the Equality Act. Slow Bob is 51. Average age for a postie apparently.

But we’re only now, at this stage, introducing into the equation Bob’s age and the prospect of age discrimination. Employers can use selective criteria that include things like productivity or work rate/efficiency without there being age discrimination. Of course, if 51 is the average postie age then Betty is likely to be of a similar age, perhaps reducing any perception of age discrimination.

Betty is 23 and runs marathons in her spare time.

RM would love to introduce work rate data etc into the equation but thankfully, the Equality Act is there to stop them getting rid of anyone of an age where they are no longer as fast as Betty.

But we’re not on about getting rid of people - we’re on about whether Bob should be offered OT given how slow he is. Anyhow, the burden would be on Bob (in our analogy) to prove age discrimination, and it is difficult to see how he could do so given that Betty isn’t an adequate comparator given her athletic ability and also that the OT data would show posties of the average age (51) having dibs of the OT, the only difference being that those average-aged posties are all quicker than slowcoach Bob?

[Barnacle]

The fair and logical outcome is that Bob loses out on most if not all overtime as he is a slow coach and costs the company more in OT as a result.

And then RM would be bombarded with age discrimination claims for breaking the terms of the Equality Act. Slow Bob is 51. Average age for a postie apparently.

But we’re only now, at this stage, introducing into the equation Bob’s age and the prospect of age discrimination. Employers can use selective criteria that include things like productivity or work rate/efficiency without there being age discrimination. Of course, if 51 is the average postie age then Betty is likely to be of a similar age, perhaps reducing any perception of age discrimination.

Betty is 23 and runs marathons in her spare time.

RM would love to introduce work rate data etc into the equation but thankfully, the Equality Act is there to stop them getting rid of anyone of an age where they are no longer as fast as Betty.

But we’re not on about getting rid of people - we’re on about whether Bob should be offered OT given how slow he is. Anyhow, the burden would be on Bob (in our analogy) to prove age discrimination, and it is difficult to see how he could do so given that Betty isn’t an adequate comparator given her athletic ability and also that the OT data would show posties of the average age (51) having dibs of the OT, the only difference being that those average-aged posties are all quicker than slowcoach Bob?

We actually are talking about getting rid of people. RM wants rid of the Bobs because they are on legacy contracts. So working the Bobs out of the system by no longer giving them overtime and performance managing them, is just part of the arsenal RM wants to use.

The richness of RM is its diverse workforce, all ages and all backgrounds. I for one wouldn’t sit back while they got rid of the Bobs in favour of the Bettys.

[postslippete]

Simple...you forget to clock in or out, they forget to pay you.
It's down to the employee to "prove" he's at work, not the employer to prove that he wasn't.

We all use the PDAs so there's the proof. So when you forget to clock out they won't automatically dock your pay - what will happen is that management will bring it to your intention and may go through the disciplinary process of the 3 Cs first.

[Tman]

I’ve already written what I think regarding overtime done AFTER contracted hours. Equal pay for equal work. You shouldn’t be paid less than slow Bob for doing the same amount of work.

Yes, you've already said, so how would you sort the issue out? What's your solution?

And then RM would be bombarded with age discrimination claims for breaking the terms of the Equality Act.

Nonsense. Employers can allocate work according to abilities; every such issue doesn't automatically involve the Equalities Act or any other law.

[Tman]

We all use the PDAs so there's the proof. So when you forget to clock out they won't automatically dock your pay - what will happen is that management will bring it to your intention and may go through the disciplinary process of the 3 Cs first.

"First" being the operative word here. Keep on doing it for whatever reason, and what's the ultimate sanction? Oh yeah, losing pay.
RM expect some sort of return either in efficiency or time-keeping on their huge SISO investment.

Barnacle, you've gone on at length about "problems" as you see it with SISO and O/T, but can't offer any possible solutions to those alleged problems?

[Barnacle]

We all use the PDAs so there's the proof. So when you forget to clock out they won't automatically dock your pay - what will happen is that management will bring it to your intention and may go through the disciplinary process of the 3 Cs first.

"First" being the operative word here. Keep on doing it for whatever reason, and what's the ultimate sanction? Oh yeah, losing pay.
RM expect some sort of return either in efficiency or time-keeping on their huge SISO investment.

Barnacle, you've gone on at length about "problems" as you see it with SISO and O/T, but can't offer any possible solutions to those alleged problems?

I thought I did? The biggest issue with OT to SISO is that it punishes the quickest for being quick. So a flat rate has to be agreed and then if it takes you longer that’s your tough luck but if you are faster, well done.

This also means setting a rate for lumps ion overtime so that managers can’t pick their favourites and pay them double (still happening in our office). As soon as someone discovers that the other postie doing the exact same amount of OT is being paid double they lose the willingness to be made a mug of.

There are other issues with OT to SISO but for me, penalising the fast people is the biggest.

[Tman]

. So a flat rate has to be agreed and then if it takes you longer that’s your tough luck but if you are faster, well done.

So it takes someone longer to do this allotted task and they get extra pay as they're working/on duty for longer?
There can't be SISO for normal hours and job-and-knock for O/T. That's the very thing RM wants to get rid of.

Out there in the Real World part of being a manager is to allocate O/T to the most suitable in getting the job done efficiently, whereas here it's seen as some sort of right for everyone regardless of ability.

[Barnacle]

. So a flat rate has to be agreed and then if it takes you longer that’s your tough luck but if you are faster, well done.

So it takes someone longer to do this allotted task and they get extra pay as they're working/on duty for longer?
There can't be SISO for normal hours and job-and-knock for O/T. That's the very thing RM wants to get rid of.

Out there in the Real World part of being a manager is to allocate O/T to the most suitable in getting the job done efficiently, whereas here it's seen as some sort of right for everyone regardless of ability.

If we go your way, very quickly overtime won’t be worth taking even for the very fastest, because they’ll have to kill themselves to get round it.

Also, can I state the obvious, the slowest postie is a very fast person compared to civilians. So ‘slow Bob’ isn’t really that slow, but RM will expect him to be as fast as someone 30 years younger and that’s a discrimination suit waiting to happen.

[Tman]

If we go your way, very quickly overtime won’t be worth taking even for the very fastest, because they’ll have to kill themselves to get round it.

And so the O/T won't be done, which will then mean managers will offer a more realistic amount of O/T.
Without repeating myself endlessly, how do you think every other firm gets on where O/T is a necessity?

[Barnacle]

If we go your way, very quickly overtime won’t be worth taking even for the very fastest, because they’ll have to kill themselves to get round it.

And so the O/T won't be done, which will then mean managers will offer a more realistic amount of O/T.
Without repeating myself endlessly, how do you think every other firm gets on where O/T is a necessity?

There are various ways to pay overtime. Could be paid by what you take rather than how long it takes you.

[Tman]

So Piece work or Price work then?
That's sure to go down well with the vast majority of the CWU and it's members.