35 hrs is the full time contract now, that's the default position ever since the union proposed it.
I am not on a 35 hrs contract yet management say that I am so close to it they will treat me as I am.
Genuine question - what benefit do you get from management treating you as FT @ 35 hrs (or near to it)?
I get no benefit whatsoever. I turn in on time and have at the moment 28 minutes to fully prep from scratch two 37 HR duties with a 9 o'clock starter. No regular duty rotation, which I do and should have. No I get moved on to the failed duties that have three or more days mail in the frame. And here you go you are with the new starter who has had one weeks training on another duty.
There is no specific number of hours that makes someone full or part-time, but a full-time worker will usually work 35 hours or more a week.
Similarly, there is no legal definition of a part-time worker, but anyone working less than the “normal” hours worked by a full-time worker at the same organisation would qualify as being part-time.
There is no specific number of hours that makes someone full or part-time, but a full-time worker will usually work 35 hours or more a week.
Similarly, there is no legal definition of a part-time worker, but anyone working less than the “normal” hours worked by a full-time worker at the same organisation would qualify as being part-time.
There is no specific number of hours that makes someone full or part-time, but a full-time worker will usually work 35 hours or more a week.
Similarly, there is no legal definition of a part-time worker, but anyone working less than the “normal” hours worked by a full-time worker at the same organisation would qualify as being part-time.
There is no specific number of hours that makes someone full or part-time, but a full-time worker will usually work 35 hours or more a week.
Similarly, there is no legal definition of a part-time worker, but anyone working less than the “normal” hours worked by a full-time worker at the same organisation would qualify as being part-time.
(Source: gov.uk)
Helpful as ever.
Pointless as ever.
It must be wonderful to be you. All that accumulated knowledge and experience you have. And how supportive you are in your office.
There is no specific number of hours that makes someone full or part-time, but a full-time worker will usually work 35 hours or more a week.
Similarly, there is no legal definition of a part-time worker, but anyone working less than the “normal” hours worked by a full-time worker at the same organisation would qualify as being part-time.
(Source: gov.uk)
Helpful as ever.
Pointless as ever.
I understand your superiority complex Smooth. Your vast experience within the company and your extraordinary abilities.
However you are simply wrong.
35 hrs is now classed within RM as the full time contract.
There is no specific number of hours that makes someone full or part-time, but a full-time worker will usually work 35 hours or more a week.
Similarly, there is no legal definition of a part-time worker, but anyone working less than the “normal” hours worked by a full-time worker at the same organisation would qualify as being part-time.
(Source: gov.uk)
Helpful as ever.
Pointless as ever.
I understand your superiority complex Smooth. Your vast experience within the company and your extraordinary abilities.
However you are simply wrong.
I haven’t expressed a view either way, have I? I merely pointed out the gov.uk website and the fact that “full time” is not neatly defined in statute. Indeed, it is more or less copied and pasted verbatim. What therefore can I be “simply wrong” about, old chum? Put another way, are you saying the gov.uk website is wrong?
Furthermore, please provide a source or link for your somewhat bald assertion that “35 hrs is now classed within RM as the full time contract”.
There is no specific number of hours that makes someone full or part-time, but a full-time worker will usually work 35 hours or more a week.
Similarly, there is no legal definition of a part-time worker, but anyone working less than the “normal” hours worked by a full-time worker at the same organisation would qualify as being part-time.
(Source: gov.uk)
Helpful as ever.
Pointless as ever.
I understand your superiority complex Smooth. Your vast experience within the company and your extraordinary abilities.
However you are simply wrong.
I haven’t expressed a view either way, have I? I merely pointed out the gov.uk website and the fact that “full time” is not neatly defined in statute. Indeed, it is more or less copied and pasted verbatim. What therefore can I be “simply wrong” about, old chum? Put another way, are you saying the gov.uk website is wrong?
Furthermore, please provide a source or link for your somewhat bald assertion that “35 hrs is now classed within RM as the full time contract”.
Source? Link?
RM HR.
You could simply ask your gaffer... That's the person you have been sucking up to.
Forget the " Old Guard" as you call them on a 37 HR contract , that's history. They will be gone.
So if 35 hours is the full time contract, what is my own 40-hour contract classed as then? If mine is full time, I suppose that makes the 35 hours less than full time? Part time??
So if 35 hours is the full time contract, what is my own 40-hour contract classed as then? If mine is full time, I suppose that makes the 35 hours less than full time? Part time??
Full time is 35hrs and upwards.
’You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.’
