You Will Work as Long as Required

[C T]

Over the years, as I've gone through the ranks a bit, a clause has snuck into my employment contract basically saying you will work the hours required to do the job.

I say snuck, I knew full well about it.

What are peoples thoughts about this?

In all honesty it has never been applied to me unfairly. As a general rule if I do need to work extra one week, I'll just do it without being asked, and take it back the next week without asking.

But I do find it quite an interesting line in the contract. Can they really enfore that?

[Uncle fester]

No overtime and you're not automatically entitled to time in lieu.

[assfly]

"You're paid for the work you do, not the hours you work" is a common clause where I'm from.

But so long as your employer is flexible about it, I don't see much of a problem.

[sockwithaticket]

I understand why it's there, especially for more senior people whose input might be particularly necessary if something hits the fan. One summer when I was with an exam board a van with an exam paper in it got nicked a couple of days before it was due to be sat, so there was an all hours scramble to ensure that the back up paper was distributed to every centre that needed it in time.

It's ripe for abuse by employers though unless very, very precisely couched and that makes me uneasy. Trust in senior management in general has been worn down to a nub.

Can they really enfore that?

Good question, iirc there's a fair bit in contracts, particularly with regards to non compete or non-disclosure, that's unenforceable if someone actually challenges it. Makes sense that there'd be other legally dubious stuff too.

[weegie01]

Over the years, as I've gone through the ranks a bit, a clause has snuck into my employment contract basically saying you will work the hours required to do the job.

I say snuck, I knew full well about it.

What are peoples thoughts about this?

In all honesty it has never been applied to me unfairly. As a general rule if I do need to work extra one week, I'll just do it without being asked, and take it back the next week without asking.

But I do find it quite an interesting line in the contract. Can they really enfore that?

It's a contract, yes they can enforce it unless they are being unreasonable or it breaches working hours law. Even then, contracts I signed explicitly ruled out the application of the working hours directive in the UK, which is permissible.

Every firm I have worked in has had a variation of this once a certain level is reached.

[Paddington Bear]

I understand why it's there, especially for more senior people whose input might be particularly necessary if something hits the fan. One summer when I was with an exam board a van with an exam paper in it got nicked a couple of days before it was due to be sat, so there was an all hours scramble to ensure that the back up paper was distributed to every centre that needed it in time.

It's ripe for abuse by employers though unless very, very precisely couched and that makes me uneasy. Trust in senior management in general has been worn down to a nub.

Can they really enfore that?

Good question, iirc there's a fair bit in contracts, particularly with regards to non compete or non-disclosure, that's unenforceable if someone actually challenges it. Makes sense that there'd be other legally dubious stuff too.

Non-competes as a rule are unenforceable unless they meet strict criteria and are limited in scope. I am blue in the face from telling people this, on the other hand getting someone to sign on the dotted line does tend to have some moral weight and change behaviour.

If you opt out from the working time directives you can’t then complain overly about the hours you’re asked to work. An employer would be on shaky ground if they don’t make reasonable adjustments and if they allow you to get burnt out I believe. I think there are cases where people who’ve been burnt out then dismissed have successfully taken action.

Not my area so wouldn’t take that to the bank.

[Sandstorm]

No overtime and you're not automatically entitled to time in lieu.

I get time in lieu if I work holidays or weekends. But if I have to stay up until 2am sorting a problem on a Tuesday....that's just expected as part of the job.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

I understand why it's there, especially for more senior people whose input might be particularly necessary if something hits the fan. One summer when I was with an exam board a van with an exam paper in it got nicked a couple of days before it was due to be sat, so there was an all hours scramble to ensure that the back up paper was distributed to every centre that needed it in time.

It's ripe for abuse by employers though unless very, very precisely couched and that makes me uneasy. Trust in senior management in general has been worn down to a nub.

Can they really enfore that?

Good question, iirc there's a fair bit in contracts, particularly with regards to non compete or non-disclosure, that's unenforceable if someone actually challenges it. Makes sense that there'd be other legally dubious stuff too.

Non-competes as a rule are unenforceable unless they meet strict criteria and are limited in scope. I am blue in the face from telling people this, on the other hand getting someone to sign on the dotted line does tend to have some moral weight and change behaviour.

If you opt out from the working time directives you can’t then complain overly about the hours you’re asked to work. An employer would be on shaky ground if they don’t make reasonable adjustments and if they allow you to get burnt out I believe. I think there are cases where people who’ve been burnt out then dismissed have successfully taken action.

Not my area so wouldn’t take that to the bank.

There are plenty of job contracts where you will be asked to opt out of the working time directive. What people don't realise is that you can sign it, take the job and then promptly opt back in. You may piss off HR but there's fuck all they can do about it.

[bogbunny]

Would do 55-60 hrs pw Monday - Friday normally including travel around the islands. All on a good salary & benefits. Some days can be a lot shorter and easier.

1.5 x for nightshift or weekend working if required, 2x for weekend nights.

Decent enough.

[Paddington Bear]

I understand why it's there, especially for more senior people whose input might be particularly necessary if something hits the fan. One summer when I was with an exam board a van with an exam paper in it got nicked a couple of days before it was due to be sat, so there was an all hours scramble to ensure that the back up paper was distributed to every centre that needed it in time.

It's ripe for abuse by employers though unless very, very precisely couched and that makes me uneasy. Trust in senior management in general has been worn down to a nub.



Good question, iirc there's a fair bit in contracts, particularly with regards to non compete or non-disclosure, that's unenforceable if someone actually challenges it. Makes sense that there'd be other legally dubious stuff too.

Non-competes as a rule are unenforceable unless they meet strict criteria and are limited in scope. I am blue in the face from telling people this, on the other hand getting someone to sign on the dotted line does tend to have some moral weight and change behaviour.

If you opt out from the working time directives you can’t then complain overly about the hours you’re asked to work. An employer would be on shaky ground if they don’t make reasonable adjustments and if they allow you to get burnt out I believe. I think there are cases where people who’ve been burnt out then dismissed have successfully taken action.

Not my area so wouldn’t take that to the bank.

There are plenty of job contracts where you will be asked to opt out of the working time directive. What people don't realise is that you can sign it, take the job and then promptly opt back in. You may piss off HR but there's fuck all they can do about it.

You’d probably fail probation though.

Ultimately most jobs asking you to do this ought to come with a decent salary to match, so there’s a willing buyer/willing seller relationship involved.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

Non-competes as a rule are unenforceable unless they meet strict criteria and are limited in scope. I am blue in the face from telling people this, on the other hand getting someone to sign on the dotted line does tend to have some moral weight and change behaviour.

If you opt out from the working time directives you can’t then complain overly about the hours you’re asked to work. An employer would be on shaky ground if they don’t make reasonable adjustments and if they allow you to get burnt out I believe. I think there are cases where people who’ve been burnt out then dismissed have successfully taken action.

Not my area so wouldn’t take that to the bank.

There are plenty of job contracts where you will be asked to opt out of the working time directive. What people don't realise is that you can sign it, take the job and then promptly opt back in. You may piss off HR but there's fuck all they can do about it.

You’d probably fail probation though.

Ultimately most jobs asking you to do this ought to come with a decent salary to match, so there’s a willing buyer/willing seller relationship involved.

Possibly incorrect use of the word 'promptly' by me.

My last job had this clause but there it was clear that if you put in some long hours then there'd be a proper reward. After an overnight session in a datacentre in Slough, my boss told me to go out for a nice meal and to "make sure I did it properly"

[Paddington Bear]

There are plenty of job contracts where you will be asked to opt out of the working time directive. What people don't realise is that you can sign it, take the job and then promptly opt back in. You may piss off HR but there's fuck all they can do about it.

You’d probably fail probation though.

Ultimately most jobs asking you to do this ought to come with a decent salary to match, so there’s a willing buyer/willing seller relationship involved.

Possibly incorrect use of the word 'promptly' by me.

My last job had this clause but there it was clear that if you put in some long hours then there'd be a proper reward. After an overnight session in a datacentre in Slough, my boss told me to go out for a nice meal and to "make sure I did it properly"

Yeah it’s generally my experience as well. Ultimately if you’re asking big things of your employees and giving nothing back, you won’t have employees for very long. Hence large salaries, perks, time in lieu etc

[vball]

Been with the world's largest healthcare company for nearly 40 years in the manufacturing of their products - although just moved to their new off shoot company to see out my finals working days.
We have 24x7 manufacturing all over the world. Manufacturing rarely stops as it costs so much time/effort to stop/start production. I have never been paid direct overtime but get time in lieu, very flexible working and my annual bonus reflects the extras I have put in.
For those that are not willing to do the extra, be more flexible, perhaps sometimes put work before family, they move onto to other companies that have different demands and cultures. They are not wroking/right, just the company and person is not matched.

Although I am no longer at the real coalface, my phone is constantly on and will be over the season of "compulsory fun and goodwill". If needed, I will get called and respond as best I am able.

[shaggy]

You’d probably fail probation though.

Ultimately most jobs asking you to do this ought to come with a decent salary to match, so there’s a willing buyer/willing seller relationship involved.

Possibly incorrect use of the word 'promptly' by me.

My last job had this clause but there it was clear that if you put in some long hours then there'd be a proper reward. After an overnight session in a datacentre in Slough, my boss told me to go out for a nice meal and to "make sure I did it properly"

Yeah it’s generally my experience as well. Ultimately if you’re asking big things of your employees and giving nothing back, you won’t have employees for very long. Hence large salaries, perks, time in lieu etc

My job requires me to be part of an Incident Management Team and I have pulled a few 3 day shifts in the past. Sleep in the office in a quiet space, pizza on speed dial, etc. Takes a few days to recover but the bonus has tended to have quite a few 000s so no complaints.

[Hal Jordan]

£00.01 has a fair amount of noughts.

[Biffer]

I understand why it's there, especially for more senior people whose input might be particularly necessary if something hits the fan. One summer when I was with an exam board a van with an exam paper in it got nicked a couple of days before it was due to be sat, so there was an all hours scramble to ensure that the back up paper was distributed to every centre that needed it in time.

It's ripe for abuse by employers though unless very, very precisely couched and that makes me uneasy. Trust in senior management in general has been worn down to a nub.



Good question, iirc there's a fair bit in contracts, particularly with regards to non compete or non-disclosure, that's unenforceable if someone actually challenges it. Makes sense that there'd be other legally dubious stuff too.

Non-competes as a rule are unenforceable unless they meet strict criteria and are limited in scope. I am blue in the face from telling people this, on the other hand getting someone to sign on the dotted line does tend to have some moral weight and change behaviour.

If you opt out from the working time directives you can’t then complain overly about the hours you’re asked to work. An employer would be on shaky ground if they don’t make reasonable adjustments and if they allow you to get burnt out I believe. I think there are cases where people who’ve been burnt out then dismissed have successfully taken action.

Not my area so wouldn’t take that to the bank.

There are plenty of job contracts where you will be asked to opt out of the working time directive. What people don't realise is that you can sign it, take the job and then promptly opt back in. You may piss off HR but there's fuck all they can do about it.

You can only opt out of certain parts of the WTD though. Some of it, for example the stuff around breaks and time between working days, applies regardless. The number of people, employers and managers, who don’t know this and repeatedly break the law with scheduling employees is frightening.

[Yeeb]

I can think of someone who obviously felt that ‘not very long’ was the answer

[Uncle fester]

No overtime and you're not automatically entitled to time in lieu.

I get time in lieu if I work holidays or weekends. But if I have to stay up until 2am sorting a problem on a Tuesday....that's just expected as part of the job.

Really?
I always make sure my guys get time like that back and I always add it to my own leave. If there's no overtime payments, there needs to be an incentive.

Bonus payments are not a great way to do it. Too much scope for "recalibration" and half the bonus is down to company performance anyway.

[Blackmac]

About 20 years ago, police inspectors and above gave up overtime payments for a £3000 rise in salary. Guess how well that worked out.

[Sandstorm]

No overtime and you're not automatically entitled to time in lieu.

I get time in lieu if I work holidays or weekends. But if I have to stay up until 2am sorting a problem on a Tuesday....that's just expected as part of the job.

Really?
I always make sure my guys get time like that back and I always add it to my own leave. If there's no overtime payments, there needs to be an incentive.

Bonus payments are not a great way to do it. Too much scope for "recalibration" and half the bonus is down to company performance anyway.

Oh don't worry, I make a fortune stealing office stationery and selling it on Ebay.

[Jock42]

About 20 years ago, police inspectors and above gave up overtime payments for a £3000 rise in salary. Guess how well that worked out.

There seem to be a lot of my colleagues that want us to be an emergency service without realising the consequences. A potential huge benefit would be retiring earlier but there's nae danger I'm being forced to give up time off and leave to cover shifts for the next couple of decades.

As for the legalities of enforcing working extra I've no idea. I get paid for OT and over runs and I'll not be working for anyone that doesn't pay me for that again.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

No overtime and you're not automatically entitled to time in lieu.

I get time in lieu if I work holidays or weekends. But if I have to stay up until 2am sorting a problem on a Tuesday....that's just expected as part of the job.

Really?
I always make sure my guys get time like that back and I always add it to my own leave. If there's no overtime payments, there needs to be an incentive.

Bonus payments are not a great way to do it. Too much scope for "recalibration" and half the bonus is down to company performance anyway.

The reason I was pulling an allnighter in Slough at a weekend was that our support organisation - bizarrely - had no ability to pay staff overtime, TOIL or entertainment expenses. The head of support would ask us (the sales org) to provide staff as we could just run up a mahoosive expense bill in compensation

[dpedin]

My understanding is that you cannot sign away all your employment rights and clauses that say 'work the hours required' still require the employer to be cognizant of a range of legal responsibilities, such as health and safety. For example if an employee who has been working long hours has an accident at working long hours brought on by tiredness, stress, etc then the employer will be liable for not taking reasonable efforts to protect employee, regardless of what the contract says re working hours. Unfortunately many employers think they become exempt from all these responsibilities once the contract is in place!

[Niegs]

I thought this might be a discussion between those of us who will never be able to retire.

[sockwithaticket]

I thought this might be a discussion between those of us who will never be able to retire.

I too look forward to never actually getting to make use of the pension I've been paying into and keeling over while at work.

[Biffer]

My understanding is that you cannot sign away all your employment rights and clauses that say 'work the hours required' still require the employer to be cognizant of a range of legal responsibilities, such as health and safety. For example if an employee who has been working long hours has an accident at working long hours brought on by tiredness, stress, etc then the employer will be liable for not taking reasonable efforts to protect employee, regardless of what the contract says re working hours. Unfortunately many employers think they become exempt from all these responsibilities once the contract is in place!

Exactly. You can't sign up to a contract that breaks the law. It invalidates the entire contract, not just that clause.

[weegie01]

My understanding is that you cannot sign away all your employment rights and clauses that say 'work the hours required' still require the employer to be cognizant of a range of legal responsibilities, such as health and safety. For example if an employee who has been working long hours has an accident at working long hours brought on by tiredness, stress, etc then the employer will be liable for not taking reasonable efforts to protect employee, regardless of what the contract says re working hours. Unfortunately many employers think they become exempt from all these responsibilities once the contract is in place!

Exactly. You can't sign up to a contract that breaks the law. It invalidates the entire contract, not just that clause.

Illegality taints a contract, whether it invalidates the whole contract depends on the degree of taint.

If the contract relates to an illegal act in its entirety, it is unenforceable.

If a contract has a number of clauses there can be severability. Actual severability means that there is a severability clause in the contract that states that each other clause is independent of each other, and illegality in one does not invalidate the contract as a whole, or any other clauses. If there is no severability clause, courts can apply severability if the remainder of the contract remains valid and enforceable after the illegal clauses have been removed.

Practically, the extent and serious of the illegality may or may not invalidate a contract. A contract which is otherwise valid but has one clause demanding a party to commit a serious offence would be so tainted that even if every other clauses were valid, the contract as a whole would be invalid.

If the illegality in a clause or clauses was lesser, whether the contract as a whole is invalidated depends on the degree of taint. A contract would be invalidated by many illegal clauses and a couple of legal ones. But if there was one illegal clause in a contract, and this could be removed and leave a valid contract, that balance of the contract would still stand.

[Ovals]

It was in all my contracts for the last 35 years of my working life. Never had time off in lieu. Once had to work all over Xmas (2000) after a plane flew into our main factory and offices - no heating, every sopping wet (from the hoses and sprinklers) and stunk of smoke and aircraft fuel. Luckily we'd shut up shop for the hols so the only fatalities were the 6 people on board.

If you want a decent career, you can't be a clock watcher.

[Niegs]

I thought this might be a discussion between those of us who will never be able to retire.

I too look forward to never actually getting to make use of the pension I've been paying into and keeling over while at work.

Ha... well at least I haven't been paying much into pensions.

This line from Mr Show always remains in the back of my mind ...