babble: "working for nothing"

FAQ | Forum Home

»	babble » walking the talk » labour and consumption » "working for nothing"

Email this thread to someone!

Author

Topic: "working for nothing"

CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 02 September 2006 03:31 PM

quote:
Employees of Highland Community Residential Services (HCRS) say their employer's practice of paying them for five hours work on a 10-hour overnight shift should be illegal - and the members of CUPE Local 2330 are mounting a public campaign to highlight the unfair practice.

Employees of Pictou County agency say practice of "working for nothing" has to stop

From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004 | IP: Logged

oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 02 September 2006 04:32 PM

I have a long association with this type of employer; smaller local agencies that run residential services for children and adults with various "percieved" functional deficits.

By God they have got to be the worst employers! As a class, they have a reputation for operating with an absolute disregard for relevent labour legislation. There has not historically been a big tradition of unionising within this sector, but it is becoming more common.

I've known a couple of instances where CUPE, and OPSEU respectively have had to drag employers kicking and screaming into the 20th century.

From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 03 September 2006 08:25 PM

Then one can only imagine the conditions that the residents of these facilities have to endure in order for the owners to even further maximize their profits.

From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006 | IP: Logged

Pearson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12739

posted 11 September 2006 12:59 AM

Well, the employees get to sleep on hte job for five hours, and for five hours they are working.

So, it's not fair that they are forced to be there for five hours, and not get paid for it.

But, it's also not fair that they get to sleep for five hours, and get paid the full amount for the time they were sleeping.

So, either:

a) They find some sort of compromise - such as they are paid 1/3 of their salary while sleeping, and extra if they have to do anything.

b) They get paid the full amount, but are assigned duties through the night, and aren't permitted to sleep.

[ 11 September 2006: Message edited by: Pearson ]

From: 905 Oasis | Registered: Jun 2006 | IP: Logged

timmah
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6658

posted 11 September 2006 09:32 AM

I disagree. If they are required to be there for ten hours, then they should be paid their full wages for ten hours.

From: Alberta | Registered: Aug 2004 | IP: Logged

Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 11 September 2006 09:35 AM

Well if they don't want to pay them for sleeping on the job, let them go home and sleep then. And who sleeps well for five hours at a time ?. They'd have to pay me well to fuck up my sleep like that.

From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004 | IP: Logged

unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 11 September 2006 09:37 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Pearson:

But, it's also not fair that they get to sleep for five hours, and get paid the full amount for the time they were sleeping.

Pearson is correct. They should get paid the same wage while sleeping on the job as other Canadians.

Such as Senators.

From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005 | IP: Logged

bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 11 September 2006 10:21 AM

Years ago I worked at a residential service/group home workplace as an overnight worker and the job switched to "awake" as I took on the position. It had been an "asleep" position up until then; this meant that the worker could sleep. It didn't mean she did. There were always nightly tasks and chores, and if there was an emergency she (obviously) had to be awake to deal with it (unlike the Senators). She was paid for the full 9 hours of the shift, as I was.

[ 11 September 2006: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]

From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005 | IP: Logged

unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 11 September 2006 10:33 AM

If they are required to be there, they must be paid - otherwise these kind caring employers are likely violating the minimum wage law, and possibly hours of work (how many total hours are they there per week, by the way?).

From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005 | IP: Logged

Pearson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12739

posted 11 September 2006 10:47 AM

Great. Easy solution then.

Make them work ten hours. You don't get to sleep on the job anymore.

Everyone's happy.

From: 905 Oasis | Registered: Jun 2006 | IP: Logged

Erstwhile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4845

posted 11 September 2006 02:05 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Pearson:
Great. Easy solution then.
Make them work ten hours. You don't get to sleep on the job anymore.
Everyone's happy.

Works for me. At least then it's a real night shift and they're explicitly on the clock. None of this "we're not paying you but you can't leave" crap.

From: Deepest Darkest Saskabush | Registered: Jan 2004 | IP: Logged

Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 11 September 2006 09:25 PM

quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Pearson is correct. They should get paid the same wage while sleeping on the job as other Canadians.
Such as Senators.

HA!

From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004 | IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time

Hop To: