Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 1373523 times)

8 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

wolfie

  • I don't know what this is so I am putting random words here
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7088
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5115 on: December 18, 2013, 01:15:40 PM »
Also, as someone pointed out on another forum I read, if they have enough staff cover that they can fire him a week before Christmas and leave themselves a chef short for allegedly their busiest time of the year, then they could probably have done without him on Christmas day in the first place.

That is probably true, but considering he was hired only three months ago there would be a lot of resentment if the new guy got Christmas off while people who have been working there much longer (possibly years) didn't. Giving him the day off (even if they could spare him) would cost them way more in resentment from the workers who knew better then to ask. And next year all of them will ask because hey - they gave the new guy the day off last year.

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7759
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5116 on: December 18, 2013, 01:16:40 PM »
According to reports on his personal twitter account, he has been offered a new job elsewhere and has accepted it.

nutraxfornerves

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1999
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5117 on: December 18, 2013, 01:49:19 PM »
Quote
We have generous annual leave policies by law (minimum of 28 days, often more at the company's discretion for employees working 5 days a week; I hear it's about 2 weeks over there?)

There is no legally mandated minimum leave in the US, not even for holidays. The law "does not require payment for time not worked, such as vacations, sick leave or holidays (federal or otherwise). These benefits are a matter of agreement between an employer and an employee (or the employee's representative)."  Two weeks is a common practice. Employees covered by union or personal contracts, or who are civil service government employees, may get more (most employees are not covered by a contract.) Some employers may increase leave time with seniority.

Nutrax
The plural of anecdote is not data

perpetua

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5118 on: December 18, 2013, 02:17:30 PM »
Quote
We have generous annual leave policies by law (minimum of 28 days, often more at the company's discretion for employees working 5 days a week; I hear it's about 2 weeks over there?)

There is no legally mandated minimum leave in the US, not even for holidays. The law "does not require payment for time not worked, such as vacations, sick leave or holidays (federal or otherwise). These benefits are a matter of agreement between an employer and an employee (or the employee's representative)."  Two weeks is a common practice. Employees covered by union or personal contracts, or who are civil service government employees, may get more (most employees are not covered by a contract.) Some employers may increase leave time with seniority.

Yeah, indeed, that's pretty much how I understood it.

I think that several non-UK posters are looking at it through their own worldview, ie, that it was somehow a huge faux-pas for the guy to ask for time off after only being employed since October and that his doing so makes him some kind of terrible employee, or that he *should* work every single Sunday until the end of time because that's how things work over there... but that really isn't the case here. Things are different, so I'm looking at it from that angle too.

The differences in holidays etc would make a good topic for the Transatlantic Knowledge Exchange, actually.

wolfie

  • I don't know what this is so I am putting random words here
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7088
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5119 on: December 18, 2013, 02:21:44 PM »
Quote
We have generous annual leave policies by law (minimum of 28 days, often more at the company's discretion for employees working 5 days a week; I hear it's about 2 weeks over there?)

There is no legally mandated minimum leave in the US, not even for holidays. The law "does not require payment for time not worked, such as vacations, sick leave or holidays (federal or otherwise). These benefits are a matter of agreement between an employer and an employee (or the employee's representative)."  Two weeks is a common practice. Employees covered by union or personal contracts, or who are civil service government employees, may get more (most employees are not covered by a contract.) Some employers may increase leave time with seniority.

Yeah, indeed, that's pretty much how I understood it.

I think that several non-UK posters are looking at it through their own worldview, ie, that it was somehow a huge faux-pas for the guy to ask for time off after only being employed since October and that his doing so makes him some kind of terrible employee, or that he *should* work every single Sunday until the end of time because that's how things work over there... but that really isn't the case here. Things are different, so I'm looking at it from that angle too.

The differences in holidays etc would make a good topic for the Transatlantic Knowledge Exchange, actually.

I am not sure if my post was included in this, but I think it is a huge faux-pas to ask for time off when you were told just two months earlier that noone gets that time off. And I would consider that to be the case if you worked there for years - you were told that isn't going to be possible and to just come in a few months later and say "I know you said it was possible but I want it anyway" doesn't make you look good.

jedikaiti

  • Swiss Army Nerd
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2790
  • A pie in the hand is worth two in the mail.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5120 on: December 18, 2013, 03:53:05 PM »
Quote
We have generous annual leave policies by law (minimum of 28 days, often more at the company's discretion for employees working 5 days a week; I hear it's about 2 weeks over there?)

There is no legally mandated minimum leave in the US, not even for holidays. The law "does not require payment for time not worked, such as vacations, sick leave or holidays (federal or otherwise). These benefits are a matter of agreement between an employer and an employee (or the employee's representative)."  Two weeks is a common practice. Employees covered by union or personal contracts, or who are civil service government employees, may get more (most employees are not covered by a contract.) Some employers may increase leave time with seniority.

Yeah, indeed, that's pretty much how I understood it.

I think that several non-UK posters are looking at it through their own worldview, ie, that it was somehow a huge faux-pas for the guy to ask for time off after only being employed since October and that his doing so makes him some kind of terrible employee, or that he *should* work every single Sunday until the end of time because that's how things work over there... but that really isn't the case here. Things are different, so I'm looking at it from that angle too.

The differences in holidays etc would make a good topic for the Transatlantic Knowledge Exchange, actually.

I am not sure if my post was included in this, but I think it is a huge faux-pas to ask for time off when you were told just two months earlier that noone gets that time off. And I would consider that to be the case if you worked there for years - you were told that isn't going to be possible and to just come in a few months later and say "I know you said it was possible but I want it anyway" doesn't make you look good.

Yea - just asking isn't the problem. Not being willing to take "no" gracefully is a problem, and as wolfie said, asking when you'd already been told it was NOT happening for anyone, well, that gets into SS territory.
What part of v_e = \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}} don't you understand? It's only rocket science!

"The problem with re-examining your brilliant ideas is that more often than not, you discover they are the intellectual equivalent of saying, 'Hold my beer and watch this!'" - Cindy Couture

Lauds

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 368
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5121 on: December 18, 2013, 04:19:47 PM »
Re the pub chef and asking for time off in blackout periods especially when new, is if you tell your employer at the time you are offered the job that you are going to need either specific dates off because you already have a holiday booked, or that you are going to need days off that month for x reason but you aren't sure of the exact days just yet. If they say that's fine, you start working and then when it gets closer to the time you remind or ask them about the leave and they change their minds I can see the employee being rather annoyed. Not saying that's what happened here, but that would be an exception to the general rule of new staff not asking for time off in busy periods.

I'm not sure how common it is elsewhere but in my experience employers ask their new employees if they have any holidays planned either at the time of offering them the job or sometimes earlier in the process. And they usually give you the time off for those days. For example at my current job one of the people in my training group had the day off to go to a concert while we were still in training (so in the first six weeks) because she had discussed it with work before she started.

perpetua

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5122 on: December 18, 2013, 04:26:26 PM »
Quote
We have generous annual leave policies by law (minimum of 28 days, often more at the company's discretion for employees working 5 days a week; I hear it's about 2 weeks over there?)

There is no legally mandated minimum leave in the US, not even for holidays. The law "does not require payment for time not worked, such as vacations, sick leave or holidays (federal or otherwise). These benefits are a matter of agreement between an employer and an employee (or the employee's representative)."  Two weeks is a common practice. Employees covered by union or personal contracts, or who are civil service government employees, may get more (most employees are not covered by a contract.) Some employers may increase leave time with seniority.

Yeah, indeed, that's pretty much how I understood it.

I think that several non-UK posters are looking at it through their own worldview, ie, that it was somehow a huge faux-pas for the guy to ask for time off after only being employed since October and that his doing so makes him some kind of terrible employee, or that he *should* work every single Sunday until the end of time because that's how things work over there... but that really isn't the case here. Things are different, so I'm looking at it from that angle too.

The differences in holidays etc would make a good topic for the Transatlantic Knowledge Exchange, actually.

I am not sure if my post was included in this, but I think it is a huge faux-pas to ask for time off when you were told just two months earlier that noone gets that time off. And I would consider that to be the case if you worked there for years - you were told that isn't going to be possible and to just come in a few months later and say "I know you said it was possible but I want it anyway" doesn't make you look good.

Oh no, you're right of course. If it *had* been made clear to him that nobody gets time off during that period (and he hadn't already specified that he had commitments on X-dates within that period when offered the position, as Lauds says above) then he's in the wrong. What I was trying to address was the general idea that it was somehow some kind of PD to take any time off within the first X months of employment, which it generally isn't here. I've been doing some reading about this today in light of this thread, and it seems that is accepted wisdom in the US. But it isn't here.

Ms_Cellany

  • The Queen of Squee
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5842
  • Big white goggie? No. Hasn't seen him.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5123 on: December 18, 2013, 04:34:31 PM »
This can be done gracefully. We had a new employee who had a commitment to attend a wedding. Normally, you don't get time off for the first six months, but when she was hired, she mentioned the wedding and asked for (and received) the time off.

No fuss, no muss.
Using a chainsaw is as close as we come to having a lightsaber in this life.

MommyPenguin

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4464
    • My blog!
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5124 on: December 18, 2013, 10:11:38 PM »
I had two different jobs in which I needed time off when it wasn't technically allowed.  One was a summer internship.  I told them during the hiring process and then again when I was assigned to my department, and was able to take a week off (without pay) for a family vacation (I was in college).  They were fine with it.

The other was when I was in a fairly new job and got the opportunity to get laser eye surgery.  I didn't know about it before I got the position, but my boss let me take leave without pay for a Friday so I could get the surgery Friday and be back Monday.  (The funny part was that I had to wear glasses instead of my usual contacts for a week before the surgery to let my eyes return to their natural shape.  My big boss commented, on the day before my surgery, that she wouldn't recognize me without my glasses.  You know, the glasses that I'd *only* been wearing for that one week.  Ha.)

Library Dragon

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1478
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5125 on: December 19, 2013, 01:42:30 AM »
This can be done gracefully. We had a new employee who had a commitment to attend a wedding. Normally, you don't get time off for the first six months, but when she was hired, she mentioned the wedding and asked for (and received) the time off.

No fuss, no muss.

DS1 did this when interviewing at a restaurant. He told the manager up front that he was the best man at a wedding the next month. No problem. The next month the manager didn't want to give him off. 

It does happen, but DS1 didn't hack bad mouth the restaurant. He just found a job else where.

Here being scheduled to work every Saturday or Sunday doesn't mean you can never take those days off. It means all the weekend staff cannot have the same day off--just as with any other day.

            Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

SoCalVal

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5126 on: December 19, 2013, 04:58:58 AM »
AFAIK (and in my experience), it's not standard practice to not grant any time off in the first six months of employment.  However, at my work, no one is granted PAID vacation time off during the first six months because it is the probationary period so an employee is not eligible to use paid vacation time.

Also, if an employee states at the time of hiring that there is already a commitment coming up that requires time off, there typically isn't an issue.

People are getting really stuck on the fact he was hired to work every Sunday.  I got hired to work every Monday-Friday; my job is a Monday-Friday job.  I don't get the option to state, "I will now work Sunday-Thursday because I need Fridays off.  This doesn't mean I can never have off one of my regular workdays, but it sure does mean I can't have one of those days off on a regular basis.  The guy was hired to work Sundays and was told this as it's their busiest day (I worked at a retail pharmacy 20 years ago and was told Mondays were our busiest day so everyone worked on Mondays, which was true as all of us were regularly scheduled on Mondays).  When he informed his employer he would not work Sundays moving forward, he decided his own fate.  He also was told he'd be working Christmas then turned around after two months of employment and stated he wanted Christmas off.  Two months, he'd been working there two months and wanted Christmas off over the other chefs who had been working there longer.  Sometimes, no matter how busy or how shorthanded you know you will be, it's best to let go the deadweight (and, yes, not so much Christmas but the statement about no longer working their busiest day of the week tells me he's deadweight).  I'd be interested to see how well his next job pans out.



perpetua

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5127 on: December 19, 2013, 05:22:35 AM »
When he informed his employer he would not work Sundays moving forward, he decided his own fate.

I haven't seen any report that states this is the case. I read the statement from the pub that said a Sunday 'in the near future'. That might mean he asked for one Sunday off. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's no different to asking for a Wednesday off if you work in an office. There's absolutely nothing wrong with asking for a day's holiday on one of your scheduled days.

Quote
He also was told he'd be working Christmas then turned around after two months of employment and stated he wanted Christmas off.  Two months, he'd been working there two months and wanted Christmas off over the other chefs who had been working there longer.

He was also the *head* chef. I think that carries some weight. He's senior to the others.

Quote
Sometimes, no matter how busy or how shorthanded you know you will be, it's best to let go the deadweight (and, yes, not so much Christmas but the statement about no longer working their busiest day of the week tells me he's deadweight). 

Again, I don't think this is what he said. He never said he wouldn't work any more Sundays. I'm not sure where people are getting that from - can you provide a source?

In the UK we 'accrue' paid holiday from the very first day of our employment. There is nothing to say that you can't take the two days you've accrued in your first month at the end of that first month, for example - and you will be paid for it.  Referring to the guy as 'deadweight' for  asking for holiday days after 2 months is really unfair. Because that isn't how it works here. I don't know what else I can say to get that across. People are basing their opinions of this guy against working practices in their own country and I find that really unfair.

Psychopoesie

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 916
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5128 on: December 19, 2013, 06:06:20 AM »
It's a similar system in Australia, with 4 weeks annual leave accruing from the day a worker starts. There's no waiting period that I'm aware of for when you get to take that. Employers aren't meant to refuse reasonable requests (not saying chef's request was but it could well have been). By Christmas, he could have accrued almost a week's leave (depends on when he started and what other leave he'd taken).

The general point perpetua is making is reasonable - I also don't understand why some posters seem to be responding to the UK chef based on a completely different type of employment system. For example, if there's an x-month waiting period elsewhere or no minimum leave entitlement, I don't understand why that's relevant to chef's situation.

Having said that, tweeting from the employer's account after he was fired was wrong and really stupid. Plus, even though he was likely to have been entitled to leave, as a PP pointed out, it may not have been a great idea to push for it if he was the newest hire - in terms of building good relationships with his coworkers. Depends a lot on the workplace culture.

It could be he's a bit of an idiot who's entitled and unreasonable. It's equally possible the employers were - inflexible authoritarians who didn't value the efforts he made above and beyond which brought this to a head.

Once it hit the media, not sure it's possible to get to the truth.

perpetua

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5129 on: December 19, 2013, 06:12:12 AM »
Having said that, tweeting from the employer's account after he was fired was wrong and really stupid.

Oh, definitely not a smart move. Although, if he *had* been screwed over by the pub, I can certainly understand the temptation  :)