Dodgy happenings at work

Post Reply New Topic

I'm completing the fourth week of my assessment which will hopefully lead to a job starting in January. Now one of the supervisors there said some stuff that has me a bit worried. He's usually a nice guy, friendly, joking around and saying that his less jocular colleague is the “bad cop” to his “good cop”. He's a nice guy. I hope he's not a nice guy who turns out to be a two-face.

His colleague, our other supervisor, gave a PowerPoint sideshow depicting the typical workday that we'll be facing in January. She had a schedule that read as following;

08:30 – Arrive at work.
12:00 – Lunch break, read work documents while eating at desk.
12:30 – Back to work.
17:00 – go home.

Than the guy said he didn't want us slacking off next year because we'd be getting paid to work “37.5 hours per week”. This got me thinking, 37.5 hours per week, isn't that 7.5 hours per day? I had a chat with him.
Me: 37.5 hours per week is 7.5 hours per day yet the schedule is for 8.5 hours per day.
Him: Yes but you get a half hour off for lunch and we're not going to be paying you for time you're not working.
Me: But your colleague said we must spend our lunch break reading work documents.
Him: Yes you must but it still doesn't count as paid time.
note: I asked some other people and found out that it's standard practice in many work places to be required to work through lunch and yet still not be paid for it. I can accept that but the next part of the conversation had me even more concerned.
Me: OK, so we take off half an hour for lunch, that still leaves 8 hours remaining.
Him: Yes but it's 8 hours minus half an hour, that's why you only get paid for 7.5 hours.
Me: No but 8.5 hours minus half is 8. The total work day is 8.5 hours long.
Him: Let's see so 9 to 10 is one hour, 9 to 11 is two hours, 9 to 12 is eight hours... and so on 'till he reached 9 to 5 is eight hours. Than he said to just take an hour off for lunch.

I don't think I'll actually be permitted to take hour long lunch breaks and I have a feeling that for us the clock starts at 9:00, even though we're required to start at 8:30.

So at the end of the day I headed home and after a while it hit me, he's a middle aged man who's bee working full time for at least 20 years. How could he not be familiar with the concept of “9 to 5 is an 8 hour day”. If you know that premise “and every worker does” you can work out that say for example 9 to 6 is a 9 hour day but just adding on an extra hour instead of having to calculate from scratch.

A while later, something else hit me. Why was he making such a show of counting the hours one at a time? It was almost as bad as him counting on his fingers. How can he be so bad at arithmetic? That I thought, he's got a degree in software engineering. To get that degree you need to be pretty good at calculus. There's no way he's bad at arithmetic if he can do calculus. I think he was pretending to be bad at maths so he could have deniability.

He also said some other dodgy stuff like;
Him: You can claim overtime. I work a few hours overtime every week without claiming it.
Me: Is not claiming your overtime an expected part of company culture?

He gave a long winded answer about how we may be required to work after 17:00 but we need approval from our supervisor (him) to claim overtime and in most cases he will only grant such approval for weekend work.

Another trainee than asked if we would be paid time and a half for weekend work. He asked two or three times and each time the supervisor ignored the question. I have a feeling we'll be paid the standard hourly rate on weekends.

So, what do you guys think of this conundrum? Do any of you have any advice for me? Have any of you ever faced similar problems?

Unfortunately, I think this is common. If it is a company culture, then they are ripe for a lawsuit. I think most of the time it's due to some bad eggs in management.

Yeah. I know it's part of their culture but I'm kind of bummed about having to work through lunch break (as well as the other half hour not accounted for). I mean, they're basically saying they want me to work 8.5 hours without any break at all (and I have a long commute). I think it would be reasonable for people to take some time to relax in 8.5 hours. I know in other industries it would be the norm to get a break in an ~8 hour day (and I mean an actual break.

But in IT? Not only do they not permit me to stop work during lunch but I find it insulting that they don't pay me for that time because it's "lunch break" and "we're not paying you to take a break" even though I'm working through the break. What did George Orwell say about doublethink? Also this 8.5 - 0.5 = 7.5 stuff is just so frustrating. What did George Orwell say about 2 + 2 = 5? All this stuff about we pay you for an hour less because you have 30 minutes for lunch nonsense. It's even more nonsense when I have to work through it anyway. His whole argument is based on a nonexistent lunch break (of indeterminate length). His whole argument is "we dock you for an hour because you have a half hour break (which we made you work through).

I Googled for "Unpaid overtime" and read some really depressing stories. It didn't help that many of them were in IT.

After I raised some of these points with my supervisor he said "if you help the company, the company will help you". I got the feeling those were the words that proceed a one way deal where I give the company overtime and don't get paid for it.

Also, I remember he said I would definitely not get overtime if I was working after 17:00 because I worked too slow. This made me think "what if they give me unrealistic deadlines?" Then they would say I was working too slow when I wasn't. They might give me 10 hours of work for an 8.5 hour day and tell me it's because I'm being to slow. There's no need for me to worry about that. Software companies never have unrealistic deadlines, right?
/sarcasm

All what you stated is typical for jobs.

I've been working at the same place for 34 years.

Make sure you document your overtime.

9 to 5 is an 8-hour day. Some companies pay you for lunch--others don't. Most don't. If you get 1/2 hour for lunch, you'll usually get paid for 7.5 hours.

Will you be receiving an hourly wage, or a salary?

Remember: all this is much better than being on assistance (even though you get paid the same for assistance!)

This is like a comedy sketch it is so ridiculous.

congrats for speaking up, shame no-one else seems to.

One thing you could do is, when you recieve your check, go to the same person and say: "remember that conversation we had where I showed you it is 8.5 hours? well I only got paid for 7.5"
and see what happens

I'll try but the supervisor said I can only file for overtime if I have supervisor approval (him) and he said "I don't file for the overtime I work except on weekends and you shouldn't either.

He was a bit vague. It could be that his undocumented over time was only working through the unpaid lunch break and nothing more (not as bad) or it could also include working after 17:00 (worse).

Yeah I know but I don't like him saying "8:30 to 17:00 is an 8 hour day" or "8:30 to 17:00 minus 30 minutes is 7.5 hours."

Like I said, I'll probably have to except their no break lunch break because it's a part of the IT culture but I never heard that being bad at maths is part of the IT culture.
(and I still think it will kind of hard for me to concentrate for 8.5 hours straight without respite).

I think it's supposed to be a wage. At the moment we're on $17 an hour. He was vague about our pay next year. He only said it would be "considerably more than that". He didn't say how much more or if that includes next year's training phase. I guess the more I get paid per hour the more I can overlook small amounts of unpaid overtime.

That is true. Even if I get paid the same amount I can still have better girl impressing abilities with a job.

If I get a low wage I'll get the same ~$500 a week after tax. We have a high tax rate, partly owing to all the welfare bums like me. Ironically the companies client is the welfare office, one of the largest employers in town (no surprise there)

Yeah, some of the others were content to just murmur in the background.

They had this middle aged German guy on staff for a while. He had to return home last week. I think it's a shame because I think he would have agreed with me.

A few weeks ago I was telling him about how my favourite subject at school had been history and he said when he went to school in the 60s their history class kept on impressing how they should never give in to groupthink or let perceived wrong doings slide by just because they're a part of the mass culture.

I wonder why they kept on saying that in his history class

The emergence of the Nazis is a REALLY hard lesson which points out the usefulness of staying out of "group-think" or not "letting perceived wrongs slide by."

In my History lesson in England in the 1990's we just learn about the names of people involved in the industrial revolution, what inventions they made and the impact on society.
We didnt learn anything about all the recent wars, or the wars in the past.

If you are not being paid for the time then your employer should not dictate what you do during that time (assuming what you do does not render you unfit for work).

Is there any government legislation regarding rest/meal breaks, do you have a trade union agreement that gives you compulsory time off? One job I had had a (union negotiated) missed meal break payment which gave staff an extra hour of pay (on top of the hour's pay they got for working).


If they insist you read "work documents" during your lunch break find the most useless ones to read over and over again (such as instructions for the fire extinguishers or the company equal ops policy). Alternatively find some foodstuff that is not compatible with workplace dining (if you have the nerve get a can of Surströmming and open it in the office).

It is 100% illegal to make a person do work-related things off the clock. PERIOD.

It is 100% illegal to not pay a person for every minute they are on the clock. PERIOD.

Document. Document. Document.

If you feel the need to file a complaint with the state/federal labor boards, have your notice go to them AND the employer at the same time (do not file a grievance with the employer first) AND have a lawyer submit the papers for you so you have credible proof it was done.

Any action they try and take after that would be seen as retaliation.

What they are doing is very illegal. Lots of places do it, and sooner or later, someone complains and there is a huge investigation with lots of back-pay being doled out after the people come forward and testify that they too were forced to do stuff off the clock to keep their jobs.

Now there I've gone and invoked Godwin's Law. I should probably not compare my employers to Nazis. They're not that bad. But yeah, I was implying Nazis as an example of group think (not as metaphor for company policy, which is comparatively mild (and besides with all their collectivism they're more like Soviets, even though they're capitalist. I get that impression from any large company that even though they're capitalist in their competition with other companies, internally they're more like a communist mini state (e.g. instead of be loyal to Russia, be loyal to the company))).

Eh, my modern history class had a lot of stuff about the Cold War for some reason. Different countries have different curriculums. Were you taking modern history or just history?

I don't think the German's like discussing Nazis in there school but they consider it their solemn duty to avoid repeating history's mistakes.


That's a very good point. We're on a paid assessment and the supervisor kept on saying "stop slacking off, you're being paid to be here". But now he wants us to work for him when we're not being paid?

(and I'm still annoyed at his claim that 8.5 - 0.5 = 7.5 (this coming from a guy who knows advanced calculus)).
If they insist you read "work documents" during your lunch break find the most useless ones to read over and over again (such as instructions for the fire extinguishers or the company equal ops policy). Is there any government legislation regarding rest/meal breaks, do you have a trade union agreement that gives you compulsory time off?[/quote]
I don't know if there are unions in IT. If I was in manufacturing there would be a union. If I was in manufacturing I probably wouldn't get asked to do unpaid overtime in the first place. One reason I've heard that unpaid overtime is very common in IT is because they say IT workers get paid more. I don't know how much I'll get paid. I know that not all IT workers get huge salaries. In fact I know some IT workers who are far more qualified than I am (holding multiple degrees) and yet after tax get less than a thousand per week.

Anyway, I think I have several other options. I think I don't need to force their hand. Instead I think I can convince them to let me have breaks without having to get into an argument with them. One of life's lessons is that you can more easily convince someone of something when you're both on the same side.[/quote]

The thing is they have specific documents in mind related to the projects I'm doing. They don't just say to read any work documents.

Anyway, I think it would be useless to get into a battle of semantics because I'm already dealing with NTs who don't always say what they mean and yet expect you to understand. They were saying something about how we must follow the “unwritten rules of communication” in the work place and one of the trainees who is also ASD said he objected to being expected to follow a set of rules which is unspecified. (Ironic that the rules of communication are not communicated (and yet that doesn't break the rules)).

For a while I thinking I could just go downstairs to one of the many fast food joints on the street but it would be a shame if I couldn't chat with my colleagues. I quite like the trainee group I'm in and the supervisor says he will try to keep us together next year. Then again, if I'm the only one with a break it would make little difference. Maybe I can convince them to let us all have a break (I have a feeling they'd like one as much as me). They said since they were running this aspie recruitment pilot program they would make accommodations for us as necessary. I just have to convince them that as a general rule, aspies can't work for 8.5 hours without a half hour break.

And yet as you say, it's commonplace.


That's a good plan. We'll be spending most of our time at the client site. I find it ironic that the client is a large government organisation and that they have very strict rules against getting their workers to do unpaid overtime. I'm not sure how their rules apply to workers from another company in their building.

And this workplace culture bugs me. Just as a general rule, I've encountered a lot of people from different professions who proudly say “I do unpaid overtime because I'm a good worker”. It's bad enough to force that on people but it's even worse to brainwash people into thinking it's a good idea. If I tell them that's a bad idea they say “welcome to the real world”. Just who made up the 'rules of the real world'. Are they not subject to change? Anyway, I don't think mass consensus is proof that something is ethical.

In general people don't like unfairness. Ask people if unpaid overtime is fair and they'll say no. Make them do unpaid overtime and ask them if it's fair their colleagues are doing unpaid overtime and they'll say yes. How many times has a supervisor or manager said “I work off the clock so you should”. Also, it may be that overtime exists for projects that run over their deadline but if it happens a lot, management may start assuming a 7 day work week when they right their deadlines (and if that deadline is also too short than you end up with a hundred hour work week). I'm not saying they'll do that to us but I'm sure it's happened in other companies.

Anyway, even after all that I still like this job better than unemployment.

I don't know how Australian (your location) labour law differs from US (my location) labour law. In the US there is something called the "exempt" employee who gets paid a weekly salary rather than an hourly one and who does not get paid overtime. That sounds like what you are getting. But on the other hand, in the US the exempt employee must be paid at least a baseline amount which is well above minimum wage (and well above what you have stated as hourly wage). If an employer is paying below that baseline they must also pay overtime. Supervisors tend to be exempt employees and thus they don't get overtime (like your supervisor) but they also get paid more. So the argument that "I do unpaid overtime so you should too" only works when one exempt employee is talking to another, not when an exempt employee is talking to an hourly employee.

In sum in the US an employer can have:
An employee who gets paid below the exemption baseline but also gets paid overtime (hourly)
An employee who gets paid at or above the exemption baseline but does not get paid for overtime (exempt)

An employer can't have an employee who gets paid below the exemption baseline but also does not get paid for overtime (the situation you describe)

But that's the US and you are in Australia. Is the labor law the same in Australia? If it is, then you need to find out whether (legally) you are an exempt employee or not (this may be as easy as finding out the exemption baseline and whether you are above or below it). If you are not exempt, then paying you the lower wage while simultaneously demanding unpaid overtime would be illegal and you need to document. If you are exempt then that is just the workplace culture and you have to just abide by it until you can get another job- leaving this one with good references.

What you shouldn't do is focus on the guy's math skills. Although that seems relevant it really isn't. You know that he is not incapable of calculating hours worked but instead is telling you that you will need to work unpaid overtime. Instead focus on finding out if this is legal or not per Australian labour law.

They strongly implied it would be a wage, not a salary. Several times they stated I would be "paid for 7.5 hours per day". That doesn't sound like a salary to me. Also, the fact that they have protocol to claim overtime, even if that protocol is underused, the fact it exists at all implies that they pay a wage, not a salary.

In most cases, within practical situations, a "salary" is considered to be a "wage," vice versa. The only difference: a "salary" is not based upon a specific hourly rate; whereas a "wage" is based upon a specific hourly rate.

Where I work, I am considered to have a "salary"--but it's based upon the amount of hours I work a week. If I work over 40 hours a week, I must be paid time-and-a-half. In the US, this would be called a "non-exempt" employee.

"Exempt" employees are "exempt" from having to be paid overtime. They are paid a "salary" exclusively. It's for their availability for that week, no matter how much hours the person works.

It seems like, RetroGamer, that you would be a "non-exempt" employee if you were in the US. You seem to be entitled to overtime if you work more than a certain amount of hours per week.

It also seems like you're not in a bad situation at all. Everybody will resolve itself, I believe.

Yeah, I think I can convince them to be a bit more reasonable.

I'm definitely not going to get time and a half!