To think starting at 645 is too early when you finish at 11?

[Listentomyvoice]

Im sure this is against the law - am I wrong?

How rude fleur, I don't have to suck it up so I won't, thanks all the same

I genuinely don't understand why it isn't illegal. The links people sent didn't stipulate home care as being exempt.

Werent the shifts / hours outlined during the interview? What does your contract state?

It was always 11 hours between shifts when I worked in TV, and that's a very fluid industry. Finishing at 11pm and then back in at 0645 is not acceptable. If fewer people "sucked" these things up, fewer companies would get away with doing it. What sort of area do you work in, OP?

I used to do shifts sometimes where I'd finish at 11.30 then back fir six.

The worst was finishing around 2 then back for 8. It kills you.

It can't be legal unless you opted out

I think care homes are exempt you can work late shift one day then early the next then you might get 7-8 hours break but when do early followed by late you get 20 plus hours off so that's swings and roundabouts but if it is long days constantly that is not on.

If its home care on a domiciliary basis you'll probably be working in slots? Technically you're not working in between those slots (even if you are travelling) so no it won't be illegal. You'll probably find breaks built into your rota (although you'll rarely to never have time to take them) so on paper they are complying. Also the 48hr thing is probably built into your contract, mine said something fancy that basically made opt out not opt in (legally but only barely).

Home care pretty much makes up its own rules, if you want to leave and not serve notice just resign and tell them you are unavailable for that time (especially if you are on a 0hr contract)

I can't believe all these places where people have worked with 7/8 hours between shifts. I am genuinely and feeling rather naive. 11 hours between shifts never seemed long enough, and we'd try and avoid it where possible.

I would advise you speak to the acas helpline, they are brilliant with employment law rights.

LOL at "suck it up"! What an attitude. The only employees that should be "sucking it up" are the ones who are extremely well paid and who lead a very privileged lifestyle as part of their job. I'm thinking things like famous people's PAs and nannies etc. Oligarchs' right hand man and the like!

It's not illegal if you've opted out of the working time directive. What industry is it op?

Laughing at lots of people being so incensed by these hours. You wouldn't have food on your table if people didn't do those hours. A farmer at harvest would think that's a good nights sleep! Admittedly you can't do it indefinitely.

Yeah well I'm not a farmer

My dp regularly works shifts like this, today he went to work for 9 am and won't be back til 6pm tomorrow.

He works in children's services. Part of his contract had s clause about not complying with European working hours directive. It's crap to get home at 11pm or later and then have to start at 7am the next day. They don't get breaks as such.

Peanut15: no-one's suggesting that those hours just shouldn't be done full stop. There are professions where occasionally (not routinely) those sorts of hours are to be expected. Where specific deadlines are involved for example. But as a regular shift pattern in a job within a "normal" wage bracket, then I think it's not on to expect it. And if it IS asked of people as a special favour then they should be remunerated appropriately. Ie time and a half or double time after a certain number of hours etc.

This wouldn't have been tolerated just a few decades back in normal jobs. People have become so terrified of upsetting their bosses, who are trying to squeeze every last drop of work out of them (due to cuts across their organisation) that they don't want to refuse. "Work smarter" is something my DH gets told when he and his team partner, in the process of killing themselves trying to now do the job of 3 people, approach their line manager and say that they can't meet the deadlines anymore. There is also no money for overtime, so the hint from senior management is that they should be doing more for less these days.

It's wrong. A few decades back, the lunch hour actually existed for most people. Who actually has time for a whole hour lunch anymore? There is too much work to do because there are fewer people doing the work.

Meh.....bloody cuts. It's the working poor I feel sorry for. Shit scared of saying no to their boss, getting paid fuck all for zero hours contracts. Terrible times.

5madthings: while I applaud your dh and others like him with such an altruistic work ethic, it's wrong when people in those professions have to work such draining hours. One of the most vulnerable sections of our society deserves well rested staff to serve their needs , and the staff doing such difficult jobs need proper down time. Government cuts again, grrrr....

I'm just getting all tense and annoyed and feel a political rant coming on so I'll bow out.

No I agree! It's crap and horrid for our children as well who then don't see their father!

But it is what it is, he is good at his job and it pays the bills and the area we live in does not have great employment opportunities so...

Sounds positively 19th century.

Check that you haven't opted out of the working times directive when you have signed your contract
At a previous job I had to do this (as a pp has said) your shifts do seem very long though
I used to work 2-10 then 6-2, I never minded as it only wasted 1 night

Ha, said I'd leave the thread!

I overheard 2 old ladies in the playground chatting the other day. They acknowledged that times have changed. They were saying that someone they're related to used to chop and change jobs all the time. "You could do that then, couldn't you? You could pick and choose your jobs whenever you felt like it, because there were always others available. If you didn't like something about it, you could just leave."

I think this is how employment terms and conditions have been eroded. There are no other jobs to move to, so people have to put up with shitty working conditions. In the past they would have just left for somewhere better, they wouldn't have tolerated any overly demanding crappy behaviour from management. And to keep jobs filled with the right people, managers would learn that there is a maximum amount of stress and unpaid overtime that people would put up with before telling their bosses where to go and swanning off to another job. These days, managers seem to be able to get away with bleeding their staff dry. Only now, people can't tell them to stuff it because there are no other jobs to go to, and even if they did manage to get something, who's to say that they won't end up worse off? I've worked in places where new staff get put on different contracts. Long-serving staff sometimes get their terms and conditions protected. When they retire, they go with them, and the position is filled by someone who is entitled to fewer holidays, no automatic right to overtime payment blah blah.

Ooh I'm a cheery soul tonight!

Industries aren't exempt from working time directives as a whole. Companies might require employees to opt out in order to work for them.

You must have opted out.

Re: working time directive I believe, although I can't seem to link, that employers can't "hide" this in employment contracts, it has to be an opt out for each individual worker rather than a blanket whole workforce policy.

I know I signed a separate form when I opted out (trainee professional)

I didn't opt out. I explicitly stated I didn't wish to work more than 48 hours.

And why Fleur should the OP "suck it up", delightful thing to say!