To think that the overtime should be paid?

[SorcererGaheris]

In the bookshop in which I volunteer, there are two paid employees - the FT manager and PT deputy manager. (It's a charity shop.)

I've been aware for a while that the charity does not pay the shop's employees for any overtime they do (which is probably the main reason that the deputy manager generally refuses to work more than her contracted hours.) But I assumed that since this was the case, they could therefore not expect employees to do overtime, since it's not paid.

However, the manager is under pressure to keep the shop open for longer during the week and to also keep the shop open on Sundays when the volunteer team for that day are unable to come in. Sunday is the one day when there is no paid member of staff in the shop and it's entirely volunteer led, but but occasionally there are times when the volunteers can't come in to do their shift and when that happens the shop is closed on that Sunday.

From a recent conversation I had with the manager, it seems that the charity does indeed expect her to do unpaid overtime, and there is so much pressure that it seems she is more or less almost forced into doing it.

Discussing this with other volunteers, I learned that the charity offers time off in lieu for unpaid overtime, and that it would be in the employment contract. Time off in lieu would be reasonable IF taking additional time off was usually a practical possibility, but given the nature of charity shops relying on a staff of majority volunteers, taking additional time off is often NOT a practical possibility.

So what seems to happen in practice is that the manager ends up doing overtime that is completely unrenumerated in any way.

This set-up seems unfair to me. In typical retail, I imagine time-off in lieu of payment for overtime would be more reasonable, because all the staff contractually have to be there, so there're more flexibility and consistent cover. This is not the case with charity shops.

Given the nature of charity shops, I think that the charity should either commit to paying any overtime they demand - or at the very least, they should not put pressure on their employees to do the overtime when they're aware that it can't really be compensated.

That’s awful. Exploitation of women.

She should find another job and report the charity.

Which charity?

I mean, it's not an unreasonable expectation but I assume the manager isn't there under any duress and is free to seek employment elsewhere if she doesn't like the terms with this employer.

Your manager is BU by being a bit of a martyr. If she doesn't want to do the extra hours, they can't force her. They certainly couldn't legally dismiss her for it.

People treat you the way you let them.

@nomas

I don't think it's exploitation of women in general, because the same would be true if the manager was a man. In this case, the manager happens to be a woman, but if she was male, the situation would be the same. So I think it's more exploitation of staff, rather than having a particular gender element.

Oxfam.

Depending on the rate of pay for basic hours, the charity could be breaking the law relating to minimum wage. As likely will be paid at or near minimum wage this is highly likely.

There are many salaried jobs where the expectation is that you will work until a certain outcome is achieved, and there is no overtime paid.

If you're doing a job where you want to be paid by the hour then pick one and be rigid about the hours you do.

Good point! Has the manager worked out her actual hourly rate for the weeks she does extra hours?

@foreversunshine

They can't fully force her, but in practice, she almost gets forced to do the overtime (or at least that's how it seems) because she is under so much pressure from above to try to keep the shop open on occasions for longer and she gets told off if this fails to happen.

It's the pressure and the telling off if she comes up short of this that makes it bad, IMO. They can't technically force her and they can't sack her if she doesn't get the overtime done, but the consequences of not doing it are a scolding from above and continual extra pressure/expectations.

Funnily enough the one person that I know who is in paid employment for a charity shop always moans about how dreadful the conditions are, how much is expected of/ put on her etc.

Anyway, in some jobs unpaid overtime is part off the salary/ role. It's expected you put in the extra hours. Normally these are senior or professional roles with decent pay though, or status. I imagine working in a charity shop is neither, and yes compelled overtime should be paid. If she's close to minimum wage it could be illegal to require her to work unpaid overtime.

@CanSeeClearlyNowTheRainHasGone

Yes, a good point. Having just looked it up, I see that legally, employers don't have to pay overtime if the contract specifies they don't have to - and they can force you to do the overtime if, again, it's in the contract. However, it seems they can only force a certain amount of overtime (people generally have the right to refuse overtime if their total working hours would exceed 48 hours per week) and the amount of overtime must not cause their pay to fall below the National Minimum Wage.

Given the relatively low wages of charity shop managers, I wonder if the latter is actually happening (pay falling below minimum wage.)

But what percentage of charity shop managers are women?

I don't think opening up a shop on a Sunday and managing it for free counts should count as expected overtime, it's going above and beyond the role.

Your opinion doesnt matter.
Neither does mine.

An employment contract states the terms of engagement for both employer and employee.

If you sign, you agree to those terms.
Simples

She needs to ignore 'scolding from above' and firmly declare her boundaries. I don't work for free. If you want me to do overtime put your hand in your wallet.

If she were to club together with all the other managers in the country who are experiencing the same and go public with it, their reputation would be in the shitter. Even more so than it is now.

I am a salaried manager i work 45 hours per week as that is the expectation and only get paid for 40. Sometimes I work in excess of 50 hours which brings me below minimum wage but I do not get paid as they say they take it over the month on average so I don't qualify to be paid.

And you have no idea what the contract says. Simples.

You don’t need to discourage someone so much, you know.

@nomas

I have no idea. Are you suggesting that it's a female-dominated field?

Google says 94% of charity shop managers are women and that charity shops mostly rely on women. Yet women are still under represented at CEO level.

So I do think asking a manager to open up a shop on a Sunday and not get paid for it is exploitation.

You should advise your manager friend to speak to an employment lawyer.

@nomas

I think it amounts to exploitation, but I disagree that it's gender exploitation per se. The gender element is not by design, it just happens to be the case (if Google is accurate) that the majority of charity shop managers are women.

So while it may seemingly amount to exploitation of women, it's not exploitation specifically of women by design, it's exploitation of staff - who in this case happen to mostly be women.

Given that these terms were probably in her employment contract, I would imagine that what the charity is doing is legal. I personally think the set-up is still unfair and exploitative, though.

Where it could potentially be illegal is if any overtime she does causes her overall pay to fall below minimum wage, but the manager would have to calculate that herself.

Yes, it was more a general point of how some organisation and companies take advantage of structural inequalities against women.

If I was her I would be angry and try and find out my rights.

If it's written into the contract then it's a condition of employment. The manager is at fault for not taking TOIL.

You need to keep records and report to HMRC. They take minimum wage infringements seriously. Your employer will face fines and will be publicly named and shamed.

@BillieWiper

She needs to ignore 'scolding from above' and firmly declare her boundaries.

While I agree that that would be the ideal, it's not easy for everyone to do in practice.

@WallaceinAnderland

The problem is, taking time off in lieu is often not a practical possibility, given that appropriate extra cover cannot necessarily be arranged.

I accept that it's a condition of the employment and completely legal. I just think that, given the nature of charity shops, it's not all that fair.

The problem is, taking time off in lieu is often not a practical possibility, given that appropriate extra cover cannot necessarily be arranged.

It does't matter if it's not practical. It's not practical to work for nothing either.

The manager is paying the wet lettuce tax.

Exploitation of women?! 🤣