It's a blatant attempt to lower the benefit cost. If we are under 40 hours a week we lose full time benefits at the end of the year, no exceptions. We are having a meeting to discuss the 40hrs in January.
I believe this is unreasonable to begin with, but many people at the company don't have steady work, they get sent home early except during the holidays and promotions. Working 40hrs a week isn't possible.
When HR was confronted about the shortage of work, she said that we don't have to worry they are doing things about it. It was like talking to a telemarketer.
I wanted more ideas of how to approach the situation, questions to ask in a group setting. I believe the group setting will put the pressure on, and I have encouraged coworkers to say how it affects them. Also, I'm in Washington, in case that matters.
Here is a rough draft of questions I've prepared:
So, a typical work week is 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. Right? But, people take a half hour lunch, meaning they actually work 7.5 hours resulting in 37.5 hours a week. Should employees already working 9-5, plan to stay half an hour more each day? *Hopefully people have already started.
As I recall, each year there is a lull in certain departments, like mine. With the 40 hour requirement for full time. How is the company planning to provide sustainable work hour availability? *I would love to hear examples
Say. An employee misses 4 hours for a doctor's appointment, they make it up the next week, right? On top of their 40 hours. So that's 4 hours of overtime? I imagine overtime will add up quickly. Will there be constraints or approval needed for overtime.
From all of last year, with all the hard work every one put in.. How many full time people would qualify for full time now?
I'm concerned that many full time employees will lose their benefits by the end of the year because of the hour requirements. To me, that makes me feel that I'm not valued here, and that's demoralizing.
last year there wasn't work availability during some months, if that pattern continues.. How is it morally justifiable to take away full time benefits while not supplying enough work, then expecting those same people to work extra hours during the holidays and promotions without full time benefits? *because that work hour shortage happened this year, how many of those people would've qualified for full time?
Say current full time employees are able to achieve 40hr /week. I don't know about you but it's difficult to hit the mark at 40 hours. I imagine most if not all people will a crew overtime, is that something the company is willing to compensate?