There is no cost or loss of productivity if the work done in the extra hours Mon-Thurs is the same as the work that would have been done on the Friday afternoon. However, my observation is that an average 'working up the flexi' hour is less productive than an average core hour. I have seen many people take advantage of being able to build up time just by being there. And yes, it's due to lax management - shock - lax management exists! But it does happen.Can you please explain specifically what extra cost or loss in productivity arises from somebody working one hour extra on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and then taking a half-day on Friday?
The problem with Flexi Time is that it is suited to some area of work more than others. If you are working at a counter in a bank or social welfare office, you have to work more structured hours. If however, you don't deal with the public and have a quantifiable amount of work, you should be able to work flexible hours to suit you.
On a standard 8-hour day, it would make difference to my productivity if I worked 9-5, 7-3 or 10-6.
That's ok but we are talking about the building up of time to take as a day off. Most people I know that have this facility automatically add at least 30 mins on to their standard working day even if they don't need to just in order that they can take a day off later in the month. My point is that for a lot of people (not everyone), they could get the work done in 8 hours instead of the 8.5 hours. And then there would be no need to take time off.
Which is why flexi applies at certain locations in certain organisations, and not all.The problem with Flexi Time is that it is suited to some area of work more than others. If you are working at a counter in a bank or social welfare office, you have to work more structured hours.
There is no cost or loss of productivity if the work done in the extra hours Mon-Thurs is the same as the work that would have been done on the Friday afternoon. However, my observation is that an average 'working up the flexi' hour is less productive than an average core hour.
That's ok but we are talking about the building up of time to take as a day off. Most people I know that have this facility automatically add at least 30 mins on to their standard working day even if they don't need to just in order that they can take a day off later in the month. My point is that for a lot of people (not everyone), they could get the work done in 8 hours instead of the 8.5 hours. And then there would be no need to take time off.
Back to the trolling expedition that is the OP, anyone tell me where this benchmarking ATM is? I'm skint til friday.
Cheers.
Just the location of the ATM will do.Sorry to hear you're skint. Perhaps we need another round of benchmarking
People should also remember that plenty of people in the private sector got benchmarking awards as well. For example, many bank staff got them, + performance related payrises (and profit share as well). I know of one bank (UB) where in the boom times, staff were getting rises often in excess of 10% per annum.
I'm no defender of the public sector and have often complained about them on here in the past. I fully believe greater efficiencies could be got from them (and seriously wonder what half the quangos actually do that benifits society, but that's a discussion for another post), however, in the interest of fairness, the private sector has hardly covered itself in glory over the last 10 years either
People should also remember that plenty of people in the private sector got benchmarking awards as well. For example, many bank staff got them, + performance related payrises (and profit share as well). I know of one bank (UB) where in the boom times, staff were getting rises often in excess of 10% per annum.
I'm no defender of the public sector and have often complained about them on here in the past. I fully believe greater efficiencies could be got from them (and seriously wonder what half the quangos actually do that benifits society, but that's a discussion for another post), however, in the interest of fairness, the private sector has hardly covered itself in glory over the last 10 years either
It's ironic so that the only people that had held onto the becnhmarking award were the people that no longer worked in the public sector.
The banks are as close as you can get in the private sector to the public sector. There is a lot of restructuring going on in the banks at the moment and job losses will I believe occur. Just look at Halifax as an example.
The private sector had in fairness a glorious decade, but equally the long dole queues today show the pain that is being suffered.
http://xkcd.com/875/Good afternoon AAM. 2009 has called and would like its thread back.
The private sector had in fairness a glorious decade, but equally the long dole queues today show the pain that is being suffered.
There are many former public sector staff on the dole queues. The private sector does not have a monopoly on the dole queues.
Again, not true. I recall reading about some FÁS staff from a midlands office (Athlone maybe) that were protesting about their redundancy deal when that office closed. And of course, many contract staff were terminated as contracts came up for renewal. But regardless, I don't quite understand this fetish for 'compulsory redundancies'. What is behind this blood lust? Why does the actual method of termination matter so much - surely the numbers and cost of termination is actually the important issue, not the mechanism?Indeed, but the private sector does have a monopoly on compulsory redundancies.
It matters because you often lose the people you need. Though it is the most heartless way of operating.Why does the actual method of termination matter so much - surely the numbers and cost of termination is actually the important issue, not the mechanism?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?