If I had to sweep up once I got back I’d just carry less bags, spend more time strapping empty pallets, try and blag another coffee and cake off the bakery etc.
I agree with Piston Broke; “Dozy” seems to be a qualification. 
If I remember rightly the o/p was boasting a few weeks ago about finishing a job much earlier than the allocated time for it, and then going home 3 or so hours earlier than expected. ie. carving it up
Looks as if it has come back and bit him on the arse eh?
Edit. Just noticed somebody else with same opinion
robroy:
If I remember rightly the o/p was boasting a few weeks ago about finishing a job much earlier than the allocated time for it, and then going home 3 or so hours earlier than expected. ie. carving it up
Looks as if it has come back and bit him on the arse eh?Edit. Just noticed somebody else with same opinion
I love it when robroy pipes up,tell it how it is m8
seth 70:
robroy:
If I remember rightly the o/p was boasting a few weeks ago about finishing a job much earlier than the allocated time for it, and then going home 3 or so hours earlier than expected. ie. carving it up
Looks as if it has come back and bit him on the arse eh?Edit. Just noticed somebody else with same opinion
I love it when robroy pipes up,tell it how it is m8
reckon the management may have been on here reading his posts in the past 
wirralpete:
seth 70:
robroy:
If I remember rightly the o/p was boasting a few weeks ago about finishing a job much earlier than the allocated time for it, and then going home 3 or so hours earlier than expected. ie. carving it up
Looks as if it has come back and bit him on the arse eh?Edit. Just noticed somebody else with same opinion
I love it when robroy pipes up,tell it how it is m8
reckon the management may have been on here reading his posts in the past
get that brush up your arse dozy 
Swampey2418:
Its all about swings and roundabouts, so you don’t mind you employer signing you off for the hrs that you can get off early, but I’m sure you’d be a little PO’d if he didn’t pay you them hrs wouldn’t you…
I mean the employer is not duty bound to pay you to let you go early…maybe you should pull out your contract of employment and read it again…If ya boss is paying you till then end of your shift, then your tacho should reflect this… not sitting at home
Being asked to empty a a couple of bins or a broom over a floor isn’t what I call asking a lot is it ? just like being asked to clean ya truck when you’ve used it or are you one of them " Im a driver not my job " sort of blokes…
If you got an issue with what is being asked and you can’t lower your standards in the work place, take it up with management… but you’ll probably [zb] it up for everyone else there… the bosses will simply pay for the hrs worked only…no early finishes plus all the favours will end…
The ‘swings’ in the case of a job and finish based contract being if ‘the job’ takes the full hours agreed to it gets done IE it’s a form of agreed unpaid overtime as and when required to get ‘the job’ done.The roundabouts being if/when ‘the job’ agreed to takes less than those agreed hours then you go home.‘The job’ obviously including that expected and/or agreed to when taking on the job.While it’s doubtful that such an agreement would ever have included being the general cleaner and/or yard hand or whatever other additions the guvnor can dream up to turn a job and finish agreement into a compulsory overtime situation doing whatever the guvnor sees fit.IE cleaning up the bins or the bogs or whatever that isn’t a case of ‘going home early’ it’s actually a trojan horse of turning a job and finish arrangement into something else completely different.Unless that is it was agreed to at the time the job was taken on and not something imposed after.
I’m guessing that most of those agreeing with the idea of being made to work the full hours in such a type of case have either never worked under a real job and finish agreement.Or if they have haven’t actually got a clue about the actual meaning of terms of such an arrangement from the point of starting it.Thereby just adding to the situation of the race to the bottom for everyone.
Lets just disassemble this sentence by sentence…
Carryfast:
chester1:
or you could just get signed up for the hours you do and go home early I personaly would not faff about in the yard just to make me time up^ This.If the hourly rate isn’t good enough to make a living out of the work that is available then either the hourly rate isn’t good enough,or it’s a redundancy situation.
Its hard to argue with a basic fact. And if the basic fact is that the hourly rate is not good enough, then its not good enough. Quite how a redundancy situation comes about i’ve no idea. I’m trying to work with the concept…i’ll take a job where the hourly rate is not good enough, then when i’ve taken it i’ll tell them i want making redundant because its not enough?
Carryfast:
As for those who agree with switchlogic etc the logical conclusion of that would be why bother with driving trucks if they are happy spending their working hours doing something else.Or,assuming that they aren’t actually happy doing other zb but they don’t want to upset the guvnor be careful what they wish for because they might just get it.
You’re over thinking it.The OP is paid 10 hours per day at an agreed rate. The OP might work 8 hours, then empty a bin or two for half an hour and go home with 10 hours pay, or work 8 hours and sit in a canteen for a further two hours.
Carryfast:
The example in the OP seems to be a case of a rate that’s based on 10 hours doing the ‘job’ as agreed and finish.That hourly rate would obviously have been agreed on different terms ‘if’ the job was no longer one based on ‘job and finish’.
A rate is a rate, as it is the OP is guaranteed a hourly rate for ten hours per day. His employer seem to be sticking to their side of the bargain and paying it, even though it appears they may not have the work for it . Now if i was the employerand i never had ten hours work for a driver (as is the case here) then i wouldn’t guarantee it,nor would i pay it. Infact i’d scrub off that guaranteed 10hours per day, so if he worked 8 hours thats what he’d be paid and i’ll see you tomorrow.
Carryfast:
While the issue of accepting any zb that’s available assuming there’s not enough work can be a minefield in the case of a redundancy situation.Where contrary to switchlogic’s idea I’d prefer to either be paid for the hours available doing the job I’m there to do.Or take the redundancy money and walk away if those hours aren’t enough to make a living on, in most,if not all,cases.
Well for the most part its safe to assume no one can work more than 48 hours per week, and if we base a wage on that we can’t go far wrong. In the OP’s case he’s getting 10 hours per day, i’d assume x5 = 50 hours. You’re mentioning “redundancy” again. But before i dissect your ■■■■■■■■ any further, how is this going to pan out to an average Joe on the street, never mind a tribunal…“i asked for redundancy because i was only getting paid 50 hours a week”…refer back to the first passage of yours i quoted, and ask “why did you take the job?”
Carryfast:
Which just leaves the question of wether a change in terms and conditions from that of job and finish to working full hours for the same hourly rate and/or wether hourly rate would not be enough to make a living on at the hours that are available,is/should be a redundancy situation for those who choose not to accept the change.
You’ve just plucked this out of thin air. You’re making it up. The terms and conditions where not “job and finish”, nor where the terms “working full hours” in anything i read. The terms as far as i have read guarantee to pay you 10 hours pay per day. And, you’ve gone into “redundancy situation” again?
Just how is this going to pan out in real life ? You’ve got a job, assume 5 days a week, assume 10hours pay per day. Turns out you work 8 hours per day, they want you to empty bins so you can still be paid 50 hours per week. You’re going to go to the DWP and say “they’re only paying me 40 hours per week, to make my hours up to 50 hours per week they want me to spend 5 hours a week emptying bins”, its a "redundancy situation ".
You see how this looks to any sane person?
Carryfast:
The fact is the weakness of the unions these days has more or less resulted in anarchy while drivers pay rates are obviously low enough to make it worth using drivers as cleaners instead of employing cleaners.Whatever the answer examples like this show the advantages of being paid based on mileage not on hours in the case of ‘drivers’ and why many ‘drivers’ would ( rightly ) prefer to take on all the risks of being an owner driver rather than being an ‘employed’ one.
You’re nuts. How can you attribute “the fact is weakness of unions” to someone who is not in a union?
How do you reconcile the statement you made “while drivers pay rates are obviously low enough to make it worth using drivers” with the actual fact, they use them because there is no alternative?
And to indulge your ■■■■■■■■ even further…if everyone was paid mileage only, who pays during them long waits at RDC’s? Which is probably 80% or more of traffic ?
Carryfast:
The ‘swings’ in the case of a job and finish based contract being if ‘the job’ takes the full hours agreed to it gets done IE it’s a form of agreed unpaid overtime as and when required to get ‘the job’ done.The roundabouts being if/when ‘the job’ agreed to takes less than those agreed hours then you go home.‘The job’ obviously including that expected and/or agreed to when taking on the job.While it’s doubtful that such an agreement would ever have included being the general cleaner and/or yard hand or whatever other additions the guvnor can dream up to turn a job and finish agreement into a compulsory overtime situation doing whatever the guvnor sees fit.IE cleaning up the bins or the bogs or whatever that isn’t a case of ‘going home early’ it’s actually a trojan horse of turning a job and finish arrangement into something else completely different.Unless that is it was agreed to at the time the job was taken on and not something imposed after.
I’m just gobsmacked that with your intimate knowledge of what is, you’ve never contributed more to the Saftey,Law and Working time directive forum…viewforum.php?f=7
Carryfast:
I’m guessing that most of those agreeing with the idea of being made to work the full hours in such a type of case have either never worked under a real job and finish agreement.Or if they have haven’t actually got a clue about the actual meaning of terms of such an arrangement from the point of starting it.Thereby just adding to the situation of the race to the bottom for everyone.
You’re guessing eh? Thats what i’m thinking too.
Mike-C:
Lets just disassemble this sentence by sentence…Carryfast:
chester1:
or you could just get signed up for the hours you do and go home early I personaly would not faff about in the yard just to make me time up^ This.If the hourly rate isn’t good enough to make a living out of the work that is available then either the hourly rate isn’t good enough,or it’s a redundancy situation.
Its hard to argue with a basic fact. And if the basic fact is that the hourly rate is not good enough, then its not good enough. Quite how a redundancy situation comes about i’ve no idea. I’m trying to work with the concept…i’ll take a job where the hourly rate is not good enough, then when i’ve taken it i’ll tell them i want making redundant because its not enough?
Carryfast:
As for those who agree with switchlogic etc the logical conclusion of that would be why bother with driving trucks if they are happy spending their working hours doing something else.Or,assuming that they aren’t actually happy doing other zb but they don’t want to upset the guvnor be careful what they wish for because they might just get it.You’re over thinking it.The OP is paid 10 hours per day at an agreed rate. The OP might work 8 hours, then empty a bin or two for half an hour and go home with 10 hours pay, or work 8 hours and sit in a canteen for a further two hours.
Carryfast:
The example in the OP seems to be a case of a rate that’s based on 10 hours doing the ‘job’ as agreed and finish.That hourly rate would obviously have been agreed on different terms ‘if’ the job was no longer one based on ‘job and finish’.A rate is a rate, as it is the OP is guaranteed a hourly rate for ten hours per day. His employer seem to be sticking to their side of the bargain and paying it, even though it appears they may not have the work for it . Now if i was the employerand i never had ten hours work for a driver (as is the case here) then i wouldn’t guarantee it,nor would i pay it. Infact i’d scrub off that guaranteed 10hours per day, so if he worked 8 hours thats what he’d be paid and i’ll see you tomorrow.
Carryfast:
While the issue of accepting any zb that’s available assuming there’s not enough work can be a minefield in the case of a redundancy situation.Where contrary to switchlogic’s idea I’d prefer to either be paid for the hours available doing the job I’m there to do.Or take the redundancy money and walk away if those hours aren’t enough to make a living on, in most,if not all,cases.Well for the most part its safe to assume no one can work more than 48 hours per week, and if we base a wage on that we can’t go far wrong. In the OP’s case he’s getting 10 hours per day, i’d assume x5 = 50 hours. You’re mentioning “redundancy” again. But before i dissect your [zb] any further, how is this going to pan out to an average Joe on the street, never mind a tribunal…“i asked for redundancy because i was only getting paid 50 hours a week”…refer back to the first passage of yours i quoted, and ask “why did you take the job?”
Carryfast:
Which just leaves the question of wether a change in terms and conditions from that of job and finish to working full hours for the same hourly rate and/or wether hourly rate would not be enough to make a living on at the hours that are available,is/should be a redundancy situation for those who choose not to accept the change.You’ve just plucked this out of thin air. You’re making it up. The terms and conditions where not “job and finish”, nor where the terms “working full hours” in anything i read. The terms as far as i have read guarantee to pay you 10 hours pay per day. And, you’ve gone into “redundancy situation” again?
Just how is this going to pan out in real life ? You’ve got a job, assume 5 days a week, assume 10hours pay per day. Turns out you work 8 hours per day, they want you to empty bins so you can still be paid 50 hours per week. You’re going to go to the DWP and say “they’re only paying me 40 hours per week, to make my hours up to 50 hours per week they want me to spend 5 hours a week emptying bins”, its a "redundancy situation ".
You see how this looks to any sane person?Carryfast:
The fact is the weakness of the unions these days has more or less resulted in anarchy while drivers pay rates are obviously low enough to make it worth using drivers as cleaners instead of employing cleaners.Whatever the answer examples like this show the advantages of being paid based on mileage not on hours in the case of ‘drivers’ and why many ‘drivers’ would ( rightly ) prefer to take on all the risks of being an owner driver rather than being an ‘employed’ one.You’re nuts. How can you attribute “the fact is weakness of unions” to someone who is not in a union?
How do you reconcile the statement you made “while drivers pay rates are obviously low enough to make it worth using drivers” with the actual fact, they use them because there is no alternative?
And to indulge your [zb] even further…if everyone was paid mileage only, who pays during them long waits at RDC’s? Which is probably 80% or more of traffic ?
It seems that we’ve got two different interpretations of the type of working agreement that the OP was referring to.My interpretation is that if the OP says that there’s an agreement to work 10 hours but if ‘the job’ is done sooner then it’s time to go home,then that seems to suggest it ‘was’ a job and finish agreement.In which case the hourly rate would ‘effectively’ be one that reflects that swings and roundabouts situation.However it ‘would’ obviously be effectively less assuming that swings and roundabouts situation no longer applies and longer hours therefore need to be worked on average for the same money or less money is paid for doing the previous amount of hours.
Added to which the extra time means doing unrelated work to the type of job expected of a driver unless the driver had agreed to that type of other work at the time of starting.The implications of agreeing to carry out such other work could also possibly have implications in respect of redundancy.
IE not enough work to make 10 hours so make up the time as a cleaning operative,now.Possibly not enough work for a day/s/week/s so make up the time doing the same,in future.In which case don’t bother looking for redundancy then because the employee has agreed to do whatever asked along those lines previously.
It’s the OP’s choice as to who’s interpretation of the situation that the OP agrees with.
mac12:
Wonder how many of the drivers have been rushing round, speeding unloading on break to go home but now moan when the company have found out so are making them work there paid hours.
I’ve no issues at all working my hours,but I’m a HGV 1 truck driver,so if they want me too work my hours then give me a truck,tri and a load too move ,if they can provide that then I should be signed up and allowed too go home .
Not asked too empty bins,clean windows,clean out other drivers trucks,it’s BRIBERY ,not acceptable ,if I wanted too clean windows I’d find employment as a window zb cleaner ,but I haven’t as it’s not my thing,I pay someone too do my house , I don’t cut my grass as I’ve a gardener too do that,so why should I want to do that at work
I’m employed as a hgv driver ,not some managers bloody skivvy ,what next do the bloody mac donalds run :
cav551:
Perhaps you’d like them to cut you all down to 8hrs pay per day in order to pay for an extra employee to empty the bins?There will always be unpopular jobs that need doing in any company, as long as the tasks are shared out and the skivers don’t get away with not doing them for some reason then that’s OK in my book.
The time to moan about the job is when you are NOT getting paid for doing it.
They can do wat they like but I have a contract that states 50 hrs minium pay p/w, they will pay that.
rambo19:
Coffeeholic:
switchlogic:
Sit in the canteen then, no one is forcing you to empty bins. Personally if emptying bins meant I got home a couple of hours earlier I’d be out there doing just that.This^^
And these are the drivers that will go 1st when the work drys up…
Well we had redundancies 2 years ago and there was no mention of the work you had or hadn’t done,it was disciplinary record ,sick days off and something else which I just can’t rember,but no mention of whether you agreed or refused to empty bins .
It went from 0-15 points if I rember right ,0 being best ,I got 0 
,no days off sick,no disiplinarys etc ,this put me in 5 th place ( due to list being in alphabetical order)
Out of 190 drivers .
Maybe next time it won’t be about disiplinarys ,sick time but whether you will empty bins,cut the grass,clen the windows or not,it wouldn’t surprise me as we do seem too have the patients running the asylum
truckman020:
I can understand to a certain point,if you are wearing a company uniform you represent the company so you try to keep it clean,if you are asked to empty bins to make the time to 10 hrs all manner of cxxp could come from said bins and could filth up your uniform,if you are only 2 days into the week you then have to wear that uniform until you can wash it,not good for customer relationships
No nothing too do with uniform,just simply I’ve no interest in being a waste disposal operative ,or the t.o skivvy .
Carryfast:
It seems obvious that they’ve spotted weakness amongst the workforce and then no surprise a ‘job’ and finish agreement suddenly gets torn up and goes out the window.IE the ‘job’ not hours being the relevant reference point in the case of such an agreement with the hourly rate set and agreed to reflect the privilege.Whereas in better days everyone would have stood together by working to rule in the form of ignoring the order and called in the union to sort it out.Being that what’s being imposed is a lowering of terms and conditions.
This is the point carry fast,the ones doing it are moaning about doing it,but continue too do it ,if we all said no then they’d have too get someone to do it ,then when we got back there be nothing too do so they’d have too sign us up and off home we go ,but there too thick too see that ,I zb hope they start making the tarts clean the bogs out ,I’ll make sure I have a curry the night before 
turbot:
Well, it’s an erosion of conditions or working for the hours you are getting paid for depending whether you are a driver or a manager.
How are “managers” making up their hours, are they sitting watching you empty bins?
No I think it’s a question of we have too be here from 9-5 so you have too do 10 hrs ,never mind the 15 hrs you did the day before,and that day before that
They keep on about how do we raise driver morale 
,the best they can come up is clean the bins,windows,cut the grass,they haven’t got a clue .
Them and us
Contraflow:
You’ve got to be brain dead to choose sitting in the canteen waiting to die for a couple of hours over emptying a bin and going home.Typical Stobart driver; not much between his ears.
Dozy, can you count to potato?
I wonder how keen you will be when they hand you a bog brush and tell you to clean up last night curry deposit from the bog x3 ,if it gets you off home 1/2 hrs early,I guess you’ll be over the moon .