Who are the directors of the NGO in question, and how do they make money by understaffing? For that matter, how do all those other organizations make money by understaffing?
You don’t seriously believe that green colorless ideas sleep furiously, do you?
I don’t know their names, and if you don’t know how you can profit by understaffing and forcing your current staff to work more, then I can’t explain it.
So, you don’t know they did that, right? And you don’t know the mechanism that would put money in the pockets of these alleged directors? And you don’t understand that forcing people to work has fuck all to do with understaffing, right? And what you really don’t get is that in the situation described in the OP* nobody is being forced to do anything at all.*
Do you have any business experience? Have you ever hired, fired, and managed a staff? I have, and I can just about guarantee that deliberately scheduling too few workers completely screws with your ability to get the job done. I’ve managed restaurants, restaurant kitchens, and warehouses with production teams, and it was never once been the case that being understaffed was a good thing. Now having a bunch of slackasses on the payroll, yeah, that can hurt.
Really? Hiring two teams that are only supposed to work 8 hours a day, and then having so much work that you expect them to work 12 hours a day isn’t understaffing? How about hiring another team, so the work can get done without violating people’s contracts?
I already brought this up…get a unit C and ditch unit A. Three units is overkill because A is pushing the extra work on B.
Maybe.
But if unit A’s output is noticeably not to standards as reported by Madmonk, then the issue is totally separate from the employer’s incompetence. That is speculation on your part.
Sad to hear that this is your last post and even sadder to hear how the enemy treats those who help others in need. I do wish you reconsider posting again if something newsworthy about your situation occurs.
Don’t even get me started on worker’s compensation. In California, that is considered a legalized form of racketeering.
Dangit, I kinda wanted to hear how this shook out.
There is a difference between staffing for situations where you have very clear expectations for productivity and staffing for more generalized “efforts”.
Any manager that manages to come in under budget is going to get recognition for if they can blame reduced output on other departments or local circumstances.
It’s all a matter of accounting and making sure the beans you were responsible for you got credit for and the ones not in your statement of work you firmly placed in the middle of some other group’s plate, typically at the last minute so they don’t have time to toss them back.
Yeah, I wanted to find out if the files ever got moved. I guess I’ll just watch it on the news.
What does any of this have to do with the OP, or with Travis’s assertion that the profit motive is what drives his complaint?
I’m not sure how people are talking past each other in this thread; my experience with working has mostly been in offices, and I can assure you that many, many of them are understaffed and the staff are expected to work longer and harder to get the work done, the workers are mostly salaried so they get the same pay for a 60 hour work week as a 40 hour one, and some companies even brag about “working lean.” The understaffing hasn’t been a good idea there, either, because it burns people out and makes them find other jobs, but it persists in the office worker mentality (and, as we’ve seen in this thread, some people even brag about being taken advantage of this way).
How many are “many, many,” in round numbers? Is the profit motive what drives this understaffing? In other words, is the company more successful as a result? Why doesn’t this work for professional football teams, do you suppose? Sending out ten players to do the work of eleven sure would be cheaper, wouldn’t it? And what does any of this have to do with **Travis **assertion that the OP’s company is simply trying to make more money, which is what started this whole understaffing nonsense in the first place?
Contrapuntal- You seem to have taken a liking to attacking me repeatedly. Why is that? Did my point that companies understaff, then expect their employees to do extra work hit a soft spot somehow?
FWIW, during the 1970’s recession some exempt Silicon Valley engineers put in significant unpaid overtime that was “expected.” Sometimes one even put in the full 40 hours of a week just on Saturday and Sunday (if airplane hours are included) and still was expected to show up for 4 or 5 of the regular weekdays! Those of us who were single were often happy to do it just for 2 cents worth of “glory.” (Those with families did become bitter!) (Technicians were often non-exempt and taking home thrice the pay of engineers. :smack: )
Were the long hours “an official part of the job”? I dunno. I’d guess “we tend to work hard” might be mentioned during the initial interview. :rolleyes:
This particular experience was extreme. Still, we did take pride in our work and that’s a good thing.
In round numbers? Most of them. I’m surprised at this point if I work in an office that is fully staffed and people aren’t working extra hours just to get the work done (most of those offices are unionized). I don’t think the companies that do this are more successful, and I do think it’s a stupid, short-sighted way to run a business, but at this point it has been entrenched as business as usual.
You know, I’m not even entirely sure it is completely profit-driven, either - companies know that workers will stay a half hour late to get duties completed, then they stay an hour, then someone quits and isn’t replaced, and I think the current state of affairs has snuck up on a lot of businesses, and it would take actively hiring and retaining more staff to fix it, and the decision-makers are okay with the status quo (in large part because the workers are stretching themselves to make things happen).
If middle management understaffs, middle management profits when people have to do more than their terms of employment cover. If the project I run comes in under cost for the results produced, I improve my position in the company, even if it’s a non-profit.
The OP is complaining that one group is being as literal as possible in reading their contract terms in order to avoid reasonable “extra duties”. He doesn’t deny that they’re correct, he simply argues that implicit in their terms of employment is a certain amount of obligatory discretionary “as needed” duties.
It boils down to productivity. His job is to see what’s standing in the way of getting more out of people and do so with as few additional resources as possible. He gains by getting more work out of them. Profit.
I find it difficult to credit that you couldn’t make that connection.
I’m sorry the OP has decided to leave the thread. I’m still interested in knowing if there was any blowback following the incident in the post.
Nope. Husband just got paid, the exact same as normal. They are on a salary and are legally on duty 24 hours a day. So right now he’s working about 15 hours a day. And for the poster above who said they’d sit down for a drink and a pee or have a shower and a meal, I think you haven’t quite grasped the scale of the disaster. There is no water to drink much less for washing in a lot of the areas still.
I will say my husband has been able to have cold showers for a few days now, and has enough food so he’s one of the lucky ones. He can also call out sometimes when he gets within range of a cell phone signal. Not so for many rescue workers yet.
Why are these guys on an 8 hour day? Its not as though after work they can go to a bar, restaurant stroll along to the Mall etc. IME overseas hardship postings in field offices are normally 10 hour days 6 days a week.
You have the guys in country so you want to maximise what you can get out of them so give them a 10 hour contract and pay them the rate.
If its just an unusually high work load then I agree its heads down and get on with it but if you have a regular foreseeable high workload why not resource it adequately?
if the guys are on a day rate and don’t get overtime then in that situation if people put in two hours a day extra for me Monday to Friday I would give them the Saturday off paid. Lets them get their washing done 
As it happens am now back in Tunisia but can’t get into work for demonstrations outside the plant so am getting paid to watch the war on TV with the neighbours next door, but I know that when I get back into site I will pull a few 18 hour shifts.
Give and take but you can’t blame people for doing exactly for what they are contracted.