Working hours for tradesmen

[John]

Begrudgingly I have had to get a plasterer in recently to do a job in my house plastering 3 rooms and a staircase. Everything else I do DIY, but this is one of those jobs I have tried and failed misserably. The plasterer works on a day rate + materials and employs a labourer to help him out. This equates to a total of £220 a day for the both of them + materials. So far so good, the work is excellent and on average they have been doing

7.5hrs a day (start at 8.30am, finish 4pm). They planned to finish today but have decided it is going to take an extra day next week - another £220 :-( Problem is today I noticed they slopped off early at 2.45pm - a total of approx 6.5 hrs. Normally I wouldn`t be bothered especially if the price I was paying was for the job rather than a day rate. If they are trying to stretch the job to another day by leaving early then that p*sses me off. Not having had that many tradesmen working at my place, I am unfamiliar with their working 'habits' and hours. What are people's thoughts ?

John

[The Natural Philosopher]

If they work 6.5 hours pay em 6.5 hours. One famous day all my lot went down teh pub at 12, and cane back at 4.30 totally incapable.

The so called project manager shrugged his shouldrs. I just told em that if they wanted to get pissed down the pub the whole afternoon, that was their affair, if they wanted to get paid, they had to be on site and working.

They worked pretty well after that.

[jacob]

Sounds like you got a good deal overall but you could spoil it if you start nit picking about details - they may have good reason to finish early e.g. a natural break in the work best left to another day etc. Contrary to popular opinion the vast majority of workers actually want to do a good job and keep their clients happy (not too ecstatically happy or that means they haven't charged enough!). There has to be mutual trust and normal friendly relationships. There are of course some notorious rip offs going on in the building trade but nothing on the scale of endowment mortgage/ investment mis-representation white-collar crime. It's the bastards in suits with briefcases that you really have to watch.

cheers

Jacob

[PoP]

Never a truer word spoken. In recent years the only show in town has been profitability and performance related pay. If that means that head honcho has to inflict misery on many other families then, for him, it is a price well worth paying. Just so as the numbers at the bottom of the spread sheet show what a marvellous person he isn't.

PoP

[OldScrawn]

Too right (having half of a 30+ year pension in Equitable Life)

S

[Bob]

It's the public sector that is home to the bigger crooks. Government pension funds will be just as underfunded as these private schemes, but rather than accepting the lower than expected payout that should be the result, they just put council tax up to cover the shortfall!

Not only will you be getting a smaller pension, but you'll have to pay more taxes so that the civil service can keep theirs.

Lovely, init?

Bob

[PoP]

The following story sums it up for me:

"The new plan means MPs will not have to serve as long in Parliament in order to receive their full pension."

Let me sum this up for any intellectually challenged MPs who might be listening in - just turn up for one parliament and you get 45 years of pensions contributions added to your account.

"Deputy Leader of the Commons, Ben Bradshaw, said it was the government's expectation that costs would be "clawed back" from MPs and that overall there would be no additional cost to the taxpayer."

That's alright then. Their pensions are being paid for from "free" money that doesn't exist, so there's nothing to be worried about.

The other issue is that because there is such an enormous shortfall in the pensions industry the retirement age is being pushed up to 70. Damned wonderful when you've spent your working life preparing to have a gentle slow down in later years, and then they come along to say you've got to keep clocking in.

That'll help the unemployment though won't it?

Hardly.

PoP

[Dave Plowman]

And of course the opposition is up in arms about this? No? No surprise there, then. Plenty of room at the trough for all of them.

If I were in charge, I'd make MPs conditions of service at least as bad as the worst in the country - including their tax allowances.

[PoP]

I would rate their pay according to the economic prosperity of the country which they pretend to govern. That way we could look forward to at least some of the deficit being paid back INTO the public coffers by this bunch of retards.

PoP

[Dave Plowman]

Trouble is that it's all too easy to increase 'the prosperity' of a country on the back of its workers, as by and large has happened here. So if it's good enough for those workers to have to put in long hours, have no job security and be taxed to the hilt, so it should be for those making the laws.

[Owain]

"PoP" wrote | I would rate [MPs'] pay according to the economic prosperity | of the country which they pretend to govern. That way we | could look forward to at least some of the deficit being | paid back INTO the public coffers by this bunch of retards.

I don't want to see anything paid back into public coffers. I want to see some of it put back in MY coffers.

(Or the piggy bank, because I'm not at a coffer-keeping state of wealthiness yet.)

Owain

[PoP]

But by a simple logic process if there was more money being paid into the public purse from elsewhere it stands to reason that they would be less likely to steal from you.

Not that I am suggesting politicians would follow simple logic you understand.....

PoP

[Tony Bryer]

But that's precisely the sort of thing that has caused so many problems in the private sector. Share options/bonuses are conditional on x and so all the effort goes into achieving x, possibly at the expense of the long term health of the business. A number of people who have taken businesses back from being plcs to private have said that not having to satisfy the markets has left them free to make better decisions.

[PoP]

You are entirely right of course.

Interesting that Gordon Gopher announced today that he doesn't want to see large pay rises being awarded in the private or public sector. Now I just wish he was so enthusiastic when it came to MPs putting their snout in the trough!

PoP