former editor
05-15-2006, 03:28 PM
I work for a major corporation with a large legal department. The administration is scared to death of law suits, so I can't imagine the company break labor laws. Still, things have been very bad here for me and many other employees, so I have decided to leave. I am preparing for my exit interview with paperwork provided by our HR department. A survey asks that I rate the company in various categories, including "Fair Employment Practices." Before I complete this survey and have a discussion with HR, I want to clarify whether laws may actually be being broken here or if this place is just crafty at finding the tricks and loopholes.
I was hired here three years ago for a position that turned out to be different in some significant aspects from what I was told it would be. I became discontent and was prepared to leave, but my boss at the time (who I really liked) offered me a change in position, which I accepted. I asked a number of very specific questions about what the job would and would not entail, and since I was satisfied with the answers, I accepted it. Once again, what I was told would happen in advance of accepting the job is not what is actually happening. The projects I work on, and myself, have been transferred to a different department with a different (read: bad) boss. The president of my company personally came to deliver the news to me (following weeks of rumors that it would occur) at which time he asked whether I had any questions. I reiterated many of the same questions I'd originally had, and he gave me the same satisfactory answers. Six months later, many of the things I was told would not happen are happening, and many of the things I was told would happen are not happening. Oh well. Too bad for me, I suppose.
In a more general sense, most of us in the newsroom feel exploited and overworked. For instance, last year a coworker worked seven days a week for months on end and had to forfeit 6 days of vacation. (Vacation days don't roll over, although company policy states that one day is accrued for every 20 worked.) He was in charge of a weekly magazine with only himself, one full-timer and one part-timer. The workload was such that his staff regularly maxed out on hours (overtime is forbidden except in extreme instances), so as the only exempt employee he really had no choice but to work 50+-hour weeks so the pages wouldn't be blank! Now he's gotten a "promotion" with new and different duties. It's a little better, but he still typically works 13- or 14-hour days at least six days a week. If he complains about the workload, our supervisors tell him it's all about "time management" ... if her managed his time better, he wouldn't work so much. This is a joke! This guy works like a dog the whole time he's here!
Can employers just change your job duties significantly, adding new responsibilities to your plate that weren't part of the proposed position? Does it make any difference if you specifically asked about these duties before accepting the position? And can employers overload you with so much work that you're working days, nights, weekends, holidays, and just tell you to manage your time better when you complain? The morale here is horrible, and this just seems so unfair.
I was hired here three years ago for a position that turned out to be different in some significant aspects from what I was told it would be. I became discontent and was prepared to leave, but my boss at the time (who I really liked) offered me a change in position, which I accepted. I asked a number of very specific questions about what the job would and would not entail, and since I was satisfied with the answers, I accepted it. Once again, what I was told would happen in advance of accepting the job is not what is actually happening. The projects I work on, and myself, have been transferred to a different department with a different (read: bad) boss. The president of my company personally came to deliver the news to me (following weeks of rumors that it would occur) at which time he asked whether I had any questions. I reiterated many of the same questions I'd originally had, and he gave me the same satisfactory answers. Six months later, many of the things I was told would not happen are happening, and many of the things I was told would happen are not happening. Oh well. Too bad for me, I suppose.
In a more general sense, most of us in the newsroom feel exploited and overworked. For instance, last year a coworker worked seven days a week for months on end and had to forfeit 6 days of vacation. (Vacation days don't roll over, although company policy states that one day is accrued for every 20 worked.) He was in charge of a weekly magazine with only himself, one full-timer and one part-timer. The workload was such that his staff regularly maxed out on hours (overtime is forbidden except in extreme instances), so as the only exempt employee he really had no choice but to work 50+-hour weeks so the pages wouldn't be blank! Now he's gotten a "promotion" with new and different duties. It's a little better, but he still typically works 13- or 14-hour days at least six days a week. If he complains about the workload, our supervisors tell him it's all about "time management" ... if her managed his time better, he wouldn't work so much. This is a joke! This guy works like a dog the whole time he's here!
Can employers just change your job duties significantly, adding new responsibilities to your plate that weren't part of the proposed position? Does it make any difference if you specifically asked about these duties before accepting the position? And can employers overload you with so much work that you're working days, nights, weekends, holidays, and just tell you to manage your time better when you complain? The morale here is horrible, and this just seems so unfair.
