You're viewing a single thread.
In our contract we have it that no one has to work overtime, unless no one else who has worked more overtime than you rejects it.
Luckily, we've had some people fall into some legal trouble, so they grab up all the overtime that others don't want. But there are two people who have worked zero overtime this fiscal year, and I really want to organize my shop into making them both work some really shitty overtime shift.
No one has to work overtime unless everyone ahead of them refuses and there's no one else behind them, right? And the order of the line is whoever's worked the most OT. I mean that seems fair though?
The system works like this. You get credit for the overtime you work. The people with the least amount of worked overtime are at the top of the list, and the most are at the bottom.
When opportunities for overtime are offered, we work down the list starting with the people who have worked the least overtime.
If we go though the list twice, and the number of people requested to work isn't fulfilled, whoever is at the top is then forced to work the overtime. And we do that until we have the people.
That seems like a pretty fair way to share the load.
Why does it bother you? If they don't want to work overtime, let the people who want them take those hours.
Because those people are shitty workers as it is, and no one wants them around anymore. And sometimes a cherry assignment for overtime comes around and everyone else wants it, but they get first dibs because of how our system works.