Flour Daniel Cebu

[djao99]

---

Up to you.
You keep bringing it up as the "whole truth" but its only one sided.

your explaination is contrary to labor laws. Are you sure your explaination is how fluor will gonna explain to authorities officially?
Non payment of overtime of employees doing substancial work and breaking backs until midnight is justified by such company policy.

Theres a principle in labor law that there should equal pay for equal work. That should be above any company policy.

[shryock]

your explaination is contrary to labor laws. Are you sure your explaination is how fluor will gonna explain to authorities officially?
Non payment of overtime of employees doing substancial work and breaking backs until midnight is justified by such company policy.

Theres a principle in labor law that there should equal pay for equal work. That should be above any company policy.

What part of it is contrary?
Requiring approval for overtime is not deviating from the law.
If it is, then all other companies is violating it.

If a member signs any job contract from any company, they are subjecting themselves to the companies rules and regulations.
The rules and regulations use the labor code as reference but any company can tailor-fit it according to their own corporate regulations.
Granted that it does not violate the basic meaning of the law.
Most companies, if not all, do this.

If a member signed the contract, they are agreeing to the rules that an approval must be first complied before you claim your due compensation for extra hours rendered.
The contract also binds the company to pay, if conditions are met.

no matter how long a member extends, if it was not approved, then it is not valid

keywords here are:
"if conditions are met"

[djao99]

What part of it is contrary?
Requiring approval for overtime is not deviating from the law.
If it is, then all other companies is violating it.

If a member signs any job contract from any company, they are subjecting themselves to the companies rules and regulations.
The rules and regulations use the labor code as reference but any company can tailor-fit it according to their own corporate regulations.
Granted that it does not violate the basic meaning of the law.
Most companies, if not all, do this.

If a member signed the contract, they are agreeing to the rules that an approval must be first complied before you claim your due compensation for extra hours rendered.
The contract also binds the company to pay, if conditions are met.

no matter how long a member extends, if it was not approved, then it is not valid

keywords here are:
"if conditions are met"

what contract? I said non payment of overtime work is contrary to equal pay to equal work principle of our labor law. It tantamounts to slavery. Slavery is of course unlawful. That is very simple. What does it have to do with contract?

[Scott Bernard]

Lessons learned nani...

Love your work, not your company...

[shryock]

what contract? I said non payment of overtime work is contrary to equal pay to equal work principle of our labor law. It tantamounts to slavery. Slavery is of course unlawful. That is very simple. What does it have to do with contract?

The laws and compensation system for overtime is detailed on the contract.
If a member signed it, they agree to it.

If it states that an approval is required before a member receive any pay, then it is required.
If a member did not comply to that requirement, then there is no compensation.

Yes it is simple.
No approval, no pay.

It is modern slavery only if it was approved, rendered, but there was no pay.
Question is, was the approval processed, or did the member just assumed "equal pay to equal work" by himself and rendered overtime without prior approval?

Kana ganing huna huna na: "Ay ako ni dugayan para makacharge ko overtime."
Di na applicable sa Fluor.

[djao99]

The laws and compensation system for overtime is detailed on the contract.
If a member signed it, they agree to it.

If it states that an approval is required before a member receive any pay, then it is required.
If a member did not comply to that requirement, then there is no compensation.

Yes it is simple.
No approval, no pay.

It is modern slavery only if it was approved, rendered, but there was no pay.
Question is, was the approval processed, or did the member just assumed "equal pay to equal work" by himself and rendered overtime without prior approval?

Kana ganing huna huna na: "Ay ako ni dugayan para makacharge ko overtime."
Di na applicable sa Fluor.

why such a misleading, unresponsive long answer mr shyrock? Is it hard to understand that non payment of overtime work is contrary to equal pay for equal work principle of our labor law is unlawful slavery?

[shryock]

why such a misleading, unresponsive long answer mr shyrock? Is it hard to understand that non payment of overtime work is contrary to equal pay for equal work principle of our labor law is unlawful slavery?

There's nothing misleading there.
I simply follow your logic of telling the whole truth regarding the overtime system in Fluor.

I responded to your post point per point.

A "non-payment of overtime work" is not unlawful if the conditions were not met.

Why would a business pay for something they did not approve?

[djao99]

There's nothing misleading there.
I simply follow your logic of telling the whole truth regarding the overtime system in Fluor.

I responded to your post point per point.

A "non-payment of overtime work" is not unlawful if the conditions were not met.

Why would a business pay for something they did not approve?

you clearly still do not understand. Your response is only for the sake that you can make a reply, which is hopeless. Im out.

[shryock]

you clearly still do not understand. Your response is only for the sake that you can make a reply, which is hopeless. Im out.

I do understand.

Before it is even called an "overtime" in Fluor, it should be approved first.
Otherwise, its just an extension and is not billable.
If the member extended in his own will, then it is not overtime, therefore no payment.
If the member stayed until midnight, no difference.

Slavery is force labor.
Is it unlawful slavery?
No, if the member stayed by his own will.

Equal pay for equal work is a good term.
Is it applicable, yes, very much, but only if terms and conditions were met.

One proof that Fluor is referring to the Philippine Labor Code, but have slightly deviated:

Labor Code only demands a payment of additional 25% or 1.25 multiplier for overtime.
Fluor pays 1.3 multiplier for overtime.
5% higher than what is mandated.

[djao99]

I do understand.

Before it is even called an "overtime" in Fluor, it should be approved first.
Otherwise, its just an extension and is not billable.
If the member extended in his own will, then it is not overtime, therefore no payment.
If the member stayed until midnight, no difference.

Slavery is force labor.
Is it unlawful slavery?
No, if the member stayed by his own will.

Equal pay for equal work is a good term.
Is it applicable, yes, very much, but only if terms and conditions were met.

One proof that Fluor is referring to the Philippine Labor Code, but have slightly deviated:

Labor Code only demands a payment of additional 25% or 1.25 multiplier for overtime.
Fluor pays 1.3 multiplier for overtime.
5% higher than what is mandated.

enough of your useless reply with no basis, lets get some good legal basis:

SECTION 3. Hours worked. — The following shall be considered as compensable hours workeda) All time during which an employee is required to be on duty or to be at the employer's premises or to be at a prescribed work place; and(b) All time during which an employee is suffered or permitted to work.cralaw

SECTION 4. Principles in determining hours worked. — The following general principles shall govern in determining whether the time spent by an employee is considered hours worked for purposes of this Rulea) All hours are hours worked which the employee is required to give his employer, regardless of whether or not such hours are spent in productive labor or involve physical or mental exertion.cralaw(b) An employee need not leave the premises of the work place in order that his rest period shall not be counted, it being enough that he stops working, may rest completely and may leave his work place, to go elsewhere, whether within or outside the premises of his work place.cralaw(c) If the work performed was necessary, or it benefited the employer, or the employee could not abandon his work at the end of his normal working hours because he had no replacement, all time spent for such work shall be considered as hours worked, if the work was with the knowledge of his employer or immediate supervisor.cralaw(d) The time during which an employee is inactive by reason of interruptions in his work beyond his control shall be considered working time either if the imminence of the resumption of work requires the employee's presence at the place of work or if the interval is too brief to be utilized effectively and gainfully in the employee's own interest.cralaw

Source OMNIBUS RULES
IMPLEMENTING THE LABOR CODE

OMNIBUS RULES TO IMPLEMENT THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES - CHAN ROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY