Wound up by email boss sent

[Will]

It's really silly but the following email wound me up a little:

All - A more or less impossible one to call this, but after much deliberation have decided upon the following in relation to the payment for attendance/non-attendance on Monday 2nd February and Tuesday 3rd February :

1. All employees (including management) that were absent who live OUTSIDE a 3 mile radius of Nine Elms branch are to be paid basic hours for Monday 2nd February. This is to be paid as AUTHORISED ABSENCE, not sickness. This only applies to employees who followed procedures and phoned/text to notify us of their inability to get to work. Those that just didn't show are not to be paid.
2. All employees (including management) that were absent on Monday February 2nd who live INSIDE a 3 mile radius of Nine Elms branch are to be interviewed in order to try and identify the genuine cases from the inevitable few that blatantly took advantage of the situation. If the interviewing manager feels that the absence wasn't genuine, the employee is not to be paid. Again, those that are to be paid must be paid as authorised absence.
3. All staff (including management) that did attend on Monday February 2nd are to be recognised for their commitment with the offer of a meal up to the value of £50. This token of our appreciation will be reclaimed through a CA3 expense form upon production of receipt.
4. All staff that did not attend on Tuesday February 3rd because of the weather are NOT to be paid.

Please note that entering into debate on individual cases is not to take place. Any employee (including management) that disagree with any part of the above listed four points must take up their individual case through the Grievance Procedure. As stated, this is an impossible one to call due to the uniqueness of the situation, but my view is that this is the fairest possible method to deal with it.

So I'm not committed? Yet I was up at 5am as usual spent ages in the cold and snow trying to clear my car to get it on the road. I walked to 3 different stations on different lines to try and get me into work walking on slippery pavements and in freezing conditions... by 9-10am I just had no way of getting away from where I live, I even got a text message after speaking to my boss telling me not to bother (incidently he was stuck too though he lives in Brighton).

Yet those that somehow managed to make it in, were put up in a hotel, were fed and watered (and I don't just mean water) offered some clothing and now a meal up to £50 because they were more committed?!

How the **** is that fair? And why is this winding me up so much? I understand he's had to make a decision, but his wording leaves much to be desired and maybe it was a genuine piece of bad wording on his behalf, however I feel a bit grated by them.

Am I being a silly cow? (and yes I did say cow).

I'll get paid, as I live 7 miles away and did make it in on Tuesday. However it's not the point.

[NokkonWud]

I wouldn't worry too much about it, I think the word that has you rattled is committed, which is a terrible faux-pas from head office in any kind of letter/e-mail like this.

I'm sure you'll get paid when you give your explanation.

[cleanbluesky]

Do you have a strong feeling that you need to prove your value to the company?

[Will]

I take pride in my work and work very hard and beyond the call of duty most of the time. I just took a bit of an exception to the email... I know he didn't mean it in that way, but it just grated me and venting has made it less of a problem.

[NokkonWud]

Originally Posted by Kitten

he'll get paid anyway Nokkon, he was in Tuesday and he lives outside the 3 mile zone.

That's not a problem then. It's just poor wording on behalf of the bosses which will do nothing for morale.

[Belmit]

We have a similar situation here. A message was sent out with the following info:

Monday 2 February
Staff who did not attend for work because they were unable to travel in (or because they had to stay at home to look after children whose school was closed for the day) will not be required to take a day’s leave to cover their absence. They will be paid as normal for the day.

Staff who did come in to work (and we appreciate the considerable efforts this involved for many) will be credited with a day’s annual leave, to be taken at a date of their choosing subject to approval by their line manger in the usual way.

Tuesday 3 February
Staff who did not attend for work will be required to book a day’s annual leave to cover their absence. This requirement will not apply to those staff who worked from home on the day by agreement with their line manager.

You should note that the arrangements applicable to Tuesday 3 February will also apply to any further days of severe weather we may experience.

Annual Leave
Any staff who do not have any annual leave left in the 2008/9 leave year may borrow from next year.

I managed to work from home both Monday and Tuesday (after a considerable effort to try and get in on the Monday), so luckily I don't have to use any leave up. However, those that made it in get a day's free leave, and those of us that still worked but couldn't make it get nothing? I wouldn't mind quite so much, except that I worked up until 5pm and those that made it in were sent home at 2pm. What a crock.

[Fayshun]

I took my life into my hands yesterday and got a "thanks".

[TinkerBell]

Will to be honest, I wouldn't worry about it. It wasn't an email sent just to you, so they aren't saying you aren't committed. It isn't your fault that you couldn't get to work, and you will still get paid

[loki]

It is a bit galling to get messages like that. I suppose from his perspective he has to be seen as being fair and even handed in situations like this

[Chuckles]

Which days were you off?

The email he has put out doesn't actually say that staff who didn't come in aren't committed, it just says that staff that did, showed their commitment. The 2 things are not mutually exclusive.