7 ms·

I think you're right to be angry; it certainly sounds like you did not have a positive experience at Codies and it certainly appears like they messed up the red

by JanSolo 15y ago

I think you're right to be angry; it certainly sounds like you did not have a positive experience at Codies and it certainly appears like they messed up the redundancy process for the Guildford studio. However, I don't agree that you're entitled to more money for your unpaid overtime. From the mails, it looks like they notified you in advance that TOIL was off the table and therefore it was your responsibility to work hours that you deemed reasonable for your salary. I'm sure the company was very pleased that you worked so much OT, but it's clear that they did not require you to do so. I also don't think you can justify keeping the extra months salary that they accidentally paid you. If your bank accidentally paid you a million bucks, you would not expect to be able to keep it, would you? What if you accidentally gave your buddy $100 instead of $10? You'd expect him to give it back, right? Sure, they screwed up; however they came clean about it and asked you to give the money back. They even gave you an extension to help you find the money. It sucks that you had already spent the money, but that was your mistake, not theirs. I think you're just going to have to bite the bullet and cough up the cash, sorry. I'd chalk the whole think down to experience and move on. The games industry can be a very unforgiving place and now that you've seen some of the things that can happen, you can prepare yourself better for the future. There are many games jobs available in the UK at the moment, but, due to the bad economy, the publishers are all hurting for money. I would expect these kinds of situations to be quite common for the next year or two.

tomjen3 15y ago
It is a reasonable thing to assume that money on your bank account is yours. Therefore they should at a minimum cover any and all damages their mistake has cost him.
- __alexs 15y ago
  This is totally wrong. They are right to try and reclaim overpayment if it actually occurred. This refers to deducting wages from future pay packets but the principle is the same. You owe them if they make a mistake. http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_money/employment_index_ew/faq_index_employment/faq_employment_overpayment_of_wages.htm http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_money/employment_in...
  - angersock 15y ago
    It would appear that if they overpay on the final paycheck, tough shit. Please check my reading--the link seems to indicate that future wages can be reduced to recoup an error, but that the money can't be collected back directly. So, it suggests that the final paycheck is overpaid, Codemasters would have to reduce future wages temporarily to make up for the imbalance, but there are no future wages (lol), so Codemasters cannot seek recourse. Am I reasonable in this interpretation? ~ As an aside, it irks me that an employer is given any rights in this regard--if you can't do basic HR arithmetic (especially since they sure as hell aren't doing anything as exacting as code or what have you) I deserve the balance of your ignorance. If a company overpays for a part and then finds out that the part went on sale right after purchase, they eat the cost. If a company brings a product to market and underprices it and loses money, they eat the cost. If a company hires someone for contract work and overpays them--pays them more than is reasonable for the work done, but pays them what was promised--then they eat the cost. If a company decides to take out a chunk from its petty cash fund and burn it to make smores over, they eat the cost. So, why the hell isn't an overpayment in HR considered something similar? Why isn't it a free-market "you can't do math accurately" tax? (genuinely curious)
    - __alexs 15y ago
      This kind of thing applies generally to all overpayment of contracts. The advice I've been given by employment lawyers in the past about this kind of thing is that once you leave, it becomes a normal debt and they are free to chase you about it however they choose. Usually this results in you offering to pay them a small some every month with no interest until it's all paid back. They don't want to go to court either after all.
__alexs 15y ago
If TOIL is in your contract, to remove it later presumably results in a break (and perhaps resigning) of your contract. If you continued to work for them after that, I guess the old contract would still apply since you never signed a new one. Which means you should get TOIL. So I think he's right to whine about that. You can't just summarily change peoples contracted working conditions without notice and proper consultation. There are legal processes to follow to do that. It doesn't look like they did those. And it does look like they broke the EWTD by letting (and a case could probably be made to say encouraging) people work crazy hours. So yes, I agree they should have seen this coming and got out before it got this bad, but that's kind of what the laws there for. To protect the people who didn't.
- dantheman 15y ago
  Often times companies change rules and policies and it effects everyone; if you continue to work there then you agree to those conditions. You don't sign a new contract when you get a raise or when you get a promotion, or when you change offices, or they change who delivers food, etc...
  - __alexs 15y ago
    You should still receive official written notification of the change. (And if you choose to leave due to that change, you are not contractually obliged to work a notice period either.) I agree about the continuing to work thing, it's not obvious from the article if CM followed the correct procedures when implementing that change.
  - aardvark179 15y ago
    Some changes to employment contracts can be deemed to have been accepted by your continuing to work there, some legally require you to formally agree to the revised contract, if you don't you aren't bound by it. This is to prevent employers making detrimental changes to contracts after hiring people. All the above applies to the uk, not sure about other countries.
jheriko 15y ago
they absolutely have broken the EWTD - i have ample evidence of no 11-hour between shifts and 7 day weeks, they have been very careful never to deny this part of my accusations and they probably realise that if it goes to court they have absolutely no defence. i want to be compensated for their violating my rights - its pretty simple, but subtly different to asking for money to be compensated for overtime that i knew would be unpaid. their comment about TOIL is a political manoeuvre and not relevant to my complaints in the least. all they are doing is confirming that they did something dickish in language that makes it look like i am in the wrong. its a very old trick... i'm not justifying keeping the money either. i want to pay it back and have been 100% cooperative in this regard. this is a completely separate issue and this is why i can not just move on. they operate illegally and immorally and get away with it through fear. i can not tolerate this. nobody should be able to... thanks for the comment. :)

by JanSolo 15y ago

tomjen3 15y ago

It is a reasonable thing to assume that money on your bank account is yours. Therefore they should at a minimum cover any and all damages their mistake has cost him.

__alexs 15y ago
This is totally wrong. They are right to try and reclaim overpayment if it actually occurred. This refers to deducting wages from future pay packets but the principle is the same. You owe them if they make a mistake. http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_money/employment_index_ew/faq_index_employment/faq_employment_overpayment_of_wages.htm http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_money/employment_in...
- angersock 15y ago
  It would appear that if they overpay on the final paycheck, tough shit. Please check my reading--the link seems to indicate that future wages can be reduced to recoup an error, but that the money can't be collected back directly. So, it suggests that the final paycheck is overpaid, Codemasters would have to reduce future wages temporarily to make up for the imbalance, but there are no future wages (lol), so Codemasters cannot seek recourse. Am I reasonable in this interpretation? ~ As an aside, it irks me that an employer is given any rights in this regard--if you can't do basic HR arithmetic (especially since they sure as hell aren't doing anything as exacting as code or what have you) I deserve the balance of your ignorance. If a company overpays for a part and then finds out that the part went on sale right after purchase, they eat the cost. If a company brings a product to market and underprices it and loses money, they eat the cost. If a company hires someone for contract work and overpays them--pays them more than is reasonable for the work done, but pays them what was promised--then they eat the cost. If a company decides to take out a chunk from its petty cash fund and burn it to make smores over, they eat the cost. So, why the hell isn't an overpayment in HR considered something similar? Why isn't it a free-market "you can't do math accurately" tax? (genuinely curious)
  - __alexs 15y ago
    This kind of thing applies generally to all overpayment of contracts. The advice I've been given by employment lawyers in the past about this kind of thing is that once you leave, it becomes a normal debt and they are free to chase you about it however they choose. Usually this results in you offering to pay them a small some every month with no interest until it's all paid back. They don't want to go to court either after all.

__alexs 15y ago

If TOIL is in your contract, to remove it later presumably results in a break (and perhaps resigning) of your contract. If you continued to work for them after that, I guess the old contract would still apply since you never signed a new one. Which means you should get TOIL. So I think he's right to whine about that. You can't just summarily change peoples contracted working conditions without notice and proper consultation. There are legal processes to follow to do that. It doesn't look like they did those. And it does look like they broke the EWTD by letting (and a case could probably be made to say encouraging) people work crazy hours. So yes, I agree they should have seen this coming and got out before it got this bad, but that's kind of what the laws there for. To protect the people who didn't.

dantheman 15y ago
Often times companies change rules and policies and it effects everyone; if you continue to work there then you agree to those conditions. You don't sign a new contract when you get a raise or when you get a promotion, or when you change offices, or they change who delivers food, etc...
- __alexs 15y ago
  You should still receive official written notification of the change. (And if you choose to leave due to that change, you are not contractually obliged to work a notice period either.) I agree about the continuing to work thing, it's not obvious from the article if CM followed the correct procedures when implementing that change.
- aardvark179 15y ago
  Some changes to employment contracts can be deemed to have been accepted by your continuing to work there, some legally require you to formally agree to the revised contract, if you don't you aren't bound by it. This is to prevent employers making detrimental changes to contracts after hiring people. All the above applies to the uk, not sure about other countries.

jheriko 15y ago

they absolutely have broken the EWTD - i have ample evidence of no 11-hour between shifts and 7 day weeks, they have been very careful never to deny this part of my accusations and they probably realise that if it goes to court they have absolutely no defence. i want to be compensated for their violating my rights - its pretty simple, but subtly different to asking for money to be compensated for overtime that i knew would be unpaid. their comment about TOIL is a political manoeuvre and not relevant to my complaints in the least. all they are doing is confirming that they did something dickish in language that makes it look like i am in the wrong. its a very old trick... i'm not justifying keeping the money either. i want to pay it back and have been 100% cooperative in this regard. this is a completely separate issue and this is why i can not just move on. they operate illegally and immorally and get away with it through fear. i can not tolerate this. nobody should be able to... thanks for the comment. :)