Christmas tree harvesting

[htb]

634 for how many hours on average, accom and costs covered by employer?

[SamHulston1]

1 hour ago, htb said:

634 for how many hours on average, accom and costs covered by employer?

Was avg about 55hours a week £25 a week accom, fuel and oil covered by employer and 1 chain per month expense paid 

[Doobop]

Was avg about 55hours a week £25 a week accom, fuel and oil covered by employer and 1 chain per month expense paid 

Fair play to you.
My grandad once said.. “ it’s better to have lots of 50p’s rather than only a single £1

[gdh]

I'd be more than happy with that pay, seems like an interesting job to. For a short period at least.

I wonder if anyone pays per tree, I wouldn't mind a contract like that. I reckon mini digger and tree shear is the way to go but some jobs will always be better by hand.

[SamHulston1]

It was pretty interesting a mini digger and shears would be by far faster.

 

id do it again maybe next year depending how business at home is going I mainly used it as a experience. 

[trigger_andy]

1 hour ago, gdh said:

I'd be more than happy with that pay, seems like an interesting job to. For a short period at least.

I wonder if anyone pays per tree, I wouldn't mind a contract like that. I reckon mini digger and tree shear is the way to go but some jobs will always be better by hand.

Honestly? £600 a week to spend 9 weeks away from your family working 55 hours a week? Its criminal. 

[gdh]

22 minutes ago, trigger_andy said:

Honestly? £600 a week to spend 9 weeks away from your family working 55 hours a week? Its criminal. 

Not really the point of this thread but it's well over minimum wage and more than most people I know earn. Hours are pretty irrelevant and time away from family I think is an individual choice so doesn't affect pay.

 

There's better paying work, there's worse paying work, just do what you enjoy. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by gdh

[trigger_andy]

1 minute ago, gdh said:

Not really the point of this thread but it's well over minimum wage and hours are pretty irrelevant. Time away from family I think is an individual choice so doesn't affect pay.

 

There's better paying work, there's worse paying work, just do what you enjoy. 

Clearly they are hiring folk who have to stay away  from home 9 weeks at a time or they'd just get locals in. The fact they have lodging already in place proves that this is not a one off.  So yes, being away from the family for that long should be factored in. Unless they pay your travel back down each weekend of course? Why would hours be irrelevant? If thats the case why not work 10 hours? Or 100? 

 

Yes, yes, do what you enjoy, if being away from the kids for 9 weeks at a time for peanuts is your bag then crack on. But surely a little perspective on what they expect from you and what they pay for that time should be seriously factored in. 

[gdh]

2 minutes ago, trigger_andy said:

Clearly they are hiring folk who have to stay away  from home 9 weeks at a time or they'd just get locals in. The fact they have lodging already in place proves that this is not a one off.  So yes, being away from the family for that long should be factored in. Unless they pay your travel back down each weekend of course? Why would hours be irrelevant? If thats the case why not work 10 hours? Or 100? 

 

Yes, yes, do what you enjoy, if being away from the kids for 9 weeks at a time for peanuts is your bag then crack on. But surely a little perspective on what they expect from you and what they pay for that time should be seriously factored in. 

I think it depends if you consider £600 a week good pay, it's obviously more than the majority of people of people earn but if you're lucky enough to earn more good for you, I was just making a throwaway comment because no one I work with is on that sort of amount. 

 

I say hours are irrelevant because working more, or less, is a choice depending upon your work ethic, how much you want to earn etc.

 

Not everyone minds working away either or has a young family and I don't see why pay would revolve around that (although your personal career should).

 

If people are happy to work for that (as I would be, no intention of stopping my current work though) and the business is making a profit I don't see the problem. 

[trigger_andy]

2 minutes ago, gdh said:

I think it depends if you consider £600 a week good pay, it's obviously more than the majority of people of people earn but if you're lucky enough to earn more good for you, I was just making a throwaway comment because no one I work with is on that sort of amount. 

 

I say hours are irrelevant because working more, or less, is a choice depending upon your work ethic, how much you want to earn etc.

 

Not everyone minds working away either or has a young family and I don't see why pay would revolve around that (although your personal career should).

 

If people are happy to work for that (as I would be, no intention of stopping my current work though) and the business is making a profit I don't see the problem. 

Fair enough, I must be out of touch then.