Several years ago (whew! has it really been 30 years? seems like yesterday) I participated in an intensive two-week-end course in Denver, and I have always remembered the segment on "expanded agreements."
When you have a deal with someone and then that person tries to change/expand it unilaterally, that was called an expanded agreement. I have always resisted them. They serve to increase the authority or power or rule or domination of one person over another without discussion or the making of a new agreement.
Let's say you are hired to work 40 hours/week for a certain combination of compensation, and then your boss comes to you and tells you that he "needs" you to work 45 hours/week or different days or different hours, but he will not compensate you for it. Should you object?
This morning the editors of the Northwest Herald ganged up on certain senior police officers of the Woodstock Police Department, who recently won an arbitration over a broken contract. I've already written about it here (below, November 22), and you can read the editorial at www.nwherald.com/articles/2009/11/27/r_xky5magdrkiwphra5xmc_g/index.xml
The editors erred inexcusably when they wrote that the attorney for the cops "recognizes the grievances as nitpicky." That is not what the quote of that attorney, just above their statement, said. What the attorney said, as quoted, was, "I can see how someone could see this as nitpicky."
I suggest that the officers argued their case based on principle, not on the small monetary gain to each.
Further, the headline of the editorial is very poorly worded. "Unearned OT should go to charity."
It wasn't "unearned"; it was unpaid. And who is the editorial board to say how an employee should spend his income?
How would the editors feel if the readers began picketing in front of the NWH headquarters and demanded that the editors donate $500 each to charity?