Where to draw the line

Bill... Let me throw you a hypothetical.

You hire Stan to go to work for you. His job is building widgets and you expect him to build 500 widgets per week. Some time later you decide the building needs painting. You tell Stan he will spend the following week painting. Do you still expect Stan to build his 500 widgets that week, or are you going to remove that quota while he's painting?
If you remove the quota, without Stan building widgets, the company is not going to be able to fill its orders. If you still expect him to build widgets, are you going to pay him extra for the additional work, or are you just going to tell him it's for the good of the company, it's expected of him, and he's lucky to have a job? What if you plan to pay Stan extra, but because of his family, he doesn't want to (or can't) spend additional time away from home?

Or would you just hire a painter to take care of painting the building and leave Stan building widgets?

Northwoods Bill wrote in post #16800620
Two things. First if you worked for me and refused to do a reasonable task while on the job you would be disciplined. In another post you mention job description. Job description is a simple thing: "Your job description includes anything deemed to be reasonable or necessary in completing the task you have been assigned" and yes it says that in the handbook that everyone one of my new employees receives.

I'm curious to learn if your company has policies with regards to using personal equipment for company purposes? Do you a) forbid it, b) permit it with compensation (you "lease" the equipment for the company purpose), or c) expect the personal equipment to be made available to the company at no cost? Or, is your policy something else?

The company I work for follows a combination of a) and b), depending on what the equipment is: I absolutely can not use a personal computer for company purposes, but the company would compensate me for the use of my personal chainsaw. I would expect them to compensate me for use of personal camera equipment. Otherwise, I would expect them to provide me with camera equipment to use. Option c) is something the company I work for would never consider.

My only hangup with regards to the OP's situation is over the equipment: providing all of the work was done within his regular work day.

Personally, I'd be a bit cheesed off if I was a salaried employee who was expected to do something far outside of my regular job for the company outside of regular hours. A pat on the head only goes so far. Note that photography is actually pretty relevant to what I do professionally. If, hypothetically, I was asked to take all of the trucks through a car wash on a Saturday (something far outside my regular duties), management would get a firm "No."

I had not read far enough in to see that you were being asked to edit on your own time. I would not ask that of an employee.

I actually have asked employees to take their personal equipment back home with them and then replaced it with equipment we have bought. This is for two reasons, both rather selfish on my part. First I don't want to feel responsible for maintaining or repairing my employees equipment. Secondly if we need something for a job I expect to be able to go out on the floor and pick it up. The trouble with borrowed equipment is it is not 100% under my control.

I also agree about any employee being expected to work outside his or her regular hours without compensation.

Fernando wrote in post #16801128
Good thing you're self employed...

Quite a few years back I worked as a graphic layout artist for a newspaper. They knew I did photography and wanted coverage of sports games. They didn't get it. They had to hire my business outside of my contracted hours to supply that different service. Thank goodness for sensible employment laws over here. They had no legal right to demand I did work which fell well outside the scope of that which I was employed to do.

Northwoods Bill wrote in post #16801312
I had not read far enough in to see that you were being asked to edit on your own time. I would not ask that of an employee.

Possibly, or even probably, the people at the OP's office who want photos have no idea that photos get edited or how long it takes.

My job description includes photography of sponsored events, so there is no extra pay involved, of course. I do get compensatory time off if I have to shoot an evening or weekend event. When I first started, I used my own gear. But I soon realized I was racking up shutter counts, so I told the powers-that-be that I needed a school-owned camera and lenses. They bought me a 5D MkIII and Tamron 24-70 and 70-22 lenses.

So maybe the OP could do something similar. Get the organization to cough up some dough for gear, as someone mentioned previously. OP gets access to new gear, the org gets a write-off.

After conversations with the powers-that-be, I have settled on photo credit on all printed materials and anywhere else it can be done. We do a couple billboards here and there, so they might be left out. But anything printed, internal or external, to anyone regarding anything gets credited.

With my wife and I moving in the coming months, the equipment thing wouldn't work as they don't have anyone who would be capable to operate it.

A reasonable solution I think.

I also agree it is reasonable because huntersdad believes it to be so, that is what is important.

As a side note, Since "At-Will employment" was brought up under this topic, I just wanted to share something I learned from the family business.

At will employment can be excepted by certain conditions. The first is a contractual exception (you are a contract employee). This applies in all states. Second, is the "public policy" exception. In most states, you can't fire an "at-will" employee for refusing to violate public policy (such as participating in the company breaking a law or regulation). Third is the "implied contract" exception. This essentially means that you might have a contract even if one wasn't signed. If you have written discipline/firing policies, you can't stray from those just because its an "at will employee" because that policy can be considered an "implied contract." Then there are states will a "good faith" exception. This means that all employers by nature of the relationship agree to act in good faith with their employees and only terminate them for just cause (might also only prohibit "bad faith" actions).

Now, IANAL, and this is just a layman's explanation from the son of a small business owner. We happen to fall under At will with public policy and implied contract in our state. I am also by no means stating that people like Bill don't know this, but I am afraid someone else might infer something about "at will" that isn't true.

I'm glad we don't have "at will" in Canada. Seems like it would counterproductive to have a system where you know you could be fired at any time.

the flying moose wrote in post #16802466
I'm glad we don't have "at will" in Canada. Seems like it would counterproductive to have a system where you know you could be fired at any time.

Given that one can sue at any time for just about anything at least they keep things consistent.

At the same time as an employee you expect to be able to give your notice at any time?

Northwoods Bill wrote in post #16801192
A guy like me? Someone who has busted his a** to build a business and expects nothing less than the same from his employees? I rely on this business for my living just as much as any of my employees. If we don't ALL do out best to succeed we will surely ALL fail together.

But will you all succeed together? When you retire and sell your business to fund that retirement will you be dividing the money equally with all the staff?
Of course you bust your ass. It's your company. You own it, get to decide how it is run, what direction it goes in and, ultimately, get a far greater financial benefit (if you do your job properly) than your staff ever will.

All true. In 2009 when I bought out the investor I put almost everything on the line to get the funding. I was the guy who worked the first few years at $2.00 or less an hour. I am the one who literally laid awake at nights worried about making payroll. Thank God those years are behind us at least for now but sorry, greater risk = greater return.

Also, not complaining about busting my tail or the greater risk, you are 100% right it comes with the decision to own a business. I knew that going in and I would do it again tomorrow.

As for retirement, I figure there is at least a 50% chance they will carry me out of that office one day!