Well what can I say to the above. Thanks for your input, so very helpful.
Where I worked there was disparity,because the Company moved some of the business from an outdated depot into a new one 18 miles away. To keep the driver workforce they stayed on their current pay rate and any new drivers started on a new rate, all other T&Cs where the same. I was on the new rate,which did not bother me as I accepted the job at that rate,no good bleating about the disparity when its what you signed up to. To avoid further disparity the high earners could be "ring fenced" to close the gap. At the end of the day its the Drivers choice accept the rate of pay or turn it down,nobody is forcing you to stay if you dont like it
Seems like quite few on here don’t seem to like others trying to better their pay and conditions. If you get offered a pay rise do you turn it down as when you accepted the role you would have been told the rate. No wonder drivers can’t stick together.
Thanks to those that actually offered same useful advice rather than trying to shot me down.
Dimlaith:
Seems like quite few on here don’t seem to like others trying to better their pay and conditions. If you get offered a pay rise do you turn it down as when you accepted the role you would have been told the rate. No wonder drivers can’t stick together.Thanks to those that actually offered same useful advice rather than trying to shot me down.
Its not a case of not liking others trying to better their pay and conditions,its a case of accepting the terms they where offered in the first place.
As for pay rises nobody in his/her right mind will turn one down,but with a disparity in rates the high rated drivers should not get the same % but a rise equal to the lower rate eg:- low rate gets £2 rise the high rate gets the same no more.
Disagree with you I’m afraid, trying to get the same pay for doing the same job is trying to improve t,s and c,s no more no less.
Dimlaith:
Disagree with you I’m afraid, trying to get the same pay for doing the same job is trying to improve t,s and c,s no more no less.
Try READING YOUR CONTRACT BEFORE accepting the job rather than not reading the contract, accepting the job, then trying to move the goal posts. No sympathy for you at all - your “problem” is entirely of your own making.
DCPCFML:
Dimlaith:
Disagree with you I’m afraid, trying to get the same pay for doing the same job is trying to improve t,s and c,s no more no less.Try READING YOUR CONTRACT BEFORE accepting the job rather than not reading the contract, accepting the job, then trying to move the goal posts. No sympathy for you at all - your “problem” is entirely of your own making.
I can assure you that I did indeed read my contact before signing it and I’m certainly not looking for sympathy, especially from a person like you.
If you have no knowledge of the issue or nothing constructive to add the stop wasting my time and yours.
Dimlaith:
DCPCFML:
Dimlaith:
Disagree with you I’m afraid, trying to get the same pay for doing the same job is trying to improve t,s and c,s no more no less.Try READING YOUR CONTRACT BEFORE accepting the job rather than not reading the contract, accepting the job, then trying to move the goal posts. No sympathy for you at all - your “problem” is entirely of your own making.
I can assure you that I did indeed read my contact before signing it and I’m certainly not looking for sympathy, especially from a person like you.
If you have no knowledge of the issue or nothing constructive to add the stop wasting my time and yours.
I have “knowledge of the issue” as you have explained quite clearly in your previous posts that are you simply butthurt because, as a newbie, you’re not getting the same pay and conditions as drivers who have been there 30 years. That’s the crux of it. And now you’re getting even more butthurt because people aren’t giving you the responses you want. If you don’t like your T&Cs : leave. Simple as that.
/thread
You clearly have a big issue over this topic and you are starting to get a little aggressive. Maybe you should calm down before you burst a blood vessel.
I do not consider myself a newbie and there are many drivers at my place of employment who feel the same as I do about the disparity.
Just don’t comment any more if it upsets you that much. Take care dear.
separate contracts, higher pay rate, separate terms and conditions, i may be wrong but it sounds like the higher rate of pay and the different terms and conditions may be down to the conditions of contract entered into with your boss by his customer for that contract. good luck in your endevour
Dimlaith:
Disagree with you I’m afraid, trying to get the same pay for doing the same job is trying to improve t,s and c,s no more no less.
From the article I read about the court case, it doesn’t seem like a better hourly rate, it is like a percentage bonus type thing, essentially for staying with the company. This may be why when the standard rate for the role goes up, it has a multiplier type effect and the pay enhancements for night work, overtime etc will further multiply the rate, all from the standard rate initially.
In your contract, there was no such clause about a bonus, but you signed it anyway. Considering the supermarket wants rid of the old contract, I think it unlikely you would ever be transferred onto it. More likely that the supermarket finds some way of putting the workers on the old contract on the new one, but they are currently prevented from doing so by the courts.
Essentially, it only about the hourly rate of pay. That’s the crux of it. No one expects to be put on the old contract. Equal pay for doing an identical job cannot be an unreasonable expectation.
Dimlaith:
Essentially, it only about the hourly rate of pay. That’s the crux of it. No one expects to be put on the old contract. Equal pay for doing an identical job cannot be an unreasonable expectation.
Ahhh, now we are getting to the crux of it. So if the other drivers are brought down to your pay level, that would be satisfactory. You just can’t have people you are brushing shoulders with earning more than you. I see, okay.
Where on earth did I say that I would like to see others having their rate reduced?
Read the whole thread and feel free to quote the section where I have said such a thing.
Dimlaith:
Where on earth did I say that I would like to see others having their rate reduced?
Read the whole thread and feel free to quote the section where I have said such a thing.
Well, the other drivers are on a bonus that has been phased out. It is no longer available and the company want to get rid of it. A few drivers are still on it and you want pay to be equalised. So effectively you want the bonus, but you say you don’t want the old contract. What do you want exactly?
Quote where I have stated that I would like to see rates reduced for drivers on old contracts. Otherwise you have nothing too add. Also feel free to quote me on any mention of a bonus I have made.I think I have made it very clear what I and fellow drivers on the new contract want EQUAL PAY. Do you understand now.
Dimlaith:
Quote where I have stated that I would like to see rates reduced for drivers on old contracts. Otherwise you have nothing too add. Also feel free to quote me on any mention of a bonus I have made.I think I have made it very clear what I and fellow drivers on the new contract want EQUAL PAY. Do you understand now.
Okay, bleat away then. The fact is that the pay seems to be based on the same base rate of pay. You don’t have a pay enhancement which a few drivers have, boo hoo!
Are you actually an adult? With comments like that it does make one wonder.
Unions are to blame for what has happened in so many workplaces…
Unions will do anything to avoid compulsory redundancies, despite the fact that “being made redundant” in this day and age - is a lot better than being sacked on a pretence… For example, had I not left RM when I did under the MTSF agreement, gaining a decent payoff in the process, I would have no doubt been set up for a fall a few weeks and months later, had I stayed, and “ducked” the opportunity to leave with a payoff when I did. At least two other drivers with roughly the same seniority as myself - were got rid of after I had gone “on a pretence”, one being “back talking to a customer”, and the other for “too many sickies”… They missed out on a payoff of five figures apiece, which is a nasty financial shock to anyone!
Unions don’t push to deliver a dec ent hourly rate when the firm says “All you can have - is ■■% which is always going to be below your minimum ask” OR you can have a decent pay rise with strings attached.
Union reps - would rather stick pins in their own eyes rather than take even the most lucrative deal for members “if there’s strings attached”, I’ve found…
Anything the management might have wanted out of a “pay round negotiation” - often gets implemented later anyways, so the Union holding out - is a futile gesture, when a better method of approach would be to always push on a “Wot’s it worth Guvnor?” basis…
Wanna shaft us Govnor? Can we have a 10% pay rise then, if you want to do away with tea breaks/overtime/anything else worth keeping
Then there’s the advent of Agency prescence at the workplace:
One would have thought that it would have been done as a deal with the workforce that “you can only have agency in - when everyone else has been offered overtime FIRST.”
But alas, the Union - concentrated on the ten hour working limit on nights, which hamstrung full timers wanting or needing overtime - that they could never pick up a shift over 10 hours across the night on the old contract… It had to go straight out to agency, thus overtime was NOT available to everyone, after all…
RM are currently attempting to recruit full timers on a New (read: Inferior) contract, which seems to discriminate against Eastern European drivers (Have you noticed how few there are at RM, both agency and full timer?) and of course Yours Truly, as I’ve already been told by another foreign full timer (Portugal) “Do you have any idea how unpopular you are”? when I consider this guy to be a complete stranger, and only another driver - not my King and Master!
THIS - is the poison of “Acting Management” where old drivers think they’ll improve their career by working as a manager, but without the upsides to the gold plated pension… Poachers-■■■-Gamekeepers - make life a misery for both contractor staff and agency casuals alike.
I understand Manpower are always struggling to get bums on seats - and remember folks - RM were paying over £20ph FIRST long before this Covid upset the applecart well and good…
In the end,
You get what you’re contracted to get - nothing more, nothing less.
If you don’t like being shafted via contract - then I suggest that you resist the kind of contract that has open-ended expectations of the DRIVER, but limited upside in terms of pay and conditions…
Don’t have the right to take legal breaks when it suits YOU rather than the firm?
Don’t have the right to take toilet breaks when it suits YOU rather than the firm?
DO have the right for smoke breaks, because management and union reps want them - but you don’t get anything out of it 'cos you don’t smoke…
Don’t have the right to work shifts/start times to suit your family commitments?
Don’t even have the right to work the number of shifts on the days you want them, 'cos of “Any five from seven” - the biggest shafting in plain sight there is right now?
and of course…
Don’t have the right to take unpaid time off whenever it suits - once upon a time the main reason for ever being on agency rather than full time at any particular yard?
There’s no shortage of drivers in full time jobs.
There’s a shortage willing to quit a full time job to go on agency though.
THAT - I predict won’t end any time soon, and thus this so called “Shortage” - will go on and on, until a new balance is reached where Unions wake up and re-negotiate their contracts to actually favour their members, rather than the cushy old contracts THEY are still on.
Dimlaith:
Are you actually an adult? With comments like that it does make one wonder.
Sorry if I offended you, but it is a case of hard luck and the law is an ■■■, not that the principle you are talking about isn’t logical.
It is just a case of whether the law makes provision for equal pay to include a top-up payment. Only an employment lawyer can realistically give you a definitive answer.
I strongly suspect that if the union has not done anything, about it, an equal pay claim is not possible, but I may be wrong and I have been wrong before.
I do believe that an equal pay claim does not need to reference a protected characteristic by the way. Race, ■■■, religion doesn’t need to come into it, although it is perfectly possible that it could. In this case there doesn’t seem to be an issue over whether the work is equal, it is more a simple case of whether the type of pay is covered by the legislation.
I know you are going to come back and tell me you haven’t said it is a top-up payment. Well, the information is in the public domain that it is, so that is my response to that.