Hourly rate disparity

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
61

Wiretwister:

Rjan:
Once you reach the tipping point where the majority are on the inferior terms, it would make sense to attack the aristocrats who weren’t willing to defend the same pay and conditions for others, and ensure all their additional pay and conditions are taken away.

Having two tiers of pay and conditions are a known divide-and-rule tactic, and it makes sense to rain fire on the heads of those in the workforce, and the unions, who allow it.

Are you really advocating degrading the better terms rather than improving the inferior?

Yes, I would advocate degrading the better terms, in circumstances where the unionised drivers on the better terms are not taking immediate action to bring the inferior terms up, including striking.

I would not tolerate the existence of a so-called labour aristocracy at all, whose only justification for the higher pay is that they’ve sold new starters down the river. Solidarity is a two-way street.

62

It appears the union did an exceptional job at securing the workers pay who were employed at a time when the company was trying to reduce their hourly rate. (no proof, but I’m guessing due to a driver surplus in the market)
They negotiated the best deal available at the time for anyone joining the company from that point onwards.
That said, times are a changin’ and the same union now should be obligated to highlight this in the pay negotiations. Any ‘market payments’ need to be consolidated into pay, before any percentage rate agreed.
Good luck.

63

Exactly, the union now needs to do something to improve the new contract. All we hear from our reps is “you signed the contract”. Well so did they at the start of their employment and I know theirs has changed over the years to give them better terms.

64

LazyDriver:
They negotiated the best deal available at the time for anyone joining the company from that point onwards.

Utter claptrap. They have reserved better terms for themselves in exchange for cutting loose workers who join the firm in future to do the same work.

Naturally, the bosses will be delighted at both the prospect of wages falling over time, and of the existence of an aristocracy who are prepared to break solidarity with their future colleagues in order to keep their own feather-bedding for the time being.

Such behaviour by unionised workers should be immediately confronted by an overwhelming attack by the new workforce, to ensure the aristocrats are brought down to the same level that they seemed to think was appropriate for others. Then we will see how happy they are with the terms they have negotiated.

65

Dimlaith:
Exactly, the union now needs to do something to improve the new contract. All we hear from our reps is “you signed the contract”. Well so did they at the start of their employment and I know theirs has changed over the years to give them better terms.

Agreed, it’s an utterly ridiculous argument. The point of the union is to set what those contractual terms are for the workforce, and ensure that they are favourable to the workers as a whole.

If the existing workers think new workers have accepted less, then we shall see if the existing workers will accept it too. If not, presumably the argument is that the existing staff can always leave and go elsewhere, and let the work be done by the new workers who have accepted the lower terms which the union negotiated on their behalf.

66

Another one of those union ‘good news’ stories then! “You should work for companies with a strong unioned workforce!” we keep being told by the pro-union lot on here. Yah, sounds good! /s

67

DCPCFML:
Another one of those union ‘good news’ stories then! “You should work for companies with a strong unioned workforce!” we keep being told by the pro-union lot on here. Yah, sounds good! /s

No, it is not a good news story. It’s an evolving news story which will have a happy outcome for the drivers who are soon too be in the majority. I have nothing but absolute disdain for the current union reps who are NOT representing all of their members. Time will tell.

68

Unions - don’t need to fight for the jobs of people that are already scooping the lowest rates of pay… The race to the bottom there - has already been WON after all.

Once rates reach rock-bottom, it is then for a firm to try and fool it’s workforce that you’d “be worse off if you changed jobs” — How T-F can that ever be true though, if you think about it?

Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale - the higher payers with the bigger (not stronger) Unions - are where you can expect some animosity between Full timers and Agency Upstarts there.

What are Unions for again?

They don’t want to raise their full timer rates to match that of Agency - they want to bring agency rates back down to THEIR perma-low levels!

It’s just petty and nasty, really…

69

Rjan:

LazyDriver:
They negotiated the best deal available at the time for anyone joining the company from that point onwards.

Such behaviour by unionised workers should be immediately confronted by an overwhelming attack by the new workforce, to ensure the aristocrats are brought down to the same level that they seemed to think was appropriate for others. Then we will see how happy they are with the terms they have negotiated.

At the time of the agreement, that was the ‘going rate’. The fact that the union sercured the existing pay structure for those already employed, when, as stated on other threads here, wages have been cut previously. Is a credit to them. Now, as market changes have driven up wages, it’s time to renegotiate the lower paid contracts to parity with the higher ones. Why would you suggest at any time, let alone when wages are rocketing that unions should negotiate a pay decrease? Are you bonkers■■?
It does appear from what the OP states that there needs to be a change in union shop stewards though, if he feels that half the workforce is unrepresented.

70

LazyDriver:

Rjan:

LazyDriver:
They negotiated the best deal available at the time for anyone joining the company from that point onwards.

Such behaviour by unionised workers should be immediately confronted by an overwhelming attack by the new workforce, to ensure the aristocrats are brought down to the same level that they seemed to think was appropriate for others. Then we will see how happy they are with the terms they have negotiated.

At the time of the agreement, that was the ‘going rate’. The fact that the union sercured the existing pay structure for those already employed, when, as stated on other threads here, wages have been cut previously. Is a credit to them. Now, as market changes have driven up wages, it’s time to renegotiate the lower paid contracts to parity with the higher ones. Why would you suggest at any time, let alone when wages are rocketing that unions should negotiate a pay decrease? Are you bonkers■■?
It does appear from what the OP states that there needs to be a change in union shop stewards though, if he feels that half the workforce is unrepresented.

As I say, the purpose of the union is to set that “going rate”.

The existing drivers seemed to understand this as regards their own pay, otherwise they would have accepted pay cuts so as to obey market forces and bring their own pay into line with the “going rate”.

If the union takes this opportunity to equalise pay again, then that’s fair enough.

But I had the impression the longer-serving drivers were expecting the same percentage increase, so as to maintain the two-tiered pay structure and their aristocratic status in it. And as I’ve said, no worker should tolerate such arrangements, and should freely attack any union or shop stewards that attempt to defend it.

71

Rjan:

LazyDriver:

Rjan:

LazyDriver:
.

As I say, the purpose of the union is to set that “going rate”.

The existing drivers seemed to understand this as regards their own pay, otherwise they would have accepted pay cuts so as to obey market forces and bring their own pay into line with the “going rate”.

If the union takes this opportunity to equalise pay again, then that’s fair enough.

But I had the impression the longer-serving drivers were expecting the same percentage increase, so as to maintain the two-tiered pay structure and their aristocratic status in it. And as I’ve said, no worker should tolerate such arrangements, and should freely attack any union or shop stewards that attempt to defend it.

I get what you say, and I think we’re nearly on the same page. The one main sticking point is, any union worth it’s salts would never try to negotiate a wage decrease. And if they can pacify the current workforce to ensure there’s not a stampede to the door when the pay is dropped in line with other companies, then that’s a win. I agree though, having applied a ringfence to existing drivers, the future pay discussions should exclude said ringfenced drivers. (sampede still avioded as they are still on a higher than industry standard pay), as ringfences should work both ways. Alternatively, they should have included a stepped increment for new employees to gain the seniority pay structure.
I would imagine though, this utopian approach would have faltered as the workforce would have been seniority heavy and they would not have voted on a stagnant pay deal while the young upstarts caught up with their inflated (for the time) pay packets. So, as the OP has stated, the numbers are now shifting to parity the opportunity to demand pay parity have become more gettable.

72

Rjan:

LazyDriver:
They negotiated the best deal available at the time for anyone joining the company from that point onwards.

Utter claptrap. They have reserved better terms for themselves in exchange for cutting loose workers who join the firm in future to do the same work.

Naturally, the bosses will be delighted at both the prospect of wages falling over time, and of the existence of an aristocracy who are prepared to break solidarity with their future colleagues in order to keep their own feather-bedding for the time being.

Such behaviour by unionised workers should be immediately confronted by an overwhelming attack by the new workforce, to ensure the aristocrats are brought down to the same level that they seemed to think was appropriate for others. Then we will see how happy they are with the terms they have negotiated.

Agree. Unions always seem to use “incoming staff” as their sacrificial bargaining chip, agreeing any amount of poor conditions in return for their parity pay they’d expect to get. It won’t be much longer until this thin-end of the wedge rolls uphill - with the “job for life” concept already eroded beyond being of any use in a serious full timer grievance…

“You can’t get me - 'cos I’m in the Union” - is very much a thing of the past already.

73

Rjan:

LazyDriver:
They negotiated the best deal available at the time for anyone joining the company from that point onwards.

Utter claptrap. They have reserved better terms for themselves in exchange for cutting loose workers who join the firm in future to do the same work.

Naturally, the bosses will be delighted at both the prospect of wages falling over time, and of the existence of an aristocracy who are prepared to break solidarity with their future colleagues in order to keep their own feather-bedding for the time being.

Such behaviour by unionised workers should be immediately confronted by an overwhelming attack by the new workforce, to ensure the aristocrats are brought down to the same level that they seemed to think was appropriate for others. Then we will see how happy they are with the terms they have negotiated.

And then the Company lands up at a tribunal,having a guess the Company will win because the “newbies” accepted the terms they where offered. No good starting a job thinking your going to change other peoples contracts to suit you,dont like it dont start thats easy enough. Unions Officials will do what they can to protect T&Cs of existing workforce other than that get a good redundancy package or pay off as compensation. A Union is only as good as its Members no ,Members no Union

74

I guess court battles don’t come cheap (especially against a behemoth) and a union needs to be careful about choosing expensive battles using the subscriptions of the majority to to keep the terms of a minority.

I guess the majority could adapt accordingly and switch union or decide not to subscribe to any union out of protest. Take the funds away from the union actively pursuing interests of others over yourself.

75

Sad to read all this about unions…but kinda fits my old preconception.

I became a union rep despite being unimpressed with unions. I try to improve things for everyone, including non members.

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

76

lolipop:

Rjan:

LazyDriver:
They negotiated the best deal available at the time for anyone joining the company from that point onwards.

Utter claptrap. They have reserved better terms for themselves in exchange for cutting loose workers who join the firm in future to do the same work.

Naturally, the bosses will be delighted at both the prospect of wages falling over time, and of the existence of an aristocracy who are prepared to break solidarity with their future colleagues in order to keep their own feather-bedding for the time being.

Such behaviour by unionised workers should be immediately confronted by an overwhelming attack by the new workforce, to ensure the aristocrats are brought down to the same level that they seemed to think was appropriate for others. Then we will see how happy they are with the terms they have negotiated.

And then the Company lands up at a tribunal,having a guess the Company will win because the “newbies” accepted the terms they where offered. No good starting a job thinking your going to change other peoples contracts to suit you,dont like it dont start thats easy enough.

That’s fine. Just don’t expect me to join the union or support any strikes under those circumstances. I’ll be doing the overtime whilst you’re on the gate, and if you want to make it about bike chains and tyre irons then we can do that too. Because, you know, I accepted my terms when I joined. And if you don’t like your pay frozen year after year, because you’ve broken ranks and destroyed solidarity, you can go and get a job elsewhere at market rates, can’t you?

The reality is that your treacherous thinking is probably why effective unions don’t even exist in the vast majority of places. I can’t condemn it in any stronger terms.

Unions Officials will do what they can to protect T&Cs of existing workforce other than that get a good redundancy package or pay off as compensation. A Union is only as good as its Members no ,Members no Union

Indeed, so why are you defending attacks on the future members of the union, and justifying trading their pay and conditions for your own feather bedding in the meantime?

Do you seriously think the fellas who fought the second world war used to attack their kids’ wages and permanently lower the bar for the workforce, so as to boost their own pay just for the time being?

77

I am not as harsh as Rjan over this. To be fair, if someone gives you a contract and says this will be your contract for the duration of your employment, it is reasonable to expect this to be the case. You may have made plans based on your income and to have the rug pulled isn’t great, although according the media reports, a pay-off of 18 months of the benefit was offered. Apparently some took the offer and went on the new contract, which is fair enough. The legal wrangling is ongoing of course and far from finalised with an interim interdict at one site to prevent fire and rehire tactics by the supermarket for the time being.

As I have said, how much union time and funds can be used to protect superior pay for a minority of workers carrying out the same job as those on less pay? The principle is fine, it is more the mechanism of using a union to fight the case, where those claiming are only a small proportion of the workforce.

78

Don’t forget that there’s also this thing where staff on the older but better contract - get hounded to quit early, rather than keep the old “dead man’s shoes” job going until retirement, “Job For Life Enforcement” you might call it.

Perhaps the better runs might start going out to agency rather than the old hands, or discipline might be tightened up among those that have done over a decade service already, since each such person “got rid of on a pretence” - saves the firm five figures in redundancy payments, don’t forget…

Getting rid of people for too many sickies/infringements or even episodes of insubordination - are also commonplace, especially where other “old hands” have since become “poachers-■■■-gamekeepers”, and know all one’s dodges and get-arounds that at one point in the past - might have kept one out of trouble…

Racing to the bottom - brings a reckoning that comes with poor reputation that once gained - is rather difficult to shake off.

Are there any “Good Reputation” firms left actually? :frowning:

79

Noremac:
I am not as harsh as Rjan over this. To be fair, if someone gives you a contract and says this will be your contract for the duration of your employment, it is reasonable to expect this to be the case.

Except that is a complete and utter fiction. The bosses do not give out lifetime contracts with guaranteed pay rises, offer aristocratic differentials with new starters, and so on. Even if they did once, the bosses would just say circumstances have changed so the old contract must change also - either take it, or leave it and go. The law and the judges will be on their side.

It is precisely the purpose of the union to challenge what the bosses offer, to set the terms and and force them to be better and to stay better - so even if the bosses were offering inferior contracts to new starters, it remains the responsibility of the union to challenge that.

You may have made plans based on your income and to have the rug pulled isn’t great, although according the media reports, a pay-off of 18 months of the benefit was offered.

Again it’s a fiction. Even the very youngest workers may well have genuine plans for things like a family, a mortgage, and financial security which is dependent on earning the existing rate of pay (not the inferior rate), which are all exactly the things the union is allowing to be assaulted for those workers.

And that is not to say that the new starters must be new to the game - there will be redundant older workers looking for another job, and those redundancies may well be occurring elsewhere because the union is allowing the company to undercut the market by hiring new starters at a lower rate of pay.

Other plans, like the plan to live in a house of a certain size or to retire at a certain age, are plans that can be changed for older workers as easily as they can be changed for younger workers, and for longer-serving workers as easily as for new starters. You just have to downsize your home, or work longer, which is exactly what you expect the new starters to do.

And if you don’t think it’s acceptable, then it isn’t acceptable for any worker.

As I have said, how much union time and funds can be used to protect superior pay for a minority of workers carrying out the same job as those on less pay? The principle is fine, it is more the mechanism of using a union to fight the case, where those claiming are only a small proportion of the workforce.

The reality is that without the union, they wouldn’t be able to protect their aristocratic terms, or to have even won them in the first place.

80

Rjan:

Noremac:
I am not as harsh as Rjan over this. To be fair, if someone gives you a contract and says this will be your contract for the duration of your employment, it is reasonable to expect this to be the case.

Except that is a complete and utter fiction. The bosses do not give out lifetime contracts with guaranteed pay rises, offer aristocratic differentials with new starters, and so on. Even if they did once, the bosses would just say circumstances have changed so the old contract must change also - either take it, or leave it and go. The law and the judges will be on their side.

It is precisely the purpose of the union to challenge what the bosses offer, to set the terms and and force them to be better and to stay better - so even if the bosses were offering inferior contracts to new starters, it remains the responsibility of the union to challenge that.

You may have made plans based on your income and to have the rug pulled isn’t great, although according the media reports, a pay-off of 18 months of the benefit was offered.

Again it’s a fiction. Even the very youngest workers may well have genuine plans for things like a family, a mortgage, and financial security which is dependent on earning the existing rate of pay (not the inferior rate), which are all exactly the things the union is allowing to be assaulted for those workers.

And that is not to say that the new starters must be new to the game - there will be redundant older workers looking for another job, and those redundancies may well be occurring elsewhere because the union is allowing the company to undercut the market by hiring new starters at a lower rate of pay.

Other plans, like the plan to live in a house of a certain size or to retire at a certain age, are plans that can be changed for older workers as easily as they can be changed for younger workers, and for longer-serving workers as easily as for new starters. You just have to downsize your home, or work longer, which is exactly what you expect the new starters to do.

And if you don’t think it’s acceptable, then it isn’t acceptable for any worker.

As I have said, how much union time and funds can be used to protect superior pay for a minority of workers carrying out the same job as those on less pay? The principle is fine, it is more the mechanism of using a union to fight the case, where those claiming are only a small proportion of the workforce.

The reality is that without the union, they wouldn’t be able to protect their aristocratic terms, or to have even won them in the first place.

Are we not talking about two seperate cross-purposes here?

FULL time jobs - OLD hand gets cushy contract, new starters get crappy contract.
AGENCY jobs - New hands get cushy contract, old hands - resent it very much - but don’t have the balls to vote with their feet and do exactly the same - leave FT and go agency
…which is why there’s a log jam between “shifts available” and “shifts coverable”. :bulb: :bulb: