Sorry, you're on completely the wrong back foot. The vast majority of businesses across the UK recognise the need to recruit - and retain - good staff. Good luck if you think that can be achieved with minimal pay.
Again though, the present government still have difficulty with the concept that you have to pay a market rate to retain good staff.
Covered by, IF they could get away with it. IF.
That is somewhat unreasonable. There is a fine line before that becomes bullying staff to accept inferior terms and conditions.
Is a bonus a term or condition?
No, the pay and any other condition wrapped into the pay award is. While a bonus is typically discretionary, it seems a bit harsh to hold the workers to ransom over it.
I agree that bonuses should be contingent upon individual or team performance, that way they should improve performance over time. It appears however that the bonuses at NR are contingent on national performance covering all departments, something that individuals have next to no control of. That offers no incentive.
It is,, I had forgotten all of the conditions, most of the staff I worked with ignored the bonus, they knew that after all the 'deductions' it would end up a small percentage, then if you do get a partial good result, there is a committee that somehow looks at the figures, and lowers it !
IF they can still provide a good quality service to customers by using staff on minimal pay then they're either fairly unique, or heading for failure.
No......
That's exactly the approach that the (outgoing) government has tried to pursue. That the result has been a complete loss of "good quality service" is of no concern to them, they just blame the unions and hop into their helicopters.
Though there is an argument that the minimum wage has encouraged a race to the bottom
As stated above, this doesn't apply to jobs where there is a shortage of suitably qualified/skilled/experience staff, or where it is time consuming and expensive to train staff or simply where the availability of such jobs outstrips the supply of staff willing to take the jobs on for that rate of pay. What P&O did was bad for the company; they lost a lot of money while ships were unable to operate. I'm not sure of the relevance to this dispute.
Whilst it may differ in each TOC heres a sample of how ASLEF union reps who are full time drivers have a significant impact in the running of a successful operation....
Why would it be unreasonable? I would have thought that bonuses are there as incentives to improve performance, and striking does not work towards that regardless of the reason for the dispute?
Sorry, but that is rubbish.
Absolutely, thanks for posting this example. Ours even do the annual leave rosters.
It’s not clear that the evidence entirely supports that optimistic view.
Going back to what sparked this debate, none of this supports the claim that was made:
I, and others have disputed that claim and I don't see any evidence for it.
I'm not really sure what you are suggesting here; at the end of the day the market cannot be ignored and if an employer pays much less than the market rate then they are going to experience recruitment and retention problems and if the pressure gets too much, an employer has no realistic alternative to pay the market rate.
The idea that everyone would receive a just recompense for their labours without the willingness of employees to fight for better conditions - of which union representation and collective bargaining is one very important element - is equally unrealistic, and is not supported by history.
Again, none of this demonstrates that the disputed claim is true. This isn't a thread about history. Whatever you call it, there will be a going rate for a particular job in a particular area, and if employers pay less than that, they risk becoming understaffed, if the matter is not rectified. Talk of minimum wage isn't relevant and isn't correct.
Yes, the RMT have been gathering their members views and opinions over the last few weeks. Welcome news. Thanks.
To many people, I daresay that a *minimum* increase of £1275 would be quite attractive at this stage.
Obviously it would make no sense to accept it in the midst of change of government - the new government will not offer less than the current one, but it may offer the same. Or the same with some face saving gesture.
Apparently not, if the feedback that RMT got led to it been turned down.
