exploitation by manpower

RobTang

zigzagzig wrote: »

My point is , there is a set minimum wage for under 21s BUT not a set maximum wage , so why are Manpower paying the absolute minimum they have to, when charging RM the same as a over 21 year old who is doing the exact same job. And I do realise agencies have to make a profit .but feel they are taking the P big time. I am a postie who works at the same office as my daughter, in a 24 hour period we often have 30 + agency staff in. 95% will be under 21s [ we live in a university town] . Because of your very negative replies to my thread , I. presume you work in a recruitment agency.

At the end of the day an agency is a business and they will get away with what they can.
Im not sure about min wage jobs but the agents I have delt with are generally of a comission basis and will try to maximise their take as much as they can.

If anyone blame RM for outsourcing.

Hammyman

custardy wrote: »

thats quite a statement to make.
so you are fully aware of whats going on in RM and I as a lowly simpleton worker have no ability to for an opinion it seems.
why dont you tell it all for us

No I aren't aware however if its like many places I've delivered to they take on extra staff through agencies with the agency staff getting paid lower rates or in some cases, replace permanent staff with agency.

But knowing the union you lot have, I can guarantee the union reps told you a whole load of codswallop about management getting in agency to undermine your jobs and that management are using agency to get around the law....even though they can't.

Hammyman

zigzagzig wrote: »

My point is , there is a set minimum wage for under 21s BUT not a set maximum wage , so why are Manpower paying the absolute minimum they have to, when charging RM the same as a over 21 year old who is doing the exact same job.

Because they can make more profit. It is no different to a company that makes sausages and employs under 21's. The amount of profit they make from the reduced wage bill goes up. You don't expect them to start pricing their sausages based on the age of their staff....

I sell laptops. For a certain model it may be £100 for me to buy at the auction that week. The following week I might only pay £50. I'll sell both at the same price because that is the going rate and what people will pay so whilst I can make an extra £50 on that model I will. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD.

And I do realise agencies have to make a profit .but feel they are taking the P big time. I am a postie who works at the same office as my daughter, in a 24 hour period we often have 30 + agency staff in. 95% will be under 21s [ we live in a university town] . Because of your very negative replies to my thread , I. presume you work in a recruitment agency.

Here we go....

So you've got a beef because you're a postie as well like the other poster and no doubt bought the same tripe your union told you. And no, I don't work in a recruitment agency however I have worked for agencies as a temp employee for years - most of the 90's and the naughties.

custardy

Hammyman wrote: »

No I aren't aware however if its like many places I've delivered to they take on extra staff through agencies with the agency staff getting paid lower rates or in some cases, replace permanent staff with agency.

But knowing the union you lot have, I can guarantee the union reps told you a whole load of codswallop about management getting in agency to undermine your jobs and that management are using agency to get around the law....even though they can't.

I think this post displays your own preconceptions.
again you seem to be under some illusion that I don't have a thought in my head.
I don't really answer to the likes of "you lot". smacks a bit too little Englander to me

cavework

Perhaps some of the students do not come into the taxable bracket if this is their only income for the year. Therefore they may be happy to work for MIN wage ?
Sorry if this is wrong.
PS I was a Temp recruitment consultant years ago and I did place 17 year olds in work and paid them the same wage as everyone else .Never thought there would be a different payscale and was never advised that there was one. Perhaps it was different in those days.
I was contacted by one company after 2 months querying why they were being paid the same..
My answer was ' They are doing the same job as everyone else and you have made no complaints'
There was no refund and they continued in the job.

scheming_gypsy

zigzagzig wrote: »

so why are Manpower paying the absolute minimum they have to, when charging RM the same as a over 21 year old who is doing the exact same job.

they don't, they charge a set rate per person. If your daughter leaves or gets sacked and replaced with a 37 year old they'll still invoice Royal Mail for x people at the same rate. they could replace all the staff with the same number of people and the invoice will still be the same.

rate x hours x number of people = invoice total.

Thanet62

ANGARD ARE ROYAL MAIL !!!! How can it be right to work for RM one minute for £7.76 PH then change to £6.58 because RM put all casual work through THEIR OWN IN HOUSE AGENCY the money is staying within RM its just the poor workers who suffer. Angard and RM are a disgrace. Exploitation pure and simple.
This years intake of Christmas workers has been a farce from start to finish. This country is returning to "Dock gates labour".

in_the_Cotswolds

Hammyman wrote: »

Here we go....

So you've got a beef because you're a postie as well like the other poster and no doubt bought the same tripe your union told you. And no, I don't work in a recruitment agency however I have worked for agencies as a temp employee for years - most of the 90's and the naughties.

I'm also a postie. Started just before last Christmas we have no agency staff working with us, all new starters are RM employees.

And as regarding the tripe our union have told us, they haven't told us anything in the last year I've been there. I have only been a member for about 6 months.

Hammyman

custardy wrote: »

I think this post displays your own preconceptions.
again you seem to be under some illusion that I don't have a thought in my head.
I don't really answer to the likes of "you lot". smacks a bit too little Englander to me

One only needs to look at the long list of pathetic reasons posties have gone on strike. The last one being, shock horror, having to actually work the hours you were being paid for...

Hammyman

Thanet62 wrote: »

ANGARD ARE ROYAL MAIL !!!! How can it be right to work for RM one minute for £7.76 PH then change to £6.58 because RM put all casual work through THEIR OWN IN HOUSE AGENCY the money is staying within RM its just the poor workers who suffer. Angard and RM are a disgrace. Exploitation pure and simple.
This years intake of Christmas workers has been a farce from start to finish. This country is returning to "Dock gates labour".

Because that is the way of the world. Don't like it, vote with your feet and don't work for Angard.
The intake of workers is no different than previous years with the exception of the RM using their own in house agency. Perhaps you'd prefer a company with business in decline to pay 50% more to use an external agency. And then when they're losing more money, you'll not get a wage rise and more of you will be laid off....