exploitation by manpower

bevanuk

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

Just be careful when you go to Asda tonight.. they're charging you more than they paid :eek:

+1 - Love it!

Thanet62

zigzagzig wrote: »

my daughter is employed by manpower to work for royal mail. she was told she would be paid 6.50 an hour. {working night shift 22.00 -06.00] After 1st week pay reduced to 5.50 an hour. the reason for this being 18 years old, so are paying her 4,95 minimum wage plus 55 pence for working nights. But they are still charging royal mail full agency fee of over 11 pounds an hour, the same as if she was over 21. Shame on you manpower, how many more young people and companies are you ripping off.

It would be nice to get back on track with this thread so I have quoted Zigzagzigs original post before the thread was overtaken with the usual purile trolling by the usual inadequates.

Certain people may well earn loads working for agencies (or maybe not it, might just be a sad fantasy)

IF we all posted we sat on our !!!!!! all day long on benefits then guess who would be telling us to get a job....?

We work because it pays some of us work and were happy with what we were paid...until and this is the point of the original post and my further post, AGENCIES changed the goal posts and have paid LESS than we were getting paid when we started.

I realise that the keyboard warriors will be on with the usual "get another job then" crap, but then again its tea time so mummy's probably called them down for tea.

scheming_gypsy

Thanet62 wrote: »

It would be nice to get back on track with this thread so I have quoted Zigzagzigs original post before the thread was overtaken with the usual purile trolling by the usual inadequates.

Certain people may well earn loads working for agencies (or maybe not it, might just be a sad fantasy)

IF we all posted we sat on our !!!!!! all day long on benefits then guess who would be telling us to get a job....?

We work because it pays some of us work and were happy with what we were paid...until and this is the point of the original post and my further post, AGENCIES changed the goal posts and have paid LESS than we were getting paid when we started.

I realise that the keyboard warriors will be on with the usual "get another job then" crap, but then again its tea time so mummy's probably called them down for tea.

With all due respect:

1 - you said you posted it to get the thread back on track, but you didn't get it back on track.

2 - you then said "the thread was overtaken with the usual purile (sic) trolling by the usual inadequates (sic)." and then trolled by being puerile and claiming people weren't earning more, were keyboard warriors and that mummy was cooking tea...

the simple fact is:
You work for the agency not the client so what the client pays the agency is none of your business as you agreed to work for the rate offered. That's your agreement and contract, not the contract between client and agency.
The reason agencies may pay less isn't because they're keeping more profit it's because other agencies are trying to muscle in and steal clients by offering a lower rate. Your agency then has to lower their rate to stay competitive which means the worker loses out. If they don't lower their prices they lose the contract and 'you' lose your job.

So yes; if you don't like working for an agency on the rate you agreed then you're more than welcome to get another job.

Red_Elle

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

You work for the agency not the client so what the client pays the agency is none of your business as you agreed to work for the rate offered. That's your agreement and contract, not the contract between client and agency.
The reason agencies may pay less isn't because they're keeping more profit it's because other agencies are trying to muscle in and steal clients by offering a lower rate. Your agency then has to lower their rate to stay competitive which means the worker loses out. If they don't lower their prices they lose the contract and 'you' lose your job.

So yes; if you don't like working for an agency on the rate you agreed then you're more than welcome to get another job.

This is very true. It's also none of the client's business what the temp is getting paid. They are two separate business transactions and if any of my temp people asked what I charged my clients they'd not get a polite response.

The simple fact of the matter is, for everyone disputing it, that people working on temp/interim contracts often get paid more. This is generally to encourage them to remain in a role that does not offer the stability of a permanent position.

Take qualified Accountants, which is my sector. They can easily be paid a day rate of £300, but they'd never secure that in a permanent position. There are lots and lots of benefits to temping, as other people have mentioned.

I'm really not sure why people would even dispute that.

paulmapp8306

The big problem with having a minimum wage is that while it does stop some employers offering silly £2 or £3 ph wages - it also means employers who may have apid more tend to pay the same minimum wage. In fact it became more of a "normal" wage rather than minimum.

It depends on the company and business - in that if they need certain skills, and want a certain level of work then they will pay more - to attract the better people. However, if the job can be done by pretty much anyone then why would they pay more than the minimum they have to?

Not saying its right - In fact i think is not right at all, but it is economics. Im coming from a full time, 24 year career on £40k - but when thats over I dont expect to earn much above minimum wage. If i do that's a bonus but im not counting on it.

RobTang

Hammyman wrote: »

The people who seem to have problems with agencies are those who don't understand the game. They seem to think its like permanent employment. And because they've been on PAYE all their lives they don't understand the true cost of the £6, £7, £8 or whatever they get paid an hour is to the employer. They somehow find out that the agency is charging £5 an hour more than they're getting paid and are outraged by it even though half or more of that £5 is what an employer would have to pay in employers NI and holiday pay anyway.

YET... agencies are not in any rush to clarify the system are they?

I mean I see a lot of contractors moan about what their agency is possibly taking, which because there is no real transparency I think people have every right to moan about it.

Now my contract I know exactly what the agency take is and I pay for all other costs, they send me an itemised bill of everything; payroll cost, employers and employees contributions of tax pension, insurance etc.
Everything is clear an obvious and eveyone is (more or less) happy because all the rules are clear.

It seems to me there would be far less confusion, contempt and there would be better working relationship for everyone, but agencies dont do this for whatever reason.

The way they tend to operate makes people feel they are more leech like rather then offering a sercice.

scheming_gypsy

I'm not sure to be honest, i can see where you're coming from but you don't agree a rate based on what the agency are charging. You accept a job on what the agency is paying you so if you agree and accept that wage, nothing else matters. I've never even wondered how much is charged for me to work at a clients, I just apply for jobs if i'm happy to work for the advertised rate; if i'm not i don't apply for it.

duckandcover

RobTang wrote: »

YET... agencies are not in any rush to clarify the system are they?

I mean I see a lot of contractors moan about what their agency is possibly taking, which because there is no real transparency I think people have every right to moan about it.

Again, it has been said so many times but the agency does not TAKE anything from the contractor - the charge rate to the client is of absolutely no concern to the contractor.

Thanet62

I have it on great authority that Tesco/ASDA/Sainbury and a number of petrol companies are seriously looking at the Royal Mail employment model to tighten their own employment of non essential/low skill work force. Talks are already underway to create "in house" agencies who will managed all non essential staffing in the new year.
If this follows RM's route it would mean existing contracts are terminated you will still work for the above companies but through their own versions of TESGARD/ASGARD/SAINGARD etc etc

Beware your new contract will pay less and you will forfeit loads of benefits just like we have in Royal Mail

geoffken

The reason for agency in Royal Mail is BECAUSE the unions were TOO restrictive in the past and it is better/cheaper to employ agency staff.
If RM employees had been MORE flexible in the past then they might be picking up the OVERTIME now.
How is it fair at TVTE Gateshead for RM staff to be sent home early because there is no work but get paid and agency staff have to SIT there until shift finishes also with no work to do!!!


Good management or poor unions in the past..