4 years no pay rise. what action can employees take?

notanewuser

Southend1 wrote: »

Of course that is a danger with zero/low hours contracts. All the more reason for colleagues standing together when negotiating with the employer!

How would that work then? Each worker agreed a zero hours contract at the time of taking the job. Perhaps they felt they had no choice. But are you really suggesting that at some point they should all have demanded contracts which limited the employer's flexibility? The zero hours obviously cause them no major issues else they wouldn't continue to use them.

The OP has been TUPEd at least once. It may be that the new company wouldn't have bid for the company had the staff been on fixed hours contracts, leaving the OP redundant. Would that have been better for the OP?

Southend1

notanewuser wrote: »

How would that work then? Each worker agreed a zero hours contract at the time of taking the job. Perhaps they felt they had no choice. But are you really suggesting that at some point they should all have demanded contracts which limited the employer's flexibility? The zero hours obviously cause them no major issues else they wouldn't continue to use them.

The OP has been TUPEd at least once. It may be that the new company wouldn't have bid for the company had the staff been on fixed hours contracts, leaving the OP redundant. Would that have been better for the OP?

"Demanded" is not the right word. Negotiated is perhaps better.

Why should the employment relationship be so skewed one way? There is a sound business case to be argued that workers with more security are more productive and committed to making the organisation a success, which far outweighs any short term financial saving from hiring insecure labour.

With regard to the TUPE, maybe a more secure workforce would have led to better contract performance in the first place and the original firm would not have lost the contract? Maybe the new company would have more chance of retaining the contract and keeping it profitable with a more secure workforce with less turnover, lower recruitment and training costs, better customer service etc etc.

Just because you took a job on a particular set of terms does not mean you can't negotiate for different terms at any stage of the employment relationship and it is often mutually beneficial for employer and employees to do so.

notanewuser

Southend1 wrote: »

"Demanded" is not the right word. Negotiated is perhaps better.

Why should the employment relationship be so skewed one way? There is a sound business case to be argued that workers with more security are more productive and committed to making the organisation a success, which far outweighs any short term financial saving from hiring insecure labour.

With regard to the TUPE, maybe a more secure workforce would have led to better contract performance in the first place and the original firm would not have lost the contract? Maybe the new company would have more chance of retaining the contract and keeping it profitable with a more secure workforce with less turnover, lower recruitment and training costs, better customer service etc etc.

Just because you took a job on a particular set of terms does not mean you can't negotiate for different terms at any stage of the employment relationship and it is often mutually beneficial for employer and employees to do so.

You're talking very generally. Look at what the OP does. There's no way to do that more efficiently. Anybody with a car could do it. Where is the benefit to the company in retaining employees (beyond some small recruitment costs)?

Presumably the previous firm lost the contract at least partly down to cost. Having undercut, where is the spare money for pay rises?

Southend1

notanewuser wrote: »

You're talking very generally. Look at what the OP does. There's no way to do that more efficiently. Anybody with a car could do it. Where is the benefit to the company in retaining employees (beyond some small recruitment costs)?

Presumably the previous firm lost the contract at least partly down to cost. Having undercut, where is the spare money for pay rises?

Perhaps more committed employees would be more likely to come up with efficiency saving ideas? Better route planning, fuel efficiency techniques etc. They would also be less likely to go AWOL or off sick which costs the firm money.

What about the benefit to customer service and satisfaction from having regular drivers who can form a relationship with service users?

Of course cost is a major factor in awarding contracts however narrow minded short term thinking doesn't benefit anyone in the long run.

notanewuser

Actually, I'm not sure why the doctors can't just drive themselves, but there we go.

Southend1

notanewuser wrote: »

Actually, I'm not sure why the doctors can't just drive themselves, but there we go.

I presume it's much more efficient to pay a driver to take service users to the doctor rather than have a doctor on over £100k pa driving around to see patients at their homes? Unless I have misunderstood and OP is chauffeuring doctors?

notanewuser

Southend1 wrote: »

I presume it's much more efficient to pay a driver to take service users to the doctor rather than have a doctor on over £100k pa driving around to see patients at their homes? Unless I have misunderstood and OP is chauffeuring doctors?

The OP is driving doctors.

ILW

Southend1 wrote: »

I presume it's much more efficient to pay a driver to take service users to the doctor rather than have a doctor on over £100k pa driving around to see patients at their homes? Unless I have misunderstood and OP is chauffeuring doctors?

As a promoter of unionisation.
All things being equal, if you were given the choice of pay cuts or redundancies (ie offshoring etc) which would you go for?

Southend1

notanewuser wrote: »

The OP is driving doctors.

Can you link or quote the post that says this please? I remember reading a post where OP described his role but i can't find it now!

Southend1

ILW wrote: »

As a promoter of unionisation.
All things being equal, if you were given the choice of pay cuts or redundancies (ie offshoring etc) which would you go for?

That's a tough question but it would come down to what the workforce wanted in that situation at that time. If these were tabled as options by an employer the union would need to consult their members. Of course there are likely to be other options that the employer has not suggested or even thought of that may be more acceptable to all parties.