Change of shifts at work for the worse

ValHaller

custardy wrote: »

well that's the theory............
However lets be honest
the majority will want day/early shifts
So even in the utopia of union/management co operation
not everyone will be happy

I think your assumption about what people will want is about right, But you are either missing the point or not understanding what a union can do by negotiating collectively. The point is that people do not need to take fixed shifts. The shifts can be shared out so that everyone gets some of what they want and some of the rough with it too.

Takeaway_Addict

ValHaller wrote: »

I think your assumption about what people will want is about right, But you are either missing the point or not understanding what a union can do by negotiating collectively. The point is that people do not need to take fixed shifts. The shifts can be shared out so that everyone gets some of what they want and some of the rough with it too.

You're asking the union to do the job of the employer in doling out shifts in a fair manner...whatever the union chooses will not be fair for all so really they would be in a tough situation.

Whats better? To annoy 20% of the workforce with the new system or 80% changing it to the unions preference?

custardy

ValHaller wrote: »

I think your assumption about what people will want is about right, But you are either missing the point or not understanding what a union can do by negotiating collectively. The point is that people do not need to take fixed shifts. The shifts can be shared out so that everyone gets some of what they want and some of the rough with it too.

from the original posts

So you can only imagine how ambivalent I felt that at the beginning of August this year they announce a shift change where we move to 10hr shifts 4 days per week. Everyone could choose the shift they would like to move to and to mark on the sheets shifts they cannot work. Obviously I chose day shift 8am-630pm and put cannot work in the night shift boxes. To my horror they put me on a night shift 7pm - 530am and personally could not give a damn about the extra pay I would get.

They stated that at the time of choosing shifts that if you were unlucky and did not receive your original choices you would be "randomly" allocated a shift.

to me that reads the day shift was full and every one left went on nights
whats to negotiate?

ValHaller

custardy wrote: »

to me that reads the day shift was full and every one left went on nights
whats to negotiate?

For the unimaginative, there is nothing to negotiate. But for anyone else, you negotiate that everyone does some of everything.

custardy

ValHaller wrote: »

For the unimaginative, there is nothing to negotiate. But for anyone else, you negotiate that everyone does some of everything.

So your answer is to inconvenience the majority of the employees?
I would say the majority want day shift and an even greater majority would want a fixed shift pattern
So you would have the union negotiate against the majority?
I think we can agree you are imaginative indeed

ValHaller

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

You're asking the union to do the job of the employer in doling out shifts in a fair manner...whatever the union chooses will not be fair for all so really they would be in a tough situation.

Whats better? To annoy 20% of the workforce with the new system or 80% changing it to the unions preference?

I see I am on for a lot of stick over this.

The idea is that the union - being its members - ie the employees - makes the decision because the employees are the ones who suffer the pain. You do not shove everyone onto a permanent fixed shift. You share the pain out and you negotiate shift premiums.

I am amazed at the puddings here who would sit and let the employer impose shifts without seeing that the employees - who are the ones who are suffering the pain could take the initiative collectively to sort this out and share out the pain - likely with better results than the employer doing it.

ValHaller

custardy wrote: »

So your answer is to inconvenience the majority of the employees?
I would say the majority want day shift and an even greater majority would want a fixed shift pattern
So you would have the union negotiate against the majority?
I think we can agree you are imaginative indeed

So your 'majority' will get all the good shifts at the expense of a minority who must take all the rubbish shifts?

In OP's case, it will probably result in OP leaving sooner or later - and then management get to choose a new victim. Wunderbar. A result for selfish individualism.

custardy

ValHaller wrote: »

I see I am on for a lot of stick over this.

The idea is that the union - being its members - ie the employees - makes the decision because the employees are the ones who suffer the pain. You do not shove everyone onto a permanent fixed shift. You share the pain out and you negotiate shift premiums.

I am amazed at the puddings here who would sit and let the employer impose shifts without seeing that the employees - who are the ones who are suffering the pain could take the initiative collectively to sort this out and share out the pain - likely with better results than the employer doing it.

So you want to 'share the pain'
sounds a great improvement
so what happens to those with partners on fixed shifts at other jobs?
do you then have to go and 'share the pain' elsewhere?

Takeaway_Addict

ValHaller wrote: »

I see I am on for a lot of stick over this.

The idea is that the union - being its members - ie the employees - makes the decision because the employees are the ones who suffer the pain. You do not shove everyone onto a permanent fixed shift. You share the pain out and you negotiate shift premiums.

I am amazed at the puddings here who would sit and let the employer impose shifts without seeing that the employees - who are the ones who are suffering the pain could take the initiative collectively to sort this out and share out the pain - likely with better results than the employer doing it.

Now now val, no need for insults.

My point was that the union will look at the best for majority, if the majority are happy with their shifts they will vote to keep them the same.

So if they have collaborative negotiation they are not going to pee off the majority of their members if their conditions are acceptable to accommodate the minority of their members.

ValHaller

custardy wrote: »

So you want to 'share the pain'
sounds a great improvement
so what happens to those with partners on fixed shifts at other jobs?
do you then have to go and 'share the pain' elsewhere?

You have convinced me. To hell with you, OP. You must be a whinging git who should do your bit for the others who are getting all the good shifts. You must take all the crrap and work nights for the greater good of the lucky blighters who got the good shifts and you must be thankful that management have got it right according to custardy.