We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
is my employer being unreasonable?
Comments
-
The message that I generally see being given is that the way to better wages is increased skill, education, and productivity. I've worked at both ends of the wage scale (well, I've not been up to premier league foootballer money, but I do pretty well), and the difference between the two ends is nothing to do with management managing to "keep down" one set of staff, while looking after the others, it was mainly down to how the staff acted.
When at the bottom my colleagues tended to do as little work as they could get away with, they'd clock off the minute they could, maximise their breaks, and view management as the enemy. They'd look to the union to "protect them" from making improvements, take sick leave as though it was an entitlement to be used up, and resent any sugggestion that they should look for ways for the company (or organisation) to become more efficient.
At the top end, the attitude was completely diffferent. Staff did whatever it took to do their job better. They'd spent years in poverty getting extra qualifications, researched where they could best add value, and then did whatever it took to do so. They'd work extra hours, unpaid, if necessary, always go the extra mile, find new ways to make the company bettter than it was, and generally understand that their role was far broader than the minimum specified in their contract. As a result companies fight to employ them, and the pay ends up being very good.
Unfortunately I feel that all too often unions spread this "them and us" atttitude among the workers, and give the idea that you are a traitor, or a "brown nose" if you do extra. It's sugggested that you are not showing solidarity, or are doing sommeone out of overtime, if you stay back unpaid to finish a piece of work, or to investigate a new way of working. This does not help the workers at alll.
I've even seen people suggesting that seeing nice cars in the car park means that a sense of grievance should be nurtured...
I think you are doing quite a good job yourself given the part of your post I've bolded.
With unemployment at the levels they are, unskilled workers will always be a commodity that is easily replaced and a lot of employers will use this to suppress their conditions.
If you were one of these employers would you expect your employee's to go the extra mile for you?0 -
Sorry, I am not meaning to be insulting, but you do sound like a throwback to the 70s.
Think you need to look at how hard it is for some companies to just keep going in the present climate. If you wish to see low and medium skilled wages to rise, you need to address the supply side.
No offence taken. The 70s was a decade when much of the limited legal protection we have today for employees was won through the work of employees and their unions.
Company profitability in the UK, although lower recently than in previous years, remains strong. You only have to look at executive remuneration levels and bonuses to see that they aren't struggling as much as some would have us think. Share prices are also high - the FTSE all share is up from less than 3200 to above 3600 since this time last year. Of course, some individual companies are struggling but on the whole things aren't as bad as some say.0 -
You keep generalising when this thread is about one company. We have no idea whether OPs employer are making a profit or a loss.No offence taken. The 70s was a decade when much of the limited legal protection we have today for employees was won through the work of employees and their unions.
Company profitability in the UK, although lower recently than in previous years, remains strong. You only have to look at executive remuneration levels and bonuses to see that they aren't struggling as much as some would have us think. Share prices are also high - the FTSE all share is up from less than 3200 to above 3600 since this time last year. Of course, some individual companies are struggling but on the whole things aren't as bad as some say.
In large companies, executive remuneration has no effect on staff wages at all. That is just jealousy.0 -
The message that I generally see being given is that the way to better wages is increased skill, education, and productivity. I've worked at both ends of the wage scale (well, I've not been up to premier league foootballer money, but I do pretty well), and the difference between the two ends is nothing to do with management managing to "keep down" one set of staff, while looking after the others, it was mainly down to how the staff acted.
When at the bottom my colleagues tended to do as little work as they could get away with, they'd clock off the minute they could, maximise their breaks, and view management as the enemy. They'd look to the union to "protect them" from making improvements, take sick leave as though it was an entitlement to be used up, and resent any sugggestion that they should look for ways for the company (or organisation) to become more efficient.
At the top end, the attitude was completely diffferent. Staff did whatever it took to do their job better. They'd spent years in poverty getting extra qualifications, researched where they could best add value, and then did whatever it took to do so. They'd work extra hours, unpaid, if necessary, always go the extra mile, find new ways to make the company bettter than it was, and generally understand that their role was far broader than the minimum specified in their contract. As a result companies fight to employ them, and the pay ends up being very good.
Unfortunately I feel that all too often unions spread this "them and us" atttitude among the workers, and give the idea that you are a traitor, or a "brown nose" if you do extra. It's sugggested that you are not showing solidarity, or are doing sommeone out of overtime, if you stay back unpaid to finish a piece of work, or to investigate a new way of working. This does not help the workers at alll.
I've even seen people suggesting that seeing nice cars in the car park means that a sense of grievance should be nurtured...
The employment relationship for hourly paid employees is based on the employee selling their time to the employer for a fixed hourly rate. So why should they work extra for free? If the employer wants staff to work overtime then they should pay for it.
I don't agree with your assessment of attitudes among the lower and higher paid. I've met many people who earn minimum wage who work extremely hard and many who earn an awful lot more but work very little. And vice versa.
I would agree however that in general employees who are paid more are likely to be more motivated and committed to the organisation, and that's a great argument against low pay.
As for the "them and us attitude", as another poster has pointed out, you seem to be doing a great job reinforcing that yourself.
Personally, as a union rep I see the employer-union relationship as mutually beneficial. For example, in the past 6 months I have dealt with 3 cases where members came to me wishing to raise a formal grievance or take legal action against the employer but the issues were all resolved informally to mutual satisfaction. Since there is a massive power imbalance in individual employment relationships between employer and employee, it is clearly beneficial for individuals to be part of a union. Yes, sometimes things can get heated, but generally only where one party is unwilling to seek mutually beneficial solutions to situations.0 -
-
The employment relationship for hourly paid employees is based on the employee selling their time to the employer for a fixed hourly rate. So why should they work extra for free?UOTE]
There is no requirement that they should do so, and equivalently, there is no requirement that the employer, if they should so choose, treat them any better than dirt, or give their stafff inflationary pay rises.
In both cases, though, it is generally a very bad approach to take, that will end up being self-harming.0 -
The employment relationship for hourly paid employees is based on the employee selling their time to the employer for a fixed hourly rate. So why should they work extra for free?UOTE]
There is no requirement that they should do so, and equivalently, there is no requirement that the employer, if they should so choose, treat them any better than dirt, or give their stafff inflationary pay rises.
In both cases, though, it is generally a very bad approach to take, that will end up being self-harming.
Sorry so are we in agreement now that employers should make every effort to raise nominal wages in line with inflation?
Why should it be self harming for an hourly paid worker to work unpaid overtime? Or equally a salaried employer whose contract requires them to work a set number of hours in any given period? If this doesn't suit the employer they should pay overtime or seek to renegotiate terms.0 -
Were you around in the 70s?
It was a terrible time for most people.
Let's be clear, I never said we should go back to the 70s. The point was that a lot of legislation in place to today to protect workers was born out of the efforts of workers and their unions during that period, and in that sense it doesn't offend me in the slightest for someone to say my views reflect those kind of views that were around at that time.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards