I’m not accepting new contracted workers , who were brought in on full time contracts ( 35-40 hours ), having their pay and terms equal with mine when I’ve been in the business nearly 20 years, still part time and the only reason I’ve never been given a full time contract is because they brought in new entrants on lesser terms. New entrants who could then have equal terms with me whilst having a full time contract and me and others remain on a sub 30 part time contract despite working over a decade longer.
Every part timer in a similar situation should be onto it
Legacy part timers who wants a permanent full time contract should be offered one before equalisation
New-entrant contracts have only been a thing for two and a half years. It isn’t the fault of those new entrants that you weren’t made up to FT during the preceding 17.5 years. With respect, might it be something to do with your work performance during those years? Not casting aspersions — merely pointing out there could be a million and one reasons you are still on a PT contract, many of which have nothing to do with new entranrs.
While I see - and sympathise with - what you are saying, it is also trite to say that the legacy staff setup, for whatever reason, doesn’t provide the flexibility and adaptability the business is requiring these days. The business is therefore employing a more flexible workforce, ie, new entrants. It isn’t the new entrants’ fault that that is the case…
But you think that everything fought for and earned over the last 2 or 3 decades should be dished out to those new entrants who not only took the job knowing those Ts@Cs but have contributed directly to the creation of a two and three-tier workforce and weakening of collective bargaining?
It isn’t the old entrants’ fault that a load of people signed up to inferior conditions, inferior wages and accelerated the pace of the race to the bottom.
I am a new entrant myself so speak from this side of the table. We did nothing except apply for advertised jobs. Your union, the CWU, is responsible for the two-tier situation we all find ourselves in. Had the CWU done its job right, you would not now be putting up with us lowlife new entrants. Did you expect us all to leave the minute we found out we were, in the view of legacy staff, stepping on their toes? PS: You and Acca rightly identify the irreconcilable conflicts of interest the CWU finds itself in.
I didn’t expect you to leave. Why should I?
I don’t expect you to latterly gain terms matching legacy contracts. Why should you?
I’m not accepting new contracted workers , who were brought in on full time contracts ( 35-40 hours ), having their pay and terms equal with mine when I’ve been in the business nearly 20 years, still part time and the only reason I’ve never been given a full time contract is because they brought in new entrants on lesser terms. New entrants who could then have equal terms with me whilst having a full time contract and me and others remain on a sub 30 part time contract despite working over a decade longer.
Every part timer in a similar situation should be onto it
Legacy part timers who wants a permanent full time contract should be offered one before equalisation
You would have to have a full repick if they are having their terms enhanced and have jumped ahead of the queue getting FT.
The problem is they were brought in on FT hours - just the terms were lesser - and this was used to justify why they were brought in to the PTers who didnt get offered a FT contract
That justification goes out the window when, or if, those new entrants have equalised terms.
Then they have ''skipped the queue''
Its not their fault though. My gripe isnt with them. My problem is with the practise of bringing in new entrants on full time contracts because they are cheaper rather than make up long serving part timers - and then those new entrants having their terms equalised in time and the legacy part timers remaining part time.
A part timer who has done 10,15,20 years should be offered a full time contract before a new/recent entrant has one on equal terms. Simple as that.
Last edited by Acca Dacca on 11 Mar 2025, 16:49, edited 1 time in total.
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
Every time the company, who like others should know the financial year ends in the first week of April but has to continue negotiations on their staff pay rise until June, July and August.
Nearly every law firm I worked for waited until the end of October before announcing pay rises, ie, six months after the start of the FY, and never backdated it (though usually did give a bonus for the last FY — but only in Oct). The real world is just as inefficient as RM.
Every time the company, who like others should know the financial year ends in the first week of April but has to continue negotiations on their staff pay rise until June, July and August.
Back to the original point.
I think it was always clear that the pay rise negotiations would have to take place with the new owners.
They haven't been able to proceed with the acquisition due lately to the political instability in Romania and consequently there are no clear indications of the 2025 pay rise.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
I am a new entrant myself so speak from this side of the table. We did nothing except apply for advertised jobs. Your union, the CWU, is responsible for the two-tier situation we all find ourselves in. Had the CWU done its job right, you would not now be putting up with us lowlife new entrants. Did you expect us all to leave the minute we found out we were, in the view of legacy staff, stepping on their toes? PS: You and Acca rightly identify the irreconcilable conflicts of interest the CWU finds itself in.
It wasn't the CWU that was initially responsible for the two-tier workforce. It was one of their red lines during the dispute but RM stuck two fingers up and recruited these new posties anyway on lesser terms and conditions. Whilst the CWU want to equalise those new entrants on 40 hour contracts they have made a bit of a pig's ear out of upgrading the existing part-time to full-time contracts. There are a lot of new part-timers in our office who have jumped the queue and got given full time contracts. In the past this was done via a revision and re-pick but in most offices these have been pulled so seniority has effectively been bypassed.
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
I’m not accepting new contracted workers , who were brought in on full time contracts ( 35-40 hours ), having their pay and terms equal with mine when I’ve been in the business nearly 20 years, still part time and the only reason I’ve never been given a full time contract is because they brought in new entrants on lesser terms. New entrants who could then have equal terms with me whilst having a full time contract and me and others remain on a sub 30 part time contract despite working over a decade longer.
Every part timer in a similar situation should be onto it
Legacy part timers who wants a permanent full time contract should be offered one before equalisation
New-entrant contracts have only been a thing for two and a half years. It isn’t the fault of those new entrants that you weren’t made up to FT during the preceding 17.5 years. With respect, might it be something to do with your work performance during those years? Not casting aspersions — merely pointing out there could be a million and one reasons you are still on a PT contract, many of which have nothing to do with new entranrs.
While I see - and sympathise with - what you are saying, it is also trite to say that the legacy staff setup, for whatever reason, doesn’t provide the flexibility and adaptability the business is requiring these days. The business is therefore employing a more flexible workforce, ie, new entrants. It isn’t the new entrants’ fault that that is the case…
But you think that everything fought for and earned over the last 2 or 3 decades should be dished out to those new entrants who not only took the job knowing those Ts@Cs but have contributed directly to the creation of a two and three-tier workforce and weakening of collective bargaining?
It isn’t the old entrants’ fault that a load of people signed up to inferior conditions, inferior wages and accelerated the pace of the race to the bottom.
I am a new entrant myself so speak from this side of the table. We did nothing except apply for advertised jobs. Your union, the CWU, is responsible for the two-tier situation we all find ourselves in. Had the CWU done its job right, you would not now be putting up with us lowlife new entrants. Did you expect us all to leave the minute we found out we were, in the view of legacy staff, stepping on their toes? PS: You and Acca rightly identify the irreconcilable conflicts of interest the CWU finds itself in.
The CWU were being told by RM any further IA would lead to the company going bust, do you really think the CWU could risk that and potentially put thousands of it members out of work just to try and stop the two tier system? I wonder what percentage of new starters have joined the CWU given they seem so keen for the CWU to now fight their case?
I am a new entrant myself so speak from this side of the table. We did nothing except apply for advertised jobs. Your union, the CWU, is responsible for the two-tier situation we all find ourselves in. Had the CWU done its job right, you would not now be putting up with us lowlife new entrants. Did you expect us all to leave the minute we found out we were, in the view of legacy staff, stepping on their toes? PS: You and Acca rightly identify the irreconcilable conflicts of interest the CWU finds itself in.
It wasn't the CWU that was initially responsible for the two-tier workforce. It was one of their red lines during the dispute but RM stuck two fingers up and recruited these new posties anyway on lesser terms and conditions. Whilst the CWU want to equalise those new entrants on 40 hour contracts they have made a bit of a pig's ear out of upgrading the existing part-time to full-time contracts. There are a lot of new part-timers in our office who have jumped the queue and got given full time contracts. In the past this was done via a revision and re-pick but in most offices these have been pulled so seniority has effectively been bypassed.
Another viewpoint could be this. If in 2022 the CWU had reeled it in a bit and brought the disputes to an end sooner, the introduction of a new-entrant contract would not have occurred, or at least was far less likely to occur, meaning there would not be any new entrants to compete with, and so perhaps the CWU is, after all, responsible for the current situation where, as you say, PT legacy staff aren’t getting made up to FT becauze new entrants are being employed instead? There is lots of supposition…
It wasn't the CWU that was initially responsible for the two-tier workforce. It was one of their red lines during the dispute but RM stuck two fingers up and recruited these new posties anyway on lesser terms and conditions. Whilst the CWU want to equalise those new entrants on 40 hour contracts they have made a bit of a pig's ear out of upgrading the existing part-time to full-time contracts. There are a lot of new part-timers in our office who have jumped the queue and got given full time contracts. In the past this was done via a revision and re-pick but in most offices these have been pulled so seniority has effectively been bypassed.
There is unfairness baked in. The CWU can’t ride both horses - there is a conflict of interest.
But just one clarification. New entrants aren’t all universally on 40-hr contracts; we have different flavours — 28 hours, 30 hours, 32.5 hours, 35 hours and 40 hours. There might be 24-hr contracts too (but don’t know if the girl I’m thinking of is on a legacy contract).
I am a new entrant myself so speak from this side of the table. We did nothing except apply for advertised jobs. Your union, the CWU, is responsible for the two-tier situation we all find ourselves in. Had the CWU done its job right, you would not now be putting up with us lowlife new entrants. Did you expect us all to leave the minute we found out we were, in the view of legacy staff, stepping on their toes? PS: You and Acca rightly identify the irreconcilable conflicts of interest the CWU finds itself in.
It wasn't the CWU that was initially responsible for the two-tier workforce. It was one of their red lines during the dispute but RM stuck two fingers up and recruited these new posties anyway on lesser terms and conditions. Whilst the CWU want to equalise those new entrants on 40 hour contracts they have made a bit of a pig's ear out of upgrading the existing part-time to full-time contracts. There are a lot of new part-timers in our office who have jumped the queue and got given full time contracts. In the past this was done via a revision and re-pick but in most offices these have been pulled so seniority has effectively been bypassed.
Another viewpoint could be this. If in 2022 the CWU had reeled it in a bit and brought the disputes to an end sooner, the introduction of a new-entrant contract would not have occurred, or at least was far less likely to occur, meaning there would not be any new entrants to compete with, and so perhaps the CWU is, after all, responsible for the current situation where, as you say, PT legacy staff aren’t getting made up to FT becauze new entrants are being employed instead? There is lots of supposition…
I sense we''d have all been well and truly shafted by Williams and Thompson if the CWU had ended the dispute sooner, the proposals that they originally came up with such as everybody working Sunday's etc were real shockers.
I am a new entrant myself so speak from this side of the table. We did nothing except apply for advertised jobs. Your union, the CWU, is responsible for the two-tier situation we all find ourselves in. Had the CWU done its job right, you would not now be putting up with us lowlife new entrants. Did you expect us all to leave the minute we found out we were, in the view of legacy staff, stepping on their toes? PS: You and Acca rightly identify the irreconcilable conflicts of interest the CWU finds itself in.
It wasn't the CWU that was initially responsible for the two-tier workforce. It was one of their red lines during the dispute but RM stuck two fingers up and recruited these new posties anyway on lesser terms and conditions. Whilst the CWU want to equalise those new entrants on 40 hour contracts they have made a bit of a pig's ear out of upgrading the existing part-time to full-time contracts. There are a lot of new part-timers in our office who have jumped the queue and got given full time contracts. In the past this was done via a revision and re-pick but in most offices these have been pulled so seniority has effectively been bypassed.
Another viewpoint could be this. If in 2022 the CWU had reeled it in a bit and brought the disputes to an end sooner, the introduction of a new-entrant contract would not have occurred, or at least was far less likely to occur, meaning there would not be any new entrants to compete with, and so perhaps the CWU is, after all, responsible for the current situation where, as you say, PT legacy staff aren’t getting made up to FT becauze new entrants are being employed instead? There is lots of supposition…
This is laughable, if not outright trolling.
Please show your working.
Include, please, reasoning that includes RM output at the time and future plans, at the time, for the business.
I am a new entrant myself so speak from this side of the table. We did nothing except apply for advertised jobs. Your union, the CWU, is responsible for the two-tier situation we all find ourselves in. Had the CWU done its job right, you would not now be putting up with us lowlife new entrants. Did you expect us all to leave the minute we found out we were, in the view of legacy staff, stepping on their toes? PS: You and Acca rightly identify the irreconcilable conflicts of interest the CWU finds itself in.
It wasn't the CWU that was initially responsible for the two-tier workforce. It was one of their red lines during the dispute but RM stuck two fingers up and recruited these new posties anyway on lesser terms and conditions. Whilst the CWU want to equalise those new entrants on 40 hour contracts they have made a bit of a pig's ear out of upgrading the existing part-time to full-time contracts. There are a lot of new part-timers in our office who have jumped the queue and got given full time contracts. In the past this was done via a revision and re-pick but in most offices these have been pulled so seniority has effectively been bypassed.
Another viewpoint could be this. If in 2022 the CWU had reeled it in a bit and brought the disputes to an end sooner, the introduction of a new-entrant contract would not have occurred, or at least was far less likely to occur, meaning there would not be any new entrants to compete with, and so perhaps the CWU is, after all, responsible for the current situation where, as you say, PT legacy staff aren’t getting made up to FT becauze new entrants are being employed instead? There is lots of supposition…
This is laughable, if not outright trolling.
Please show your working.
Include, please, reasoning that includes RM output at the time and future plans, at the time, for the business.
I said that this could be another viewpoint. Indeed, I conclude by remarking that there is lots of supposition in this entire debate (from all posters). How does that equate to trolling and why are you levelling the accusation solely at me?
I sense we''d have all been well and truly shafted by Williams and Thompson if the CWU had ended the dispute sooner, the proposals that they originally came up with such as everybody working Sunday's etc were real shockers.
Yes, the landscape would have undoubtedly changed for legacy staff as a result of earlier compromise of the dispute. And for new-entrant staff too — we wouldn’t exist.
That said, I don’t think the eventual outcome was a true “win” for either party, was it? Some might say it was a disaster for the CWU and members since it had the unforeseen side effect of closing the membership book almost immediately with the end of the legacy contract. But in the end, given the stalemate, RM decided to just recruit a brand new workforce that provides the requisite level of flexibility the business now wants. For example, Sunday working was, and is, a necessary evil. The CWU maybe could have protected its closed shop and own future by reaching terms for one in six Sundays etc.