STRIKE - Scab bastards

[Ismene]

or in my case when we signed a contract there was a clause in it that says if we signed this we exempted ourselves from the new law (I didn't even know about the law so I had no idea what I signed away tbh)

That doesn't sound good spade.

even those who have worked for the agency for years (and haven't recently signed a contract exclusding them) are being told they won't be getting it.

It doesn't matter how long they've worked there - 3 months from 1 Oct 2011 is the only time that matters. If they're being told they arn't getting it then they need to ask someone in a position of responsibilty why. I think they might be listening to "their mate dahn the pub".

 

[Mailmonkey]

Are you sure about that monkey? The way I understood the law was if you employ a temporary worker (ANY) temporary worker for longer than 12 weeks then they get full pay. If you sack the guy you had for 11 weeks and hire someone else, he automatically gets full pay in his first week because you've had a temporary worker for 12 weeks - unless you can prove he isn't doing the same job. This idea that you can just sack someone after 11 weeks and take another guy on doing the same job is complete bullshit. It's an automatic 10 grand fine.

The whole point of this is so the government gets national insurance from companies - rather than agencies not paying any. Any loopholes are going to very, very difficult to get through. The taxman is going to fuck them upside down if they even try.

Obviously if royal mail could have just sacked agency workers after 12 weeks they would have done - they realised they couldn't get away with that so they've had to create their own company to hire temp workers in a bid to get round it.

They shift them round to diffrent delivery offices I guess this is how they get away with it, RM are a massive unit, they got these things sewn up. I'll look into it later if you're interested, but I know Angrad staff complain about being in one DO one week, then shifted to another 30-50 miles away even the following week, or suddenly being offered work somewhere impossible for them to commute to etc.....

 

[Ismene]

Definately illegal - the firm has to prove they havn't just hired someone else to do the same job after 12 weeks. They must prove it's a completely different job, otherwise they're wide open to the 10 grand fine.

If RM have set up their own company to hire the agency workers then that might complicate things but I still think you've got a chance of fucking them up the arse if they're sacking people after 11 weeks and just hiring someone else to do the same job. That's expressly forbidden in the regulations.

 

[Mailmonkey]

In every office RM have a number of permanent employees, unfortunate fuckers, who don't have their own round, they are reserves, or spares....they are used to cover unforseen absence, or to complete duties that won't be finished due to high mail volumes...

These reserves can also be sent to other delivery offices. Usually they are sent to one within a few miles cos RM have to pay their travel expenses for sending them to another place of work.

So, let's say Angrad/RM employ someone as a casual to cover in one particularly understaffed office (offices are generally deliberately understaffed now), after 11 weeks, MIRACULOUSLY, a reserve becomes available, either from that office, or from a neighbouring office. The Angrad staff is no longer needed, as the work is covered by RM staff.

They just shuffle people round to suit them, avoiding costs, at all costs.

I know it's immoral, it's wrong, it's against the spirit of the new regulations, but as with every "agreement" RM have made over the last 5-6 years with RM staff and CWU union, the rules are there to be bent, doesn't matter how devios they have to be to do it, RM find a way.

The company is a steaming pile of turd.

I love my job, as in the actual work i do, but i hate working for such a bunch of cunts.

JB>>>>>>>APOLOGIES FOR THREAD HIJACK, Mods feel free to move my RM related ranting s to the Angry thread, or the gibbering thread, or the bunch of cunts thread.......

 

[TheSpade]

and i should also repeat that i do think your situation is fucked, i just think you should have anticipated it better, that way you'd have been able to forsee these problems and have done something, like wait a week for a better job offer (my boyfs tactic when refusing all call centre work and actually he was in a new job in a week). personal responsibility is something i have a strong belief in. cos at the end of the day, the only person looking out for you is you.

What makes you think a 'better' job offer would have come a week later? I could still be unemployed now if I didn't take that job offer. This agency was advertising specifically for jobs at the company I work for, it's not one of these agencies where you sign up , see what work they have and get different offers. I ocouldn't sign up to the agency then wait to see what else comes around, this is the only job offer this agency were ever going to give me. I could apply for the job when they advertised and that is the end of it.

Are you sure about that monkey? The way I understood the law was if you employ a temporary worker (ANY) temporary worker for longer than 12 weeks then they get full pay. If you sack the guy you had for 11 weeks and hire someone else, he automatically gets full pay in his first week because you've had a temporary worker for 12 weeks - unless you can prove he isn't doing the same job. This idea that you can just sack someone after 11 weeks and take another guy on doing the same job is complete bullshit. It's an automatic 10 grand fine.

The whole point of this is so the government gets national insurance from companies - rather than agencies not paying any. Any loopholes are going to very, very difficult to get through. The taxman is going to fuck them upside down if they even try.

Obviously if royal mail could have just sacked agency workers after 12 weeks they would have done - they realised they couldn't get away with that so they've had to create their own company to hire temp workers in a bid to get round it.

Nah Issy that's not the case, we've been briefed on all of this and an individual (a guy who comes in a day before the previous guys 12 week period was up doesn't count) has to work at the place continually (as in no sick days or even granted holidays) for 12 weeks before being considered for full pay and benefits except there's hundreds of loop holes and basically it meansd no one will ever get this pay rise or receive equal benefits. People in my company have worked for the agency for years they aren't getting it, I've been there 6 months I'm not getting it, people who started last month aren't getting, people who started this week aren't getting it. I've got mates who work in distilleries, breweries, fashion retailers all through agencies, some for a short while, some for a long while and absolutely none of them are getting this. It's a fucking joke and the Tories won't even support the workers as they don't want to upset their big business pals all under the guise that workers being trated fairly and paid a reasonable wage is "bad for the economy".

That doesn't sound good spade.

even those who have worked for the agency for years (and haven't recently signed a contract exclusding them) are being told they won't be getting it.

It doesn't matter how long they've worked there - 3 months from 1 Oct 2011 is the only time that matters. If they're being told they arn't getting it then they need to ask someone in a position of responsibilty why. I think they might be listening to "their mate dahn the pub".

No Issy they are listening to their employers and their agency. My agency have told me and everyone else that it doesn't matter what this new law says that we won't be getting it because of X, Y, Z and whatever other reason they can think up. It's the same for loads of people I know.

 

[parttime crackhead]

You might find that you won't be getting it because of the hassle it would involve in you not accepting their excuse & "standing up for your rights". You'd probably have to take them to an employment tribunal or something like that & then you might not even win, so why bother when you don't really give a fuck? That's probably the employers thinking. They're maybe 95% within the law & will get away with the other 5% because folk aren't going to fight it.

That's just a personal opinion based on no fact whatsoever btw

 

[felix]

Definately illegal - the firm has to prove they havn't just hired someone else to do the same job after 12 weeks. They must prove it's a completely different job, otherwise they're wide open to the 10 grand fine.

If RM have set up their own company to hire the agency workers then that might complicate things but I still think you've got a chance of fucking them up the arse if they're sacking people after 11 weeks and just hiring someone else to do the same job. That's expressly forbidden in the regulations.

i am interested in this. could you please post a link on the subject?


and spade: do us all a favour and go on Bluelight strike.

 

[Ismene]

Nah Issy that's not the case, we've been briefed on all of this and an individual (a guy who comes in a day before the previous guys 12 week period was up doesn't count) has to work at the place continually (as in no sick days or even granted holidays) for 12 weeks before being considered for full pay and benefits except there's hundreds of loop holes and basically it meansd no one will ever get this pay rise or receive equal benefits.

Well you don't have to work there 12 weeks non-stop - it appears just doing one day a week for 12 weeks will qualify you for full pay.

Not all periods of non-work will break continuity for the purposes of the qualifying period. Sickness absence or jury service of up to 28 weeks, annual leave and a strike at the hirer’s establishment will not affect the accruing weeks.

http://www.employmentlawwatch.com/2...cy-workers-understanding-the-new-regulations/

People in my company have worked for the agency for years they aren't getting it

It's not how long you've been at the agency tho - it's whether you've done the same role at a place for 12 weeks since Oct 1 2011.

I've got mates who work in distilleries, breweries, fashion retailers all through agencies, some for a short while, some for a long while and absolutely none of them are getting this.

Well you need to ask them to look into it a bit deeper. I know two people who've been working through an agency at a place and will be getting full pay from Christmas. If they get knocked back I'll let you know but so far the company has told them they'll be getting taken on.

No Issy they are listening to their employers and their agency. My agency have told me and everyone else that it doesn't matter what this new law says that we won't be getting it because of X, Y, Z and whatever other reason they can think up. It's the same for loads of people I know.

I think they he might be trying to pull a fast one. If you're in this category you qualify, end of story:

Workers who are supplied by agencies to fulfil temporary roles will be covered by the AWR if they: (i) are supplied by the agency to work temporarily for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer AND (ii) have a contract with the agency which is either a contract of employment or any other contract to perform work and services personally.

The AWR will not protect those working under the supervision and direction of the agency (not the hirer), those employed under managed service contracts or the self-employed. Nor will it protect individuals who find direct employment with an employer through an employment agency.

If you think you've been sacked after 11 weeks and they've taken someone else on the week after to do the same role then take it to an emploment tribunal straightaway - you'll get 5 grand compensation.

 

[felix]

Thanks for the link Issy, very interesting. most of my contracts are through agencies so this is useful to know about. and i read it the same way as you do.

Spade, what excuses are they giving to try and avoid it?

print that page out and put it all on the noticeboards at work. companies rely on the plebs not knowing or not caring about employment law. HR people are almost entirely populated by subhuman scum who don't give a fuck about people.


(fuck those unison wanks, this is more important now )

 

[TheSpade]

We received an email at work today from out agency saying they had changed their mind on certain rules and loopholes, and that now you could be off sick or on holiday within the 12 week period between October 1st and December 24th and still qualify for equal treatment. Then the head of the union came and spoke to us with an official statement telling us that depending on our contract come December 24th we'd receive the same benefits as employees employed directly through the company but NOT the same levels of pay (so paid sick days etc) however it depended on our contract. All of our contracts either contain a line stating we'd signed away our right to any new laws that would come in about equal pay or that if this current job at the current company was no longer available they'd 'try' a reasonable amount to find us other work which for some reason means you're not entitled to any payrise or equal rights / benefits.

Well you need to ask them to look into it a bit deeper. I know two people who've been working through an agency at a place and will be getting full pay from Christmas. If they get knocked back I'll let you know but so far the company has told them they'll be getting taken on.

I think this is a bit different though Issy, from what I gather the company they work at has decided that come December 24th instead of fucking around, loosing employees and needing to re-hire they are offering people full time positions and permanent contracts, yes? This won't happen at every company and is not what the law states. The companies don't have to offer agency staff full time contracts.

 

[Ismene]

Then the head of the union came and spoke to us with an official statement telling us that depending on our contract come December 24th we'd receive the same benefits as employees employed directly through the company but NOT the same levels of pay (so paid sick days etc) however it depended on our contract.

Are you sure he's got that the right way round? The directive says you must get the paid same rate for doing the same job, including performance related bonus, but that you won't get sick pay (you will get paid holidays tho).

The only way they might have around not paying you the same is if you've signed something in this contract - but I wouldn't blindly swallow that. Look into it in greater detal, ask someone with a bit more knowledge in the area. To keep you at a place doing the same job they're going to need one fuck of a clever excuse. Employment tribunals arn't going to swallow any shit about "oh, we made him sign a peice of paper so that means we get away with it". They'll eat shit like that for breakfast and you'll have 10 grand compo in your pocket.

The companies don't have to offer agency staff full time contracts.

True spade, although they do get away with having to pay sick pay so it's not totally taking you on permanent. The firm I'm referring to just looked at the bill - if they're going to have to pay an extra £3 an hour to someone, and then pay the agency their cut on top of that, they realised it would be as cheap just to pay £9 an hour instead of paying the agency £15 an hour or whatever cut they take.

I remember something similar to this years ago before this agency law. It didn't involve an agency but I was working at the same place for years and saying I was "self-employed" so the firm who employed me didn't have to pay any tax. The taxman got me on the phone and said "So who employs you?" I said "well, nobody, I'm self employed" and he goes "So where have you worked for the last 3 months" so I told him the firm and he goes "Right, you're employed there mate. They're liable for the tax. End of story".

So, although these "Say your self-employed" or "Say you work for the agency for 11 weeks.." theories sound good to the unititated, how far they fly in the face of cold reality is another matter entirely.

 

[TheSpade]

£10 grand compensation you say? Might just let them fuck me over. :D

Even if this law comes into place I probably won't benefit from it anyway as I plan to be out of here in January.

 

[parttime crackhead]

I remember something similar to this years ago before this agency law. It didn't involve an agency but I was working at the same place for years and saying I was "self-employed" so the firm who employed me didn't have to pay any tax. The taxman got me on the phone and said "So who employs you?" I said "well, nobody, I'm self employed" and he goes "So where have you worked for the last 3 months" so I told him the firm and he goes "Right, you're employed there mate. They're liable for the tax. End of story".

So, although these "Say your self-employed" or "Say you work for the agency for 11 weeks.." theories sound good to the unititated, how far they fly in the face of cold reality is another matter entirely.

That's not uncommon. Gets them out of giving you any rights as an employee & paying any NI.

 

[TheSpade]

What do you know about working tax credits PTCH? Just recently found out I'm entitled to them, could have been claiming £51 per week for the past 6 months and knew nothing of it. Filled out the form today and will get it in the postbox tomorrow. Hoping they will backdate it 3 months (apparently they sometimes do though for what reason is unclear) and it'll be a nice lump sun to add to my travel fund.

 

[parttime crackhead]

Nothing at all mate, sorry. You now know more about tax credits than I do.

I don't understand why working tax credits exist. It's like the government are saying that you can't survive on minimum wage so they need to top it up with tax credits. If that's the case then surely they should raise the minimum wage.

 

[TheSpade]

Hardly anyone seems to know they're entitled to working tax credits either. I didn't until last week, gutted like as I'd be out the country by now if I did.

 

[parttime crackhead]

I only really know they exist because they are slightly connected to my work. If it wasn't for that I would just have always assumed that if you work enough to not be entitled to JSA then you're not entitled to any other benefits (other than wean or disability related ones).

 

[TheSpade]

You need to be over 25 and earning under £13k, £51 a week I'm about to get and could have been for the past 6 months. Praying they back date it but haven't really got a reason other than I didn't know I was entitled to them until now. Was hoping you'ld know how to make sure they did.

 

[parttime crackhead]

Na, sorry man. Not my area at all. Best shout is just to phone and ask them how you get it backdated. If you're due the money then you're due it & you'll get it. The fact that you weren't even aware you were entitled to it is a valid reason imo. I would think they would backdate it for as long as you were entitled to it actually.

 

[TheSpade]

I've requested it on a seperate sheet of paper that's gone in with the form, they say to do this on their website but do state there are conditions. I'll wait and see. Hopefully it'll be a nice, wee, xmas bonus. :D