* *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
17-02-18, 09:12PM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 76939
  • Total Topics: 1672
  • Online Today: 140
  • Online Ever: 826
  • (23-02-15, 06:44PM)
Users Online

Author Topic: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.  (Read 4821 times)

Duracell

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2601
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #50 on: 12-02-18, 04:48PM »
The top position for USDAW is a Male.

Yet both the N.O’s for USDAW that negotiate or review pay are Women ironicly enough.

The paypot is rarely increased in wage negotiations so the robbing peter to pay Paul scenario is nonsense, very often the method in which the pot is split or the addition is funded seals the deal.

Distribution for example voted for total lower turnaround bonus, sacrificed some but had some put on the rate.

Retail funded an overall better increase by scarificing higher premiums for a minority.

The only real difference is Distribution had a Democratic choice, Retail didn’t.

The peter and Paul scenario simply isn’t there.

What actually is the point is the company are driving down rates and working conditions for all work level 1’s because decision makers are wasting money by the millions each month.

The Work level 2’s and 3’s are far more reluctant to challenge any procedural c**k up for fear of being managed out the business in the next Restructure.

It’s soul distroying to see hard working dedicated staff being managed out of the business that are a clear asset that don’t want to go. Redundancy or Worse the kick in the nads that is TUPE.
It’s disgusting that they don’t look to recognise the money wasting that is rife in planning and stop it by holding the people accountable for it that don’t seem to care about it, yet they are dumping good skilled staff that do their best and even excel in the name of being more efficient.

Retail and Distribution are not robbing each other they are both being robbed by above and within by those that are s*** at their job.
« Last Edit: 12-02-18, 04:51PM by Duracell »
My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

optout

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2327
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #51 on: 12-02-18, 05:17PM »
@Alf

the usual suspects :thumbup:
I AM NOT A REP, BUT......

Duracell

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2601
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #52 on: 12-02-18, 05:53PM »
im on 9.025

We've got a bloke in our DC who works in Magor, but is thinking of moving to our place for personal reasons so is trying things out. He will be on the new contract if he does, earning around £17/18,000 per year. Last year at Magor he earned £42,000. Granted, he worked 6 days a week and his leisure weeks. I don't begrudge him it, good luck to him.

So basicly he worked 45 hours every week minimum, (may have done stop on too!) and had no holidays.
Everyday he over achieved and had extra financial gain per hour for doing so.

I certainly don't begrudge him it either.
I'd expect that kind of money to virtually live in work too.
My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

Tornado

  • VLH Supporter
  • Regular Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 132
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #53 on: 12-02-18, 06:33PM »
Nights are paid a premium for unsociable hours their pay is still the same as general assistants
I totally agree with you and let me tell you night shift it is hardwork I know, what I am saying is as you said their pay still the same and the extra they receive it is to compensate differences but hardworking exist also on day shift, is it not true ? Then, why does not the same policy apply to the day shift workers ? Tesco play with its employees and why ? Because unfortunately the work laws most of them they exist to protect the money not the workers. Just an opinion.

Loki

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 3630
  • Justice is the sanction of established injustice
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #54 on: 12-02-18, 07:46PM »
@Loki

When is the next vote on the partnership-agreement due to take place, and will you be highlighting this to your members? Or will you be one of those reps that doesn't bother informing their members when the time comes because the status quo is easier to maintain?

My view of the Partnership Agreement is well known within the workplace etc as well as on here my friend.The members I represent are kept up to date with everything I have to hand and more. My view regarding the topic being discussed is a separate issue and I find it such a shame that others feel the need to use this claim as a means to attack those that work within DC’s.
Life is a monstrous demented gag. Madness is the emergency exit.
I will not reply to unsolicited PM's.

optout

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2327
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #55 on: 12-02-18, 09:06PM »
as I have said before, I am only 'attacking' those in DCs and without DCs who are attacking those in stores who are making a perfectly reasonable approach to a legal body to scrutinize a legal issue. If it is so pathetic, why not just wait for it all to fail and have a good laugh.

As it stands at present there are some legal experts who are taking an educated risk of their time and money to support colleagues. They only win if the claim wins. So, who to believe, a few anonymous people on the internet with nothing but hot air to offer, or some legal experts who are putting their time and money where their mouths are?

I also find it strange that some who are criticizing are people who have taken redundancy (their legal right) and then rejoined tesco later, being very proud of this acheivement (again their legal right), their reasoning for criticizing the claim being that a winning claim for parity would take money out of the business unnecessarily and have a detrimental affect on others within  the business.

AND those who I am quite sure have supported the above in claiming their redundancy payments (their legal right) and yet try discourage and humiliate in a cringe worthy manner (with claims of judgement being clouded by the money)  the attempts of many under their protection to seek legal redress (and hence payment) for a 'possible' legal anomaly of a discriminatory nature.

I am beginning to wonder if some have been 'gotten at' by the powers that be, and I am also beginning to wonder if I should put my tin-foil thinking cap on. But then with the large amounts at stake for the company I wouldn't put it past them 'nobbling' a few people in a position of trust, to help with the company cause. As I have said before 'the usual suspects', there seems to be a pattern. :thumbup:
« Last Edit: 12-02-18, 09:08PM by optout »
I AM NOT A REP, BUT......

mrblobby

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #56 on: 13-02-18, 03:22AM »
There will always be a legal expert willing to proceed with any claim - they generally operate like a 'gambling' business, the losses offset by the gains. They know full well at best they may get a settlement of some sort before it proceeds to a costly and drawn out court case. Unfortunately there are countless 'made up' claims or people who claim for things based on the fact they can, rather than the fact they have suffered in any wayv

mrblobby

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #57 on: 13-02-18, 03:26AM »
I gotta say, Duracell has raised something that’s been on the back of my mind in light of all this... only Duracell has highlighted an actual valid point of discrimination contained within legislation itself.

Like I said in a previous post, the world is becoming more insane by the day, especially when the likes of Leigh Day Solicitors choose not to take on something far more obvious. I wonder why that is.    ???
I would say that there would probably be no claim, because any company is clearly following legal guidelines set out in law. But it is still down to the company to prove there is no case to answer.

Chojac2412

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 271
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #58 on: 13-02-18, 10:04AM »
as I have said before, I am only 'attacking' those in DCs and without DCs who are attacking those in stores who are making a perfectly reasonable approach to a legal body to scrutinize a legal issue. If it is so pathetic, why not just wait for it all to fail and have a good laugh.

As it stands at present there are some legal experts who are taking an educated risk of their time and money to support colleagues. They only win if the claim wins. So, who to believe, a few anonymous people on the internet with nothing but hot air to offer, or some legal experts who are putting their time and money where their mouths are?

I also find it strange that some who are criticizing are people who have taken redundancy (their legal right) and then rejoined tesco later, being very proud of this acheivement (again their legal right), their reasoning for criticizing the claim being that a winning claim for parity would take money out of the business unnecessarily and have a detrimental affect on others within  the business.

AND those who I am quite sure have supported the above in claiming their redundancy payments (their legal right) and yet try discourage and humiliate in a cringe worthy manner (with claims of judgement being clouded by the money)  the attempts of many under their protection to seek legal redress (and hence payment) for a 'possible' legal anomaly of a discriminatory nature.

I am beginning to wonder if some have been 'gotten at' by the powers that be, and I am also beginning to wonder if I should put my tin-foil thinking cap on. But then with the large amounts at stake for the company I wouldn't put it past them 'nobbling' a few people in a position of trust, to help with the company cause. As I have said before 'the usual suspects', there seems to be a pattern. :thumbup:

Agree

Tornado

  • VLH Supporter
  • Regular Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 132
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #59 on: 14-02-18, 02:02AM »
as I have said before, I am only 'attacking' those in DCs and without DCs who are attacking those in stores who are making a perfectly reasonable approach to a legal body to scrutinize a legal issue. If it is so pathetic, why not just wait for it all to fail and have a good laugh.

As it stands at present there are some legal experts who are taking an educated risk of their time and money to support colleagues. They only win if the claim wins. So, who to believe, a few anonymous people on the internet with nothing but hot air to offer, or some legal experts who are putting their time and money where their mouths are?

I also find it strange that some who are criticizing are people who have taken redundancy (their legal right) and then rejoined tesco later, being very proud of this acheivement (again their legal right), their reasoning for criticizing the claim being that a winning claim for parity would take money out of the business unnecessarily and have a detrimental affect on others within  the business.

AND those who I am quite sure have supported the above in claiming their redundancy payments (their legal right) and yet try discourage and humiliate in a cringe worthy manner (with claims of judgement being clouded by the money)  the attempts of many under their protection to seek legal redress (and hence payment) for a 'possible' legal anomaly of a discriminatory nature.

I am beginning to wonder if some have been 'gotten at' by the powers that be, and I am also beginning to wonder if I should put my tin-foil thinking cap on. But then with the large amounts at stake for the company I wouldn't put it past them 'nobbling' a few people in a position of trust, to help with the company cause. As I have said before 'the usual suspects', there seems to be a pattern. :thumbup:
  ;)  :thumbup:

Duracell

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2601
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #60 on: 14-02-18, 04:05PM »
I gotta say, Duracell has raised something that’s been on the back of my mind in light of all this... only Duracell has highlighted an actual valid point of discrimination contained within legislation itself.

Like I said in a previous post, the world is becoming more insane by the day, especially when the likes of Leigh Day Solicitors choose not to take on something far more obvious. I wonder why that is.    ???
I would say that there would probably be no claim, because any company is clearly following legal guidelines set out in law. But it is still down to the company to prove there is no case to answer.

That depends who the defendants are. Also let’s not forget the company additional amounts to the statutory ones when they don’t have to that are not required under statute that the government have no control over.

So I’m terms of total package given or more to the point not given. The company do offer a level of complicity in deciding the additional parts of the package.
« Last Edit: 14-02-18, 04:07PM by Duracell »
My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

Rigger

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #61 on: Today at 07:26 PM »
@optout, wow you really are bitter about DC staff but let me tell you, you're barking up the wrong tree & are also seriously misguided in the vast majority of what you rant about.