Double Time on Sunday... uh oh

[ironskin]

I have not read through all this thread but as i am affected thought i would have my say on the supposed 18 month pay out.

They say we will be compensated but no way is it going to be 18 months worth of money as it is net pay not gross pay so in effect it will be like paying tax and insurance twice.

[spooner]

I have not read through all this thread but as i am affected thought i would have my say on the supposed 18 month pay out.

They say we will be compensated but no way is it going to be 18 months worth of money as it is net pay not gross pay so in effect it will be like paying tax and insurance twice.

i said this in our pay briefing and my PM said I was wrong ? 

[Rad]

Why would it be based on your net pay?

[ironskin]

I was told this at my briefing on the wage rise.It is based on net reduction it is highlighted on the pay and benefits booklet (page 5)

Spooner all who it affects at my store understand the the payout as we do.

[picktocube]

On OurTesco site it also states : 

If, after all of the changes have been applied, you see a net reduction in your take home pay based on last year's pay data, you'll receive a lump sum payment on 29 July, worth 18 months of the difference.

[ironskin]

On OurTesco site it also states : 

If, after all of the changes have been applied, you see a net reduction in your take home pay based on last year's pay data, you'll receive a lump sum payment on 29 July, worth 18 months of the difference.

So it will be based on take home pay that is the way i am reading this,i will get a sum total of 18 months of net pay which i receive in July's pay which of course will be liable to deductions of tax and N.I. so in essence it is like been taxed twice.

[ducky]

 

[Chiefstudbaker]

And it applies to both contracted and non thank god lol

[daftjoe]

More waffling NO ACTION! 

[the-vortex]

From the Your Pay and Benefits 2016/17 booklet.

If, after the changes have been applied, you see a net reduction in your take home pay based on last year's pay data, you'll be supported with a lump sum payment.

It's quite clear in the graphic that the calculation will be taking your income in calendar year 2015 and comparing it to your expected 2016 income under the new deal including new hourly rates and new premiums. You will have a net increase or reduction in pay and will be compensated should there be a net reduction. You will still have to pay tax and NI on the lump sum.

[the rule book]

Strangly they are not using the theory they used in the maths about hourly pay per worker.
They have decided to leave out the club card "pay" they used to say we were all on 9 per hour.

2 year pay freeze and they give you 1/5 years compensation .
Any one on benefits such as family credit or NHS exceptions.
Is about to be seriously messed up.

[Duracell]

Our pm said any grievance would be thrown out at an early stage as the changes were accepted by USDAW (well lets be honest the union would tell us all to eat dog food if Tesco asked them to) and the other reason it would be thrown out is the company have the right to change terms and conditions and are giving a payment to any staff affected despite no legal need to do so. I really dont like this change as it will hit me and of course many others in the pocket but it seems that no matter what anyone does or says its going to happen and Usdaw will endorse it and go along with it at least at a national level.

Not strictly true, they can't CHANGE your contract without your agreement.

What the company can legally do is END it as its not financially viable, with the correct notice and consultation process.
Terminating a no longer viable contract  is a lot more UGLY for the company and would be scrutinised more for legitimacy.
Britains Biggest employer ends 50,000 employment contracts is too negative, particulary as the number would be far greater, because to end such contracts as a business case they would have to end all such contracts in the whole of the Business.
Which of course at present they are not doing.

So earlier in this thread (I think) there was talk of victimisation.
As a retail worker within the business? What is the principle reason for reducing the premiums?

[antico]

To me it seems to be equalisation of pay and a levelling of t and c s which should in theory prevent the disharmony we are now encountering when future cuts are made. We have to get to that holy grail (the living wage) somehow. Simplistic view I know but that's how I see it.

[chris9997]

looking at the leaflet regarding this years pay review there is a new part of the holiday process whereas your holiday pay is the average pay including overtime payments (company made a big thing of this) meaning you can get between 1 and 2% extra holiday pay. However what is not mentioned and believe is likely is that if you are relatively new and dont get paid sick for the first 3 days of sickness and dont do overtime then surely your holiday pay will be less than the contractual ,if  you get my drift.

[The hooch]

I find the whole premiums stuff very complicated. All I know is that after 19 years of hard labour on nights I am being rewarded with a huge drop in pay which is protected for only 18 months ....unlike the previous protected payouts of 2 years. Does anybody think us old timers should be getting 2 years protected pay.

[formerscoboy]

Our pm said any grievance would be thrown out at an early stage as the changes were accepted by USDAW (well lets be honest the union would tell us all to eat dog food if Tesco asked them to) and the other reason it would be thrown out is the company have the right to change terms and conditions and are giving a payment to any staff affected despite no legal need to do so. I really dont like this change as it will hit me and of course many others in the pocket but it seems that no matter what anyone does or says its going to happen and Usdaw will endorse it and go along with it at least at a national level.

Not strictly true, they can't CHANGE your contract without your agreement.

What the company can legally do is END it as its not financially viable, with the correct notice and consultation process.
Terminating a no longer viable contract  is a lot more UGLY for the company and would be scrutinised more for legitimacy.
Britains Biggest employer ends 50,000 employment contracts is too negative, particulary as the number would be far greater, because to end such contracts as a business case they would have to end all such contracts in the whole of the Business.
Which of course at present they are not doing.

So earlier in this thread (I think) there was talk of victimisation.
As a retail worker within the business? What is the principle reason for reducing the premiums?

Duracell it's a failure to comply with a reasonable business request. Reasonable in the fact that the partnership agreement makes usdaw party to agree all changes for the colleague population. Once they agree it, it may be deemed a conduct issue with a colleague refusing to comply with a reasonable request.

[jumbo]

the hooch  i do not agree that you should get 2 years protected pay YOU should be fighting to keep your double time.

[Duracell]

Our pm said any grievance would be thrown out at an early stage as the changes were accepted by USDAW (well lets be honest the union would tell us all to eat dog food if Tesco asked them to) and the other reason it would be thrown out is the company have the right to change terms and conditions and are giving a payment to any staff affected despite no legal need to do so. I really dont like this change as it will hit me and of course many others in the pocket but it seems that no matter what anyone does or says its going to happen and Usdaw will endorse it and go along with it at least at a national level.

Not strictly true, they can't CHANGE your contract without your agreement.

What the company can legally do is END it as its not financially viable, with the correct notice and consultation process.
Terminating a no longer viable contract  is a lot more UGLY for the company and would be scrutinised more for legitimacy.
Britains Biggest employer ends 50,000 employment contracts is too negative, particulary as the number would be far greater, because to end such contracts as a business case they would have to end all such contracts in the whole of the Business.
Which of course at present they are not doing.

So earlier in this thread (I think) there was talk of victimisation.
As a retail worker within the business? What is the principle reason for reducing the premiums?

Duracell it's a failure to comply with a reasonable business request. Reasonable in the fact that the partnership agreement makes usdaw party to agree all changes for the colleague population. Once they agree it, it may be deemed a conduct issue with a colleague refusing to comply with a reasonable request.

Do nothing then

[Rad]

looking at the leaflet regarding this years pay review there is a new part of the holiday process whereas your holiday pay is the average pay including overtime payments (company made a big thing of this) meaning you can get between 1 and 2% extra holiday pay. However what is not mentioned and believe is likely is that if you are relatively new and dont get paid sick for the first 3 days of sickness and dont do overtime then surely your holiday pay will be less than the contractual ,if  you get my drift.

Absence is not included. I thought this as well but the brief clearly states you get your average of last 12 weeks or basic, whichever is higher.

[oliver]

My wife spoke to one of the reps on wage negotiations and they said staff should stop complaining because they voted years ago for the partnership agreement ,so it looks as if they signed there rights away,e.g staff dint have a say,i say it again usdaw keep close to tesco because it pays those very big salaries for usdaws management cars hotels expensive meals outa staffs hard earned money.i stand to be corrected if I'm wrong

[Hammer10]

A lot of those staff have left the company now so we need to have a new vote on whether or not we have a say ,after all we live in a democracy surely every four years like they do in the elections .

[mexicopete]

Thing is oliver with the turnover of staff over the last few years I'd dare like to bet there are not many of the membership who voted for the original partnership agreement. So with that in mind I don't take kindly to said reps remarks regarding the partnership agreement it kind of typifies USDAW complete and utter contempt towards it's paying membership. We are all in effect paying USDAW to just follow whatever Tesco asks of them. They are in reality treating us with more contempt than Tesco, but we are paying USDAW to treat us with contempt, it's quite unbelievable the membership are allowing this to happen.

Exactly Hammer10.

[Loki]

I've said it before so I'll say it again, if affected individuals are adamant that the pay deal does not comply with legislation, then seek legal assistance from a solicitor that specialises in employment law.

You will not receive assistance from Usdaw regarding this.

Furthermore, you will be sorely disappointed with the outcome of your inquiries.

[formerscoboy]

In other words..leave or take your money upfront and start planning for the future. There's sweet bugger all you can do.

[weebee]

apparently i voted for this partnership,although i didnt and I've been with Tesco 20 yrs  and then non union staff didnt vote either ??