Double Time on Sunday... uh oh

[daftjoe]

Actually,  technically I haven't been informed.

I've not had a meeting to tell me anything and certainly not had a booklet.

In fact there's a few people in my store not been told in this manner.

I'm sure Tesco will be able to say that we all should have made efforts to find out these things but why should we?

Another thing I find amusing is that nobody at my store has been asked to sign to say they've been given the booklet and told the information formally.

Maybe we should all deny any knowledge of it and slap in hindreds of wage queries when it happens

[Loki]

  Pmsfl

[crabbit]

Loki,as you have explained the process of the ballot of the 44 reps,is the result published anywhere?
Do the Store members know how the 44 voted?
Did the 44 reps before casting their vote go back and find out the views of even the members affected in their own stores regardless of the impact on their colleagues nationwide?
Having dealt with Pauline Foulkes before,did she have any influence on picking the 12 reps from 44 for the pay team?

Apologies, but coming from a distribution background, any reps who dared take the responsibility of this decision without feedback of those MOST affected by this decision would be tarred and feathered.

[Loki]

I will keep this brief but to the point:

I have numerous briefs of which none state the exact numbers in favour or against.

Usdaw have never nor will they ever disclose the number of votes cast for or against the deal. This is kept between the 44 and the National Officer. AO's and DO's are not told either.

You will not like this as surely as I do not:

The 12 members of the pay team are the ones who negotiate.

They feed back to the rest of the National Forum for as many times as necessary.

The 44 then vote.

The mechanisms of the pay negotiations under the PA do not require the 44 to consult anyone else, whether affected or not. In fact, the agreement forbids it because anything discussed is embargoed and can only be disclosed via a brief at a set time and date where a percentage of Usdaw/store forum reps are briefed to then relay with management to members and non members alike.

Pauline Foulkes has little, if any involvement in the pay talks.

Pauline Foulkes has no involvement or influence in who is picked for the pay team or the other various teams within the Partnership structure for stores. The National Forum decide this themselves.

I understand your view as a DC worker as I come from a work and trade union background far different from what I and others have to deal with in stores.

[smithwally]

About this 18 months lump sum payment.....

I saw on the USDAW noticeboard a FAQ. On there it states that Tesco reserve the right to recover your 18 months lump sum payment if you leave within 6 months of being paid the lump sum.....

I wonder how many people will get caught out by that it they resign in July immediately after receiving their lump sum instead of working for less pay.... The 6 month period conveniently ends in January 2017 right after Christmas 2016!.

So for double timers,  this means if you're a full timer and happened to do regular OT on Sundays, you can opt out of Sunday working  or reduce your hours with no risk of losing your lump sum as you're still an employee.

However, if you are part time, i.e. you only work one contracted shift per week which happens to be on Sundays, then your lump sum is really 12 months as you're forced to work for another 6 months before you can leave or risk Tesco asking for the lump sum back.

That does not seem fair or evenhanded treatment of staff on wildly different shift patterns......

[Expressdude2016]

The lump sum is to cover next 18 months well if they leave then why would it be unfair they had to pay it back.If there leaving then I would imagine it would be to another job so why should Tesco cover them for 18 months when they are no longer working for them.

[crabbit]

Thanks for that.
Your right,i dont like it.
I do not doubt that there will be committed and honest reps among the 44,but the fact that members will not know how or why they voted the way they did leaves them and the process open to attack.
Colleagues who will be affected by the result of this vote will remember a tesco soundbite from years past "open and transparent ".

I do not envy anyone working under this national forum,bad enough trying to keep tesco fingers from your pocket without usdaw helping them distract you .

[smithwally]

The lump sum is to cover next 18 months well if they leave then why would it be unfair they had to pay it back.If there leaving then I would imagine it would be to another job so why should Tesco cover them for 18 months when they are no longer working for them.

Using the same logic as you, why should staff accept reduced Sunday pay from July onwards via changed T&C's?

Some of these staff have another 20 odd years service, so losing 27 quid every Sunday adds up to a future loss of earnings of nearly 30k?

And that is before I start talking about a smaller pension than expected on top of that!

[troll-hunter]

 Chris9997 & Nightsboy re

"just a question the new pay structure starting in july if you are affected you will get a lump sum based on last year jan to dec pay versus new rates does that mean for ex team leaders are going to be compensated again jan to june ??"

&

"chris997 u mean because we were on team leader money from jan-may 15??yes I have spoken to the union and we will be compensated".

I regret to say that I am sure that I have read in some of the official 'literature' that the 18month calculation etc.  excludes one of payments which to me suggests that the TL step down payment will NOT be included. The only access I have had to "official 'literature'" is the pdf's on here so I think you will find it in there.
Sorry.

[bugsbunny]

Exactly smithwally you are spot on

[nightsboy]

Chris9997 & Nightsboy re

"just a question the new pay structure starting in july if you are affected you will get a lump sum based on last year jan to dec pay versus new rates does that mean for ex team leaders are going to be compensated again jan to june ??"

&

"chris997 u mean because we were on team leader money from jan-may 15??yes I have spoken to the union and we will be compensated".

I regret to say that I am sure that I have read in some of the official 'literature' that the 18month calculation etc.  excludes one of payments which to me suggests that the TL step down payment will NOT be included. The only access I have had to "official 'literature'" is the pdf's on here so I think you will find it in there.
Sorry.

I mean it is counting the team leader rate from Jan-May 15. I know it is taking out the lump sum payment and cash bonus but even without them I'm due a healthy sum

[Chiefstudbaker]

Will non contracted staff recieve the same terms of compensation as contracted??? I know they are both to be compensated just wondered if the compensation will be the same or differ as no details seem to have been given at the original pay briefing!!!

[Duracell]

Loki,as you have explained the process of the ballot of the 44 reps,is the result published anywhere?
Do the Store members know how the 44 voted?
Did the 44 reps before casting their vote go back and find out the views of even the members affected in their own stores regardless of the impact on their colleagues nationwide?
Having dealt with Pauline Foulkes before,did she have any influence on picking the 12 reps from 44 for the pay team?

Apologies, but coming from a distribution background, any reps who dared take the responsibility of this decision without feedback of those MOST affected by this decision would be tarred and feathered.

It is a different world in retail it seems, laughable and scandelous to us DC workers.
A real frustrating fiasco for constructive knowledgable people in retail.

I forsee severe storms ahead.

[Duracell]

2. "The majority of the pay team and many of the National Forum reps are also affected by the changes to premiums and, therefore, this decision was not taken lightly. However, in light of the discussions and what is happening in the rest of the retail sector we came to the conclusion that the improvements for everyone outweighed the changes to the premiums."

Thanks @Loki, comprehensive reply as usual.

The key is that the National Forum is delegated and authorised under the PA to negotiate the 'Annual' Pay Deal on our behalf. We are not privy to those discussions and, unless you know otherwise, there will be no release of minutes etc. T*sco announced last year that pay costs will be kept flat (or will not rise) so to have negotiated a rise of above inflation for the majority of the workforce needs to be acknowledged. USDAW and T*sco do not negotiate in a vacuum, sales are flat, share price is calamitous and profits have been affected by the  fraud  - all ofthis will have impacted on the discussions.

Acknowledge what?
The statement was, "payroll to remain flat" 2015/2016, it still has!! the deal struck kicks in the payroll year 2016/17.
"The deal" didn't need to be struck, it didn't achieve any rise for 2015/2016, for those that view the deal as a neccesary evil, the hit on the minority ( %'s questionable to say the least) they didn't need to agree anything for 2016/2017 in 2015/2016 as it didn't affect ANY payroll 2015/2016.

So for those that see USDAW selling out long term members, the double whammy is they did it early too.
They chased a rise for 2015/2016, which didn't happen, at the point  it became obvious 2015/2016 was STILL going to be flat, the pay review panel should of stipulated 2016/2017 will be discussed May 2016.

[Duracell]

To agree that early there should of been some impact on 2015/16 money. There wasn't any, the 3.1% will be viewed as a two year deal, but really? All payments are 2016/17 period onwards.

So nothing for 2015/2016 as they said.

[Loki]

I tend to agree with Duracell on this one.

Once again the Union have misled its members. Had they not stated that it's a two year deal would be them acknowledging and accepting Drastic Dave' initial announcement on making a unilateral decision on pay roll being flat without so much as a fight.

The Union will of course disagree by stating they did put up a fight by negotiating as best they could for raise for 2015/16 which was one of the reasons there was such a delay.

Some may say that if it were a 1 year deal, then the percentage increase could be viewed as "more of a success".

One could argue semantics all day long, but the simple fact of the matter is that none of us received a pay increase within 2015/16 and that many will receive a pay cut in 2016/17.

[Loki]

It is clear that despite the delay in coming to a "deal", the National Forum had no intention to "hold out" in order to lead the way where there would be no other choice other than to ballot the members.

This is what irritates me more than anything else.

Unfortunately, many of the National Forum reps are evidently easily appeased and are not only satisfied with the outcome of the "negotiations" but are more than content with the Partnership Agreement.

Usdaw Organising Awards and values awards certainly do not help matters.

Take for example the following article:

http://www.sheptonmalletjournal.co.uk/USDAW-union-rep-commended-Tesco/story-28741386-detail/story.html

"To be honoured by both my union and employer acknowledges how staff and management at Tesco work in partnership to create a stronger, better organisation which benefits employees and customers alike."

With this attitude, is it any wonder why we are being sold down the river by reps who's egos are fed by flattery from both the company and the union?

[troll-hunter]

Nightsboy, my apologises. 

[chris9997]

Chris9997 & Nightsboy re

"just a question the new pay structure starting in july if you are affected you will get a lump sum based on last year jan to dec pay versus new rates does that mean for ex team leaders are going to be compensated again jan to june ??"

&

"chris997 u mean because we were on team leader money from jan-may 15??yes I have spoken to the union and we will be compensated".

I regret to say that I am sure that I have read in some of the official 'literature' that the 18month calculation etc.  excludes one of payments which to me suggests that the TL step down payment will NOT be included. The only access I have had to "official 'literature'" is the pdf's on here so I think you will find it in there.
Sorry.

I mean it is counting the team leader rate from Jan-May 15. I know it is taking out the lump sum payment and cash bonus but even without them I'm due a healthy sum

I do find it odd that according to the union ex team leaders will be compensated for a secound time having already been compensated for this period, this will cost tesco some considerable money, so really the only people affected should be all night /twillight staff  between 10 and 12 midnight and sunday staff and i wonder if they will use these figures instaed of basic hourly rates?

[valleyboy]

Thank you loki for answering my question. You and others must be seriously frustrated with the institutional descrimination surrounding the pay review for 2015-2016

Are you 100% certain that Pauline had no evolvement in the pay review?

The partnership agreement that forms the contract states

At each meeting of the Pay Review Team, there are a number of attendees:

Support Office Director
UK Operations Personnel Director
12 National Forum Reps
Representatives from the Tesco Reward Team
Representatives from the Employee Relations Team
Representatives from Usdaw (National Officer, Divisional Officer, Area Organiser, Research Assistant)

If none of the above were present, an argument could be raised that the terms of the bargaining unit were not met and therfore any unilateral change to the terms and conditions are not binding.

The partnership agreement also states the employment package is reviewed annually. Where is it written the pay review team has the mandate to review and negotiate on behalf of employees bi annually.

As it is written the mandate is only anually.

Thoughts please?

[Loki]

I'm not 100% on anything that occurs behind those closed doors.

What I am certain of is that not Pauline or anyone else at that table, other than the 12 Forum reps, have any involvement with regards to the decision making process. That is solely for them and the remainder of the 44 Forum reps to decide.

Apologies for perhaps misleading you or others. The point I'm trying to convey is that it is the 12 that ultimately decide alongside their Forum colleagues on whether or not to accept the proposals made by Tesco. Pauline is not present at these meetings that decide what is accepted. She is quick to pass the buck when the chips fall.

Pauline has no say on the matter regarding the acceptance of the proposals. When issuing statements or answering queries she is quite clear when stating that it is the 12 and the remainder of the 44 who accepted the proposals.

Perhaps my anger portrayed a biased slant regarding the process, so for that I apologise. As for her attending each of the negotiation meetings, I suspect not but am not 100%.

Pauline has little if any involvement regarding what is decided. She certainly has no right to decide which 12 of the 44 sit at the table.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not even sure if all the 44 are actual Union members valleyboy. Only the Usdaw members of the 44 are entitled to vote. But what percentage is that?

The entire system is riddled with complications and uncertainty.

[optout]

where do the Executive Council fit in to all of this.

[Mozzer]

Riddled and controlled by tesco that's the only reason why they want all staff in the union and usdaw get a big fee off tesco staff and tesco get a fee for taking membership fees of staff,

[Duracell]

Valleyboy I understand that your questions are directed at Loki.

I view what was said as not that she wasn't present but rather she observered with no decision making role or influence in the conception of proposals discussed.

JM's stance and role is much the same within the distribution set up, although the parameters on what is apt for inclusion in a pay deal seem to be much stricter.

The concern about consent aside I do believe that such a difficult change for such a large number of staff should not have been encompassed in a pay deal, I understand that they are ultimately a pay review panel but such a consession in pay should of invoked a process all of its own outside of the review.
Where the actual significance of the change and the effect on those concern could be gauged more accurately before agreement was made.

I can understand the frustration Loki has.
In previous posts I mentioned the procedural agreement surrounding contract change that has been linked to here with regard to a guide for RHRP.
Loki and I have agreed to disagree as to whether that Proceedural process is valid in this instance.
When the fairness and the Lawfulness of this change is being discussed, surely there is some relationship to this agreement.

It seemed to be applied and is still enforced when Hours are changed which could incidentlly have no negative impact on pay. Yet a pay cut can be agreed with a devastating on pay with a severely reduced ammount of consultation ( if any) with individual.

They have to consult an individual  1-2-1 and get signed agreement to change an indiviuals hours on a Sunday ( which may involve no loss of pay ) yet they can cut their pay for that day by 25% without asking or needing them to agree to the change.

How is that anywhere near a fair approach.
The procedural agreement for contract change should have been applied.


It's a bit like an informal being on your file to be referenced, even a Dicipline has a 'live' time frame, how can an informal be relivant longer than a Dicipline?

How can moving hours have more consultation and a clearer and stricter procedural when it's arguably a potentially less devastating change to the individual than a 25% pay cut.
It's a Nonsense. I personally believe the decision making process and acceptance to cut premiums is hard to defend as credible when there is a procedural agreement in place that is strictly enforce greater levels of consultation and agreement for changes which potentially have equal or less financial impact.

[Loki]

In addition to the above, I do not trust anything that is communicated from her as being wholly accurate. I have good reason for this which only adds to my being aggrieved.

On that basis, perhaps some things that I post, but not all, should take into consideration my disgruntlement more clearly. It is extremely difficult to convey the facts in such a way without compromising my anonymity.