Welcome to verylittlehelps. Please login or sign up.

24-02-24, 08:09PM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 37,496
  • Total Topics: 615
  • Online today: 116
  • Online ever: 1,436
  • (24-01-24, 01:01AM)
Users Online
Users: 2
Guests: 55
Total: 57

Any rumours on Magor redundancies ?

Started by JackGough, 24-06-20, 10:11PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Zx81

Quote from: hesketh on 01-02-24, 11:50AMLivingston was a very different case.

Tesco would go to the courts to argue that it is not justifiable to operate an entire payroll system for a couple of hundred employees out of 30,000+.

Once they have achieved that number, by getting rid of the few thousand warehouse legacy staff, they have a very strong argument. As Ursus said, good luck with their lawyers ??? 
[/quote Livingston was Exactly the same case actually not everyone was on legacy and they attempted to fire and rehire, which they didn't manage

Zx81

Quote from: Zx81 on 02-02-24, 04:15AM
Quote from: hesketh on 01-02-24, 11:50AMLivingston was a very different case.

Tesco would go to the courts to argue that it is not justifiable to operate an entire payroll system for a couple of hundred employees out of 30,000+.

Once they have achieved that number, by getting rid of the few thousand warehouse legacy staff, they have a very strong argument. As Ursus said, good luck with their lawyers ??? 
[/quote Livingston was Exactly the same case actually not everyone was on legacy and they attempted to fire and rehire, which they didn't manage
out of interest as you seem to have knowledge of Livingston's circumstances, could you run through the differences it would be handy to know, and the payroll issue is a red herring as modern payroll software can work out multiple pay differences as all dc,s are on a different rate, sounds like a technicality that wouldn't stand up in court, but that's me speaking not a Lawyer

Ursus

hesketh, you are 100% right, they do not value old workers, they see us like a problem, new people do not discuss but running. I decided to take severance and find new eployer.

hesketh

Quote from: Zx81 on 02-02-24, 07:08AM
Quote from: Zx81 on 02-02-24, 04:15AM
Quote from: hesketh on 01-02-24, 11:50AMLivingston was a very different case.

Tesco would go to the courts to argue that it is not justifiable to operate an entire payroll system for a couple of hundred employees out of 30,000+.

Once they have achieved that number, by getting rid of the few thousand warehouse legacy staff, they have a very strong argument. As Ursus said, good luck with their lawyers ??? 
[/quote Livingston was Exactly the same case actually not everyone was on legacy and they attempted to fire and rehire, which they didn't manage
out of interest as you seem to have knowledge of Livingston's circumstances, could you run through the differences it would be handy to know, and the payroll issue is a red herring as modern payroll software can work out multiple pay differences as all dc,s are on a different rate, sounds like a technicality that wouldn't stand up in court, but that's me speaking not a Lawyer
As usual Tesco have bought a rubbish system. Whilst there are many different rates, the new contracts are all automatable requiring minimal managerial or clerical interventions. The "legacy" contract contains many options and arrangements that require much manual input. Our depot now has few managers that understand the structure and, I'm told, our wages dept has only one clerk up to speed. Maintaining and training that wage dept for a few hundred people can be argued to be too expensive and unnecessary.

The "Fire and Rehire" attempt at Livingston was about Retained Pay arrangements for employees from the previous depot. They were promised significant pay augmentation in perpetuity. Tesco's bean counters decided that they could save a fortune if they went back on the promise and screwed those employees over. Fortunately the Scottish courts kicked the idea out. However the issue has rumbled on in England with the union winning, Tesco winning the appeal and the union now appealing the appeal. We all know who wins these things in the end eh?
Don't take life too seriously, no one has ever gotten out alive!

Zx81

Quote from: hesketh on 05-02-24, 05:42PM
Quote from: Zx81 on 02-02-24, 07:08AM
Quote from: Zx81 on 02-02-24, 04:15AM
Quote from: hesketh on 01-02-24, 11:50AMLivingston was a very different case.

Tesco would go to the courts to argue that it is not justifiable to operate an entire payroll system for a couple of hundred employees out of 30,000+.

Once they have achieved that number, by getting rid of the few thousand warehouse legacy staff, they have a very strong argument. As Ursus said, good luck with their lawyers ??? 
[/quote Livingston was Exactly the same case actually not everyone was on legacy and they attempted to fire and rehire, which they didn't manage
out of interest as you seem to have knowledge of Livingston's circumstances, could you run through the differences it would be handy to know, and the payroll issue is a red herring as modern payroll software can work out multiple pay differences as all dc,s are on a different rate, sounds like a technicality that wouldn't stand up in court, but that's me speaking not a Lawyer
As usual Tesco have bought a rubbish system. Whilst there are many different rates, the new contracts are all automatable requiring minimal managerial or clerical interventions. The "legacy" contract contains many options and arrangements that require much manual input. Our depot now has few managers that understand the structure and, I'm told, our wages dept has only one clerk up to speed. Maintaining and training that wage dept for a few hundred people can be argued to be too expensive and unnecessary.

The "Fire and Rehire" attempt at Livingston was about Retained Pay arrangements for employees from the previous depot. They were promised significant pay augmentation in perpetuity. Tesco's bean counters decided that they could save a fortune if they went back on the promise and screwed those employees over. Fortunately the Scottish courts kicked the idea out. However the issue has rumbled on in England with the union winning, Tesco winning the appeal and the union now appealing the appeal. We all know who wins these things in the end eh?
Quote from: hesketh on 05-02-24, 05:42PM
Quote from: Zx81 on 02-02-24, 07:08AM
Quote from: Zx81 on 02-02-24, 04:15AM
Quote from: hesketh on 01-02-24, 11:50AMLivingston was a very different case.

Tesco would go to the courts to argue that it is not justifiable to operate an entire payroll system for a couple of hundred employees out of 30,000+.

Once they have achieved that number, by getting rid of the few thousand warehouse legacy staff, they have a very strong argument. As Ursus said, good luck with their lawyers ??? 
[/quote Livingston was Exactly the same case actually not everyone was on legacy and they attempted to fire and rehire, which they didn't manage
out of interest as you seem to have knowledge of Livingston's circumstances, could you run through the differences it would be handy to know, and the payroll issue is a red herring as modern payroll software can work out multiple pay differences as all dc,s are on a different rate, sounds like a technicality that wouldn't stand up in court, but that's me speaking not a Lawyer
As usual Tesco have bought a rubbish system. Whilst there are many different rates, the new contracts are all automatable requiring minimal managerial or clerical interventions. The "legacy" contract contains many options and arrangements that require much manual input. Our depot now has few managers that understand the structure and, I'm told, our wages dept has only one clerk up to speed. Maintaining and training that wage dept for a few hundred people can be argued to be too expensive and unnecessary.

The "Fire and Rehire" attempt at Livingston was about Retained Pay arrangements for employees from the previous depot. They were promised significant pay augmentation in perpetuity. Tesco's bean counters decided that they could save a fortune if they went back on the promise and screwed those employees over. Fortunately the Scottish courts kicked the idea out. However the issue has rumbled on in England with the union winning, Tesco winning the appeal and the union now appealing the appeal. We all know who wins these things in the end eh?
Quote from: hesketh on 05-02-24, 05:42PM
Quote from: Zx81 on 02-02-24, 07:08AM
Quote from: Zx81 on 02-02-24, 04:15AM
Quote from: hesketh on 01-02-24, 11:50AMLivingston was a very different case.

Tesco would go to the courts to argue that it is not justifiable to operate an entire payroll system for a couple of hundred employees out of 30,000+.

Once they have achieved that number, by getting rid of the few thousand warehouse legacy staff, they have a very strong argument. As Ursus said, good luck with their lawyers ??? 
[/quote Livingston was Exactly the same case actually not everyone was on legacy and they attempted to fire and rehire, which they didn't manage
out of interest as you seem to have knowledge of Livingston's circumstances, could you run through the differences it would be handy to know, and the payroll issue is a red herring as modern payroll software can work out multiple pay differences as all dc,s are on a different rate, sounds like a technicality that wouldn't stand up in court, but that's me speaking not a Lawyer
As usual Tesco have bought a rubbish system. Whilst there are many different rates, the new contracts are all automatable requiring minimal managerial or clerical interventions. The "legacy" contract contains many options and arrangements that require much manual input. Our depot now has few managers that understand the structure and, I'm told, our wages dept has only one clerk up to speed. Maintaining and training that wage dept for a few hundred people can be argued to be too expensive and unnecessary.

The "Fire and Rehire" attempt at Livingston was about Retained Pay arrangements for employees from the previous depot. They were promised significant pay augmentation in perpetuity. Tesco's bean counters decided that they could save a fortune if they went back on the promise and screwed those employees over. Fortunately the Scottish courts kicked the idea out. However the issue has rumbled on in England with the union winning, Tesco winning the appeal and the union now appealing the appeal. We all know who wins these things in the end eh?
Quote from: hesketh on 05-02-24, 05:42PM
Quote from: Zx81 on 02-02-24, 07:08AM
Quote from: Zx81 on 02-02-24, 04:15AM
Quote from: hesketh on 01-02-24, 11:50AMLivingston was a very different case.

Tesco would go to the courts to argue that it is not justifiable to operate an entire payroll system for a couple of hundred employees out of 30,000+.

Once they have achieved that number, by getting rid of the few thousand warehouse legacy staff, they have a very strong argument. As Ursus said, good luck with their lawyers ??? 
[/quote Livingston was Exactly the same case actually not everyone was on legacy and they attempted to fire and rehire, which they didn't manage
out of interest as you seem to have knowledge of Livingston's circumstances, could you run through the differences it would be handy to know, and the payroll issue is a red herring as modern payroll software can work out multiple pay differences as all dc,s are on a different rate, sounds like a technicality that wouldn't stand up in court, but that's me speaking not a Lawyer
As usual Tesco have bought a rubbish system. Whilst there are many different rates, the new contracts are all automatable requiring minimal managerial or clerical interventions. The "legacy" contract contains many options and arrangements that require much manual input. Our depot now has few managers that understand the structure and, I'm told, our wages dept has only one clerk up to speed. Maintaining and training that wage dept for a few hundred people can be argued to be too expensive and unnecessary.

The "Fire and Rehire" attempt at Livingston was about Retained Pay arrangements for employees from the previous depot. They were promised significant pay augmentation in perpetuity. Tesco's bean counters decided that they could save a fortune if they went back on the promise and screwed those employees over. Fortunately the Scottish courts kicked the idea out. However the issue has rumbled on in England with the union winning, Tesco winning the appeal and the union now appealing the appeal. We all know who wins these things in the end eh?
Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it, still seems a bit of a poor argument considering it's a system that's not up to scratch, especially with Horizon in the news with its post office failings, thanks again.

belfast driver

Strange times in Belfast CDC. The new hive system goes live tonight and the chat is they are sending alot of trucks out double manned as there is too many drivers for the volume of runs. Things definitely not looking good for legacy drivers.
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.

ImBackBaby

Quote from: belfast driver on 06-02-24, 04:27PMStrange times in Belfast CDC. The new hive system goes live tonight and the chat is they are sending alot of trucks out double manned as there is too many drivers for the volume of runs. Things definitely not looking good for legacy drivers.
And I bet you a tenner they will still flood the place on Friday nights with hauliers.

belfast driver

Probably. Less work for the Tesco men  ;D
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.

Littlestallion

Quote from: grim up north on 17-01-24, 05:25PMWill someone confirm it's not a redundancy offer please
Its a voluntary severance pay....not redundancy

Dorset

#59
Severance is basically a form of redundancy in which the person voluntarily leaves the company by mutual agreement and so gives up the right to tribunal, allowing the company to replace leavers immediately. The severance offer is also a bit on the cheap compared to what actual redundancy would be. Perhaps the severance offer has not been made to drivers as they can not be used as comparitors in the equal pay claim. In my mind the company would not be offering this money if it didn't have to. 
Whoever lays their hand on me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant, i declare them my enemy.

belfast driver

Dorset it's only a my of time before the legacy drivers are made an offer. They want us all on the 2022 contract. Hopefully we get offered more than the warehouse as it was pretty poor to be honest.
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.

belfast driver

Quote from: belfast driver on 15-02-24, 05:30PMDorset it's only a matter of time before the legacy drivers are made an offer. They want us all on the 2022 contract. Hopefully we get offered more than the warehouse as it was pretty poor to be honest.
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.

Zx81

Quote from: Dorset on 15-02-24, 01:58PMSeverance is basically a form of redundancy in which the person voluntarily leaves the company by mutual agreement and so gives up the right to tribunal, allowing the company to replace leavers immediately. The severance offer is also a bit on the cheap compared to what actual redundancy would be. Perhaps the severance offer has not been made to drivers as they can not be used as comparitors in the equal pay claim. In my mind the company would not be offering this money if it didn't have to. 
My thinking is if the Legacy numbers are sufficiently brought down those who chose to stay will be put on tupe then given 2 years retained pay and put on a 2022 contract anyway, that's why there's a threshold that needs to be reached for the severance to be activated.

belfast driver

Zx81 I agree 100 percent. Some drivers in Belfast think they are safe. Some think they are worth 200k severance. It's only a matter of time before we are all on the 2022 contract.
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk