Lots of London offices have them which is why they have to be defended with everything the CWU has.
I'm all for innovative duty patterns but can't understand why RM couldn't just show HMRC on the back of a cage card that they aren't under min wage they have just banked the extra hours they have worked in the weeks leading up to the week they get paid for 37 hours work and don't do any.
Perhaps they did and the HMRC's response was that the law as it stands is black and white and that they consider RM are under paying staff under the NMW rules?
I'm pretty certain if RM could have got around the rules then they would, I wonder if this is behind the recent, oddly timed OT ban, are RM simply robbing Peter to pay Paul the required Wellington week payments?
I've no idea if Wally weeks are based mostly in London, I doubt that it's info that will able to be verified. As I said before, people that don't have them or never will have them will struggle to understand their 'red line' status.
I get the CWU have got to balance the books with their demands/pushbacks so they must have some weight behind them to get RM to agree to foot the bill (essentially) until a solution is found.
For the avoidance of any doubt, I welcome any innovative shift pattern that offices can negotiate.
I've no idea if Wally weeks are based mostly in London, I doubt that it's info that will able to be verified. As I said before, people that don't have them or never will have them will struggle to understand their 'red line' status.
I get the CWU have got to balance the books with their demands/pushbacks so they must have some weight behind them to get RM to agree to foot the bill (essentially) until a solution is found.
For the avoidance of any doubt, I welcome any innovative shift pattern that offices can negotiate.
I can't see it is a London issue as my DO is nowhere near London.
I'm not really sure why the CWU approach is just to sit on the fence and suggest it's an RM issue to resolve when it's clearly affecting their members, as something will have to give as I can't see RM.paying out £m's each year but they clearly can't just ignore the issue as otherwise they'll be breaking the NMW rules and risk a massive fine and yet more bad PR.
Monthly pay just shifts the issue to something else. The solution is to pay people for the hours they perform in a week and treat staff like adults capable of budgeting appropriately.
Monthly pay just shifts the issue to something else. The solution is to pay people for the hours they perform in a week and treat staff like adults capable of budgeting appropriately.
Monthly pay just shifts the issue to something else. The solution is to pay people for the hours they perform in a week and treat staff like adults capable of budgeting appropriately.
But then there is zero wages to deduct things from on week 6 (pension, CWU subs etc) or would they be taken pro rata over the 5 other weeks?
If they could work it, why not just pay people 6 days wages for 5 weeks, then nothing for the 6th week?
Monthly pay just shifts the issue to something else. The solution is to pay people for the hours they perform in a week and treat staff like adults capable of budgeting appropriately.
But then there is zero wages to deduct things from on week 6 (pension, CWU subs etc) or would they be taken pro rata over the 5 other weeks?
If they could work it, why not just pay people 6 days wages for 5 weeks, then nothing for the 6th week?
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Nine day fortnights the same - pay for five days in week one and four in the other.
I'm also pretty confident they could set up a voluntary process of holding 1/6 of pay back as a net deduction in weeks 1-5 to be refunded in week 6. The cost would be extensive to implement but no less so than continuing to pay out thousands to people annually.