p/t hourly wage after revision

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Why is it full timers cant grasp the fact that when they get an extra hour knocked off their working week their hourly rate goes up and part timers then have to have a pay rise to be on the same said hourly rate,

I also think it's crass, to appear to be accusing all ftimers of this idiocy. Perhaps accusing the single poster who appeared to not grasp this simple concept, or even just adding the word "some" would have been more reasonable.

[Woody Guthrie]

I'm sure there are part timers who will swap contracts with you if it upsets you that much.

So I should just accept it because it's better than being part-time?
Should part-timers also shut up because there are people on minimum wage?
Should those on minimum wage shut up because there are people on benefits?
Should we all just shut up and accept our lot because there are people starving in Africa?

It's an interesting take on the trade union movement.

[Dexydog]

Why is everyone getting so upset?
Full time get an hour off their working week for the same pay, part time work the same hours as now and get a slight pay increase.
No-one is gaining over the other per-say.

[clashcityrocker]

Why is everyone getting so upset?

Because if inflation is at 2%, an hour off the working week won't help towards paying the increases in council tax, food, heating costs or housing.
The same money in your pocket becomes less money in your pocket when inflation is factored in.

[Dexydog]

Why is everyone getting so upset?

Because if inflation is at 2%, an hour off the working week won't help towards paying the increases in council tax, food, heating costs or housing.
The same money in your pocket becomes less money in your pocket when inflation is factored in.

We just got a pay rise.
And full time an hour off the working week on top.
Just because part time get an extra few quid in lieu of the latter doesn't mean they are any better off- if a full timer doesn't like it, do an hours overtime, you're still working the same hours as before and getting the same rise a part-timer is.
Part time get s@@t on enough, this is about the only thing to work in our favour (in monetary terms, not in terms of time worked- that's exactly the same).

[Woody Guthrie]

I'm not making this a part-time vs full-time issue.

I am unhappy with the SWW because I have been placed in a position by my union where I may have to make a choice to accept a revision I don't like or reject it and deny my part-time colleagues extra pay.

As the SWW has little if any benefit to full-time staff it will further divide the workforce.

[yellowbelly]

I'm not making this a part-time vs full-time issue.

I am unhappy with the SWW because I have been placed in a position by my union where I may have to make a choice to accept a revision I don't like or reject it and deny my part-time colleagues extra pay.

As the SWW has little if any benefit to full-time staff it will further divide the workforce.

See your point Woody but 'We' voted to accept 'the deal' and all the consequences good or bad.

Wouldn't the office revision be put to an office vote?
Never had the experience of a revision before so genuine question - what would happen if say 30 duties out of 100 were
proposed to be revised - would it be the 30 duty holders only who would vote or the whole office of 100 or the union
members in the 30 or 100?

[SpacePhoenix]

I'm not making this a part-time vs full-time issue.

I am unhappy with the SWW because I have been placed in a position by my union where I may have to make a choice to accept a revision I don't like or reject it and deny my part-time colleagues extra pay.

As the SWW has little if any benefit to full-time staff it will further divide the workforce.

See your point Woody but 'We' voted to accept 'the deal' and all the consequences good or bad.

Wouldn't the office revision be put to an office vote?
Never had the experience of a revision before so genuine question - what would happen if say 30 duties out of 100 were
proposed to be revised - would it be the 30 duty holders only who would vote or the whole office of 100 or the union
members in the 30 or 100?

If them 30 of the duties in your example have major changes during the revision then wouldn't that also trigger an office re-sign?

[yellowbelly]

I'm not making this a part-time vs full-time issue.

I am unhappy with the SWW because I have been placed in a position by my union where I may have to make a choice to accept a revision I don't like or reject it and deny my part-time colleagues extra pay.

As the SWW has little if any benefit to full-time staff it will further divide the workforce.

See your point Woody but 'We' voted to accept 'the deal' and all the consequences good or bad.

Wouldn't the office revision be put to an office vote?
Never had the experience of a revision before so genuine question - what would happen if say 30 duties out of 100 were
proposed to be revised - would it be the 30 duty holders only who would vote or the whole office of 100 or the union
members in the 30 or 100?

If them 30 of the duties in your example have major changes during the revision then wouldn't that also trigger an office re-sign?

Quite possibly, I've not been in long enough to know the in's and out's. Don't want to send the thread
off down a rabbit hole. Was just really making the point that as a whole we signed up for whatever is coming our way by
voting through the agreement. Some will be better off than others at the end of it without a doubt.

[rambo1]

Why is everyone getting so upset?
Full time get an hour off their working week for the same pay, part time work the same hours as now and get a slight pay increase.
No-one is gaining over the other per-say.

Except where someone is on holiday. I don't work any hrs on holiday so I don't know if I'm not working 37, 38, or 39 hrs. I just get paid the same.
A part timer on holiday doesn't work either but still gets paid more.
Why is that so hard to grasp by people.

[Dexydog]

Oh great, compare a part timers wage when he's on holiday and gets used the rest of year like he's full time.
Excellent choice of analogy.

[rambo1]

Oh great, compare a part timers wage when he's on holiday and gets used the rest of year like he's full time.
Excellent choice of analogy.

Always someone gonna twist it into something it wasn't meant to be. Nobody gets used as you put it, like a full timer. If they don't want it they don't have to do it.

[k979aaa]

I think dexydog is saying that part timers wages on holiday and on the sick are less than the hours they performed week in week out for the rest of the year. At the end of the day no one should decry the hour off the working week for full time staff or the 2.7% for part timers we will all work harder it is the redistribution of work to effect the hour off the working week. And if this is not done in a fair and equitable way the failure of management to listen too reps and the staff involved in the spirt of the agreement!

[Dexydog]

I think dexydog is saying that part timers wages on holiday and on the sick are less than the hours they performed week in week out for the rest of the year. At the end of the day no one should decry the hour off the working week for full time staff or the 2.7% for part timers we will all work harder it is the redistribution of work to effect the hour off the working week. And if this is not done in a fair and equitable way the failure of management to listen too reps and the staff involved in the spirt of the agreement!

Absolutely.

[Dexydog]

Oh great, compare a part timers wage when he's on holiday and gets used the rest of year like he's full time.
Excellent choice of analogy.

Always someone gonna twist it into something it wasn't meant to be. Nobody gets used as you put it, like a full timer. If they don't want it they don't have to do it.

What would you call being 30 hours and then getting asked to come in early every single day??
And then not getting that money when you're on holiday?
Sorry but that's not twisting anything, just saying it how it is.
It's a sodding disgrace.