seniority

slinder123 · Post by **slinder123** » 29 Mar 2017, 14:26

lets get rid of seniority and pick the rounds out of the bag each year thats fair

South_London_Postie · Post by **South_London_Postie** » 29 Mar 2017, 15:05

Seniority is the only fair way to be honest and that's coming from someone with not many years senior.

You do your time and you get rewarded with seniority. Imagine being in an office where the manager has it in for you and your seniority cannot protect you. You will get shafted year in and year out. Now would that be fair ?

WOBBLY · Post by **WOBBLY** » 29 Mar 2017, 15:52

South_London_Postie wrote:Seniority is the only fair way to be honest and that's coming from someone with not many years senior.

You do your time and you get rewarded with seniority. Imagine being in an office where the manager has it in for you and your seniority cannot protect you. You will get shafted year in and year out. Now would that be fair ?

That only works if you're given the chance to use your seniority! I think this is what the OP is probably referring to!!
In 19 years of service its been over 7 years since I've never seen a walk advertised after being left vacant! Loads of new starters been put on cushy rounds....... rep and area rep informed time after time - still nothing done!

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 29 Mar 2017, 18:05

Actually I think the OP is

Redacer · Post by **Redacer** » 31 Mar 2017, 09:43

Surely you should be rewarded by your work and ability, not just how long you have been there. There are very few work places which allow seniority to have such a high priority as this is a form of discrimination. Managers should be allowed to manage their staff, putting the best person in the appropriate positions on a fair and just basis. If it is then not done fairly then procedures must be in place to deal with appeals and disciplinary issues.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 31 Mar 2017, 13:26

Andy Lauszkin wrote:Surely you should be rewarded by your work and ability, not just how long you have been there. There are very few work places which allow seniority to have such a high priority as this is a form of discrimination. Managers should be allowed to manage their staff, putting the best person in the appropriate positions on a fair and just basis. If it is then not done fairly then procedures must be in place to deal with appeals and disciplinary issues.

But the question that always gets asked and is never answered by supporters of non-seniority selection is, how do you differentiate between the duties which all have exactly the same requirement in skills, and where everyone doing the same job has no more job training than any other. Without skill being a deciding factor, and with seniority withdrawn, nepotism and face fitting will be more tempting for managers and employees. As will managers using duty selection to put pressure on those, they see as difficult to manage.

Until those issues are addressed fairly and objectively then Seniority, although a flawed system, will remain the best and fairest method of duty selection.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 31 Mar 2017, 13:46

A decent manager wouldn't want anything to do with this. It would open them up to accusations of favouritism and discrimination. Why would they take on that extra abuse when they would still have to manage the useless staff possibly on more difficult duties creating more conflict?

The only managers who would get anything out of it would be the bullying control freaks. That would end well for everyone.

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 31 Mar 2017, 19:05

Yep - the jury system is flawed. Democracy is flawed. But until you can come up with a better alternative .....

Doing it on skills/merit/virtues etc - who is going to measure that ? And how ?

Seniority is straightforward and measurable - and, in the absence of a better alternative, the best that we have. There is method behind it, after all - and its quantifiable.

datasaint · Post by **datasaint** » 31 Mar 2017, 21:07

Yes but seniority could be measured in TOTAL hours worked as opposed to length of service.

Which at least recognises the effort made by individuals. It's hardly right somebody who starts a day before somebody else sits on a 20hr contract, does no OT, but the other person on 20hrs routinely helps the company and loses out on an increase in hours.

An extreme example I know but it does illustrate the inequality of the situation. Hard work should be rewarded in this company, except mediocrity always seems to prevail.

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 31 Mar 2017, 21:37

norm wrote:Yes but seniority could be measured in hours worked as opposed to length of service.

It must be already, surely ? Are you saying that someone with 19 years and 364 days service at 39 hours per week has less seniority than someone with 20 years on 4 hours per week ?

I can't see it.

South_London_Postie · Post by **South_London_Postie** » 31 Mar 2017, 21:41

Norm, regards to the hours worked suggestion there is so many things wrong with it I'd be here all night.

As for hard work being rewarded it already is. In the form of lapsing. Well done son for finishing early here's some more work ! There's a good boy.

Post by **aiden01** » 31 Mar 2017, 21:51

norm wrote:Yes but seniority could be measured in hours worked as opposed to length of service.

Which at least recognises the effort made by individuals. It's hardly right somebody who starts a day before somebody else sits on a 20hr contract, does no OT, but the other person on 20hrs routinely helps the company and loses out on an increase in hours.

An extreme example I know but it does illustrate the inequality of the situation. Hard work should be rewarded in this company, except mediocrity always seems to prevail.

Ot is not about helping the company out surely its about boosting your pay

datasaint · Post by **datasaint** » 31 Mar 2017, 22:04

jetblack wrote:
norm wrote:Yes but seniority could be measured in hours worked as opposed to length of service.

It must be already, surely ? Are you saying that someone with 19 years and 364 days service at 39 hours per week has less seniority than someone with 20 years on 4 hours per week ?

I can't see it.

No, if you had a cumulative total of all the hours ever paid in RM, that would be the basis of your seniority. So in your example the person on 4 hrs a week would be less senior.

In reality those with a long service history would still maintain their seniority stakes, but it would allow newcomers to the business to build their seniority quicker through work, which the company would actually recognise/reward.

Post by **aiden01** » 31 Mar 2017, 22:09

norm wrote:
jetblack wrote:
norm wrote:Yes but seniority could be measured in hours worked as opposed to length of service.

It must be already, surely ? Are you saying that someone with 19 years and 364 days service at 39 hours per week has less seniority than someone with 20 years on 4 hours per week ?

I can't see it.
No, if you had a cumulative total of all the hours ever paid in RM, that would be the basis of your seniority. So in your example the person on 4 hrs a week would be less senior.

In reality those with a long service history would still maintain their seniority stakes, but it would allow newcomers to the business to build their seniority quicker through work, which the company would actually recognise/reward.

The company have just cut all long service awards.

datasaint · Post by **datasaint** » 31 Mar 2017, 22:12

aiden01 wrote: The company have just cut all long service awards.

A shame indeed.

Seems like a transient PT workforce is what's sought after now.