is seniority out the window with new revision?

[daveyeff]

we were called downstairs today for a briefing, for the plans of our new tabletop revision, following the fiasco of the park & loop shyte. in these plans there are 4 duties of 30 hours per week, 'that do not feature' in the new revision. the dom said they need some new 25 hour contracts to make it work. there are 4 new starters in the office on 25hrs a week. he said that the 4 guys that are on the 30 hour contracts,(some of them been there for 6 years) would have to be moved to a nearby office!! thus making way for the junior 25hr contracts to take their place. i asked the rep about this, stating that they cant be allowed to do that,...seniority takes precedent. he surprisingly said theres nothing he can do. its this new revision. they have to make it work. now call me cynical if you want, but surely this is total bollocks. he,s just making it up as he goes along. one of the lads who is one of the 30hr contract guys is worried sick. ive told him i would ask on here, and if need be, i would contact the branch. does any reps on here know. surely they cant overrule seniority.

[demon]

tell him to fook off

[POSTMAN]

for the plans of our new tabletop revision, following the fiasco of the park & loop shyte.

Wtf is that all about?
Anyway,is the area rep aware?

[gb93]

I would question why you having tabletop revision.
Seems to be a very clear agreed approach in the 2010 & Beyond forum.
Check it out, does your rep not have this agreement.

[essexboy]

so..... let me get this striaght........

P&L was a fiasco, im guessing too many hours were taken out?

the solution is obvious, take another 20 hours out

[daveyeff]

for the plans of our new tabletop revision, following the fiasco of the park & loop shyte.

Wtf is that all about?
Anyway,is the area rep aware?

its a revision of the revision. the local rep and dom are tabling new plans to help the original revision work, as it not working as they thought it would. all offices that have went through the revision are supposedly due to take out table top revisions. and no, the area rep is not aware....but he soon will be.

[POSTMAN]

the local rep and dom are tabling new plans to help the original revision work,

By the rep agreeing for staff to be kicked out of the office as per your post.

the area rep is not aware....but he soon will be.

Hurry up ffs.

all offices that have went through the revision are supposedly due to take out table top revisions.

And where has that come from?

[daveyeff]

so..... let me get this striaght........

P&L was a fiasco, im guessing too many hours were taken out?

the solution is obvious, take another 20 hours out

well the plans are like an encyclopedia, but they are going to make some p/t staff up to full time, so some more hours are going back in, but they are only temporary, till the machines come in, in may. carrott dangling.

[daveyeff]

the local rep and dom are tabling new plans to help the original revision work,

By the rep agreeing for staff to be kicked out of the office as per your post.

the area rep is not aware....but he soon will be.

Hury up ffs.

all offices that have went through the revision are supposedly due to take out table top revisions.

And where has that come from?

from the........wait for it,.......the dom and rep.

[POSTMAN]

You will get a vote,you are entitled to a vote........so vote NO!

PS:Love to the rep.

[Himaggen]

TBH I'm not sure what you are questioning, if 30 hour contacts have no place then it stands to reason that 30 hour contract holders haven't either. Seniority has limited uses within the system and in my opinion suitability for the task should take precedence in this case over length of service, (which in the majority of cases can be proven as discrimination).
The real question should be why is your Rep allowing this option. If the office has made this decision it follows that there is a figure set for how many hours they need to cover. Your Rep should be pushing the Manager to try to fully utilise these hours across the existing staff before agreeing to new starters. It does seem like a pretty extreme idea for such a small number of hours, it means that in any week over the entire office if twenty or more hours are booked above basic the move would have been proven pointless!

[daveyeff]

TBH I'm not sure what you are questioning, if 30 hour contacts have no place then it stands to reason that 30 hour contract holders haven't either. Seniority has limited uses within the system and in my opinion suitability for the task should take precedence in this case over length of service, (which in the majority of cases can be proven as discrimination).
The real question should be why is your Rep allowing this option. If the office has made this decision it follows that there is a figure set for how many hours they need to cover. Your Rep should be pushing the Manager to try to fully utilise these hours across the existing staff before agreeing to new starters. It does seem like a pretty extreme idea for such a small number of hours, it means that in any week over the entire office if twenty or more hours are booked above basic the move would have been proven pointless!

well going by what you,re saying there mate, if its suitability for the task rather than seniority, then whats to stop them saying, 'we,re bringing in six 20hr contracts, and we,re shifting 3 full time duties to another office. even if these 3 full time duties have 25/30 years each in service. this dom is doing wtf he wants. and the rep seems to be going along with it. if he,s allowed to overrule seniority in this way, then he could do JUST THAT with all the full time duties. then a part time office run on overtime would be the eventual outcome.

[gb93]

What's your FT to PT ratio

[daveyeff]

What's your FT to PT ratio

used to be 70/ 30 now its 63 full, 37 p/t

[enzio]

get your area rep in thats a load off s### there no wat that should happen what is your local rep doing no one should move office unless they want to and you should get rid of your local rep as soon as poss