seniority

[Zicomurphy]

If managers ever got to choose who did which duty I know exactly what would happen in my office, all the loud mouthed, hard to manage types who are quite happy to kick off about any little thing would get the easiest duties because the managers wouldn't want the hassle of having to deal with their complaints and moaning.

[fishtank]

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.

There are too many flaws in that argument and not enough time in the day but the most important is that it's unlawful to discriminate between full-time and part-time staff purely on the basis of the number of hours worked.

[jetblack]

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

I personally can't see a problem with that.

Seems like common sense to me.

Is that not what others take into account when they look at seniority ? Do others purely look at when 2 members started, with no reference at all to hours worked ??

[fishtank]

The Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000

Like I said it would be unlawful.

[datasaint]

I still don't think people are grasping fully what I'm suggesting.

I'm not talking about comparing contracted hours, I'm talking about RM counting up all the hours you've ever been paid in the company, and using that as a basis for seniority.

Whether you're FT or PT it's irrespective. If anything it'd be level the playing field between FT and PT staff, as plenty PT staff work FT hours and get no recognition for it.

[Chelseablue]

Any office had a resign with full time/ part time paired up , instead of ft/ ft ? Are you meant to get a vote on any of these changes ? Does that not do away with seniority ? Are team meetings not meant to boost morale instead of conduct code threats every time ? Office is just a pressure cooker now .

[fishtank]

Any office had a resign with full time/ part time paired up , instead of ft/ ft ? Are you meant to get a vote on any of these changes ? Does that not do away with seniority ? Are team meetings not meant to boost morale instead of conduct code threats every time ? Office is just a pressure cooker now .

Yes you should get a vote on it but not as a separate issue, you should have had a vote on whether or not you accepted the revision, the planned resourcing model should have been part of that.

No it doesn't do away with seniority, it just means you have two seniority lists and less full-time staff will get a duty because there are less full-time duties but seniority never promised anyone a duty.

[fishtank]

Just for clarification because there seems to be some confusion on this thread.
Seniority is measured as length of service and has nothing to do with contracted hours.

[jetblack]

It can't possibly be right that someone who has done 100 weeks at 1 hour per week has more seniority than someone who has done 99.5 weeks at 45 hours per week. Thats 100 hours vs. 4477 hours. The former has worked circa equivalent 3 weeks full time in total - the other has worked around 115. Yet the former has more seniority ?


As for discrimination against part timers, surely it would be the full timer who is being unfairly discriminated against in this scenario. Also, what if they are both part timers ?

As Norm said above the right and proper way to do it would be on total hours worked IMHO. Could also turn out that the part timer "wins" in seniority on account of their overtime.

That way neither the full nor part timer would be unfairly discriminated against.

[clashcityrocker]

It can't possibly be right that someone who has done 100 weeks at 1 hour per week has more seniority than someone who has done 99.5 weeks at 45 hours per week.

But it is right because that is that is what the agreement states.
What you think is irrelevant.

[jetblack]

But it is right because that is that is what the agreement states.

Agreement clearly leaves a lot to be desired then. What agreement is that BTW ?

What you think is irrelevant.

Hey, in the grand scheme of things, what we all think is irrelevant

Which part of my reasoning did you fault ?

[fishtank]

As I've pointed out in most cases it's unlawful to treat staff differently purely on the basis of their contracted hours. The reason for that is there are many reasons why part-time staff are part-time and it's not always through choice.

As a supposed socialist activist Jet surely you would understand and support that?

[ballsup]

I still don't think people are grasping fully what I'm suggesting.

I'm not talking about comparing contracted hours, I'm talking about RM counting up all the hours you've ever been paid in the company, and using that as a basis for seniority.

Whether you're FT or PT it's irrespective. If anything it'd be level the playing field between FT and PT staff, as plenty PT staff work FT hours and get no recognition for it.

F/T 39 hour contract regularly does 10 hours O/T per week, P/T 25 Hour contract regularly does 10 hours O/T per week, Both start on same day. The part time person loses out on seniority every day under your system through no fault of their own hence under this the part timer is being discriminated against, the part timer would have to do 24 hours O/T per week to keep up with the full timer.

Seniority isn't perfect but when all else is equal it is a reasonable way to seperate people.

[jetblack]

As I've pointed out in most cases it's unlawful to treat staff differently purely on the basis of their contracted hours. The reason for that is there are many reasons why part-time staff are part-time and it's not always through choice.

LOL - yes, there are many reasons that full time staff are full time as well for that matter, and thats not always through choice either.

F/T 39 hour contract regularly does 10 hours O/T per week, P/T 25 Hour contract regularly does 10 hours O/T per week, Both start on same day. The part time person loses out on seniority every day under your system through no fault of their own

That is the nature of seniority - its an imperfect way of deciding and someone will come off worse.

Are you suggesting that under your scenario the part timer should have seniority ? If the full timer gets seniority I'm confused as to how the part timer is being discriminated against exactly. The part timer has put in less time - and that is what seniority is all about.

FWIW under your scenario, where seniority is based on hours at the coal face, your part timer would still have seniority over a full timer with roughly less than half the length of service.

Can't have it all ways chaps.

Where is the agreement that states clearly its to do with length of service ? Does it clearly state that "length" is defined by something other than hours worked ?

[clashcityrocker]

Where is the agreement that states clearly its to do with length of service ?

Try reading The Way Forward.