600 Night drives re-pick

Harris1977 · Post by **Harris1977** » 05 Jul 2017, 05:28

Should a person with longer allowances pick there duty before someone with more seniority i.e. 17 year man with 14 years nights or 35 year man with 11 years. Who should pick duty first?

rehabron · Post by **rehabron** » 05 Jul 2017, 06:01

Harris1977 wrote:Should a person with longer allowances pick there duty before someone with more seniority i.e. 17 year man with 14 years nights or 35 year man with 11 years. Who should pick duty first?

first picker is the 17 year man with 14 years nights as he has held the night allowance for the longer period and would have a far greater financial impact than the 11 years man.

Post by **osgoody1970** » 05 Jul 2017, 06:40

yep, happened to a pal of mine, the longer you are on nights, attracting an allowance, gets to pick first.

twoloops · Post by **twoloops** » 05 Jul 2017, 07:15

bogstandard · Post by **bogstandard** » 05 Jul 2017, 08:01

The only time seniority is not king is when there aren't enough duties to go round, if there aren't enough to go round then it's the person or people who have been in receipt of the premium the least that miss out.

Harris1977 · Post by **Harris1977** » 05 Jul 2017, 13:41

Where can I get this in writing as they are trying to put each shift in pots then duties then picked on seniority

rubberbond · Post by **rubberbond** » 05 Jul 2017, 17:30

mattycash wrote:I was shocked to find this ageism still existed in the RM surely it must now be against the law to use "I'm the senior man" (which I hear daily) should not everyone be treated equally?

This trouble is, what do you replace it with? Managers preferment? Interviews, bare knuckle cage fighting? I woukdnt fancy my chances with some of the females in our office, there would be blood and snot everywhere and that's just mine!
I don't know what the answer is.

Post by **Judgee** » 05 Jul 2017, 22:47

mattycash wrote:I was shocked to find this ageism still existed in the RM surely it must now be against the law to use "I'm the senior man" (which I hear daily) should not everyone be treated equally?

Seniority is not ageism!

bogstandard · Post by **bogstandard** » 06 Jul 2017, 07:57

bogstandard wrote:The only time seniority is not king is when there aren't enough duties to go round, if there aren't enough to go round then it's the person or people who have been in receipt of the premium the least that miss out.

Seniority still holds the field or should still hold the field of those who remain. i.e . if you go from 30 jobs to 20 the 10 who miss out (been in receipt of the premium for the least amount of time) are removed and those that remain select based on their seniority

rehabron · Post by **rehabron** » 09 Jul 2017, 11:38

bogstandard wrote:
bogstandard wrote:The only time seniority is not king is when there aren't enough duties to go round, if there aren't enough to go round then it's the person or people who have been in receipt of the premium the least that miss out.
Seniority still holds the field or should still hold the field of those who remain. i.e . if you go from 30 jobs to 20 the 10 who miss out (been in receipt of the premium for the least amount of time) are removed and those that remain select based on their seniority

Seniority would only hold the field if both participants held the n/s allowance for the SAME length of time.

bogstandard · Post by **bogstandard** » 09 Jul 2017, 13:13

rehabron wrote:
bogstandard wrote:
bogstandard wrote:The only time seniority is not king is when there aren't enough duties to go round, if there aren't enough to go round then it's the person or people who have been in receipt of the premium the least that miss out.
Seniority still holds the field or should still hold the field of those who remain. i.e . if you go from 30 jobs to 20 the 10 who miss out (been in receipt of the premium for the least amount of time) are removed and those that remain select based on their seniority
Seniority would only hold the field if both participants held the n/s allowance for the SAME length of time.

Personally, if you go from 10 to 9 duties then the person in receipt of the premium for the least amount of time misses out, there is no need to introduce another factor. Agree that if you go to 1 duty then its the person in receipt the longest, but i see no value in having 2 seniority lists. I am personally affected by this and it's how i did it. if you want to do it differently or are having it done differently and everyone is happy with this all well and good.

rehabron · Post by **rehabron** » 09 Jul 2017, 14:35

bogstandard wrote:
rehabron wrote:
bogstandard wrote:
bogstandard wrote:The only time seniority is not king is when there aren't enough duties to go round, if there aren't enough to go round then it's the person or people who have been in receipt of the premium the least that miss out.
Seniority still holds the field or should still hold the field of those who remain. i.e . if you go from 30 jobs to 20 the 10 who miss out (been in receipt of the premium for the least amount of time) are removed and those that remain select based on their seniority
Seniority would only hold the field if both participants held the n/s allowance for the SAME length of time.
Personally, if you go from 10 to 9 duties then the person in receipt of the premium for the least amount of time misses out, there is no need to introduce another factor. Agree that if you go to 1 duty then its the person in receipt the longest, but i see no value in having 2 seniority lists. I am personally affected by this and it's how i did it. if you want to do it differently or are having it done differently and everyone is happy with this all well and good.

This was not decided by me on seniority v allowances with allowances prioritised this was governed by the pay and modernisation agreement 2003 and aligned to MTSF2. As usual an individual can be advantaged or disadvantaged by the system used to determine what is the criteria priority in how duties are selected but this is the nature of the business. The business is supposed to be on a money saving spree so they would not want to pay a senior person whose duty at present is not attracting a n/s allowance who then opts for a n/s duty in a resign and dispossess a less senior person who has enjoyed the increased earnings capacity for x amount of years and the business would then have to pay double n/s allowance by pay protecting the dispossessed employee. Is this a fair system?

bogstandard · Post by **bogstandard** » 10 Jul 2017, 08:26

rehabron wrote:
bogstandard wrote:
rehabron wrote:
bogstandard wrote:
bogstandard wrote:The only time seniority is not king is when there aren't enough duties to go round, if there aren't enough to go round then it's the person or people who have been in receipt of the premium the least that miss out.
Seniority still holds the field or should still hold the field of those who remain. i.e . if you go from 30 jobs to 20 the 10 who miss out (been in receipt of the premium for the least amount of time) are removed and those that remain select based on their seniority
Seniority would only hold the field if both participants held the n/s allowance for the SAME length of time.
Personally, if you go from 10 to 9 duties then the person in receipt of the premium for the least amount of time misses out, there is no need to introduce another factor. Agree that if you go to 1 duty then its the person in receipt the longest, but i see no value in having 2 seniority lists. I am personally affected by this and it's how i did it. if you want to do it differently or are having it done differently and everyone is happy with this all well and good.
This was not decided by me on seniority v allowances with allowances prioritised this was governed by the pay and modernisation agreement 2003 and aligned to MTSF2. As usual an individual can be advantaged or disadvantaged by the system used to determine what is the criteria priority in how duties are selected but this is the nature of the business. The business is supposed to be on a money saving spree so they would not want to pay a senior person whose duty at present is not attracting a n/s allowance who then opts for a n/s duty in a resign and dispossess a less senior person who has enjoyed the increased earnings capacity for x amount of years and the business would then have to pay double n/s allowance by pay protecting the dispossessed employee. Is this a fair system?

as i said previously if thats how you did it all well and good