12% pay rise

[rogersh]

The union are asking for a 12% increase according to the head of processing & walkbundlng centres in a "town hall" meeting at our RDC this week. This figure related to the reduction in hours from 39 to 35 hours plus an annual pay rise. When he stated 12% is unrealistic he is correct because the way he has presented the facts is not how I have interpreted what the CWU have proposed, Which is a phased reduction in the working week.

I have posted this information on another thread & Fishtank has pointed out the fact that for a full-time member of staff working basic hours it's no raise at all. Also someone said paid breaks would come into the equation.

Putting up the headline of this post gets attention which was precisely the intention he was after when stating the figure of 12%, perhaps deliberately out of context for impact.

[templar]

Then I'm sure your 'head of processing' believes the ceo's 23% rise was also unrealistic. I hope he was just as vocal bout that.

[rogersh]

Then I'm sure your 'head of processing' believes the ceo's 23% rise was also unrealistic. I hope he was just as vocal bout that.

I have read that Moya Greene received a £200,000 contribution to her pension.

As a matter of fact the subject of the ceo's pay was raised but he said Moya was one of the lowest paid & has done a great job in dealing with government e.t.c. & is regarded as a safe pair of hands.

[IloveMYredTROLLEY!]

Even if we suddenly dropped to 35 hours from 39, it wouldn't be the equivalent of a 12% pay rise (wouldn't that be 11.4%, purely on reduced hours, anyway?).

The reduction in the average working day would mean we would get 30mins paid break instead of 40mins, if our shifts are over before we reach 7 hours and 1 minute, so I'd expect that to be at least 40mins of the four hours (240mins) weekly reduction in hours right there (adjusting to pay rise to ~9.4% at best)...

Unless the workload was unrealisticly high, using the correctly methods and following H&S protocol, in which case overtime would give us 10mins extra paid break due to the shift once again being in-between 7hours1min and 9 hours.

[DiamondSmiles]

1.2% more likely

[aiden01]

1.2% more likely

Your optimistic probably 0.2%

[rambo1]

Even if we suddenly dropped to 35 hours from 39, it wouldn't be the equivalent of a 12% pay rise (wouldn't that be 11.4%, purely on reduced hours, anyway?).

The reduction in the average working day would mean we would get 30mins paid break instead of 40mins, if our shifts are over before we reach 7 hours and 1 minute, so I'd expect that to be at least 40mins of the four hours (240mins) weekly reduction in hours right there (adjusting to pay rise to ~9.4% at best)...

Unless the workload was unrealisticly high, using the correctly methods and following H&S protocol, in which case overtime would give us 10mins extra paid break due to the shift once again being in-between 7hours1min and 9 hours.

Not many full timers could do their 39 hr duty in 35 , so we'd still have same breaks just get paid overtime. I sometimes go into the 50 min break bracket just to complete my round on really busy days.

[k979aaa]

Are you honestly listening to this bunch of crap from the top tier of management some of them don't even have the balls to tell you they earn more from being paid by other companies with directorships and still say we should all work harder and be happy with our lot. Not having these buggers in my office will walkout parasites are the words for these bloodsucking bastards!

[seaside]

we will be lucky to get 1 hour of the working week.

[AnotherLimey]

we will be lucky to get 1 hour of the working week.

Yes we will, with your piss poor attitide