That's not up for debate but it's not an alternative.we work all the hours that you are paid for - that is the viable alternative. Surely you understand that??
It's how we work all the hours that we are paid that is the question.
Surely you understand that.
Is it by trying to align the workload to the hours ((lapsing) or do you try to align the hours to the workload (long and shorts, banking hours, annualised hours).
Despite what you might think a busted lapsing plan is only a "good thing" if it's a bad lapsing plan.
The alternative is much worse and the union might not be able to stop it.
We need to get away from the mind set that all we need to do is do the job properly and all our problems will disappear, that the business will just sit back and accept this decrease in productivity and accept the increase in costs with a shrug of the shoulders and an open cheque book (are those still a thing).
Every cost the business absorbs will be met with at least an equal and opposite attempt to claw back that cost elsewhere, that's what truly costs jobs....cost.
If the members want to protect their jobs they are going to have to be realistic, they will have to stop bickering amongst themselves about Bob starting 30 minutes early and start deciding what is really important enough about the job to protect because there will have to be some pretty savage sacrifices.