Protests as TNT breaks German pay law

[jemima]

From
LINK

"Protests as TNT breaks German pay law

16/01/2008
- Labour news from UNI global union - for trade unions in a global services economy. -

UNI is urging affiliates to join the protests against Dutch-based post and logistics giant TNT for undermining laws in Germany to protect postal workers as the sector is de-regulated.
UNI General Secretary Philip Jennings has accused TNT of “dubious actions in Germanyâ€

[billyb8]

If they can take on the German authorities, then they'll p*ss all over our work law.

[DGP1]

The Dutch better be careful because the last time they annoyed the Germans they invaded

[combocrasher]

Wonder if our dynamic duo will try the same

[billyb8]

Wonder if our dynamic duo will try the same

If TNT get away with it. Watch your A*se.

[smokerjim]

I just think it's nice the Germans have a government that cares about their own postal service provider - we won't be getting that here, especially as we need it now!

[F0zziebear]

There are new systems being used by some of the postal companies that pay you via a combination of measures:

For example you get a small amount for turning up (base salary)
An amount depending on the volume of the round
An amount for completing the round

This is rough details otherwise I might be sharing commercially sensitive information.

It will also be possible to tell a postie what they are likely to earn at least 24hrs in advance, and the postie in theory could say it;s not worth my while. For this to happen the postie could not be a permenant employee either, but essentially a casual.

Is this a good way forward? In someways yes, but it generates more instability and would definitely not go down well with any unions.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

There are new systems being used by some of the postal companies that pay you via a combination of measures:

For example you get a small amount for turning up (base salary)
An amount depending on the volume of the round
An amount for completing the round

This is rough details otherwise I might be sharing commercially sensitive information.

It will also be possible to tell a postie what they are likely to earn at least 24hrs in advance, and the postie in theory could say it;s not worth my while. For this to happen the postie could not be a permenant employee either, but essentially a casual.

Is this a good way forward? In someways yes, but it generates more instability and would definitely not go down well with any unions.

Only for the business and most definitly not for the work force. If this ever came in complaints about posties stealing and not delivering would soar and our present level of service and committment would be seen as a golden age by the general public. This would have a negative impact on confidence and with 150,000 posties being impacted it would have an tangible impact on the financial health of the country.

Imagine if you could only plan for the very basic wage and that was very small, you would have to budget accordingly so at a stroke 150,000 familes and indiviuals would be less likely to invest in a mortage, credit card or any another financial service.

My own personal opinion is if we ever allowed anything like this we may as well wave goodbye to Royal Mail as a service, which it still is with the USO, and hello to profit is king all the time. This is the problem with capatlism, it is always trying to find the easiest way to get the most profit, even if this means attacking the pay and conditions of the ordinary worker.

Its a pity that socialism and capatalism can't merge and become something where the best of both are kept and the worst are discarded - SocioCapatilism a pipe dream.

[DGP1]

There are new systems being used by some of the postal companies that pay you via a combination of measures:

For example you get a small amount for turning up (base salary)
An amount depending on the volume of the round
An amount for completing the round

This is rough details otherwise I might be sharing commercially sensitive information.

It will also be possible to tell a postie what they are likely to earn at least 24hrs in advance, and the postie in theory could say it;s not worth my while. For this to happen the postie could not be a permenant employee either, but essentially a casual.

Is this a good way forward? In someways yes, but it generates more instability and would definitely not go down well with any unions.

If it did happen I'd be away like a shot, I'd rather work in Tescos (and at least be warm and dry).

[F0zziebear]

Capitalism itself is not bad, it's people putting profit before anything else which is not in the original wealth of nations approach. If you cut corners it will eventually notice. As you said if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

Businesses make it quite clear that they will not accept quality of service less than what Royal Mail. So unless a company can do the same for less, or do something different that is acceptable businesses will leave and go back to Royal Mail.

As for the small basic wage, you do see the cup as half-full. It is possible to earn more than a typical Royal Mail person by being good at your job. This is where I had a frustration with the pay structure. A good postie is worth more than what they are paid, until national negotiation prevents that. I would pay the top 25-30% of postmen more, and not necessarily on a seniority basis, but a more experienced postie generally does a better job. I would also be more aggresive about getting out poor performing posties and frontline managers. Unfortunately in the current situation neither is easy as those in that position know that getting a similar job elsewhere with the protection is almost impossible.

[jemima]

Capitalism and free competition can work well. You get innovation and new products; the business profits should come from that. Of course it works best when there's an expanding market. There are problems with the system in a static market, but creation of expansion opportunities should not be allowed to be aggressive or destructive. Destroying something in order to allow someone to profit by building it again is only a short-term fix. It's not sound economically in the long run.

In the absence of an expanding market, protection measures for the workers are essential. I can't myself understand how one person might feel justified in taking home millions of pounds each year, whilst denying the workers in his business a decent wage; but there are undeniably people who will do that if they have the chance. It should not be allowed to happen in a civilised country. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with paying people extra if they are better workers; but if a person is good enough at work to keep his job at all, he should be entitled to enough money to pay for housing and his basic personal needs, plus a bit extra so he can have a family and save for his future. And if there is a minimum wage set at a reasonable amount, which all companies pay, that's fair and should not interfere with the competitive market. America beat the great Depression by creating a minimum wage....

In the UK, housing costs are high. A postie will have trouble paying for a home. If a postie's basic pay were less than it is now, he might not be able to afford a home at all. And if he never knew from week to week whether he'd be able to pay his rent or not, he'd be insecure and unhappy. I don't see any point in that. Employment should mean security, in normal circumstances.

[F0zziebear]

THe key from a business perspective is to widen the employment market pool, which is what Royal Mail's HR department under Tony McCarthy (Now BA HR Director) was trying to do. Essentially just like with the London Underground getting rid of some of the hairy arsed white anglo-saxon (physically or culturally) is desireable. You will not see someone say this officially, but that is the idea. Instead they want more women and supposedly harder working people from other walks of life.

THey want to employ more part-time people such as students, mothers/wife/husbands at home, retired people etc... who are looking for 'pocket money.'

In theory this could work. It is supposedly working in other countries.

Will it work in the UK? Well if the competition pay their posties the same as Royal Mail for the same volume of work then they can not undercut Royal Mail and win business.

[jemima]

There's no harm in having a variety of employees, if you treat them all fairly. You shouldn't 'get rid' of people, though, just see what you can find when there are vacancies. Presumably RM want their employees to identify with and have a loyalty to the company; the best way to do that is to provide them with full-time work that pays enough for them to live by without too much of a problem. Then they'll be your happy core workers who will then set an example to newcomers.

There would be a problem with relying on casual part-time student labour, in that you can't really rely on it. One place I worked used a lot of student workers. It was good work experience for the students, and most of them enjoyed it. However, there was a sizeable minority that didn't turn up when they had promised they would, if they didn't feel like it. The manager would be tearing his hair out by the end of the week, trying to get his order completed on time with no clear idea of how many bodies would arrive each day to do the work. But he did have a week at a time to get things sorted. In RM you need the mail cleared every day.

I've no experience of what happens when you employ homemakers part-time. Provided the terms and conditions of employment were the same as those for the core full-time career posties, and there was no cutting back of full-time jobs to create part-time opportunities, then that might work in parts of RM. There's no harm in trying, if there's a problem with recruiting full-time posties or if there's a specific job that fits well part-time. However, people with other commitments won't want to be flexible in their working times, and they will be less committed to RM than those whose livelihoods depend on it.

There would be the same admin costs (payroll, management, crb checks etc.) for a part-time or casual employee as for a full-time one, though, so I'm not sure how much could be gained by using these workers.

Retired people, why not? Retired posties, especially, might be glad to be asked to work on a casual daily basis if there's a large mail volume to cope with or if a lot of people go off sick. They should of course be paid at the going rate for posties. The creation of a backup workforce that could be called on in emergencies would be a sensible step.