How are Unions allowed get away with this?

Doc wrote: »

The supermarket made profits of £3.7bn on nearly £68bn of sales last year. Over the past five years Tesco has increased the productivity of its store staff to record levels. The average number of full-time employees in a 40,000 sq ft superstore has fallen from 275 to 226.

So, Bo ho poor Tesco had its staff try and get some money off them, the poor global empire.

For gods sake people how about siding with the little guy for a change. True it might have been a bit much to be asking for but think about it. If it’s a new store with poor transport links compared to the old store the cost of getting to it could be far more then 1400 extra a year. I’m not saying that it will be a huge cost to them to go an extra mile it may not and it’s good that they have a job in the current economic situation but most of them will likely be on minimum wage and it is a cost that they do not need or want that the company is inflicting on them.

This is not a company that is in danger of going under.

As I previously posted, the union movement in this country need to change how they go about their tasks. A progressive solution would have been to see the gaps in the collective agreement or contracts of employment and close them, if a similar payment had been made in the past it may have been possible to enshrine such payment into the collective agreement. By not doing so the union effectively leave their members open to businesses taking advantage and at the mercy of the labour court. This is not the fault of the business, or the union members, rather a failing on behalf of their regional representatives to avail of an opportunity when presented.
Again, in my opinion, and in my experience, (given that I don't know the full facts behind this story) it is fairly commonplace that precedent isn't written into collective agreements (primarily because employees sometimes don't want to "miss out" by having a lesser deal locked in), it is usually during advanced grievance resolutions that the arguments about precedent arise. This to me is baffling, if a ruling is given, or a locally brokered agreement is found shouldn't this form a concrete amendment to any collective? Thereby removing the counter arguments against precedent?
People need to be represented, but they also need to examine the restrictions that their collectives and employment contracts place on them, in both the good times and the bad. Just because a company is incredibly profitable doesn't mean it is correct to seek a payment, by that logic if the organisation begins to lose money then there should be a reversal? And as we are all aware, and again I'm not PS or bank bashing, this doesn't happen, when the pot is running low the unions will fight to keep their previously awarded benefits. There is an argument that says this is fine and should remain so, however there is also and argument that would suggest that in tougher times some claw back can exist, especially (and importantly) if it is proven that it will improve the survivability of employment.
Also as to being on the side of the little guy; Would it not be better to be on the side of what is correct? If an employer acts within the law, and acts within normal business models where is the wrong-doing? Similarly if the employees act within their agreed rights under the law and their collective where is the problem there?
Again, to my mind the militant nature of some aspects of unions have no place in the current environment, I'm not suggesting that employees shouldn't fight but chose the mechanisms wisely.
On a related note, but not directly related to this case I've noticed a change in the last number of years in the way the employers representatives (IBEC in particular) conduct themselves, the latest batch of IBEC negotiators that I've dealt with are very familiar with law, case histories and business norms, it appears to me that they have tooled up very well, my hope is that the Unions follow suit. The result of this is that now when cases get to the labour court or deep into conciliation it is really a case of who has the stronger legal argument, and a lot of the "old School" Union representatives are ill-equipped to counter this, myself included (I'm not old school, but my background is not legal.

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

2 Points:

1. If the employee was "as lazy as it comes" why doesn't your father deal with that or replace him. In the present climate that shouldn't be too difficult.

It might not be difficult to replace him but its.far from easy.to sack someone. Case in point: a relative.of.mine runs a small business and discovered one of their employees had stolen almost 20K from them. they were advised that they could not sack the employee and should instead ask the employee to resign in return for not pressing charges and allowing them to pay back less than they stole. They were advised strongly that a wrongful dismal case could be brought and even if they won it might cost more.than the business was worth. nothing to do with unions to be fair.