Employment Conditions.

FixdePitchmark · 20-04-2016 01:21AM #1

Not sure this the right Topic for this - but at the same time ,great to get a wide range of views outside of the political classes. Also , here we will get a wider range of experiences in employment.

There is a debate going on at present about the conditions of employment of new staff entering various jobs in the private and public sector. This was going on in the background in UK due to the zero hour contract debate and job bridge issue in Ireland.

The Luas
The Garda
The Teachers
The Nurses

Have all added to this debate.

But this evening I was told about some of the extraordinary management coups the likes of Dunnes Stores - Marks and Spencers have puled off in the last few years.

In particular a practice where you have a 4 hour shift so you have no break :eek: - then you are sent home for a casual labour type.

I'm sure this is only 1 example.

But to ask the question.

Will this generation make a labour movement to reclaim workers rights ?
What on earth were the Labour party at, not making these more serious issues number 1 on their policies - they delivered water charges :eek:
Are this generation just not bothered and go with the no break 17 hour a week contract with no actual long term meaningful contract ?

What on earth is going on in employment.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 20-04-2016 01:26AM

"Stick the politicians on minimum wage and see how fast things change..."
- I don't know.

the evasion_kid · 20-04-2016 01:30AM

The recession set workers rights back years..

FixdePitchmark · 20-04-2016 01:32AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

"Stick the politicians on minimum wage and see how fast things change..."
- I don't know.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a fair min wage - but what some of these companies are doing is basically trying to place people - often in mid 40s etc on an average of 200 euro a week :eek:
They don't even know their income the following week

These are people who are willing and need the 40 hours - the company is extraordinarily profitable , it is basically slave labour. Or bypassing the spirit min wage.

It is actually sick

FixdePitchmark · 20-04-2016 01:33AM

the evasion_kid wrote: »

The recession set workers rights back years..

I agree - I think you hit a line were - this generation , need to honestly have a rethink.

Labour were almost eradicated in the last election :eek:

MarkAnthony · 20-04-2016 01:41AM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

In particular a practice where you have a 4 hour shift so you have no break :eek: - then you are sent home for a casual labour type.

What's wrong with that exactly?

the evasion_kid · 20-04-2016 01:44AM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I don't think there is anything wrong with a fair min wage - but what some of these companies are doing is basically trying to place people - often in mid 40s etc on an average of 200 euro a week :eek:
They don't even know their income the following week

These are people who are willing and need the 40 hours - the company is extraordinarily profitable , it is basically slave labour. Or bypassing the spirit min wage.

It is actually sick

I've a friend who works for one of the richest people in Ireland,he works crazy shifts and was telling me the extra euro an hour they got for Sunday's was cut,he's on minimum wage,what he's only realising is,is that if they could get away with paying you 3 euro an hour....They would

MarkAnthony · 20-04-2016 01:50AM

the evasion_kid wrote: »

I've a friend who works for one of the richest people in Ireland,he works crazy shifts and was telling me the extra euro an hour they got for Sunday's was cut,he's on minimum wage,what he's only realising is,is that if they could get away with paying you 3 euro an hour....They would

How do you think they got to be one of the richest people in Ireland?

Why doesn't he work for himself?

FixdePitchmark · 20-04-2016 01:52AM

MarkAnthony wrote: »

What's wrong with that exactly?

You get no break.

This enables large companies to remove any paid break from a large group of staff.

Beside just being horrendously mean - it basically reduces the hours of regular life time staff members for casual labour. It places regular staff on a 17 hour week - travel to and from work must be at least 1 hour per shift - this shift is over 4 days - you are working for 17 hour no break , travelling for 4 hours and paid about 170 euro a week. Seriously.

The casual labour are only doing the job in a casual way - so their employment at a reduced rate , remove a basic right, entitlement of an employment right that was established over decades - you are actually entitled to a paid break - imagine that :eek:

Shock horror - a break , a real job, a permanent job.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 20-04-2016 01:55AM

I work 10 hour shifts with two, yes two 15 min breaks all night. Barely have enough time to eat a sandwich. All legal.

Edit: unpaid breaks too.

Just saying.

cerastes · 20-04-2016 01:57AM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I agree - I think you hit a line were - this generation , need to honestly have a rethink.

Labour were almost eradicated in the last election :eek:

Eradicated, and yet I hear they could still get into Govt, the people have spoken but, that's just not good enough, it just has not been heard, no surprises really.

I dont understand why Organisations doing this could at least put their employees in a situation where they could claim for the rest of the week, but in many circumstances, they expect a few hours to be worked each day, which in my understanding prevents the person even claiming for these days, even though they may have been on call all week waiting to get minimum hours at minimum rate.
I thought Dunnes were actually giving full hours to part time staff, but tha it wasn't garaunteed,
Is there anyone not doing this, I'll make a point of not spending my money somewhere if their practices are questionable.
Its all the more reason I would not even consider supporting the likes of the Luas drivers, Gardai or anyone in established jobs, where reasonable pay, opportunities and benefits exist already.

esforum · 20-04-2016 01:58AM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

What on earth is going on in employment.

Its pretty simple, divide and conquor.

If you read the threads you would have seen that while many people defend their fellow worker, there was also a decent amount of people that were just jealous and wanted to drug other workers down

This becomes a race to the bottom and ultimately the workers lose.

This was evident in 2007 / 2008. I doubt any person in AH had any hand in the collapse of the country but somehow it went from being reckless goverment and greedy bigwigs committing corrupt practices to the greedy workers, the lazy public sector, the unemployed and somehow the retired

(You arent entitled to a paid break though, some may have negotitated that but its not a right)

FixdePitchmark · 20-04-2016 01:58AM

the evasion_kid wrote: »

I've a friend who works for one of the richest people in Ireland,he works crazy shifts and was telling me the extra euro an hour they got for Sunday's was cut,he's on minimum wage,what he's only realising is,is that if they could get away with paying you 3 euro an hour....They would

And yes you need crazy people like them to push the envelope.

But - they need to be put in their box too.

The next generation , need to retake control of employment conditions.

But there should be an all out black out of M&S - Tescos - Dunnes.
In fact that is a good idea the Black Out - target companies that are targeting employees.

They should be named and shamed.

Add others to the list.

M&S
Tescos
Dunnes

FixdePitchmark · 20-04-2016 02:00AM

The Hunky Monster wrote: »

I work 10 hour shifts with two, yes two 15 min breaks all night. Barely have enough time to eat a sandwich. All legal.

Edit: unpaid breaks too.

Just saying.

What is the shift allowance ?

Unpaid - twisted.

wonski · 20-04-2016 02:06AM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Not sure this the right Topic for this - but at the same time ,great to get a wide range of views outside of the political classes. Also , here we will get a wider range of experiences in employment.

There is a debate going on at present about the conditions of employment of new staff entering various jobs in the private and public sector. This was going on in the background in UK due to the zero hour contract debate and job bridge issue in Ireland.

The Luas
The Garda
The Teachers
The Nurses

Have all added to this debate.

But this evening I was told about some of the extraordinary management coups the likes of Dunnes Stores - Marks and Spencers have puled off in the last few years.

In particular a practice where you have a 4 hour shift so you have no break :eek: - then you are sent home for a casual labour type.

I'm sure this is only 1 example.

But to ask the question.

Will this generation make a labour movement to reclaim workers rights ?
What on earth were the Labour party at, not making these more serious issues number 1 on their policies - they delivered water charges :eek:
Are this generation just not bothered and go with the no break 17 hour a week contract with no actual long term meaningful contract ?

What on earth is going on in employment.

It is not just Dunnes or M&S that tried it.

German supermarkets were at it for years.
And all other supermarkets to be fair.

All over the world.

FixdePitchmark · 20-04-2016 02:09AM

cerastes wrote: »

Eradicated, and yet I hear they could still get into Govt, the people have spoken but, that's just not good enough, it just has not been heard, no surprises really.

I dont understand why Organisations doing this could at least put their employees in a situation where they could claim for the rest of the week, but in many circumstances, they expect a few hours to be worked each day, which in my understanding prevents the person even claiming for these days, even though they may have been on call all week waiting to get minimum hours at minimum rate.
I thought Dunnes were actually giving full hours to part time staff, but tha it wasn't garaunteed,
Is there anyone not doing this, I'll make a point of not spending my money somewhere if their practices are questionable.
Its all the more reason I would not even consider supporting the likes of the Luas drivers, Gardai or anyone in established jobs, where reasonable pay, opportunities and benefits exist already.

Your point is well made - but the "established jobs" - are the vehicle that create the conditions and expectations of all -if you don't have an ideal or an opposing force to rampant crazy work conditions - one of theses crazy bonus chasing accountants would have you on 3 euro an hour on a Sunday as explained. He drives off to his bungalow bliss in a BMW spouting ****e about "deee unions ruin everything"

As for tas exile companies - also with poor employment conditions in their country of residence - one crazy situation at a time.

Back to basics - people are marching over water - yet some people are on min wage for zero hour contracts - whilst jobbridge fill the gaps.

MarkAnthony · 20-04-2016 02:15AM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

You get no break.

This enables large companies to remove any paid break from a large group of staff.

Beside just being horrendously mean - it basically reduces the hours of regular life time staff members for casual labour. It places regular staff on a 17 hour week - travel to and from work must be at least 1 hour per shift - this shift is over 4 days - you are working for 17 hour no break , travelling for 4 hours and paid about 170 euro a week. Seriously.

The casual labour are only doing the job in a casual way - so their employment at a reduced rate , remove a basic right, entitlement of an employment right that was established over decades - you are actually entitled to a paid break - imagine that :eek:

Shock horror - a break , a real job, a permanent job.

Why do you need a break on a four hour shift?

Some people want to work PT and want to be in and out. I know I do. No one is forcing someone to work for minimum wage, the market dictates someone's value as an employee. In a country with free education all the way through to third level I'm not really sure what the issue is here.

MarkAnthony · 20-04-2016 02:16AM

The Hunky Monster wrote: »

I work 10 hour shifts with two, yes two 15 min breaks all night. Barely have enough time to eat a sandwich. All legal.

Edit: unpaid breaks too.

Just saying.

Nope, it's not legal.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/20/section/12/enacted/en/html#sec12

esforum · 20-04-2016 02:21AM

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Nope, it's not legal.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/20/section/12/enacted/en/html#sec12

if the first 15 minutes break is included in the 30 minute break then you get 30 minutes every 6 hours. and 1 hour after 12 hours. If he works ten hours he should be offered a single 30 minute break but personally would rather 2 x 15.

Still ****ty though

MarkAnthony · 20-04-2016 02:26AM

esforum wrote: »

if the first 15 minutes break is included in the 30 minute break then you get 30 minutes every 6 hours. and 1 hour after 12 hours. If he works ten hours he should be offered a single 30 minute break but personally would rather 2 x 15.

Still ****ty though

What the person prefers is irrelevant though. A 30 minute break is required. An employer would be well advised to provide another break to maintain productivity but they can't do that by cutting the 30 minute break in half. They also can't combine two 30 minute breaks to an hour break after 12 hours.

esforum · 20-04-2016 02:32AM

esforum wrote: »

If he works ten hours he should be offered a single 30 minute break

MarkAnthony wrote: »

A 30 minute break is required. An employer would be well advised to provide another break to maintain productivity but they can't do that by cutting the 30 minute break in half.

is that not the same thing?

esforum wrote: »

personally would rather 2 x 15.

That should have read I personally would rather.

MarkAnthony · 20-04-2016 02:40AM

esforum wrote: »

is that not the same thing?

That should have read I personally would rather.

Sorry you've lost me - is not what the same thing? 2 x 15 minutes breaks is not the same thing as a 30 minute break. Sorry if that's not what you meant.

esforum · 20-04-2016 02:51AM

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Sorry you've lost me - is not what the same thing? 2 x 15 minutes breaks is not the same thing as a 30 minute break. Sorry if that's not what you meant.

I was agreeing with you but saying I would rather get 2 breaks, thats all

MarkAnthony · 20-04-2016 02:57AM

esforum wrote: »

I was agreeing with you but saying I would rather get 2 breaks, thats all

Sorry it's late

RIGHTisRIGHT · 20-04-2016 02:59AM

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Sorry it's late

Maybe the two you need to take a break but hurry back it won't be paid.:D

20-04-2016 07:09AM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

M&S
Tescos
Dunnes

All the more Meals for Two left over for the rest of us...

While I do think one always needs to be concerned about conditions, I'm not sure I would consider breaks such an issue.

thattequilagirl · 20-04-2016 07:52AM

What kind of breaks do you think people should be getting in a four hour shift?!

Rabo Karabekian · 20-04-2016 08:38AM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

What kind of breaks do you think people should be getting in a four hour shift?!

Is the problem not that these places are now only giving workers four hour shifts per day in order to not have to pay them for breaks?

Maybe I'm missing something.

lawred2 · 20-04-2016 08:49AM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

You get no break.

This enables large companies to remove any paid break from a large group of staff.

Beside just being horrendously mean - it basically reduces the hours of regular life time staff members for casual labour. It places regular staff on a 17 hour week - travel to and from work must be at least 1 hour per shift - this shift is over 4 days - you are working for 17 hour no break , travelling for 4 hours and paid about 170 euro a week. Seriously.

The casual labour are only doing the job in a casual way - so their employment at a reduced rate , remove a basic right, entitlement of an employment right that was established over decades - you are actually entitled to a paid break - imagine that :eek:

Shock horror - a break , a real job, a permanent job.

You are clearly not working 17 hours with no break.

Also; 4 hours is hardly an eternity. Most people will work four hours straight every day..

Having said that - if someone is seeking full time work; I think those companies capable of doing so should offer them such work.. This sort of a job is an insult to anyone who isn't a teenager, student or someone wanting to work PT. So there is a place for these sort of contracts. But in my opinion only for those who actively seek them.

marketty · 20-04-2016 08:58AM

the evasion_kid wrote:

The recession set workers rights back years..

Agree 100%, and it's why I will never vote for Labour again, they utterly failed to represent the working man as employers public and private scrambled to the bottom. Unemployment may be falling but the amount of people in precarious jobs or underemployment is rising, in my experience.

gandalf · 20-04-2016 09:09AM

In this day and age zero hour contracts are disgusting and really should be banned. Whats the best way to achieve this, by targeting the companies that indulge in work practices like this and educating the consumer. I avoid using Dunnes because of these work practices. I wasn't aware M&S were up to it so I will avoid using them as well. I don't shop in Tesco any more because their fruit and veg goes off too quickly after getting it home but this gives me another reason to avoid using them.

Consumer awareness and power will change these companies. If they see their bottom line being effected then they will change. It also gives the companies that don't practice these tainted HR policies the ability to show that they are progressive employers who care about their staff being able to make ends meat!

Employment Conditions.

Comments