Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2004
Obviously the reason for raising this is that we are desperate to line our already fatly-stuffed pockets on the proceeds of the sweat of the indentured workers.
Not angry at all, but concerned to try and point out that there is a potential consequence if this is not done in a structured way which looks at the business environment. The worse outcome of this would be that the RAO requirements become unsustainable to those who have to observe them and the whole fragile edifice comes apart as companies leave the scheme. Then all concerted efforts would be even more difficult.
Again, you misunderstand me - love to put wages up tens, or hundreds of pounds a week, only as long as the company doesn't go out of business in the process. That is also a responsibility, and something we perceive as a moral duty is the need to try to ensure security of employment for our staff. A difficult balance. Not looking for sympathy but some understanding of context.
LG agreement will not be 3.5% - buy me a sombrero and I will eat it if it is!
I see our maths started fom different positions. I now understand you mean an extra £1 per week derived from the difference between 2% and 5%.
As you say, some companies are ahead of the game - I have not said whether we are or not...I was trying to widen the debate
and by the way talking of taking the personal out of this? - "If you have any questions relating to your requirements as an RAO .. ask the IFA." - thanks for the tip. I would never have guessed or indeed done it(now, is that as patronising as your comment,
and non-RAOS don't have to pay full sick, only SSP.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
There are wider debates to be had and there is much confusion over what precisely the situation actually is.
The IFA has spoken for better or worse and thus the RAOs are obliged to implement them. The issues are simple:
who should be setting the wage levels
should we have national pay levels
should these be based upon local authourity models of employment?
if are to have collective pay bargaining then there must be management involvement.
As things stand we have a situation which is fairly caotic situation less then a month before this major change is introduced.
As employers we need clarity.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2004
Indeed Peter, you sum it up perfectly. One real danger is that an expectation has been raised in groups of staff that without a means of delivery. That will lead almost inevitably lead to disappointment.
There will be real confusion in April and the following months as the half-baked IFA arrangements kick in along with an absence of base pay rates. Just to reintroduce the personal, for avoidance of doubt - we will be implementing a pay rise in April anyway, and I can bet you it will be well above the LG rise.
On this issue, I would have no faith in either Prospect or SCAUM being able to deliver, even if I belived in nationwide collective negotiation on this issue, which I don't.
There is also real concern being raised beyond these pages about what the IFA is about - it seems increasingly to be taking the line of trying to be a trade union for its members (though as one I have never been asked if this is what I want it to do and indeed never thought that was why it was set up), while trying to regulate employers also. Care is needed here.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
The ask the IFA comment was not meant to be patronising... just a statement that I can't speak for them... they are the organisation that is driving this.
Perhaps comments from them would be useful... I am after all supporting them... not the other way around.
I - like others on here have/still do run contracting companies and have to work within a business environment... it is hard I agree... and I was often annoyed at the concept that a digger(for example) felt cheated if they found out they were getting £60-75 a day (inc tax and NI) with my company but I was charging out at £160 - where was the rest going! As you say ... it did not go into my wallet or anyone elseâs.. at the end of the day, we made a living.. not a good one... but a living.
I had to balance books and feared the VAT man... who has no soul... that said... I was able to pay well, provide reasonable additional benefits (like away from home costs etc) and still turn a decent profit plus win tenders... I know what it is like... and hoped that BAJR could ask for a moral extra quid... if people can't then fine... if they are tied to LGA internal units... then they can't ... if they have a Uni who provides a duff grading... then fine - it's not there fault... but if they are in a position to then they should... the final tender costs could remain the same.. the extra pound is absorbed... if a company can't absorb a cost like that.. (like buying a couple of sticky buns a day per digger.... bad practice anyway!) then it really is on the edge...
So through SCAUM, should we not be looking at how to be taken seriously? so that the amount we charge is serious too?
Lets take this to a positive level.. what would you suggest instead.. as we are in a position where from the IFA there will be no guidance on pay this tax year start
>>and non-RAOS don't have to pay full sick, only SSP
(in which case they can advertise elsewhere - I for one am putting my living on the line for a principal)
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
To agree with both VoR and Peter.. these are the issues..
and how I see them. remember though that all RAOs have had over a year to work it out...
who should be setting the wage levels (to my mind a bargain between SCAUM and PROSPECT)
should we have national pay levels (Yes... at the moment we have 4)
should these be based upon local authourity models of employment? (hmmmm maybe)
if are to have collective pay bargaining then there must be management involvement. (yes absolutely)
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Quote:quote:if are to have collective pay bargaining then there must be management involvement
And, in fact, there was management involvement - the IFA proposals followed extensive consultation with, amongst others, the management of RAOs.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
You are right about taht - for over a year in fact - So for RAOs it should not be too much of a shock..
for the others.. it may be their chance to use their shark like business heads to rip apart the RAO competition... leaving them bleeding and broken on the rocky road of competative tendering.. maybe? Though for the future... a global initiative may be more suitable (or every contractor becomes an RAO? )
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
With under 4 weeks to go to "pay day" on 1st of Apr the jobs on Bajr should be reflecting the new complusory IFA pay and conditions as well as the BAJR recommendations or at least be saying that they will be implemented.
It unclear to me if in fact these posts are conforming to the new pay rules. What is clear however is that a 35 hour working week is becoming more common.
Again I think more clarity is needed.
I also note that no mention is made of travel time.
Peter
