2nd November 2009, 12:33 PM
Kevin Wrote:Presumably one way to guarantee that you are paid the IFA minimum PIFA rate by the company in question is to make sure that you are a PIFA at the time of applying. If non-IFA members are paid less than IFA members is that really a problem for the IFA?.....I think not. I recognise that this might be a way of getting around asking for IFA membership without insisting upon it.....(Discuss!!)
A very interesting take indeed. So what you are saying is that people are forced into becoming PIFAs or they won't get paid the same as others who are PIFA. (er... very interesting) You also seem to suggest that Field Staff who are not PIFA are effectively barred from employment or paid less.
Frankly I am shocked at the suggestion that membership of an organisation can be seen as a requirement (by whatever means) There are many people who choose for whatever reason not to be in the IfA. The IfA could and should (and often are) be promoting the benefits for people to join, rather than forcing the issue with discrimination.
BAJR will continue to hold to minima based on responsibility.
You are right that some may be upset..........however I fear you will find that is more than some that will be upset. To suggest that to get employed you MUST be IfA rather than to be employed on merit and willingly join the IfA is likely to cause a rift and a massive feeling of workers rights that have been so long fought for (need I remind you of what it was like before the BAJR Grades were implemented?) are eroded and cut back.
There are ways - and to me the statement that this is somehow "satisfying their RAO responsibility to promote wider IFA membership amongst their staff " is bizarre
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Thomas Rainborough 1647