Quote:
Originally Posted by Skie
Ah, that age old tactic. See, what you do is change the terms and conditions for new staff to be worse than the existing staff and after a certain period you then have a lot of staff on the new terms (depends on how high your turnover is) and you then claim that it's 'unfair' that staff are on different terms/pay than others. Conveniently ignoring the fact you made it unfair yourself, you move the blame onto the people with the better T&C's as it's obviously their fault and they are the fat cats with the better pay and pensions.
This then becomes your platform to whittle away at everyone's pay and conditions, all in the name of fairness. If you can make the people with the worse conditions slightly better off while still also reducing the overall cost then the workforce will do the job for you.
City Link had another, rhyming name, but it would breach the forum rules.
|
That was more than a year ago.
Quote:
The company suggested that the union’s vote represented only a “small minority” of it employees – stating that 12% were members, and that “less than half of these appear to have actually supported the union’s ballot”.
...
“At the moment we are in the position where colleagues doing the same job in the same depot are getting paid different wages. This is a legacy that the current management team has inherited and is one we believe is fundamentally unfair,” said Maynard. “The proposals we have put forward will resolve this while ensuring that the vast majority of colleagues see no reduction in their pay packet or actually get an increase.”
|
That situation tends to arise when another business is taken over and absorbed into the parent company.
Quote:
|
City Link has suffered five years of losses in the wake of its acquisition of rival carrier Target Express in 2007.
|
Quote:
|
Last year(2012) City Link made a £26.4m loss on a revenue of £321.7m.
|