36 replies to this topic

[Ethel]

You can't be arguing any of that is a good thing Juju, surely?

I'm sure shoving kids up chimneys, not bothering too much about mangling workers in cotton looms was sound economic sense, but we've managed to survive without doing it.

There was a time when we had women and men working alongside each other under different pay and conditions. Was that wrong because they were different genders or because it was unfair exploitation?

How about the government supplementing reduced income from going on short time with the money they'd save from them going on the dole?

Watching the Youtube clips, it seems they could have had 3 weeks notice but their BMW, directly, employed shop stewards were threatened with the sack if they let the cat out

Sounds like they were clearly a separate workforce and were independently and fairly represented then :deeply sarcastic smilie:

[Juju]

You can't be arguing any of that is a good thing Juju, surely?

No I wasn't, I was just giving the financial argument behind these scenarios. I don't work in the Private Sector for good (& socialist) reasons.

There was a time when we had women and men working alongside each other under different pay and conditions. Was that wrong because they were different genders or because it was unfair exploitation?

We sadly still live in that time, Ethel.

How about the government supplementing reduced income from going on short time with the money they'd save from them going on the dole?

I'm not sure that taxpayers would want to subsidise private firms any more than they currently are, or have I misunderstood?

Watching the Youtube clips, it seems they could have had 3 weeks notice but their BMW, directly, employed shop stewards were threatened with the sack if they let the cat out

That sounds about standard. It has been totally mismanaged, I agree, but leaking corporate secrets before Senior Management announces it would constitute a disclipinary offence.

Sounds like they were clearly a separate workforce and were independently and fairly represented then :deeply sarcastic smilie:

What was the Agency's role in all of this? I haven't had a chance to glean all the details.

[Ethel]

No I wasn't, I was just giving the financial argument behind these scenarios. I don't work in the Private Sector for good (& socialist) reasons.

I didn't really think you were - but this stuff gets dismissed as "just the way things are" only if we allow it to be

There was a time when we had women and men working alongside each other under different pay and conditions. Was that wrong because they were different genders or because it was unfair exploitation?

We sadly still live in that time, Ethel.

But it can be challenged through the law & that opportunity would be less easy to deny with a universal approach of "same job, same conditions of employment".

How about the government supplementing reduced income from going on short time with the money they'd save from them going on the dole?

I'm not sure that taxpayers would want to subsidise private firms any more than they currently are, or have I misunderstood?

BMW would still pay the going rate for the work done, the tax payer would subsidise the workers for the lost income due to working shorter hours. The tax payer will have pay dole 'n benefits to those laid off anyway.

Watching the Youtube clips, it seems they could have had 3 weeks notice but their BMW, directly, employed shop stewards were threatened with the sack if they let the cat out

That sounds about standard. It has been totally mismanaged, I agree, but leaking corporate secrets before Senior Management announces it would constitute a disclipinary offence.

why would this need to be a company secret? If it were the case, there's a conflict of interests that should never have been allowed to exist

Sounds like they were clearly a separate workforce and were independently and fairly represented then :deeply sarcastic smilie:

What was the Agency's role in all of this? I haven't had a chance to glean all the details.

Who knows? Haven't seen anything to suggest they brought anything to the arrangement, other than a way for BMW to circumvent their workers rights.

[Juju]

Oooh this starting to get interesting & a little bit too big for my tiny little mind.

I didn't really think you were - but this stuff gets dismissed as "just the way things are" only if we allow it to be

It's the way Capitalism works, Eff. If a company can find an economical advantage over a competitor without breaking any laws, then they will, and they should. You want to replace Capitalism with something a bit nicer? I do. Show me how.

But it can be challenged through the law & that opportunity would be less easy to deny with a universal approach of "same job, same conditions of employment".

BMW employees working alongside Agency employees. To an outsider, they are doing the same job, but they have different employers, different contracts, different pay & conditions & different representation. They are different jobs with the same output.

BMW would still pay the going rate for the work done, the tax payer would subsidise the workers for the lost income due to working shorter hours. The tax payer will have pay dole 'n benefits to those laid off anyway.

You would still be subsidising a multinational for exploiting Agency pay & conditions, thereby helping them to achieve a competitive advantage.

why would this need to be a company secret? If it were the case, there's a conflict of interests that should never have been allowed to exist

Any Management decision is a company secret until the company has agreed to go public with it.

[i]Who knows? Haven't seen anything to suggest they brought anything to the arrangement, other than a way for BMW to circumvent their workers rights.

I would have thought that since these workers were Agency employees, then the onus would be on the Agency to "take care" if their staff, rather than BMW? Or am I misunderstanding again?

Edited by Juju, 18 February 2009 - 04:18 PM.

[Ethel]

All that quoting of quotes make my lil brain, 'n fingers, hurt.

If a company can find an economical advantage over a competitor without breaking any laws, then they will

So we make laws. That's what we do to curb other excesses in society.

If you bolt engines together at BMW's factory for a living then it seems pretty straight forward to say that's your job and you're entitled to be treated exactly the same as the person next to you. To me it's totally bizarre to say otherwise. Imagine if ASDA charged you a different price for your baked beans because you had green eyes or any other reason that had nothing to do with buying beans. E-Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y, I hoped we'd kind of got the hang of that principal by now.

Subsidising a 3 day week: well maybe that'd also sub BMW a bit.

BMW would benefit from keeping a larger workforce but they'd still be paying exactly the same for amount of work done - and there's no reason why such help couldn't be conditional on scrapping their dodgy employment practices. I thought the EU was moving towards putting the mockers on abuse of short term and agency contracts anyway.

"Any Management decision is a company secret until the company has agreed to go public with it." there's a public interest argument there - we all have a greater duty as citizens unless BMW bought the country as well as Rover. It would be irrelevent with proper terms of employment guaranteeing proper notice of redundancy.

last one - phew,

Well I'd agree, if the nameless agency really did have a significant contribution to make. It kind of gives away the facade that we've seen or heard nothing of them. It really does like BMW have sacked someone else's employees at an hour's notice - farce seems an appropriate word.

[Juju]

All that quoting of quotes make my lil brain, 'n fingers, hurt.

Tough. It's carrying on.

If a company can find an economical advantage over a competitor without breaking any laws, then they will

So we make laws. That's what we do to curb other excesses in society.

But it would be against the ethos of private commerce to prevent companies from supplying casual workers to other companies to ease a shortfall in their workforce. The Agency is selling man-hours, BMW just buys those man-hours & then stops buying them when they are no longer needed.

If you bolt engines together at BMW's factory for a living then it seems pretty straight forward to say that's your job and you're entitled to be treated exactly the same as the person next to you. To me it's totally bizarre to say otherwise. Imagine if ASDA charged you a different price for your baked beans because you had green eyes or any other reason that had nothing to do with buying beans. E-Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y, I hoped we'd kind of got the hang of that principal by now.

Again, this would totally negate the existence of employment agencies & casual labour. Imagine if all jobs were governed by the same regulations as those covering permanently contracted staff? What about seasonal labour? Agencies exist as a buffer to provide staff on a temporary or short term basis. Should this be outlawed? It's hardly slave labour. I've worked for agencies before, and the idea is that you READ EVERYTHING BEFORE YOU SIGN UP. I knew I couldn't get paid leave. I knew the Agency took about four times my salary per hour, I knew if (heaven forfend) I got myself knocked up there would be no maternity pay & likewise there was no redundancy pay.

Subsidising a 3 day week: well maybe that'd also sub BMW a bit.

Indeed & who wants that to happen? (awaits the anti-BINI brigade)

BMW would benefit from keeping a larger workforce but they'd still be paying exactly the same for amount of work done - and there's no reason why such help couldn't be conditional on scrapping their dodgy employment practices. I thought the EU was moving towards putting the mockers on abuse of short term and agency contracts anyway.

To be honest I don't think this is a case of "abuse".

"Any Management decision is a company secret until the company has agreed to go public with it." there's a public interest argument there - we all have a greater duty as citizens unless BMW bought the country as well as Rover. It would be irrelevent with proper terms of employment guaranteeing proper notice of redundancy.

They had proper terms of employment. They were employed by an agency. They all had contracts that they all signed. I see no transgression. It's unfortunate that commercial & competitive forces tend to favour this kind of situation.
Maybe clauses should be written into future contracts to define a length of time for short term contracts by the end of which an employee must be taken on as a member of staff at their host company, or dropped from the payroll?? That doesn't seem fair either....

last one - phew,

Well I'd agree, if the nameless agency really did have a significant contribution to make. It kind of gives away the facade that we've seen or heard nothing of them. It really does like BMW have sacked someone else's employees at an hour's notice - farce seems an appropriate word.

Indeed. BMW didn't sack them. They withdrew their contract from the agency & the agency closed the workers' positiions.


That's enough from me.

[Ethel]

I should let you have the last word

Fair enough, but buying in the same labour for 6 years is just taking the *yellow human water*, and I very much doubt the mystery agency has ever employed any of the these people to work anywhere else.


It does go on far too much though. I even know of a social charity that employs people on a trial contract so they can just sack 'em if they don't like them 'n not have to bother about justifying the decision.