Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 401 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, full colour, in-depth coverage from the grassroots through to the international game.
Click here for the digital edition or just download the Rugby League World app from Apple Newsstand or Google Play now.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 401
/ View a Gallery of all our previous 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 401
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

New Work Contracts


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,830 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 11:25 AM

what is it you actually do? Is it an issue of new technology/skills overtaking old technology?



#22 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,828 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 12:01 PM

 

Without being too specific I am losing 19.5% of my basic pay. Others less. The argument being we (ie people in my role) are paid more than others elsewhere for a similar job. (ie market rate or something)


Ah right, it sounds like they have been doing a pay benchmarking exercise through one of the consultancies like Hay Group who basically look at all the job descriptions in the company (note - not the actual people, just the job descriptions, they're not usually given any specific info about the person doing the role) and peg them against 'average' pay for the same role within that industry. Usually the outcome is that some are deemed to be about right, others need to have their pay lowered and some even get a pay rise.

I'm surprised if they are taking it off you in one hit though, as most companies phase it in via various means such as you not getting the next few annual pay rises etc until your pay is at the benchmarked level.

Unfortunately though, if they've done a proper benchmarking via an acknowledged specialist consultancy then they'll have the necessary justification for cutting your pay accordingly.

Edited by Derwent, 12 August 2013 - 12:02 PM.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#23 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,701 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 12:12 PM

Pay rises? Lol not had one for 7 years.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#24 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,678 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 04:16 PM

Go onto the ONS website and search ASHE ( Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings) you will find a spreadsheet with all jobs and regions on it, this will give you an idea if they are right, if not you could use it as a bargaining point.

I have these spreadsheets going back a few years if you want them just pm me and I'll send then on

#25 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 05:24 PM

Ah right, it sounds like they have been doing a pay benchmarking exercise through one of the consultancies like Hay Group who basically look at all the job descriptions in the company (note - not the actual people, just the job descriptions, they're not usually given any specific info about the person doing the role) and peg them against 'average' pay for the same role within that industry. Usually the outcome is that some are deemed to be about right, others need to have their pay lowered and some even get a pay rise.

I'm surprised if they are taking it off you in one hit though, as most companies phase it in via various means such as you not getting the next few annual pay rises etc until your pay is at the benchmarked level.

Unfortunately though, if they've done a proper benchmarking via an acknowledged specialist consultancy then they'll have the necessary justification for cutting your pay accordingly.

I don't consider it reasonable to impose a 20% pay reduction without a serious amount of genuine consultation and discussion with those involved. Like others have said, I'd expect it to be phased in and perhaps something coming back the other way (equity perhaps - although it sounds like a company on the way out).

I was asked to take a 25% pay cut around 12 months ago along with the rest of the senior team, and I had 24 hours to accept. I wrote back and said I needed a more reasonable amount of time to consider the impact on my family budget. Before taking a week to confirm that I was declining the kind offer and suggesting details for 15-20 genuine cost saving measures.

The company was duty bound to consider these in full before doing anything else, and given my position within the firm I was able to insist that all working out was shown which of course was going be quite an effort given how detailed and complex some of my suggestions were.

Edited by Larry the Leit, 12 August 2013 - 05:35 PM.


#26 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,828 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:04 PM

I don't consider it reasonable to impose a 20% pay reduction without a serious amount of genuine consultation and discussion with those involved. Like others have said, I'd expect it to be phased in and perhaps something coming back the other way (equity perhaps - although it sounds like a company on the way out).
I was asked to take a 25% pay cut around 12 months ago along with the rest of the senior team, and I had 24 hours to accept. I wrote back and said I needed a more reasonable amount of time to consider the impact on my family budget. Before taking a week to confirm that I was declining the kind offer and suggesting details for 15-20 genuine cost saving measures.
The company was duty bound to consider these in full before doing anything else, and given my position within the firm I was able to insist that all working out was shown which of course was going be quite an effort given how detailed and complex some of my suggestions were.



Businesses have the catch-all reason of "business need" to fall back on if it went to a tribunal. A 20% decrease may not be reasonable to you and I but our opinion doesn't matter. The business would argue that paying employees 20% over 'market rate' makes them uncompetitive and puts the business and other employees' jobs at risk and that they need to make such cuts to safeguard the business. A tribunal would find that 'reasonable' no matter what we think.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#27 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:11 PM

Businesses have the catch-all reason of "business need" to fall back on if it went to a tribunal. A 20% decrease may not be reasonable to you and I but our opinion doesn't matter. The business would argue that paying employees 20% over 'market rate' makes them uncompetitive and puts the business and other employees' jobs at risk and that they need to make such cuts to safeguard the business. A tribunal would find that 'reasonable' no matter what we think.

.....and of course that has been their choice to do that and to enter into contracts which were considered fair for them and their employees and allowed them to attract a better quality of employee (perhaps not in this case :-) ).

It's far from as cut and dried as you may suggest. I'd fancy my chances if a company had paid me x for years, which I reasonably structured my life and personal finances around, then decided it was changing without proper consultation. A company cannot hide behind anything IF it is unreasonable.

We're not talking 5% here, or a reduction in holidays etc but £1 in £5 which is massive!!!!!

Edited by Larry the Leit, 13 August 2013 - 05:25 PM.


#28 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 15 August 2013 - 06:47 PM

Any update on progress?

#29 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,701 posts

Posted 15 August 2013 - 09:02 PM

Any update on progress?

I have received a new contract. I now have 2 options.

1) Take it
2) Leave it

That's pretty much it.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#30 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,828 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 06:26 AM

I have received a new contract. I now have 2 options.
1) Take it
2) Leave it
That's pretty much it.


Submit a formal letter to the company telling them you do not accept the changes but will work to them under protest. This will protect your position if you decide to take legal action at a later date.

http://www.xperthr.c...d=110625#110625

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#31 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,701 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 09:36 AM

Submit a formal letter to the company telling them you do not accept the changes but will work to them under protest. This will protect your position if you decide to take legal action at a later date.

http://www.xperthr.c...d=110625#110625

Thanks. I will do that.
Ironically, I have just had to turn down a job offer as it meant relocating, which at this moment is not an option.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#32 Tiny Tim

Tiny Tim
  • Coach
  • 6,951 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 09:57 PM

Businesses have the catch-all reason of "business need" to fall back on if it went to a tribunal. A 20% decrease may not be reasonable to you and I but our opinion doesn't matter. The business would argue that paying employees 20% over 'market rate' makes them uncompetitive and puts the business and other employees' jobs at risk and that they need to make such cuts to safeguard the business. A tribunal would find that 'reasonable' no matter what we think.

Surely that would raise the question how they found themselves in this position of 'overpaying' their employees by so much and how long has this been the case and why only now they are doing something about it. If it's been a gradual process over so many years that this disparity has occurred then why not 'correct' this over the same time scale moving forward rather than in one hit to the employees?


28m391z.jpg





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users