(23 Mar 2024, 3:07 pm)Storx wrote 10% is completely unreasonable. Inflation was 4% in December 2023 so anything above that is a good deal on paper. 

Just because the union was a waste of space for years and accepting poor deals doesn't give them the right imo now to suddenly want double inflation deals. 

(I'm not saying 4% is fair either)

I'm not sure it matters whether you (or anyone else) think 10% is unreasonable. It's a matter for the Union members to decide, and they've overwhelmingly decided that the offer on the table is unreasonable.

% isn't always a great measure. 10% for a bus driver is not a lot compared to 10% for a chief executive.

It's a bit unfair for you to suggest the Union is a 'waste of space'. I'm assuming you realise that it's members collectively who decide whether to accept, reject or go out on strike over an offer. The employed officers simply work to instruction from the members and reps.

Unite are also a much different organisation now, under their current leadership. They'll not be messed about and they're not afraid to use their huge hardship fund.

(23 Mar 2024, 8:43 pm)RobinHood wrote The pay rate is the headline, but it is far from the ultimate benchmark.

The consideration of paid breaks (still exist for large proportion of drivers in Durham County for example), plus the black and white rules around paid time (some operators only pay actual platform time, others pay shift time etc).

Only when you build that picture up, do you truly understand the value of the role.

For example, a lower rate paid right through can actually work out better value than a high rate, only paid when you are physically sat in the cab. Both duties might be 10 hours, with 8.5. hours driving time. Driver on £13.50 paid through gets £135. Driver on £15 only paid for platform time gets £127.50. Exactly the same length of time spent essentially at work. Don't be seduced by the rate.

That doesn't for one minute suggest that 4% is or isn't a fair deal, but a simple comparison of pay rates is not a barometer.

I think your example highlights a real issue in the industry, and whilst I'm not for one minute suggesting it's unique to buses, but for too long businesses done their utmost to drive down pay and conditions.

This, added with overcomplicated scheduling practices, has left us at the point where we're resorting to meaningless measures to decide someone's rate of pay.

I'm still not sure that 'platform time' is entirely legal, as it's encouraging individuals to do work in their own time. We previously had cited examples of changeovers not being paid time. There's almost a legal precedence supporting this, too: the Sports Direct minimum wage case.

We really need to get out of this idea that a pay increase has to be paid for to the workers' detriment. There clearly needs to be some workplace reforms in most of the large operators, but it needs to be done sensibly and not seen as a cost-cutting exercise.

Sent from my SM-S916B using Tapatalk