How do you suggest companies deal with peaks and troughs in demand? You are against flexible contracts, zero hour contracts and now using agency workers?

How did you deal with them ten years ago, you could still hire and fire (perhaps not using those terms) anyone with less than twelve months term (and prior to that 24 months), it just took a little pre-planning and an efficient HR dept.

Why is it now that businesses are happy to pay gross wages plus an agency premium compared to previously just having the gross wage cost on their books, thats the bit I can't work out, I was at a company in Hull on Thursday and we were discussed why they had a need to do so many updates to staff data whereas for the past 15 years that they have been clients they hardly did any, the answer was that they now employ agency staff for most of their general labour and it involves them in more office work as in their words "sometimes they come for two days and then never re-appear", as far as I could work out the only saving was on their conscience.

The example I gave has nothing to do with peaks and troughs in demand. It has everything to do with the laziness of medium and large companies who contract out their recruitment to agencies. There is nothing stopping a company employing extra workers for high demand periods like Xmas. They can do that themselves, there is no need for an agency. Nobody would criticise a company for employing workers on a temporary basis over Xmas, but that doesn't require all employees to then be on temporary, flexible or zero hour contracts. Because the company should have worked out roughly how much "work" they will need over that period.

Just a bit of planning, that's all is needed.



Am I? You'll be able to provide the quotes where I'm against flexible contracts, zero hour contracts and agency workers in all circumstances to back that statement up then won't you?

Oh no of course not. You don't answer questions do you, you just make factually incorrect statements and then run away when challenged. Welcome back by the way. Had any further joy defining socialism yet? Or telling us all how much Ineos are paying Len McCluskey?

Right on this very thread you have said you are against agency/casual workers - now you have be challenged just change your tune - you actually think companies should invest expensive resource in recruiting temporary workers rather than use an agency - really!! I never said Ineos were paying Len McClusky, so go ahead and prove that!! On zero hours if you want me go back to the thread I will do - once you are got the McClusky stuff I will get the zero hours stuff.

One of the issues compared to ten years ago is demand patterns are far less predictable than they were - 10 years ago you didn't have internet shopping that has impacted supply chains everywhere. Product mix is more diverse as companies look to gain market share. Companies are working to much tighter margins so labour costs have to be reduced to stay competitive and that includes support functions such as HR.

At work we use 0-80 agency a week - depending a product mix, demand patterns etc. On some revenue streams we have as little as 48 hours notice. This idea that correct planning will sort all your issues is quite frankly a fallacy. Customers now want incredibly quick turn round - on Friday we a took a job for 1.6m brochures for delivery into Belgium 3rd December that is 60 hours on a press and 200 hours in a bindery no amount of planning can cope with that kind of demand pattern. The only way to cope with this and avoid over manning/premium rate labour is to use agency.

I struggle to understand why having more agency staff creates more office work? The agencies we work here and those I have worked with in other business have implants at site - paid for by the agency - to control the quality and quantity of the agency pool. They work with management to ensure suitable staff are available - they run the risk of losing the contract if standards fall. The only administration the management have to do is check and sign off the time sheet at the end of each shift.

The example I quoted were using an access control system to control entry/exit, in their case there is a big overhead in registering every single person who attends site today and then doesn't come back tomorrow but has taken their key fob with them, never to return - in their case they have hugely increased their office work compared to when they directly employed everyone, their total workforce is still fairly static around 100 but they now have approx 30 who are agency and completely random faces from one day to the next, it must work for them somewhere else but bear in mind that they are paying gross wages plus agency premium for those staff so unless those 30 are being paid less as a basic than the 30 permanent staff that they replaced then the maths doesn't seem to add up.

We have an access control system for agency staff too it helps with the admin - all it requires is a card which can be cancelled with the click of mouse if it gets lost.

On the wages thing - you pay a premium yes but not a lot also you don't have to give them all the benefits i.e. sickness cover, holiday, employers NI, P60 etc. You are basically paying for flexibility and ease of use, if we had to undertake this process we would have to employ 2/3 extra bodies in HR. Why do most companies use agency/head hunters for their management/skilled jobs? simply because it is too expensive/time consuming to troll through hundreds of CV's when specialists can be paid to do that job - it is much more efficient.

The downside to agency is performance - because they had little experience of the task they will be slower, that is a management issue to get the best out of them. Given that most of these jobs are unskilled the drop off in performance is more than compensated by the savings given by the flexibility.

So basically there are two elements,

There is a genuine need for very flexible in/out staffing that mere shift planning could not achieve, a need for a sudden input of an extra 20 bodies for a short period that can lift boxes or push one button and watch a machine without too much pre-training.

And there is a desire within the business not to involve itself in too much responsibility for those whom it regards as being disposable labour, harsh but true.

Presumably you wouldn't treat your valuable members of staff in the same way, you couldn't for example pick up a skilled printer (or whatever they call themselves these days, my uncle was some sort of lithographer at Gilchrists for the whole of his life, presumably they thought highly of him), but as for the development of non-skilled employees within the business to become skilled at other tasks, you don't bother with that ?

Then you will be able to easily find the quote then won't you? The one where I'm against agency and casual workers in all circumstances. Quote it or retract your lie.


Temporary workers for a period such as Christmas, yes there is no need for an agency for the vast majority of workers in that circumstance. There is also no need for the company to invest expensive resource. A couple of posts on the company website, a recruitment website and Universal Jobmatch will yield plenty of candidates. A couple of afternoons of large on-site "group interviews" (exactly what the agencies do) and you're done. Easy, cheap, no need for an agency in that circumstance.
But my example wasn't about the Christmas period, it was in April, taking people on permanent contracts. 100% no need for an agency.


Ok Sal.

So again, want to tell us how much Ineos were paying Len McCluskey to keep him in his flash German motor? You never did on that thread, along with plenty of other questions you never actually answered? Like which flash car Len McCluskey drives? Or if you can't do that why not tell us which RFL job Gary Hetherington got for Nigel Wood? Or even tell us which job Nigel Wood currently holds? You seemed confused on both.
Or why not tell us all what Socialism is again?


By all means Sal. Go on, post it. If you don't then we'll all know that you're lying once again.

I have been involved with a liaison with a young lady from my local Aldi's store over the Christmas and New Year period.
She is a deputy manageress at the store and it has been interesting to hear how they operate with regards to their members of staff.
They usually receive a 3/4 week advanced shift staff rota but it appears far from set in stone.
They can be pencilled in for an 8 hour shift but rang up often on the day and told they aren't busy and asked to come in a couple of hours later after their stated shift start time.
She is also actively encouraged to send staff home a couple of hours before end of shift if the store isn't particularly busy.
They also receive a standard rate for all hours worked.
Nothing extra for lates or weekends.

Employers taking the p1ss and getting away with it 2014.

As I've mentioned before, this is also the norm in the hotel industry too.

But they can walk away and get a better job at any time, if only they had the brains, the balls, the initiative, the determination etc.

Because it is all entirely their own fault if they work in such a situation and, in this employers' market, we must never condemn the businesses using the situation to drive down pay and terms and conditions.

And anyone who says otherwise is an unpatriotic communist who doesn't live in the real world.

City AM's front page today: www.cityam.com/article/138898617 ... -crackdown

City AM's front page today: www.cityam.com/article/138898617 ... -crackdown

I don't think any major retailer pays extra for lates or weekends any more. Some on older contracts may cling to Sunday premia, and there is a Night Shift Premium but nothing for working an evening or a Saturday. Part of the 24/7 culture we have created.

Why do you think staff should be extra for lates or weekends? Does the company get extra productivity out of paying a premium?

This is nothing new I doubt any person working in retail has been paid extra to work on a Saturday - this is the way in retail this not employers taking the p1ss because of the current economic position.

l really should refrain - this employer is behaving not differently than it ever has - to suggest they are driving down T&Cs is simply a phallacy.

Are you suggesting that these employees have no options - Aldi force them to work there?

How would you suggest this works in your real world?

Knob!

It's Thatcherite socialism dearie: with phalluses and expense accounts for cleaners.

Like it or lump it is not an option it is an ultimatum.

My contracted shifts are 12 days from 14, (2 of them being standby), 52 weeks a year, only four days per annum on shutdown, probably down to 3 days for next year as Boxing Day disappears from the calendar - I had 10 days booked off over christmas and new year - just been handed 7 of them back to be added to my 2014 allowance as we worked or were on standby through the period.

Its a good job that I enjoy the work, the pay is good and my expenses for Dec are going to be outrageous

Again show me where I said cleaners had expense accounts - you can't. I am still waiting for you to give evidence of where I said nobody can have an increase because I haven't had one!!

You can't because these quotes don't exist it is you making stuff up!!

No its not - nobody is dragged screaming to Aldi to work. What is the ultimatum here, it is not a prison where they have to do as they are told.

All these people have options - this is a free country the way you talk Aldi is salt mine in Siberia, get a grip on the true reality here.

Mintball is incorrect, it was care workers who you thought had expense accounts.

And while you may not have said others should not have a pay rise, you have never been slow in condemning any other workers (especially but not exclusively those in the public sector) who may have taken industrial action in order to preserve and/or improve their working conditions and/or pay.

I never said tat you said that cleaners had expense accounts: you claimed that homecare workers had expense accounts.

You also 'think' that Blair led a 'socialist government'.

That tells intelligent people everything they need to know.

No I didn't so again prove where I said home care workers have expense accounts? What I said was home care workers would claim out of pocket expenses back - that is not the same as an expense account - shame you struggle to understand the differences.

You said Blair followed Thatcher/Major's policies - he didn't. He did what all Socialist governments do i.e. increase the size and cost of the state and increase taxation and benefits. That tells the rest of us what we need to know - pity your limited intelligence struggles to cope with such simple and basic concepts.

Now run along and show me where I said nobody should get a pay rise because I haven't had one - you seem to struggle to show us all this?

What is really a shame is you haven't got enough about you to accept you got it wrong and admit it - you are a very sad individual indeed.

A keyboard despot - sad, very sad. You need to get out more - seriously!!