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!!

Oh, he did. Spectacularly. In recent years the only main political party to sort of stay in the same place is the Tories, the other 2 have shifted to the right and are now occupying the same ground as the "nasty" party.

You just need to read the manifestos, it's all in there, benefit cuts (neatly called welfare reform or some other such slogan that passed a focus group), NHS privatisation, no mention of any form of renationalisation. A vote for Labour/Lib Dem is a vote for Thatcher and everything she stood for, no matter how much people try and pretend it isn't.

If you don't quit with ad hominem attacks people will be taking a rest, understand?

At last somebody who can read. If some member of the chattering classes on here can show me where I said home care workers had expense accounts I will readily admit my mistake.

I don't agree with striking because it is counter-productive as we saw in Grangemouth and we saw with the miner dispute of 84/85. How is it that most non union labour seem to be able to sort out their issues without the need for industrial action yet union dominated trades industries seem to see striking as a viable tool to get what they think they are entitled to.

Maybe I am wrong but it appears to me the union is driving the strike rather than the members - the union guys will be OK they will not lose money during a strike unlike their members, its bonkers. The idea that automatic pay increases should be given out without the need for any performance improvement is a concept set in the dark ages. My wife used to work at Morrisons they give out annual pay rises based on the profitability of the company as a whole i.e. performance related pay that is individually done for each employee all 140k of them. Having a union would not get the employees anymore pay in fact it would actually hinder and most likely cost them.

I trust that means everyone?

So how does huge spending on public services follow what Thatcher was doing which was the opposite i.e. reducing the size of the state?