Insertion of lay-off and short-time working clause into current contract

[equationgirl]

Of course, I don't mind you saying that. You're wrong if you think I suffer from any Stockholm syndrome-esque symptoms about him, and I'm not sure where you got that from the paragraph you quoted but I get that this whole thing is not good and he is genuinely at fault and has a very problematic management style.

We talk about his major faults a lot so please don't get the impression we are somehow under his spell! He can be very kind and generous of spirit and my wife owes him a lot but he is bull-ish, loud, tries to cause a reaction to provoke decision making, he can also shut down conversations (in my wife's experience), but then he is the MD and my wife, another senior manager and a colleague I sit next to all have very long histories which make the relationships much less straightforward. I genuinely think (going on past events that you are unaware of) that he lacks some sort of initial empathy, in that if he is explained something then he has been known to come back after working it out and try to make good, but that is only sometimes.





It is a concern that we will be atomised.

I met with two or three others at the pub on Friday night, someone who works for my wife, and is a very long serving member of staff (who is livid!), and two people from the warehouse team. I'm not sure how we will manage but we'll try. I'm going to say that a general staff meeting needs to be held once we have a reply to all the questions and queries we raise, even if it just allows people to have as much information as possible. Someone mentioned it might be worth getting an employee sympathetic solictor to check the clause?

Both the woman who works for my wife that I had a chat to, and the bloke I sit next to, have the ear of the Founder Director and they are all away at a trade conference in Germany next week. The FD is a very sweet kind man, but hopelessly naive, also the MD's father-in-law and there's a worry about how to broach the subject with him that doesn't have major repercussions on either of my colleagues from the MD.

Unions, I would have thought some are better than others at actually being an effective union?
I know it's too late for this but if I were to join who would you recommend? As I said we're import/export/processing of plants/teas etc, both operations and office staff.

As for unions, I'm in unite, they have always supported me when I've needed it.

 

[hermitical]

Tbh, I think you need to forget about all these internecine relationships and think about this as purely an employment matter. It seems they're relying on you to feel bad or loyal or whatever so you'll agree to let them shaft you. (Or at least have the means to do so if they want to.)

Sure, I'm just trying to give context that this isn't faceless management. It's a relatively small, close-knit business. Also yes, once the clause is there it is there probably forever and no matter the 'we would only ever use it if it was completely necessary' line, they might renege and/or who knows who will be in charge in years to come

Don't suggest the company calls a general meeting, organise one yourselves off premises. In the meantime, strongly suggest to your colleagues that no-one signs anything.

Yep, I didn't have a company meeting in mind, but a general staff meeting without the MD and HR (though the HR woman will of course be affected?), off-site makes perfect sense but given the rural location, nature of staff (many outside commitments etc) it would be more problematic to organise, but should be considered

If the clause won't ever be used, then it can be taken out of the contract completely. That's just bullshit used by people to keep shit clauses in a contract.

Oh I know it's bullshit!

 

[StoneRoad]

My father, working in engineering and then retired, was in what is now Amicus, until the day he died.

In your case, one of the "more general" unions and one that supports people not in a single company branch is needed.
Unite have already been mentioned.

 

[mauvais]

Amicus became Unite, FWIW. I joined the former, remain in the latter, and I've never had the need to call upon their support so far.

 

[hermitical]

Thought you folks might like to see the MD's response shared Wednesday morning

Dear all


Thank you for your input into this consultation. One thing is for certain, on this occasion, there has been no shortage of questions, comments and strong opinions.


We said from the outset the motivation for trying to introduce this clause was to help mitigate risk and ultimately to prevent redundancies, if Brexit related economic “Armageddon” (which personally I think is very unlikely) does come to pass. And whilst we entered the process in good-faith and with the aim of being transparent - there is no doubt that it has backfired.


We also committed to a genuine process of consultation and that we would – very much – take your views fully on-board. To date - and in truth this has come as a surprise - with the exception of some acknowledging that these clauses are very standard business practice (especially in the manufacturing sector), the overwhelming majority of the feedback has ranged from very strong opposition to questioning if there are ulterior duplicitous motivations for proposing this contract change.


As a direct result of your feedback, no additional requests will be made to any of our staff to agree to this clause or variations of this clause. For the sake of further openness, I think it is only fair to say that we will be introducing this into new contracts and consequently there will be a disparity. This will inevitably grow over time and is a situation that we were very keen to avoid, but will have to live with.


A number of really long-sighted suggestions did come through the consultation process and as a result, to further mitigate risk, we do not plan to:


· Go ahead with the planned office extension in the coming FY

· Make any pay rises to staff in May with the exception of statutory changes and potentially some further adjustments to staff at the lower end of our pay scale. Of course we can revisit this decision later in the year when we know the outcome of Brexit.


Thank you for taking the time to engage with the process. XXXXX and I have found it a really valuable learning experience, especially in light of the 5 year human resources strategic objectives that you proposed and we agreed at the end of last year. There is clearly a long way to go on this front.

And a short follow-up an hour or so later

Since sending out this e-mail, I have been asked if staff can voluntarily agree to this clause and the answer is yes – given that it will be in all new contracts anyway. However, as already noted – please don’t feel any obligation.

Still questions to be answered, especially as he has said both today (heated conversation with my workmate and his friend) and on Monday (senior manager meeting) that there would be no voluntary agreements in times of need with those who are willing to reduce hours to prevent redundancies. Even though it turns out that is exactly what my wife thought was going to happen. I mean senior managers were told the clause was an example of what we don't have so he was going to talk to staff of what may happen in a crisis, with voluntary temporary agreements being a solution. There was not even any mention of introducing the clause into new contracts during the senior management meeting held beforehand.

I think there is a general feeling that the pay rise comment is a toys out of the pram thing, we don't have a proper profit-sharing scheme but it is a policy that a percentage of profits is ring-fenced for pay-rises - this also helps us meet the Fair For Life standards. His tack in all meetings on the clause was about having wonderful pre-Brexit sales and there is nothing to worry about. I'll be asking so what has changed or why bring up the pay rises in this response - it just feels vindictive, and I worry it is sowing division with those who didn't care about the clause feeling they have lost out because of people 'moaning'.

 

[equationgirl]

@hermetical such clauses are not standard across all manufacturers - my previous employer would have introduced them years ago if they were.

Introducing payrise comment really does sound vindictive and reactionary.

Sounds like sense has prevailed for now.

 

[hermitical]

@hermetical such clauses are not standard across all manufacturers - my previous employer would have introduced them years ago if they were.

Introducing payrise comment really does sound vindictive and reactionary.

Sounds like sense has prevailed for now.

Yeah, the 'clause is standard' thing is just a standard tactic of his. I know he's done NLP stuff so I don't know if this 'repeat till it sounds true' is part of that racket.

And the pay thing. indeed! The decision on this isn't taken till sometime in April after reviewing finances, for an and of May pay rise, so even mentioning it now seems like it is just nasty. Especially after it was all Don't worry about the clause, probably will never be used, we've planned well, excellent sales in January etc... The SMT haven't discussed this decision, so he has taken it unilaterally. But I think it has had a desired effect, he crowed to my wife yesterday that he has had people queuing up to sign.

One of her team (who was ready to sign after it was initially announced) wanted to sign straight after this week's email, thinking it would improve her chances of a pay rise. My wife had to say no, it will have no influence. This person is in dire financial straits (not her fault, bastard ex) and we couldn't work out the logic of accepting a possibly undefined lay-off (with only £140 over 3 months from the government plus whatever else you can manage to apply for) if she already struggles to pay her mortgage, bills etc (we've helped her personally on a few occasions), rather than a personal negotiated, temporary agreement, with the understanding that there are people here willing to shoulder more of the burden and help those in more need - a concept the MD fundamentally does not believe in.

He keeps bringing up some confused tax analogy about people say they are happy for higher taxes to improve things but don't vote for it. I appreciate it doesn't always happen but Scandinavia would look very different nowadays if it was a mythical turn of events. Also I've literally said last week for them to hold off on any back payment to make sure we are in safe waters post-Brexit. I've been working pretty much one of my work days extra a week for a good while, I think I mentioned I was officially looking to increase my hours and they are happy with this and wanted to give me back pay, whether a token amount or calculated I do not know - the point being I will sacrifice it if need be - proving him wrong.

Also, In the initial meeting kept bringing up the agreement JCB and the workers came to so major redundancies could be avoided - this was to prove that people agree to lay-offs, so we should have no qualms about this new permanent clause. What I didn't realise until just looking into it that it was a union negotiated, temproary agreement, the type of thing many of us feel would be the best way forward in the event of such a crisis.

Better half is going to try and bring some things up in the SMT on Monday. She isn't combatative, but is very fair-minded and cannot carry on with the current situation. She sticks up for her team and and wants the best for them. She isn't looking forward to it as people aren't known to go against him in meetings (she tries, in the way she can), the best she is hoping for is that nobody defends the actions so far. Who knows how he will react.

I want to reply directly to his email ASAP but she convinced me to wait till after Monday's meeting. I will then probably speak with some other like-minded folk about what to do next. I was looking at ACAS about ICE regs but totting it up we only have 48 employees, not the required minimum of 50

 

[equationgirl]

If a clause won't be used in a contract, it's generally removed as not required. His insistence over keeping it suggests it is likely to be used at some point.

 

[hermitical]

It'll be in all new contracts going forward, he feels angry that we don't trust the company to behave well should the time come!

 

[hermitical]

Sorry about the outpouring....

 

[hermitical]

So, there was some unpleasantness. I had to decide whether to pursue a formal grievance or a more informal path. Chose the latter.