Rivelato: Transport for London paga 843 dipendenti per lavorare sui doveri sindacali – al costo di £ 9,2 milioni
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/tfl-staff-union-duties-facility-time-rmt-aslef-b1235765.html
di Anony_mouse202
Rivelato: Transport for London paga 843 dipendenti per lavorare sui doveri sindacali – al costo di £ 9,2 milioni
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/tfl-staff-union-duties-facility-time-rmt-aslef-b1235765.html
di Anony_mouse202
11 commenti
This is extremely common in the rail industry. You see it at every TOC. At my old TOC, we had a bunch of people who basically spent their entire time doing union duties, barely did any actual work, but still got the full salary like everyone else.
We had a driver on the driver company council who spent so much time doing union duties that they lapsed on all of their competencies and were effectively unqualified to drive anywhere other than just in and out of the depot, but still got paid a full driver’s salary because of union duties being paid.
Tbf 0.4% is a drop in the ocean.
843 employees does seem excessive though, even with the 7 unions representing workers. I’d be curious to see a better breakdown of the time spent though as the percentage ranges shown are very broad.
My question would be, what is the cost (to the city as a whole) of a day’s strike?
I’ll bet, framed like that, these people are worth their weight in gold.
Works out at around £11,000 per staff member. It doesnt seem that excessive if they’re basically working part time on Union duties
But i guess thats not the narrative the media want to portray
It’s not 843 people full time, it’s basically union stewards declaring hours that are spent on facility time – i.e. defending members in tribunals, meetings with management, and reviewing policy – and totting up everyone that’s done that. The cost is then a made up figure that’s ascribing a charge-back fee on that.
Newspapers need to work harder than this to stir nonsense up.
Time for union workers to complete their duties or attend training events is the law for every organisation which has a unionised workforce.
[https://www.acas.org.uk/acas-code-of-practice-on-time-off-for-trade-union-duties-and-activities/html](https://www.acas.org.uk/acas-code-of-practice-on-time-off-for-trade-union-duties-and-activities/html)
Of course in this example, if we didn’t have a fractured rail system with many different competing companies then we wouldn’t need so many reps.
It wasn’t in railways but as a former union rep, I stoped many disputes early because the boss was prepared to listen. I could drop in and say “members have heard X and they’re getting upset about it.” Nine times out of ten it was miscommunication or shitstirring which could easily be address by a full staff meeting.
>Of these, 35 worked full-time on union activities.
There you go. Only 35 are full time officials. The number the Standard has decided to use to clickbait you includes everyone whose ever had the afternoon off to support a colleague at 1 meeting or a couple of hours off to go to training.
9.2m for 843 staffs. So just shy of 11k per head.
I say, small price to pay knowing it’s going to actual people and not on cooperate waste and shareholder value… that benefits the richest most.
What next Standard? Frame the story like paying wages is outrageous?
Good. That is the benefit of a Union. How much does the CEO earn in most companies?
My direct report is our union rep and it can be difficult balancing her responsibilities in her role and her role as union rep. Our Org is currently going through restructuring and so it’s a lot more obvious. I understand why someone who is not part of a union or in a unionised workforce could find this shocking.
So what?
9.2 million is really not that much for 843 staff. That’s just under £11k each. Presumably that isn’t annual salaries so what is being described is some portion of the work these staff do each year.
At that point that seems like a ridiculously specific thing to audit and try and drum up outrage over. You might as well try and drum up outrage about how much time workers spend submitting timesheets, attending mandatory training or just listening in on calls without contributing, and spin that as time being paid for not doing job duties or something.