The employers took an opportunity to dismiss an employee they wanted shot of. An opportunity given to them by that employee.
The sort of employee who seemed to be getting in the way of running a profitable enterprise by forever banging on about what she considered was fair.
Why am I not surprised that you do not seem to be able to grasp that?
I wasnt aware that you knew her personally.
Don't need to. Simply because of her affiliations and subsequent actions.
I'm a lifelong Lefty Liberal, and a supporter of the Trade Union movement. But the UVW Union most certainly divides opinion.
There is considerable debate in Central London in relation to what the "Minimum Wage" should be for workers in Central London. Whether it should be the National Minimum Wage (£10.42 per hour, to go up on April to £11.44 an hour) or the newly-created (and without legal standing) London Living Wage, currently £13.15 an hour.
All other Trade Unions realise that there are various advantages and disadvantages. Enter into negotiations with relevant parties. To use the Devonshires example (which is a common one) there are negotiations between the cleaners, cleaning company, and end user. Because the cleaning company (in this example) cannot impose an increased cost-they would be in breach of contract. So-in all other cases, with all other unions, negotiations take place. And agreements reached.
That is not the UVW operating model. They foment discontent, then organise strikes to demand higher pay. Strike first. Refuse to enter any negotiations whatsoever. And they are doing this in lots of major end users in Central London. Making lots of noise. Getting lots of media traction.
If you like 1970s style unions, then they are very much for you.
I can see lots of advantages for the UVW in this approach. The workers? Not so much.
The employers took an opportunity to dismiss an employee they wanted shot of. An opportunity given to them by that employee.
The sort of employee who seemed to be getting in the way of running a profitable enterprise by forever banging on about what she considered was fair.
Why am I not surprised that you do not seem to be able to grasp that?
I wasnt aware that you knew her personally.
Don't need to. Simply because of her affiliations and subsequent actions.
I'm a lifelong Lefty Liberal, and a supporter of the Trade Union movement. But the UVW Union most certainly divides opinion.
There is considerable debate in Central London in relation to what the "Minimum Wage" should be for workers in Central London. Whether it should be the National Minimum Wage (£10.42 per hour, to go up on April to £11.44 an hour) or the newly-created (and without legal standing) London Living Wage, currently £13.15 an hour.
All other Trade Unions realise that there are various advantages and disadvantages. Enter into negotiations with relevant parties. To use the Devonshires example (which is a common one) there are negotiations between the cleaners, cleaning company, and end user. Because the cleaning company (in this example) cannot impose an increased cost-they would be in breach of contract. So-in all other cases, with all other unions, negotiations take place. And agreements reached.
That is not the UVW operating model. They foment discontent, then organise strikes to demand higher pay. Strike first. Refuse to enter any negotiations whatsoever. And they are doing this in lots of major end users in Central London. Making lots of noise. Getting lots of media traction.
If you like 1970s style unions, then they are very much for you.
I can see lots of advantages for the UVW in this approach. The workers? Not so much.
I think you have drawn many conclusions based only on your own assumptions. There wasnt even a single comment made by her, in the first article. To the point that the writer wasnt able to establish what type of sandwich it was. Although the union had plenty to say.
The employers took an opportunity to dismiss an employee they wanted shot of. An opportunity given to them by that employee.
The sort of employee who seemed to be getting in the way of running a profitable enterprise by forever banging on about what she considered was fair.
Why am I not surprised that you do not seem to be able to grasp that?
I wasnt aware that you knew her personally.
Don't need to. Simply because of her affiliations and subsequent actions.
I'm a lifelong Lefty Liberal, and a supporter of the Trade Union movement. But the UVW Union most certainly divides opinion.
There is considerable debate in Central London in relation to what the "Minimum Wage" should be for workers in Central London. Whether it should be the National Minimum Wage (£10.42 per hour, to go up on April to £11.44 an hour) or the newly-created (and without legal standing) London Living Wage, currently £13.15 an hour.
All other Trade Unions realise that there are various advantages and disadvantages. Enter into negotiations with relevant parties. To use the Devonshires example (which is a common one) there are negotiations between the cleaners, cleaning company, and end user. Because the cleaning company (in this example) cannot impose an increased cost-they would be in breach of contract. So-in all other cases, with all other unions, negotiations take place. And agreements reached.
That is not the UVW operating model. They foment discontent, then organise strikes to demand higher pay. Strike first. Refuse to enter any negotiations whatsoever. And they are doing this in lots of major end users in Central London. Making lots of noise. Getting lots of media traction.
If you like 1970s style unions, then they are very much for you.
I can see lots of advantages for the UVW in this approach. The workers? Not so much.
I also think that you could have shown a little empathy for a single Mother, with a child and an old Mum to support, who was clearly working all hours, rather than sitting on her backside, and drawing benefits, even if it meant taking your Solicitors hat off.
1 advantage I have is that I have gone to the Press with exactly these sort of sob stories. To try and twist arms. I didn't believe a word of them. Good to see intelligent men such as yourself continue to believe them
Suppose she was "working all hours" as you say. Suppose it was 40 hours a week. At Minimum Wage that is about £525 a week. Say £26,000 a year. Double your income. Before any Child Support. Before the Benefits that her Mum gets. That's before the 15% pay rise demanded by the UVW. Which would take that figure to £30,000 a year. Not saying that isn't deserved-just that that isn't my idea of "poverty".
Person got fired. Walked straight into similar work, no doubt with similar pay. Why should I feel sympathy? What has she actually lost?
Now if she was a Member of a traditional Union, that Union would be contacting the Contract Cleaner and Devonshires. Trying to get them to agree to voluntarily altering the contract they have in place, so that the Cleaners could get an extra £2 an hour. To be the equivalent of the current difference between Minimum Wage and London Living Wage. Without bankrupting the Cleaning Company. Many Law Firms are not as lucky or wealthy or skilled as Devonshires-they can afford it. Whereas a Firm doing Conveyancing or Legal Aid in Tower Hamlets isn't as lucky. And lots of businesses are finding the right way forward. Without only Employers or Unions forcing their agenda.
That's not the way the UVW work. They are proud to say that negotiation is not for them. Nor is compromise. They routinely demand an instant rise. Regardless of the effect this has on the profitability of the Contract Cleaners. Organise strikes without any negotiation. And are doing so all over London. At Universities. Hospitals. Care Homes. Schools.
The UVW is proud to support a "Class War". As it says of itself it is a "Member-led, Direct Action, Anti-Racist Trade Union." Although I have to say that I don't regard the Mities and Pinnacles of this World as the Imperial Elite organising the subjugation of the downtrodden masses
1 advantage I have is that I have gone to the Press with exactly these sort of sob stories. To try and twist arms. I didn't believe a word of them. Good to see intelligent men such as yourself continue to believe them
Suppose she was "working all hours" as you say. Suppose it was 40 hours a week. At Minimum Wage that is about £525 a week. Say £26,000 a year. Double your income. Before any Child Support. Before the Benefits that her Mum gets. That's before the 15% pay rise demanded by the UVW. Which would take that figure to £30,000 a year. Not saying that isn't deserved-just that that isn't my idea of "poverty".
Person got fired. Walked straight into similar work, no doubt with similar pay. Why should I feel sympathy? What has she actually lost?
Now if she was a Member of a traditional Union, that Union would be contacting the Contract Cleaner and Devonshires. Trying to get them to agree to voluntarily altering the contract they have in place, so that the Cleaners could get an extra £2 an hour. To be the equivalent of the current difference between Minimum Wage and London Living Wage. Without bankrupting the Cleaning Company. Many Law Firms are not as lucky or wealthy or skilled as Devonshires-they can afford it. Whereas a Firm doing Conveyancing or Legal Aid in Tower Hamlets isn't as lucky. And lots of businesses are finding the right way forward. Without only Employers or Unions forcing their agenda.
That's not the way the UVW work. They are proud to say that negotiation is not for them. Nor is compromise. They routinely demand an instant rise. Regardless of the effect this has on the profitability of the Contract Cleaners. Organise strikes without any negotiation. And are doing so all over London. At Universities. Hospitals. Care Homes. Schools.
The UVW is proud to support a "Class War". As it says of itself it is a "Member-led, Direct Action, Anti-Racist Trade Union." Although I have to say that I don't regard the Mities and Pinnacles of this World as the Imperial Elite organising the subjugation of the downtrodden masses
Most of that has absolutely nothing to do with a woman who was sacked for eating a leftover sandwich. You make many assumption which can only be guesswork. Are you holding her responsible for the actions of the union? Have you seen her contract? Her earnings are nowhere near double my income, and nothing to write home about in London.
You can't sack someone for their Trade Union affiliation or activities. Not unless you like being sued.
You can take an opportunity to remove someone who may be damaging your business if they carry out a totally separate act. Like here.
There is no other logical explanation. She is clearly a good cleaner, and got a decent reference-or else she would not have walked into other jobs.
Have I seen her contract? Don't know who she worked for. But I have drafted a lot of them. And I know that clause is standard in that particular industry. Incidentally, if the Trade Union were more alert, they should have seized on 1 thing. During the disciplinary process, she was apparently suspended without pay-that is irregular.
Nowhere near double your income? As I'm sure someone alluded to on a different thread today, I am just using facts.
You can't sack someone for their Trade Union affiliation or activities. Not unless you like being sued.
You can take an opportunity to remove someone who may be damaging your business if they carry out a totally separate act. Like here.
There is no other logical explanation. She is clearly a good cleaner, and got a decent reference-or else she would not have walked into other jobs.
Have I seen her contract? Don't know who she worked for. But I have drafted a lot of them. And I know that clause is standard in that particular industry. Incidentally, if the Trade Union were more alert, they should have seized on 1 thing. During the disciplinary process, she was apparently suspended without pay-that is irregular.
Nowhere near double your income? As I'm sure someone alluded to on a different thread today, I am just using facts.
Did I not say I am in receipt of a state pension, you are also aware my wife receives one, and I receive some additional income.
You have to compare like with like. Cannot include your family's income and ignore hers.
She should receive money for her child, from the Government and the Father. No idea whether she has a current Partner. Her Mum will receive either income or benefits.
I would always tell the story to suit. "Single Mother" or "Sole Wage Earner".
You have to compare like with like. Cannot include your family's income and ignore hers.
She should receive money for her child, from the Government and the Father. No idea whether she has a current Partner. Her Mum will receive either income or benefits.
I would always tell the story to suit. "Single Mother" or "Sole Wage Earner".
Ok, on a like for like basis, her income is less than mine. I dont live in London, or have any dependant children, or parents.
Comments
The sort of employee who seemed to be getting in the way of running a profitable enterprise by forever banging on about what she considered was fair.
Why am I not surprised that you do not seem to be able to grasp that?
I agree with the sentiment, I had a few I would have liked to have stolen a sandwich or two in my time.
No chance of getting rid otherwise.
I'm a lifelong Lefty Liberal, and a supporter of the Trade Union movement. But the UVW Union most certainly divides opinion.
There is considerable debate in Central London in relation to what the "Minimum Wage" should be for workers in Central London. Whether it should be the National Minimum Wage (£10.42 per hour, to go up on April to £11.44 an hour) or the newly-created (and without legal standing) London Living Wage, currently £13.15 an hour.
All other Trade Unions realise that there are various advantages and disadvantages. Enter into negotiations with relevant parties. To use the Devonshires example (which is a common one) there are negotiations between the cleaners, cleaning company, and end user. Because the cleaning company (in this example) cannot impose an increased cost-they would be in breach of contract. So-in all other cases, with all other unions, negotiations take place. And agreements reached.
That is not the UVW operating model. They foment discontent, then organise strikes to demand higher pay. Strike first. Refuse to enter any negotiations whatsoever. And they are doing this in lots of major end users in Central London. Making lots of noise. Getting lots of media traction.
If you like 1970s style unions, then they are very much for you.
I can see lots of advantages for the UVW in this approach. The workers? Not so much.
There wasnt even a single comment made by her, in the first article.
To the point that the writer wasnt able to establish what type of sandwich it was.
Although the union had plenty to say.
Suppose she was "working all hours" as you say. Suppose it was 40 hours a week. At Minimum Wage that is about £525 a week. Say £26,000 a year. Double your income. Before any Child Support. Before the Benefits that her Mum gets. That's before the 15% pay rise demanded by the UVW. Which would take that figure to £30,000 a year. Not saying that isn't deserved-just that that isn't my idea of "poverty".
Person got fired. Walked straight into similar work, no doubt with similar pay. Why should I feel sympathy? What has she actually lost?
Now if she was a Member of a traditional Union, that Union would be contacting the Contract Cleaner and Devonshires. Trying to get them to agree to voluntarily altering the contract they have in place, so that the Cleaners could get an extra £2 an hour. To be the equivalent of the current difference between Minimum Wage and London Living Wage. Without bankrupting the Cleaning Company. Many Law Firms are not as lucky or wealthy or skilled as Devonshires-they can afford it. Whereas a Firm doing Conveyancing or Legal Aid in Tower Hamlets isn't as lucky. And lots of businesses are finding the right way forward. Without only Employers or Unions forcing their agenda.
That's not the way the UVW work. They are proud to say that negotiation is not for them. Nor is compromise. They routinely demand an instant rise. Regardless of the effect this has on the profitability of the Contract Cleaners. Organise strikes without any negotiation. And are doing so all over London. At Universities. Hospitals. Care Homes. Schools.
The UVW is proud to support a "Class War". As it says of itself it is a "Member-led, Direct Action, Anti-Racist Trade Union." Although I have to say that I don't regard the Mities and Pinnacles of this World as the Imperial Elite organising the subjugation of the downtrodden masses
You make many assumption which can only be guesswork.
Are you holding her responsible for the actions of the union?
Have you seen her contract?
Her earnings are nowhere near double my income, and nothing to write home about in London.
You can take an opportunity to remove someone who may be damaging your business if they carry out a totally separate act. Like here.
There is no other logical explanation. She is clearly a good cleaner, and got a decent reference-or else she would not have walked into other jobs.
Have I seen her contract? Don't know who she worked for. But I have drafted a lot of them. And I know that clause is standard in that particular industry. Incidentally, if the Trade Union were more alert, they should have seized on 1 thing. During the disciplinary process, she was apparently suspended without pay-that is irregular.
Nowhere near double your income? As I'm sure someone alluded to on a different thread today, I am just using facts.
She should receive money for her child, from the Government and the Father. No idea whether she has a current Partner. Her Mum will receive either income or benefits.
I would always tell the story to suit. "Single Mother" or "Sole Wage Earner".
I dont live in London, or have any dependant children, or parents.
It's always Haysie
Attempting to have the last word