Bromley trade unions at war with 'nasty little Tories' (From This Is Local London)

Brilliant quote in this article, "If people aren’t performing then are capability processes for that, you should not attack their standard of living .”

What a load of rubbish that just sums up the Union's way of thinking. He's moaning that their standard of living is cut. Well they should think themselves lucky. As far as I'm concerned, if people aren't performing then sod the 'capability processes', sack them. Where I work, if you're not performing then you're out and rightly so!

This guy clearly lives in cloud cuckoo land. In his 'world' people should be paid regardless of what they actually do or contribute. Presumably we need more of Gordon Brown's prudence to pay for that... lol
It's attitudes like this that prove union dinosaurs still roam UK PLC and have learnt nothing from all the self inflicted damage which has resulting from their own outdated dogma.

PaulErith wrote:
Brilliant quote in this article, "If people aren’t performing then are capability processes for that, you should not attack their standard of living .” What a load of rubbish that just sums up the Union's way of thinking. He's moaning that their standard of living is cut. Well they should think themselves lucky. As far as I'm concerned, if people aren't performing then sod the 'capability processes', sack them. Where I work, if you're not performing then you're out and rightly so!

What do you mean "should think themselves lucky"? Do you think they should be glad that they are still alive?

There are procedures in place in most companies to deal with underperforming staff. Yes in sales it's pretty clear cut, you either make the money or you don't, but not everybody works in sales. How do you calibrate good customer services? or recovery of debt? If somebody has no money, you can threaten to blow their knees off, it will not make any difference.

I don't know where you work, but in most companies it costs time and money to train staff, so sacking people is not something that a responsible company will do willy nilly. And you seem to have not heard of industrial tribunals, which are not cheap for companies who fire staff incorrectly.

Slonik wrote:
This guy clearly lives in cloud cuckoo land. In his 'world' people should be paid regardless of what they actually do or contribute. Presumably we need more of Gordon Brown's prudence to pay for that... lol It's attitudes like this that prove union dinosaurs still roam UK PLC and have learnt nothing from all the self inflicted damage which has resulting from their own outdated dogma.

He has not said anything of the sort! He has said that he is opposed to Bromley Council putting pay negotiations into the hands of local managers rather than abiding by national agreements.

FTR, if I was a union official I would prefer to deal with local managers, who would be quite unused to pay and conditions of service negotiations, and who would be easy meat for experienced union negotiators.

(I wonder if that has crossed Stephen Carr's mind.....(!))

PaulErith wrote:
Brilliant quote in this article, "If people aren’t performing then are capability processes for that, you should not attack their standard of living .” What a load of rubbish that just sums up the Union's way of thinking. He's moaning that their standard of living is cut. Well they should think themselves lucky. As far as I'm concerned, if people aren't performing then sod the 'capability processes', sack them. Where I work, if you're not performing then you're out and rightly so!

I didn't know it was that tough in the Poodle grooming world.

goldenbroomboy wrote:

PaulErith wrote: Brilliant quote in this article, "If people aren’t performing then are capability processes for that, you should not attack their standard of living .” What a load of rubbish that just sums up the Union's way of thinking. He's moaning that their standard of living is cut. Well they should think themselves lucky. As far as I'm concerned, if people aren't performing then sod the 'capability processes', sack them. Where I work, if you're not performing then you're out and rightly so!

What do you mean "should think themselves lucky"? Do you think they should be glad that they are still alive? There are procedures in place in most companies to deal with underperforming staff. Yes in sales it's pretty clear cut, you either make the money or you don't, but not everybody works in sales. How do you calibrate good customer services? or recovery of debt? If somebody has no money, you can threaten to blow their knees off, it will not make any difference. I don't know where you work, but in most companies it costs time and money to train staff, so sacking people is not something that a responsible company will do willy nilly. And you seem to have not heard of industrial tribunals, which are not cheap for companies who fire staff incorrectly.

The point is that you are employed to do a job, and are paid money to do so. It is morally wrong to think that you can turn up, under-perform and still get a pay rise. That's basically what the union guy is saying here. I'm not saying that as a blanket statement, under performing staff should be sacked. If they are working hard and need help in improving their performance, I'm all for that. In fact I've stuck my neck out to save someone who fitted into this category. However, if they're lazy and don't bother, then yes they definitely should be dismissed/performanc
e managed out of the company. In either case, there is no way that they can justify a pay rise or bonus.
I think it's fairly obvious as to what I mean by 'should count themselves lucky'! There's lots of people out of work, and yet someone is in a job, under performing, and has the nerve to complain that they've not had a pay rise.

PaulErith wrote:

goldenbroomboy wrote:

PaulErith wrote: Brilliant quote in this article, "If people aren’t performing then are capability processes for that, you should not attack their standard of living .” What a load of rubbish that just sums up the Union's way of thinking. He's moaning that their standard of living is cut. Well they should think themselves lucky. As far as I'm concerned, if people aren't performing then sod the 'capability processes', sack them. Where I work, if you're not performing then you're out and rightly so!

What do you mean "should think themselves lucky"? Do you think they should be glad that they are still alive? There are procedures in place in most companies to deal with underperforming staff. Yes in sales it's pretty clear cut, you either make the money or you don't, but not everybody works in sales. How do you calibrate good customer services? or recovery of debt? If somebody has no money, you can threaten to blow their knees off, it will not make any difference. I don't know where you work, but in most companies it costs time and money to train staff, so sacking people is not something that a responsible company will do willy nilly. And you seem to have not heard of industrial tribunals, which are not cheap for companies who fire staff incorrectly.

The point is that you are employed to do a job, and are paid money to do so. It is morally wrong to think that you can turn up, under-perform and still get a pay rise. That's basically what the union guy is saying here. I'm not saying that as a blanket statement, under performing staff should be sacked. If they are working hard and need help in improving their performance, I'm all for that. In fact I've stuck my neck out to save someone who fitted into this category. However, if they're lazy and don't bother, then yes they definitely should be dismissed/performanc

e managed out of the company. In either case, there is no way that they can justify a pay rise or bonus.
I think it's fairly obvious as to what I mean by 'should count themselves lucky'! There's lots of people out of work, and yet someone is in a job, under performing, and has the nerve to complain that they've not had a pay rise.

You have obviously totally misunderstood the point. The union guy refers to a capability procedure existing for under performing staff. The local terms and conditions which allows cuts over the national agreement is for all staff. The Council wish to move to a system where staff they deem to be 'underperforming' (criteria not specified) are punished financially whilst others are rewarded to existing levels with canteen vouchers rather than the nationally negotiated and agreed pay rise given to every other Council in the country. This is a significant loss of conditions which people are going to resent and will quite rightly want to fight. The union guy is explaining that if there is a problem with performance a fair procedure already exists to deal with those staff. If this goes ahead everyone suffers. How would you feel if your boss removed a section of your pay and said you can earn it back as vouchers if he\she deems you perform well? This also has to be seen in the context of Council workers nationally already having had a real-terms cut in pay for 4 consecutive years, constant threats of job cuts looming over them and a huge cut in their pensions. In the end people have to think whether they want good staff providing local services or not. As the old cliche goes, 'if you pay peanuts you get monkeys'.

You say that this also has to be seen in the context of Council workers nationally already having had a real-terms cut in pay for 4 consecutive years, constant threats of job cuts looming over them and a huge cut in their pensions. Well, that's no different to many people in the private sector that don't threaten to strike. As far as I'm concerned, unions are an evil menace that should be outlawed.

PaulErith wrote:
You say that this also has to be seen in the context of Council workers nationally already having had a real-terms cut in pay for 4 consecutive years, constant threats of job cuts looming over them and a huge cut in their pensions. Well, that's no different to many people in the private sector that don't threaten to strike. As far as I'm concerned, unions are an evil menace that should be outlawed.

So presumably you would wish to outlaw local Chambers of Commerce as well?

karmapolice wrote:

PaulErith wrote:

goldenbroomboy wrote:

PaulErith wrote: Brilliant quote in this article, "If people aren’t performing then are capability processes for that, you should not attack their standard of living .” What a load of rubbish that just sums up the Union's way of thinking. He's moaning that their standard of living is cut. Well they should think themselves lucky. As far as I'm concerned, if people aren't performing then sod the 'capability processes', sack them. Where I work, if you're not performing then you're out and rightly so!

What do you mean "should think themselves lucky"? Do you think they should be glad that they are still alive? There are procedures in place in most companies to deal with underperforming staff. Yes in sales it's pretty clear cut, you either make the money or you don't, but not everybody works in sales. How do you calibrate good customer services? or recovery of debt? If somebody has no money, you can threaten to blow their knees off, it will not make any difference. I don't know where you work, but in most companies it costs time and money to train staff, so sacking people is not something that a responsible company will do willy nilly. And you seem to have not heard of industrial tribunals, which are not cheap for companies who fire staff incorrectly.

The point is that you are employed to do a job, and are paid money to do so. It is morally wrong to think that you can turn up, under-perform and still get a pay rise. That's basically what the union guy is saying here. I'm not saying that as a blanket statement, under performing staff should be sacked. If they are working hard and need help in improving their performance, I'm all for that. In fact I've stuck my neck out to save someone who fitted into this category. However, if they're lazy and don't bother, then yes they definitely should be dismissed/performanc e managed out of the company. In either case, there is no way that they can justify a pay rise or bonus. I think it's fairly obvious as to what I mean by 'should count themselves lucky'! There's lots of people out of work, and yet someone is in a job, under performing, and has the nerve to complain that they've not had a pay rise.

You have obviously totally misunderstood the point. The union guy refers to a capability procedure existing for under performing staff. The local terms and conditions which allows cuts over the national agreement is for all staff. The Council wish to move to a system where staff they deem to be 'underperforming' (criteria not specified) are punished financially whilst others are rewarded to existing levels with canteen vouchers rather than the nationally negotiated and agreed pay rise given to every other Council in the country. This is a significant loss of conditions which people are going to resent and will quite rightly want to fight. The union guy is explaining that if there is a problem with performance a fair procedure already exists to deal with those staff. If this goes ahead everyone suffers. How would you feel if your boss removed a section of your pay and said you can earn it back as vouchers if he\she deems you perform well? This also has to be seen in the context of Council workers nationally already having had a real-terms cut in pay for 4 consecutive years, constant threats of job cuts looming over them and a huge cut in their pensions. In the end people have to think whether they want good staff providing local services or not. As the old cliche goes, 'if you pay peanuts you get monkeys'.

I think it should be remembered that Bromley Council cannot simply change their employees contracts of employment! Any employee wishing to "take advantage" of Stephen's new scheme would have to consent to it by signing a new contract of employment.

As for "performance related" vouchers, those are common in the private sector, where every Xmas the bosses favourites receive some kind of pat on the head-perhaps vouchers, perhaps a hamper, but they are not common in the public sector. How many council tax payers want their money to go towards store vouchers for the civic centre "In" crowd? I certainly do not. If however Stephen & his comrades want to put their hands in their pockets & pay for the same themselves, then they are at liberty to do so.

I have no problem with vouchers being given to deserving members whether public or private sector. You sound very bitter when you refer to the 'bosses favourites' or the 'in' crowd. I'm sure that goes on but in the majority of cases and in the majority of companies, bonuses are paid to those employees who are deserving.

PaulErith wrote:
You say that this also has to be seen in the context of Council workers nationally already having had a real-terms cut in pay for 4 consecutive years, constant threats of job cuts looming over them and a huge cut in their pensions. Well, that's no different to many people in the private sector that don't threaten to strike. As far as I'm concerned, unions are an evil menace that should be outlawed.

Total rubbish. People in the private sector do threaten to strike too and rightly so. Oil tanker drivers being just the most recent example. There comes a point where people are not prepared to accept lower terms in any job. Either they stick together and fight the changes for the good of everyone or over time all the decent people leave and get jobs for employers public or private who reward them fairly. The net affect is a slow decay and less qualified less competent staff in Bromley.

goldenbroomboy wrote:

karmapolice wrote:

PaulErith wrote:

goldenbroomboy wrote:

PaulErith wrote: Brilliant quote in this article, "If people aren’t performing then are capability processes for that, you should not attack their standard of living .” What a load of rubbish that just sums up the Union's way of thinking. He's moaning that their standard of living is cut. Well they should think themselves lucky. As far as I'm concerned, if people aren't performing then sod the 'capability processes', sack them. Where I work, if you're not performing then you're out and rightly so!

What do you mean "should think themselves lucky"? Do you think they should be glad that they are still alive? There are procedures in place in most companies to deal with underperforming staff. Yes in sales it's pretty clear cut, you either make the money or you don't, but not everybody works in sales. How do you calibrate good customer services? or recovery of debt? If somebody has no money, you can threaten to blow their knees off, it will not make any difference. I don't know where you work, but in most companies it costs time and money to train staff, so sacking people is not something that a responsible company will do willy nilly. And you seem to have not heard of industrial tribunals, which are not cheap for companies who fire staff incorrectly.

The point is that you are employed to do a job, and are paid money to do so. It is morally wrong to think that you can turn up, under-perform and still get a pay rise. That's basically what the union guy is saying here. I'm not saying that as a blanket statement, under performing staff should be sacked. If they are working hard and need help in improving their performance, I'm all for that. In fact I've stuck my neck out to save someone who fitted into this category. However, if they're lazy and don't bother, then yes they definitely should be dismissed/performanc e managed out of the company. In either case, there is no way that they can justify a pay rise or bonus. I think it's fairly obvious as to what I mean by 'should count themselves lucky'! There's lots of people out of work, and yet someone is in a job, under performing, and has the nerve to complain that they've not had a pay rise.

You have obviously totally misunderstood the point. The union guy refers to a capability procedure existing for under performing staff. The local terms and conditions which allows cuts over the national agreement is for all staff. The Council wish to move to a system where staff they deem to be 'underperforming' (criteria not specified) are punished financially whilst others are rewarded to existing levels with canteen vouchers rather than the nationally negotiated and agreed pay rise given to every other Council in the country. This is a significant loss of conditions which people are going to resent and will quite rightly want to fight. The union guy is explaining that if there is a problem with performance a fair procedure already exists to deal with those staff. If this goes ahead everyone suffers. How would you feel if your boss removed a section of your pay and said you can earn it back as vouchers if he\she deems you perform well? This also has to be seen in the context of Council workers nationally already having had a real-terms cut in pay for 4 consecutive years, constant threats of job cuts looming over them and a huge cut in their pensions. In the end people have to think whether they want good staff providing local services or not. As the old cliche goes, 'if you pay peanuts you get monkeys'.

I think it should be remembered that Bromley Council cannot simply change their employees contracts of employment! Any employee wishing to "take advantage" of Stephen's new scheme would have to consent to it by signing a new contract of employment.

As for "performance related" vouchers, those are common in the private sector, where every Xmas the bosses favourites receive some kind of pat on the head-perhaps vouchers, perhaps a hamper, but they are not common in the public sector. How many council tax payers want their money to go towards store vouchers for the civic centre "In" crowd? I certainly do not. If however Stephen & his comrades want to put their hands in their pockets & pay for the same themselves, then they are at liberty to do so.

They will presumably 'dismiss and re-employ' those who refuse to sign new contracts which will probably lead to wasteful legal battles at the rate payers expense.

I think Unions have burned their bridges with all this Olympics money grabbing.

The only time I ever hear about Unions doing anything other than for more money, is when they go on strike because someone's been caught playing squash whilst on disability benefit, and sacked, and they're "all out" over that.

Lets have a government with some backbone and smash the unions again. They constantly abuse their powers now.

Chrisbitz wrote:
I think Unions have burned their bridges with all this Olympics money grabbing. The only time I ever hear about Unions doing anything other than for more money, is when they go on strike because someone's been caught playing squash whilst on disability benefit, and sacked, and they're "all out" over that. Lets have a government with some backbone and smash the unions again. They constantly abuse their powers now.

Most of the work that union officials undertake is not reported because it would be of little interest to the world at large.

If I was injured at work & needed to sue my employer, my trade union would do it for me. Nobody would be going on strike, which is why you would not find it reported in the national news.

The biggest problem unions face at the minute is their public image which boob crow seems to single handedly destroyed over the last few years.Now if anyone else even threatens strike action the public are sick to death of it because the RMT's antics.

Unions are a double edged sword really, at times they cause more trouble than is needed but at other times they have a very important role.

I belong to a union because i know what protection it can offer me in my workplace.So far ive not needed to use them.

In a previous job i needed the unions support after management decided they were going to suspend me because i refused to work on the grounds of health and safety.This was pretty serious stuff and even now my contract prevents me speaking out about it in the media but as a train driver you can imagine how bad things can go wrong if you have faulty equipment.
I followed the procedure to the letter when this equipment failed but management were more concerned about their train service and threatened me with suspension if i didnt get back on the train.It was only after the union intervened that they backed off.It turns out this equipment had been faulty for over a year and we were using the backup system which had just failed.They chose not to repair the original system and claimd it would take a week to fix.
After the union informed them none of its members would be driving trains till it was fixed it was then fixed overnight.

The evening standard would have loved to have this story in their lap but it was all hushed up.

So yes unions are a pain but they also provide an extremely vital role if you are in the right union with the right leaders.

"the right union with the right leaders" = no such thing.