Employment Practices

[VillageVicar]

I've had a distraught lady speak with me today regarding her employer. She has worked for a large high street pharmacy for the past thirty-seven years. She's 18 months from retiring. Until two weeks ago, the woman has had the same daily work pattern for the past 22 years (0830-1730). Now she has been told she will work alternating days, twelve hours a day and alternating weeks, where the Tuesday, Thursday Saturday pattern will change to Monday, Wednesday Friday and Sundays.
I'm concerned for her as her husband recently passed away unexpectedly and in the midst of her bereavement, her employer has made such drastic changes. In some instances, it might 'appear' that the company is trying to wear her down so that she will take early retirement, thus reducing her pension payments. Has anyone had similar experiences? Thank you. (I've re-posted this in B&S as it doesn't appear in the 'unanswered list' and I'm not sure it can be seen elsewhere.)

Fr Bill

[mrs_overall]

That is absolutely scandalous!
Does this lady have a contract? If so, it cannot be changed unless MUTUALLY agreed by the employer and employee. Some employers can get around this by including in the contract a mechanism for making changes.She needs to examine her contract very carefully. Without knowing what it says, I can't advise further. Is she in a trade union? If so, her union rep will be able to give her advice. If she has no contract or union, I would point her in the direction of the Citizen's Advice Bureau.

[plowter]

The lady you're helping needs to check her contract or terms and conditions of employment.

The ACAS leaflet on Varying a contract of employment should prove useful.

ACAS also run a helpline for employees 08457 47 47 47 (M-F 08:00-18:00).

I'd suggest she raises a grievance through the company's grievance procedure. Thereafter she could approach an employment tribunal for breach of contract or, ultimately, constructive dismissal.

[Octavius]

If she has a variation term within her contract they may be able to change it without her consent, although any decent employer would talk it through and get tacit agreement first.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/e_changes_to_emp loyment_contracts.pdf

[VillageVicar]

Thank you SO much for this helpful information. Personally, I�m appalled at the changes I see are taking place with the company she works with. It seems to be affecting the majority of staff. New hires are being given the hours that those who have been faithful to their company for so many years had. And in my layman�s view of it all, I feel those closest to retiring are being shoved out.

I was also shocked to discover that after almost forty years with the company, she�s only paid minimum wage. That too I find to be appalling.

But what I�ve seen to be the saddest part of all is that her employer knows what she has experienced over these past months with the death of her husband. It�s that callous disregard for the reality that she�s faced with some major transitional issues right now, that the company could simply pile on even more stress.

I will ask about her contract. I�m certain after all these years, she will have been presented with various permutations of contract changes. Whilst her company has a union, (I did ask this), she never imagined why she would need to join one. Up until this year, she has always enjoyed her work there.

All of this concerns me greatly. I�m suspicious of companies who make radical changes to work patterns for staff who are close to retirement. I�ve seen this in the airline industry where airlines force families who have been settled for decades, to pull up and move clear across the country in order to preserve their employment�and of course�often in different jobs, sometimes in the very jobs they started with when they were first with the company.

Thank you again!

Fr Bill

[VillageVicar]

Octavius: I believe this is precisely what has happened. They obtained �tacit� approval from her to accept these changes. She has told me she told them she would �try it for a bit,� but her personality is such that she�s a bit too timid to defend her rights. I believe they�ve taken advantage of this fact.

I�ll visit with her this evening and see what solutions we can find. I�m very concerned for her.

Thank you again for all your kind input

Fr Bill

[bednobs]

why is being paid the minimum wage appalling? i dont understand that. Being paid less than the minimum wage sucks, but being paid the minimum wage is ok. She's been working there for 40 years, she's obviously satisfied with the wages

[Ethel]

You say they are changing the working hours for the majority of staff - so the company is not 'picking on' this particular lady.

Maybe you ought to change tactics and see the benefits of the new working pattern - 14 days a month working instead of 20, so less traveling time and less travel expenses.

You can be very sure that this company will be sure of their legal position before imposing such changes on the majority of the workforce.

Many thousands of people are still earning minimum wage at retirement age, even when they have been employed by the same company for many years. Before the minimum wage act they would have been on even lower wages.

[shaneystar2]

I'm afraid this is how some big companies work . And you don't have to be on the minimum wage either .
My husband was gradually eased out of his job with similar tactics and he was on much more than a minimum wage .
The simple fact of the matter was that he was too old ! Not that old but old enough to be be thought dispensable .
Plus they had to pay him his salary and they could employ temps at a lower rate .These companies don't consider age and experience they just want a quick turnover and want the cheapest method of achieving it .So they pee people off and they leave ....simple as that .
However with only eighteen months to go it shouldn't affect her pension drastically .But it's the principle of the thing .
She could try the voluntary redundancy route if it's in her contract of employment .
It's not easy when you get older to adapt to new working practices and especially so in view of her circumstances .You would think her employer would be more understanding but unfortunately we live in a cut throat ,me ..me ..society these days.The individual is just a number on a payroll.

[VillageVicar]

Bednobs: I realise my views about her wages are subjective. But it must be my misguided thought that during one�s employment with a company, as it is in her case, an employee would grow, gain more experience that they could impart to others and as such become a more valuable asset to the company. I should also imagine that during one�s tenure, a company would award salary increases on a formula that is based upon cost-of-living and meritorious performance. Those pay rises serve as motivators and incentives for performance, the spirit of corporate-social growth, and recognition of the value of the employee.

Mrs_O, Plowter, and Octavius: Thank you SO much for your contributions. Whilst I understand that the structure of a company�s business plans change from time-to-time and employees must be a part of those transitions, I�m not sure this is the case here. The only people who have had their work-schedules changed are those who have less than two years remaining before they retire. Whilst I�m not alleging any impropriety, I am focused on specifically who these changes are affecting.

I would agree with Octavius that any savvy HR department will be �acutely� aware of their conditions of contract, as well as the desired goals instructed from the Executive Office. My guess is that there is indeed a variation clause within the contract. Having seen countless contracts for various airline employees from around the world, I have been amazed at how deftly those HR departments can write a simple sentence or phrase that later may have a profound impact on the employee at a later time.

Continued:

[VillageVicar]

Part 2


United Airlines comes immediately to mind: After the carrier emerged from bankruptcy, the air and ground crew were presented with new contracts. Somewhere in the sixth page and eleventh paragraph that said �


UAL encourage personal development for all employees. In striving to achieve the best customer service our policy is to maintain an accrued experiential and learning benchmark at each base. To maintain that benchmark, UAL reserve the right to assign, either temporarily or permanently, esteemed personnel who meet and exceed these benchmarks. Determinations are in accordance with contract terms.


Whilst it looks like utter gibberish, what it said was that the airline holds the right to uproot its staff and send them thousands of miles across the country, at any time. The real �kicker� is the last sentence: �In accordance with contract terms,� means that the airline bases all decisions on the hire date of the employee.

Continued:

[VillageVicar]

Part 3


As the airline moved out of its protection from the courts, still being unable to make a profit, they invoked this strange little clause. There were people who had lived in places like San Diego, whose children and grandchildren lived there, and having only a couple of years remaining before they retired, being told they were now going to work in New York City. And there were people who had homes on the west coast of Florida, where they had saved for years to buy a small boat, being shipped off to Dallas. It was absolutely absurd. But equally, it was effective. It forced hundreds of early retirements. But equally, it broke up families, caused heart attacks, and untold stress on families.

They intentionally used the word �policy� rather than �goals,� which made this a condition of their contract, rather than just a nice recognition of the employee�s experience.

Apologies, I didn�t mean to waffle on, but it�s a classic example of creative and cunning employment contracts.

Many thanks to all of you for your well thought through contributions. This is helping me considerably.

Fr Bill

[VillageVicar]

Shaney: Thank you for your comments. I tend t agree with you. I feel, from a pastoral perspective, that I would not wish her to seek voluntary redundancy as I believe she desperately needs the social interaction from her work. I believe it is that which gives her meaning to her life. She is highly respected by customers and obviously, after that many decades, she has built important bonds with customers who seek her out for advice�or even for a friendly face.

Yes, I agree: I feel the hidden message may be that the company wants fresh faces, and more value for money (she is at her maximum in leave benefits).

Thank you again everyone.

Fr Bill

[bednobs]

i didnt read that all, but to answer to your point that you answered of mine(!), if she has done extra training and got extra skills she is using that other people arent, fair enough,I dont know what she does bt if she is "customer facing" ie taking money at a till or similar then theres not much progression, or getting better at it i suppose! And the company would be on a sticky wicket if they paid her more to do the same job as someone else just because she'd been there longer