Barry Sanchez

The Government stat will always be the minimum BUT it better to have a minimum than companies rip off the worker, I know of a situation where by some if staff who worked for a company went sick they were told to take a days holiday, these poor working practices dont happen to the fortunate, they happen to the vunerable who usually have no Union protection or the required skills to work under better conditions. The fact remains most employers will pay what they can get away with without Unions keeping them in check, terms and conditions of service will nearly always be far lower at a place where the Union is not welcome, there are exceptions, Google, Kelloggs (they have a Union in Trafford/Wrexham factories but not in the admin) , Lush and Zurich.

But if you are sick how can you be on holiday?

Its 20 plus bank holidays at bigger companies,28 days is the minimum but bank holidays do not have to be included.

They probably would ha ha.

Only if you have the minimum amount of people on the system, having 1000's is obvious its going to affect workers, what about getting a loan, mortgage? Ask the staff what they would prefer would be a start to finding out if its correct or not?

For 2,000 what about the 22,000 others? Why not give a decent salary as opposed to shares? I concede the amount they are giving is very very good but what are the conditions and how many floor staff are on £20,000?

Staff share schemes are crap at best like this, probably worth next to nothing.

Its states 2,000 out of the 24,000 shall receive shares does it not?

What 2,000 out if its 24,000 workforce will receive some shares, what contracts are they on?

Whilst the gap between the employee and employer wages ever widens, Unions should never hold a business to ransom but employers should never exploit workers, Unions started out to protect the workers, they have done a great deal of good in keeping Victorian working practices out of the working environment. If businesses can only operate by exploiting the worker and giving paltry wages perhaps they should not be in business.

Off course Bricktop.

I live in South Liverpool and the nearest Waitrose is in Formby, the travelling expense negates it, not that I require a job mind.

Cheap labour for capitalists and votes for the left, opportunistic.

Thats very noble of you.

Maybe the older employees were only on a 12 month contract and have been moved over once expired. Why do you care, its cheap labour, cheaper clothes for you mate.

Flexible working hours on a fixed contract are different to this. After my wife goes back into work from maternity leave I will try and do that, its very different.

Cool.

What is that?

In short similar to turning up at the docks in the 30's and seeing if your turn came.

I have been a member of the Labour party for 20 years and in a Union for the same time, dune is not me, surely the admins can see that from my email?

There should be a guarantee if you secure employment you will receive guaranteed and assured hours at the rate thats fair for both worker and employer. This is simply exploitation and offering no assurances to staff to plan for the future.

Thats no guarantee though is it?

Why wouldn't I?

Yes thats my point Southsea.

No need to mention that. But thats one race in Europe we would be doing quite well in.