Sweetner

[Shoogler]

Stirrer wrote -

This is the kind of attitude that pi**es everybody off that works in the real world.

 

Where else but the SIC could it happen that all empoyees are paid to work 37 hours but only required to turn up for 34 of them, and then complain when they are asked to work the actual number of hours they are paid for. On top of that, they then expect a 'bonus' for agreeing to work their contracted number of hours.

 

On Frankie's own calculations, if someone had been empolyed by the SIC for 20 years they would have had 2800 hours paid leave - thats about a year and a half to normal folk.

 

Get real, and remember the poor sods who have had to finance this 3 hour holiday you have had every week !

 

I completely agree Stirrer. It's not a case of being asked to take a pay cut, so no less money and no less being spent in the local economy, merely being asked to work the 37 hours that the pay already covers. It is absolutely incredible to think that anyone would resist such a move, especially if a sweetner was on offer.

 

Incidenally, another exanple of a 'normal' work pattern where an early finish on a Frday happens is the maintenance contract workers at sullom Voe and that is a 3.30 finish. The difference is the shift is 8 to 4.30 with 3.30 on Friday to make up a 39 hour week. If you do your sums you can work out that means a 1/2 hour lunch break.

 

Can someone tell me how to properly lift a quote from a previous post please?

[trout]

Can someone tell me how to properly lift a quote from a previous post please?

 

Heya Shoogler....

 

.. you can click on the Quote button at the top right hand side of the post to take the whole of that post and quote it into yours.

 

You'll then see the below, as in my case of quoting your question:

 

[quote name="Shoogler"]
Can someone tell me how to properly lift a quote from a previous post please?
[/quote]

 

[Shoogler]

Got it. Thanks Trout

[Ghostrider]

What's happening under Single Status is that SIC employees who are currently contracted to work 34 hours per week, are now being asked to work 37 hours per week for the same money.

 

This amounts to around 140 hours per year extra they are being asked to work for the same salary. In exchange for this they have been offered 1 extra day holiday per year (that's 7 hours per year) and a one off payment of £1000 gross.

 

The other option they have is to continue to work the hours they are currently contracted to, but take a 9% pay cut.

For someone on say £20,000 per year, that works out at a £135 a month pay cut.

 

 

 

 

 

This is the kind of attitude that pi**es everybody off that works in the real world.

 

Where else but the SIC could it happen that all empoyees are paid to work 37 hours but only required to turn up for 34 of them, and then complain when they are asked to work the actual number of hours they are paid for. On top of that, they then expect a 'bonus' for agreeing to work their contracted number of hours.

 

On Frankie's own calculations, if someone had been empolyed by the SIC for 20 years they would have had 2800 hours paid leave - thats about a year and a half to normal folk.

 

Get real, and remember the poor sods who have had to finance this 3 hour holiday you have had every week !

 

Can I smell jealousy ?

 

I don't work for SIC but good luck to them.

 

I can never understand why people bitch about what other people earn. If you are not happy with your lot, go and try to get a job where you think it's better, instead of moaning about others.

 

Also 9% less money in their pockets is 9% less money spent in local shops.

 

Speaking personally, it has nothing to do with jealousy, I wouldn't "work" for the SIC and accept their shilling if it were the last job on earth, for entirely ethical reasons. It has everything to do with this....

 

Get real, and remember the poor sods who have had to finance this 3 hour holiday you have had every week !

 

People getting free rides at everyone else's expense and pocketing money for nothing that is supposed to be for the benefit of all, not just a select few.

[Marvin]

....which is great if you are a dinner lady, cleaner or other low payed job. not so good if you are middle management.

 

You're right....the principle of single status is about balancing it and making it fair which is splendid and long overdue. Your statement would be true if management were included in single status...they ain't. They will continue with the pay package they are currently on.

 

In response to some of the other comments....

 

This agreement came in the late seventies. I have worked for the council for 6 years. When I started I was told I work from 9am to 5pm everyday except Friday when I get off at 4pm and I get paid £**,*** per year. There was no hourly rate of pay given and the extra three hours is not mentioned in my pay packet. The Council decides its own pay structure so presumably it has always taken in to account (since the late seventies) that the working week is really 34 hours. Now under single status I am going to have to work an extra 3 hours (which by the way most people in my office do anyway with evening and weekend meetings but thats beside the point) for no extra pay which equates to a pay cut of 9%, for the rest of my working days. The defence is 'custom and practice'......we've done it like this for nearly 30 years. Forget about all this work 34 get paid 37 nonsense.....it does not actually exist. Hardly anybody in the Council was in post in 1978.

 

And remember, this is coming at the same time that pension rights are being slashed.

 

I understand all the comments seeing as Council workers are well paid but ask yourself what you would do if your boss said "I want you to work 3 extra hours per week for no extra cash, I'm not going to pay you the pension you've been contributing to since you started and you are probably going to have to take a pay cut on top of the 9% you are already losing by working more......"

 

I'm not against single status and I really enjoy my job. I'm all for paying people the correct wage that they should be on....but there are ways and means. £1000 (which is gross by the way so the actual payment will be subject to tax) is hardly compensation for working an extra 4500 hours (based on my own working lifetime) which roughly equates to 121 weeks of work.

[Colin]

The Islands Allowance is a nationally agreed allowance payble to council employees in the Western Isles, Orkney, Shetland and some of the Inner Hebrides. It should not be confused with the Special Construction Allowance which was phased out many years ago. the NHS and other government bodies also pay an Islands Allowance.

 

Presumably the 'Special Construction Allowance' was incorporated into the existing wage structure rather than being dropped altogether.?

 

Changing to a 37 hour week can have effect on peoples lives beyond just working the extra time. Current SIC hours are fixed at 9 to 1 and 2 to 5. Buses from the country fit in with this and people with children will have child-care arrangements that fit with this also.

 

Smokescreen..

Judging by the number of vehicles strewn around the town, most SIC employees seem to have access to a car and anyway, bus times and child care arrangements can be altered.

What would happen if SIC employees were required to put in a 40 hour week giving the 'Single Status' with most of the private sector?

 

I understand that it was proposed that anyone who wished to work 34 hours a week could continue to do so at 34/37th of their current salary.

 

Bit of a novel concept. Getting paid for the time they actually work.. Nice one..

 

The offer of the £1,000 has possibly been influenced by the experience of councils South where the introduction of Single Status has provoked strike action

 

Not surprised to read that. Most public sector 'desk job' employees seem to have cushy little (non-productive) numbers where they rarely have to get their hands dirty. Maintaining the status quo would be pretty high on their list of priorities.

[Muppet]

Presumably the 'Special Construction Allowance' was incorporated into the existing wage structure rather than being dropped altogether.?

 

 

 

You presume wrong. As the Island allowance increased anually, the temporary allowance decreased by a similar account until it disappeared. This had the effect of the combined allowances standing still for a number of years, when they would normally have increased.

 

As far as the working hours go, of course it is wrong to be paid for more hours than you are required to work, but the fault lies with the employers for allowing the situation to happen in the first place. I do have some sympathy with staff who are employed to work under a set of conditions, then having those conditions changed.

 

I dont work for the Council, so have no axe to grind on the subject.

[penfold]

I dont see why people are complaing about this if the staff at the council or anywhere else for that matter are able to negotiate a pay rise or improvemnet to their term and conditions then good on them, and as for paying for it, inderectly you also pay for the wages for every other employee and owner in the private sector involved in providing all the goods, foods and services you buy.

[Ghostrider]

I dont see why people are complaing about this if the staff at the council or anywhere else for that matter are able to negotiate a pay rise or improvemnet to their term and conditions then good on them, and as for paying for it, inderectly you also pay for the wages for every other employee and owner in the private sector involved in providing all the goods, foods and services you buy

 

In the private sector you have the choice of how much you pay towards owner and employee salaries, simply through the choosing of what you buy and where you buy it from. Plus, the laws of supply and demand usually always factor in as well, if the wage bill of one company is pushing the customer cost of a product/service to a higher level than that from a competitor, the higher changing company is highly unlikely to survive.

 

The public sector, at all it's levels holds a gun to your head and takes whatever from you it itself sees fit, and the services they supply are virtually a monopoly, there is next to no cost regulation through competition.

[moorit]

Surely it must be right that the business that pays the highest wages will attract more people interested in getting a job at that business, and thus be able to select a higher calibre of employee.

 

If you are saying that SIC is a high payer, maybe that's a good thing because the calibre of staff must be high.

 

I think the more higher paid jobs in Shetland the better.

[Neil R]

Colin said

It is also time, in my opinion, to remove the 'Island Allowance'

 

Changing to a 37 hour week can have effect on peoples lives beyond just working the extra time. Current SIC hours are fixed at 9 to 1 and 2 to 5. Buses from the country fit in with this and people with children will have child-care arrangements that fit with this also.

 

Working until 5pm on Friday woud gain them one hour straight away, I've never understood the justification or reasoning for the early downing of tools of a Friday with the Council, no other employer I can think of does it as standard practice. Cutting dinner breaks from an hour to 45 mins would gain another hour+.

 

Why not work 3 hours on Saturday morning for that matter? Numerous other employers operate 5 1/2 day working weeks. Certainly there would be child care implications, but I would have thought child care woud be easier to source of a Saturday morning than say before 9 or after 5 on weekdays.

 

Most people would be a lot happier, and the council and businesses alike would be a lot more productive, if we worked LESS hours rather than more. People should have the right to leisure time instead of spending the majority of their waking hours slogging their guts out for their employer.

[JustMe]

Neil R wrote

Most people would be a lot happier, and the council and businesses alike would be a lot more productive, if we worked LESS hours rather than more. People should have the right to leisure time instead of spending the majority of their waking hours slogging their guts out for their employer

 

Excuse me but which planet are you on?.........only time council workers spend the majority of their waking hours working is when they are getting lots of juicy overtime and I just do not accept that the expression "flogging their guts out" applies to council workers at any level.

[Colin]

 

Excuse me but which planet are you on?.........only time council workers spend the majority of their waking hours working is when they are getting lots of juicy overtime and I just do not accept that the expression "flogging their guts out" applies to council workers at any level.

 

Is there any truth in the rumour that a council road crew went to Ollaberry and, when they got there, realised that they had forgotten their spades. The situation was, apparently, only rescued when the foreman decided he would return to the depot to collect them and advised the crew to "lean against each other until I get back"

[Colin]

You presume wrong. As the Island allowance increased anually, the temporary allowance decreased by a similar account until it disappeared. This had the effect of the combined allowances standing still for a number of years, when they would normally have increased.

 

Then, presumably, it's still in place. Wearing a different skirt perhaps but, still there. Incorporating it into another payment type is just sleight of hand.

 

As far as the working hours go, of course it is wrong to be paid for more hours than you are required to work, but the fault lies with the employers for allowing the situation to happen in the first place. I do have some sympathy with staff who are employed to work under a set of conditions, then having those conditions changed.

 

So do I but, asking someone to work their contracted hours as opposed to 'extra' hours is common sense. No private employer would willingly pay for time that they are just not getting.

 

I dont work for the Council, so have no axe to grind on the subject.

 

Hmm... I think you will find that, one way or another, we are ALL working for the council.

[MuckleJoannie]

You presume wrong. As the Island allowance increased anually, the temporary allowance decreased by a similar account until it disappeared. This had the effect of the combined allowances standing still for a number of years, when they would normally have increased.

 

Then, presumably, it's still in place. Wearing a different skirt perhaps but, still there. Incorporating it into another payment type is just sleight of hand.

 

 

It is not still in place. As I stated in my previous post

 

The Islands Allowance is a nationally agreed allowance payble to council employees in the Western Isles, Orkney, Shetland and some of the Inner Hebrides

 

SIC staff do not get anything that council employees in other remotes islands get. If you look at job adverts for any of those areas you will see that the Island Allowance is the same.

 

Regarding the 34/37 hour week SIC employees do not get paid for the first 3 hours of overtime each week at present.