[BBC News] Manx Telecom staff back walkout

[Mr. Sausages]

I've never quite understood the whole union setup - does this mean (if approved) that everyone would get 4.1% across the whole company? Is that not slightly unfair, if for instance, Person A works their bollocks off, does a great job and goes that extra mile - they get 4.1%. Whilst Person B does sod all, surfs the net and eats sausage baps all day and gets 4.1%. I would have thought that would generate a lot of friction in a big organisation.

 

Don't know about MT, but from my experience of working at big organisations they make an announcement to all staff that they'll get x% (usually below inflation, despite record making profits because it's going to be a tough year blah blah blah). Then when they sit down to go through it one to one they say to person A "because you've been good you'll get x+y% but don't tell anyone". Although, I've always refused to join a union.

[Newsbot]

Bosses at Isle of Man telecoms firm Manx Telecom are hopeful strike action can be avoided.

 

Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/7559336.stm

[P.K.]

It's hardly bullying the workforce. I've never had a payrise in line with inflation. That's how big companies work. It's frustrating that you're best bet for a payrise is to change jobs, but that's the way it is.

Don't know about MT, but from my experience of working at big organisations they make an announcement to all staff that they'll get x% (usually below inflation, despite record making profits because it's going to be a tough year blah blah blah). Then when they sit down to go through it one to one they say to person A "because you've been good you'll get x+y% but don't tell anyone". Although, I've always refused to join a union.

In my experience big organisations do not work like that at all.

 

I've never quite understood the whole union setup - does this mean (if approved) that everyone would get 4.1% across the whole company? Is that not slightly unfair, if for instance, Person A works their bollocks off, does a great job and goes that extra mile - they get 4.1%. Whilst Person B does sod all, surfs the net and eats sausage baps all day and gets 4.1%. I would have thought that would generate a lot of friction in a big organisation.

There are two issues here:

 

Firstly if you do not give payrises that maintain the benchmark for the post (not the individual employee by the way) then they will vote with their feet and move on. This then not only gives you all the tiime and expense of hiring replacements (and what a pain THAT is!) but YOU END UP HAVING TO HIRE THEM AT THE BENCHMARK LEVEL ANYWAY! Otherwise you just won't hire anyone or you will end up with sub-standard candidates. So you're far better advised paying up in the first place. Unfortunately poor British management (i.e. the majority) seem happy to function with this turnover of people as they stupidly see it as getting rid of expensive people and replacing them with cheaper so it looks like adding to the bottom line. So they deliberately lose their experienced people who by the way are far more likely to make the right decision first time than kids off the street. They have also moved this experience to a probable business rival after funding all the individuals expensive training - lose/lose.

 

Secondly in my experience the whole payrise issue can make or break an organisation. Most organisations get a pile of wonga to distribute as they see fit i.e. 4.1% of the wage bill. Usually the crap managers divvy it up by the stated percentage across the board because it's the path of least resistance and everyone's happy - errr, well not quite because as stated previously we're not actually all equal so why should we get equal payrises? Good managers reward excellence and also send an unmistakeable message to those who are not pulling their weight. Under such a manager the good are motivated to excel, the crap are motivated to leave - win/win.

[Lost Login]

I would give them a pay rise based on the current inflation rate provided they repay any pay rise in excess of the inflation rate over say the the last five years when inflation was low and agree to restrict any future rises to inflation.

[Hugh Jampton]

Worker should have a share of the profits their labour has produced. Shareholders should not be the only ones to gain from Company profits

[Stu Peters]

Funny how your perceptions on issues like this change depending on which side of the fence you're on.

 

When I was an employer, I paid people according to their importance, the market rate and rewarded their hard work and loyalty. Inevitably some people work harder - and are better employees - than others, so I would never do a blanket pay deal, or emply union staff. I was also of the opinion that my staff could sleep easily in their beds knowing they'd have a job in the morning, whereas in tough times it was MY house being used as a security against bank loans and landlords, ME that had to do regular battle with the bank, creditors, slow paying clients, and the VAT and Tax Office. So if we made good profits the last thing I'd feel like doing was giving them to the staff.

 

Now I'm a wage slave again, I think profit sharing, regular payrises without asking and worker's rights are all wonderful ideas...

[pongo]

if everybody got pay rises at or above inflation, this would only result in higher interest rates and ultimately higer inflation.

 

I more or less agree with that and with the other posters who have made roughly the same point. Pay increases in line with inflation, fuel inflation. That lesson was learned in the 1970s, I thought.

 

That said - I've found the MT staff to be really good and I hope something gets sorted out which makes them feel reasonably rewarded. The worst scenario would be if the union got their way - but that x months down the road that resulted in jobs losses on the island and new jobs somewhere out in some cheap labour haven.

 

On the wider point about inflation. I have a question ....

 

Since the IOM govt does not control Manx interest rates - would I be right in thinking that the only mechanisms they have to control inflation would be taxation rates and public sector wages (and I guess any influence they can have over private sector wages) ? Do they directly control anything else which would significantly affect money supply and therefore inflation rates?

[Sebrof]

Since the IOM govt does not control Manx interest rates - would I be right in thinking that the only mechanisms they have to control inflation would be taxation rates and public sector wages (and I guess any influence they can have over private sector wages) ? Do they directly control anything else which would significantly affect money supply and therefore inflation rates?

 

Broadly speaking, yes. Though I feel that governments generally can and should do more to restrict credit than simply to raise interest rates.

 

If mortgage providers were not permitted to enforce repayment of a loan in excess of, say, 80% of a property's value, we would see much less of the sort of nonsense that Northern Rock got up to.

[Albert Tatlock]

Since the IOM govt does not control Manx interest rates - would I be right in thinking that the only mechanisms they have to control inflation would be taxation rates and public sector wages (and I guess any influence they can have over private sector wages) ? Do they directly control anything else which would significantly affect money supply and therefore inflation rates?

 

Broadly speaking, yes. Though I feel that governments generally can and should do more to restrict credit than simply to raise interest rates.

 

If mortgage providers were not permitted to enforce repayment of a loan in excess of, say, 80% of a property's value, we would see much less of the sort of nonsense that Northern Rock got up to.

Many people saw that one coming, and now it's no surprise we are facing such an adjustment, all down to irresponsible lending. The problem is the money has now moved from property to other things such as fuel and commodities, which are expensive as a result and biting hard into peoples pockets, and now taking money away from other sectors too, and so it goes. Trouble is the horse has firmly bolted and is several miles away - again, and it's a bit too late.

 

There are a couple of major things the government could do here to cut inflation IMO. The first is to ensure 25% (the gov and all the civil servants) of the working population have wage increases below inflation, which does send a clear message to other employers and encourage them to try to do the same. The second would be to reduce the impact of some of the major inflation drivers as much as they could e.g. build a major windfarm so we import less energy, a major item in our inflation figures, and subsidise our farmers to gear up to produce as much food as is possible locally at cheap rates (not at the rates they charge locally now). Another thing they could consider is paying temporarily (one or two years) the fuel surcharges being added by the SP and airlines - for business freight and business travel only - instead of dumping the costs on business who will then dump it in turn on customers and further fuel inflation - this would also help IMO, and should at least be looked at.

 

However, you cannot get away from the fact that we have made a rod for own back in many ways, as there are proportionately a higher percentage of wealthier people here, who have the means to pay the market rate, whilst it is the rest of the population suffer to a greater degree. The real people going to be affected by these greedy MT sods are the locals and pensioners who don't have thousands of pounds in the bank here.

 

MT and other staff demands for high pay rises will only fuel wage driven inflation, and it is only usually when unemployment starts going up that employees suddenly realise they are actually damaging their own prospects, and start to accept lower pay in exchange for job security.

[brightspark]

Hi,

This is a copy of an E-mail i sent to the Communications Workers Union with regard to Manx Telecom's proposed intermediary staff walkout:

 

Dear sir,

 

(FOR THE ATTENTION OF GRACE of the COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS UNION)

 

I was listening to Manx Radio this afternoon and heard Grace on about how her members were unhappy at Manx Telecom's proposed pay rise of 4.2%

 

I understand that Manx Telecom's Intermediary Staff are proposing Strike Action by walking out because they feel let down by a proposed 4.2% wages increase.

 

They feel that this is not enough because the rate of inflation on the Isle of Man stands at 6.6%.

 

Months before this Manx Telecom had announced that they are putting up their line rentals on domestic phone lines by 37.5% if you don't pay by direct debit and receive an ebill.

 

Grace announced that "She feels it's unfair because Manx Telecom have made record profits this year"

 

These profits have had no affect on their decision to penalise Manx People by increasing their line rental charges by 37.5%.

Your actions will mean furher future increases.

 

These charges are hitting low income families and pensioners.

 

Your workers asking for a further pay rise will mean further increases in line rental in the future

 

Pensioners and low income families have to meeet these costs and they don't get any help until April 2009.

If they do get help, it is lucky if it is £5 per week.

 

Whilst your members are squabbling over a pay rise of 6.6% i had a pensioner some weeks ago come up to me, and say "She is worried about how she can afford to heat her house this Winter" and further added "She thinks a lot of pensioners will die this Winter"

 

It makes me sick that your people who are on decent salaries are not grateful for what they have!

 

The Pensioners and low income Families are now hit with a 16.5% increase in Electricity commencing September 2008.

 

They have seen rises in oil prices

 

April 2007 £345 for 900 litres of Central Heating Oil

February 2008 £450 for 900 Litres of Central Heating Oil

July 2008 £616 for 900 Litres of Central Heating OIl and rising daily.

 

These are now the costs of heating homes.

 

These are the costs that Low Income families and Pensioners are hit by.

 

This does not include fuel and food prices.

 

They get very little help, so therefore i think you should accept Manx Telecom's Offer of 4.2%. This is only a small sacrifice compared with what Low Income Families and Pensioners have to sacrifice.

 

People like yourselves on decent Salaries do not need these rises as it is only passed on to these vulnerable people to pay for it.

 

What's more important:

 

A pensioner warm in his or her house?

Or you squabbling over a few percent wage rise?

 

Remember it's the less well off that you are making suffer.

 

Why doesn't your Union help these people?

 

I will forward you my Email outlining Manx Telecom's decision to increase line rental that i wrote to both Graham Shimmin of Manx Telecom and the Press, also the Competition Commission.

 

The Manx Government needs to keep control on these pay rises or the nation and vulnerable people will suffer.

 

Regards,

[Gladys]

Don't really understand the point you are making.

[mtj73]

Don't really understand the point you are making.

 

I do, accept the offer or vulnerable people will suffer. As others have said, there is a recession and it's going to start biting soon.

[Lost Login]

These are the costs that Low Income families and Pensioners are hit by.

 

No these are costs we are all hit by. Why do pensioners think thet are special? Do not get me wrong I have every sympathy if a pensioner or any oher is suffering to make ends meet but I class all such people as low income families or individuals who society I think should provide assistance to. Just because you are a pensioner does not mean you are in that group.

 

I heard an interview on Manx Radio earlier this week in response to the "pensiones may die " headlines and responses by the government. If I heard the lady correctly she was discussing her mother who moved to the IoM aged 82 and in discussing the rise in fuel prices stated pensioners such as her mother might go cold because the rises meant they could not meet the costs from her pension income or income from savings. I sat there thinking what is the point of having such savings if you are not going to spend them. I appreciate that they prefer not to have to spend savings but surely that is what they are for. You may have worked hard all your life to obtain but are they not better being used to provide a bit of comfort now rather than sitting in a bank account ato be passed on when you die. I have a rainy day fund which hopefully I never have to use but I would use it to keep me warm rather than sit on it so it can be passedon when I am gone.

 

I also thought surely as her family you would ensure that your mother could pay the bills. My family is not particularly well off but I well remember as a kid my parents buying heating and or TV stamps each week for my grandparents which they handed over once the winter came.

 

Yes I appreciate their are hardship cases out there, and many of them are pensioners and society needs to assist these but in my view lumping all pensioners into the mix does the case a disservice

[Albert Tatlock]

These are the costs that Low Income families and Pensioners are hit by.

No these are costs we are all hit by. Why do pensioners think thet are special? ...

 

I sat there thinking what is the point of having such savings if you are not going to spend them. I appreciate that they prefer not to have to spend savings but surely that is what they are for. You may have worked hard all your life to obtain but are they not better being used to provide a bit of comfort now rather than sitting in a bank account ato be passed on when you die. I have a rainy day fund which hopefully I never have to use but I would use it to keep me warm rather than sit on it so it can be passedon when I am gone.

Many pensioners may have savings, though equally many do not.

 

Usually the only possible source of income for people who have saved all their lives is interest, and once savings are gone or eaten into substantially, you cannot get interest on it anymore to top your pension up, so spending your savings at that age may be a short term solution, but one that can soon lead to poverty few years later. Being forced to spend their savings also causes problems later on for Joe Public too, as we have to pick up extra costs as a result - such as additional care costs that were once thought to be covered. Moreover, you need £50K in the bank to get interest of around £5K these days, how many island pensioners have that, or even a quarter of that saved? Another difference between pensioners and you and I is this - you and I can plan on the date to retire, but do you expect pensioners to be able to plan for exactly the day they die and arrange/spend their savings appropriately?

 

Pensioners see the world as a very different place to you or I. Whilst I agree not everyone should get grants automatically, and there has to be a realistic means-tested process for giving out help to deal with this problem, the reality is though, many pensioners are very often proud people, brought up in an age when there were no benefits, and see benefits as something to be avoided, and/or something they have 'no moral right' to claim etc. etc. or simply do not want government poking their noses in their affairs. Claiming anything from government they are entitled to has almost seemingly built-in and complicated hurdles, which for a confused 70 year old is not helpful, by design I deeply suspect. Many pensioners assume other people are like them, when the truth is society has changed and most people are out for themselves these days - and benefits are seen as something completely different to many under 40s. Pensioners have been sidelined from society in many ways today - how many old couples do you see in the pub these days, compared to years ago?

 

Take into account their general: perception, frugalness and some of the above factors, and many will see scare stories in newspapers and TV, the bills arriving, and start cutting back, just as they had to do years ago. Whilst most won't die of hypothermia, the fact is that many will cut back and suffer cold-related illnesses, which in the past has killed off many of them in the winter - 50,000 a year at one point in the 90s in the UK.

 

All that said, I do take your point, and we have to face up to how we are to deal with all this, as this problem will only get worse in the future as the population of pensioners increases substantially. As I keep pointing out, the problem will get far worse on the island compared to the UK, where pensioners represent 15% of the UK population, and are approaching 27% of our population - so we really need to start addressing this NOW. I believe people should be forced to pay higher NI tax, that doesn't go to the government, but goes as it should have done in the first place as was promised, into a proper unraided pension pot. The likes of Gordon Broon has much to learn from the frugalness of our pensioners, he is a guy who now has nothing left in the bank to deal with the potential rough times the UK have coming over the next year or so - and has raided pensions and pi**ed away the rainy day fund.

 

This coming winter IMO it is likely to have never been more important to look in on, and look out for, pensioners in our neighbourhoods. But the reality is so many of us can't be bothered these days.

[Max Power]

If I were the union representitive I think I would be advising MT staff to accept the offer in these uncertain times!

Before they know it they will be asked to accept redundancies, and they will have no grounds to contest the management decision as it is they who will have forced up costs in the face of competition from Cable and Wireless!