Unions go to court in bid to overturn States’ pay ruling

ANGRY union leaders are seeking a Royal Court injunction to block the controversial pay settlement imposed on hundreds of public sector manual workers.

1,000 public sector workers attended Fort Regent to protest against a proposed pay freeze in September 2009
1,000 public sector workers attended Fort Regent to protest against a proposed pay freeze in September 2009

ANGRY union leaders are seeking a Royal Court injunction to block the controversial pay settlement imposed on hundreds of public sector manual workers.

Earlier this month the States’ negotiating body announced that it had broken off pay talks and enforced a three-year deal on all States workers except nurses, firefighters and some prison staff.

Today, Unite union spokesman Nick Corbel said that lawyers were now working on lodging an injunction to block the settlement on manual workers, while representatives for other States workers were still considering their options.

And he revealed that several public sector unions were planning a mass rally at Fort Regent early in the New Year.

The move would mirror the demonstration in September 2009, when 1,000 public sector workers attended Fort Regent to protest against a proposed pay freeze.

Full report in Friday's JEP

Comments for: "Unions go to court in bid to overturn States’ pay ruling"

james

Well, now there's £10 million knocking around, let's see it spent wisely!

Bo

Before any crack pot remarks about public sector employees, it's kinda tough, like it or not, there is nothing the private sector can do about this, if the unions decide with there members vote, to take action or strike what are you going to do about it except moan!!!!!

You only moan because of the jelousy you will go without because you have accepted your fait.

Mario

I have to agree Bo. The private sector moan about others having decent T&C's but do nothing to help themselves improve their own pay and conditions.

Thirtysomething

Yet again, Mario, you are wrong, But there is no point telling you this, You just ignore, lie, make up stuff, change the subject or simply change what you are claiming to the opposite and claim you was right all along.

People do not moan about their T&C seriously unless they are the minority bully public sector employees. After all, the 85% of the population in the Private sector would simply quit from their position and get a job with another organisation with better conditions. This is how real life works.

On the other hand, the remaining people in public sector employment have often bullied ridiculous terms and conditions out of their spineless employer at the expense of the taxpayer. That’s the remaining 85%, you know. It is the problem of all tax payers.

Example,

Contract says that a business is not allowed to employ anyone without the staffs consent.

Same contract says neither the business owner or its managers has control over overtime worked by staff. The staff controls this.

As the staff control employment, they can create a requirement for overtime, which they also control (thus making staff work longer, damaging their home life and family time) Too few staff means more work by those remaining staff.

These are silly terms in a contract. It would never appear in the private sector as it causes damage to the staff, making them no more than slaves, yet they, like you, cannot see this.

Besides, you have already said that these exact terms are fine and by removing them, the staff will suffer a pay cut. That’s clearly a lie (Pay is separate to Overtime)

If you really care about peoples terms and conditions, Why do you not fight for some clarity and fairness in the public sectors contracts? Or do you think bullying and nepotism is perfectly acceptable as long as you benefit from it?

JustAnotherJerseyBean

Be thankful you all have a job!!

The increase may not be as much as you've expected in previous years, but it is an increase none the less. There are 3000 unemployed people in Jersey that would gladly have your jobs! everyone is struggling!

I think if the unions have the audacity to challenge the states on this pay deal then they should rescind the whole offer and say to hell with you.

peddler

The SEB are acting like despots by changing standard terms and conditions that people signed when they joined. This is actually illegal and immoral unless both sides agree.

They waste half a million on paying Bill Ogley off, quarter of a million per year on the Hospital Director who works 4 days a week and countless other wastes of your money such as consultants being hired rather than lcal talent. Where is your vitriol about that?

These States workers are being shafted and they will do something about it. How can you have a problem with that? Seriously? Wouldn't you do something if you had the option?

A lot of people are unemployed because they choose to be, so throwing your figure of 3000 around is pointless.

I say go for it States workers. Despots should be stood upto.

workingaway

I agree in a way with your comment about some people choosing to be unemployed. There is work out there but not neccesarily in Jersey, I think people will have to accept that they may have to work off island to support thier families. Many are doing so already, I can see an unprecidented outward migration of skilled workers and professionals from Jersey to other locations happening over the next few years.

PJ

3000 unemployed, thought the stats said 2000?????? and out of these, how many prefer to sponge off of the island as income support is so easy to get rather than finding a job which are still out there if they could be bothered to get out of bed or from in front of the TV???

Which category do you fall into JustAnotherJerseyBean?

I can not see, without the proper training that these unemployed can,

a, do the job without this training and who will pay for this?

b, cover 7000 or so public sector jobs,

Also, it is not the unions, it is there members who have asked for this to be sorted out, they are the voice of these workers.

Alot of people seem to think states workers get fantastic pay compared to the private sector, think again. I think Bo @ 2 said it, what are you going to do about it except moan!!!!!

Kermit

We don't care, we want more money!

Worst unemployment ever: we don't care, it s all about us, us and us again.

Scrap your pensions if you want the cash now.

adenuf

Good god Kermit, grow up or shut up! If you had an organisation that would fight for your employment rights

(and lets not forget this is not just about money) you would do the exact same, I know I would! You would be nuts not to. Life is what you make it and if you don't fight for youself and your family every step of the way, you are doing yourself, wife and kids a dis-service. Unfortunately many large organisations think they can do what they like, unions give a voice to the workers that the employer has to listen to. I wish them luck as I know what it is like not to have support when tackling arrogant employers.

Dave

You all just don't get it ,the problem is not the pay rise,it is all to do with the CHANGE OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS , the pay is not the problem and that is not what they are thinking of striking about .So can you all stop barking up the wrong tree

Mark G

The JEP and Channelonline have both reported the headline facts.....pay rises.

As you say this is about terms and conditions not pay. The States have hidden behind the pay rise arguement and not stated the change in terms that will affect ALL states workers.

If you go on to the states websites you will find that they are cutting the petrol allowance by 20p a mile... how much did the consultant earn to give them that idea? The figures reported by the consultant were based on the UK AA rate on 10,000 miles PA. The current Jersey rate is the same as the UK AA rate of 5,000 miles.(we all know the cost of running a car in Jersey!) When this is enforced in January you will have hundreds of states employees not been able to afford to run their own vehicles to do the job they need to do, this will affect the eldery, infirm, sick and the less well off of the population as Health for example expect community nurses to use thier own vehicles. This is a PAY CUT.

The other term is to get the employees to sign up to the public sector reforms to get the 4% in 2014. How can the States force its employees to sign up for something that has not been planned, agreed or even listed by the States themselves? What is involved in the public sector reforms? This is a clause so that they do not have to pay the 4% in 2014.

As the report states "Earlier this month the States’ negotiating body announced that it had broken off pay talks and enforced a three-year deal on all States workers"

THe Unions have the right to negociate with the States on behalf of its members so all because some of you do not have a Union do not blame the employees who are trying to protect their terms of their legal contract of employment, what ever happens here with the States always filters into the private sector and you to will suffer from the actions of the States.

Do i dare mention PLEMONT, such a large conflict of interest but they nearly got their hands on YOUR money.

Thirtysomething

Thank you Mark G for actually explaining what one of these changes actually is.

Whilst I disagree, a bonus (such as fuel allowance) is not part of pay, it is a bonus, so any reduction is not a pay cut. In the same way that Connex drivers that don't do overtime are, apparently, getting a pay cut too. You have still raised a good point.

Now, I may have missed something, but regarding fuel allowance, What states job requires a fuel allowance other than community nurses? All the ones I can think of, use states vehicles?

Parktown Prawn

I agree thirtysomething....

An allowance is a bonus.

How many people have had their bonuses reduced since the ecomomic meltdown?

......I would say nearly everyone (in some form or other).

I am a little confused though. Jersey is 9x5 so how will a 20p drop in the fuel allowance cause "hundreds of states employees not been able to afford to run their own vehicles to do the job they need to do"?

I could understand the implications in a larger area where you may have to travel hundreds of miles a day.....but 9x5???

Besides, how is this "allowance" properly proportioned? How can the number of miles travelled for work purposes be correctly and accurately calculated??

Has there been any kind of abuse of this allowance perhaps?

....and if vehicles are required to do the job at hand then why are the states not providing these work vehicles?

Mark G

The mileage allowance paid to employees and its volunteers of the States saves the tax payers millions of pounds a year! The allowance is not used for employees to get to work it is paid to carry out their duties within Jersey. You seem to have no knowledge of the States what so ever yet you pay your taxes every year not knowing what it is been spent on? Your comment "What states job requires a fuel allowance other than community nurses? All the ones I can think of, use states vehicles?" says it all. When the States impose this you will be the first moaning when the States has to increase the size of its fleet of cars when is employees start refusing to use their own vehicles.

BOLLOX

Really? Then either you or the JEP have your facts wrong.

Earlier this month the States’ negotiating body announced that it had broken off *PAY* talks and enforced a three-year deal on all States workers except nurses, firefighters and some prison staff.

Today, Unite union spokesman Nick Corbel said that lawyers were now working on lodging an injunction to block the *SETTLEMENT* on manual workers, while representatives for other States workers were still considering their options.

And he revealed that several public sector unions were planning a mass rally at Fort Regent early in the New Year.

Mark g

the pay talks include terms and conditions and are used as a tool for negotiation. give a little to gain a little. but the state's seem to want their cake etc. the same with the bus drivers, terms changed and pay is dropping. would love to see your reaction to a pay cut!

ade

Well final salary pensions need to be scrapped as they unsustainable and put unfair pressure on private sector taxpayers.

Mario

Yes ade I'm sure you would give up a final salary pension without a fight. These T&Cs have been hard won over many years by those who went before. Some have overlooked this fact because they don't like fellow workers getting a better deal than themselves.

It's good to see others supporting my view on this subject.

No doubt the usual suspects will soon be commenting on here spouting off against unions.

Parktown Prawn

"hard won".....really?

WW2 was hard won!

Please enlighten us all as to HOW your precious pension was "hard won"...

I am intrigued by another comment of yours. Who is "supporting" you Mario.....all I read is you commenting on other peoples posts.

The only people who respond to you are the ones who ridicule you or challenge you on your, let's just say, "creative" outlook on things.

egalitarian

I see Mario is only a communist when it suits him.

Mark G

Parktown Prawn - I for one agree with Mario on this subject. (maybe not ALL subjects). This is a debate and all debates have 2 sides and it appears to me that you do not like the fact that there may be more than one person out there that disagrees with your opinion. People like you should join the National Trust because you are just like the minority who wanted the States to buy Plemont, did care about the majority.

Let me remind you of something, Marios comment "These T&Cs have been hard won over many years " is infact correct. Please tell me where would you be now if our Mothers, Fathers and Grandparents had not stuck up for their rights to earn a decent living? unless you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth you most likely be on a field picking spuds.(No offensive to all the spud pickers out there). RIGHTS have been won over the years to provide us with a desent quality of life and to survive, if they are erroded away over night then we all may as well move to a third world country. Parktown Pawn if you are working for an employer then you are missing the point...its all about money and your boss does not care if you sleep rough tonight.

Whats wrong with fighting for someones right to survive?

What's wrong with fighting for a legally signed contractof employment?

Parktown Prawn

OMG, we have a Mario clone!!

Mark G

Who says the Plemont supporters were a minority....a little online poll?

So if a couple of hundred people contributed their opinion to an online poll you think that is representative of the +100,000 population?

Get a grip!

My god you are a drama queen...."where would you be now if our Mothers, Fathers and Grandparents had not stuck up for their rights to earn a decent living"....."if they are erroded away over night then we all may as well move to a third world country."

Your comment is for a decent living and we have minimum wage rules for that......the topic discussed by Mario and I was on "T&C's" and "final salary pensions". Keep to the subject in future because it makes you look less silly.

Please explain what "right" they have to a final salary pension.

"RIGHTS have been won over the years to provide us with a desent quality of life and to survive".....

Are you for real? To survive?

I wonder how many nanderthals didn't realise they had rights?

The same rights that allow terrorists to live among us and for criminals to get better treatment than their victims??

BTW, it really is simple. If you don't want to sign the contract then don't....but get another job with T&C's which suit your own needs.

Contract = an agreement entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between or among them. The elements of a contract are offer and acceptance by competent persons having legal capacity who exchange consideration to create mutuality of obligation.

Mario

See P.P. you are wrong yet again!

:)

My points stand up to scrutiny unlike yours which are cobbled together in a poor fashion.

Make no mistake if unions were done away with pay and conditions would go south. Do you honestly think employers will give a penny more than they can get away with?

It is due to unions that society has evolved from the doff your caps times into a more enlightened era.

Unions help act as a counter balance to the might of the employers.

A contract? I don't agree with your definition.

Thirtysomething

"My points stand up to scrutiny"

No they dont.

You just ignore scrutiny. Especially when proven wrong.

Steve

Good luck to them but I fear no court in Jersey will uphold the rule of law, and order the States to return and negotiate in a fair manner. Only industrial action will force the courts hand to order consolation and arbitration something the law requires in every civilised country.

Jersey courts are simply a extension of the government to uphold the government line with Justice of no concern.

states employee

I am always so frustrated to read these articles. I am employed by the States and feel myself very lucky to be in a job, working in a post that pays around 12% less than I would earn in the UK. I also have no desire to return to work in the UK, as my quality of life for my family here is great. All good things come at a cost. And unfortunately no matter how loud anyone shouts, the money (except the earmarked Plemont millions!)just does not exist.

Please count your blessings States colleagues.