Being forced to change work schedule

S

sexitoni

Registered User
Messages
75
*I did a search to find a thread that answered but couldn't find one*

I'm a permanent member of staff for a large multi-national. I was hired in 2001 as an engineer and have a permanent contract as such - the role is detailed in the contract but with added caveats that I have to perform other tasks as the company requires of me etc etc

In 2006 I was put on a project for three years and in 2009 I was given a role on shift but no new contract as it was considered a 2-year temporary role. I'm now in that role nearly 5 years and recently the company have decided they want to completely change my work roster to do more evenings and nights and have fewer rest days.

I've been told I either do it or go back to my original role. I love my current job but the proposal will be very difficult in terms of not seeing my family and increased fatigue etc.

So the question I'm asking is if I have any grounds for refusing the change? I'm open to some change - just not as extreme a change as is being dictated. I've spoken informally to my boss about it but he's just shovelling the decision down from above him. I'm a member of SIPTU but not any of the branches in my factory (I joined quietly before the threat of closure some time back, but have never 'used' the union before).

Probably not relevant but the company are also engaged in very long negotiations with the union branches for pretty minor changes in their work practices - the difference in attitude from management to the union and 'non-union' workers is pretty stark.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you.
 
No point in being in a union, paying dues and not using them when you need them most. Ring SIPTU, get the contact number for your rep and have a chat. Emphasise the need for confidentiality if you feel the need for same.

You could also check your rights out with www.employmentrights.ie
 
On the basis that your proposed new roster is going to adversely your work life balance & to also effect your stress levels it may benefit your situation if you were to advise your boss that you would prefer to be represented by SIPTU in any negotiations.

As you say the Company in question have a policy of recognising Unions so hopefully you should have no problems in involving SIPTU & you should also bear in mind the fact that , as you infer , the Company seem to deal better with Unionised members .
 
Deiseblue said:
you should also bear in mind the fact that , as you infer , the Company seem to deal better with Unionised members .
Click to expand...

I interpreted it the other way round, that the company had a negative attitude towards unionised members. Maybe the original poster could clarify?
 
Thanks for the advice so far folks.

There is a roughly 50:50 split between union and non-union workers in the plant - management, administrative and technical staff are pretty much all non-union.

There are three or four branches of SIPTU onsite and all of the branches have, until recently, been very powerful. Roles across the branches are clearly demarcated and any changes to work practices in the past have been either flatly refused or bought at considerable expense.

As a result the company is now hostile to the union and a lull in manufacturing expected later this year is being used to demand significant change to help lower costs or else redundancies. Nonetheless negotiations are supposedly torturous with every proposed change being scrapped over, according to the people involved.

I'm in a technical role and my peer group has never been organised. There are three people in my specific role, one for each shift, and another 20-odd on days. I think I'm the only one in SIPTU and I'm not in any of the recognised branches.

As such I'm not in negotiations - a decision was made and I'm expected to accept it. No one in a role like mine has ever, to the best of my knowledge, involved the union in a negotiation on their behalf and I have absolutely no idea how management would respond if I showed up with a shop steward to argue my case. The non-union workers basically always do as they're told (as most harbour ambitions of getting up the management ladder and don't want to scupper their chances).

I have no problem asking SIPTU to intervene on my behalf - I'd just like to be pretty sure I'll win the argument, as I think it's a card I'll only ever get to play once. As we're not organised as a group I'm worried that I'll be 'eased out' somehow if I'm not careful.
 
The new roster is in - I have to change from an 8-day cycle of 2 x 12-hr days, 2 x 12 hr nights, off for 96 hours to a 9-day cycle of 3 swing shifts (3pm to 11pm), 3 nights (11pm to 7am) and off for three days.

For good measure my shift premium is being cut (because it's 8 hours instead of 12) and it works out at a 37.5 hour week instead of a 42 hour week so I'm down money there too.

:(
 
Given the fact that you really only want to involve SIPTU if there is a certainty that you win the argument then I think you need to discuss your dilemma with the Union's professionals to ascertain their views of the merit of your case .
 
Deiseblue said:
Given the fact that you really only want to involve SIPTU if there is a certainty that you win the argument then I think you need to discuss your dilemma with the Union's professionals to ascertain their views of the merit of your case .
Click to expand...

I'll do that - simple suggestion I hadn't thought of, thank you
 
sexitoni said:
No one in a role like mine has ever, to the best of my knowledge, involved the union in a negotiation on their behalf and I have absolutely no idea how management would respond if I showed up with a shop steward to argue my case. The non-union workers basically always do as they're told (as most harbour ambitions of getting up the management ladder and don't want to scupper their chances).
Click to expand...
So the people that they want in management positions are people who 'do what they're told' and don't harbour the resources they need in a disagreement? It doesn't bode well for the future of the firm if all those being promoted at basically timid yes-men who are unable to speak up for themselves.
 
Complainer said:
So the people that they want in management positions are people who 'do what they're told' and don't harbour the resources they need in a disagreement? It doesn't bode well for the future of the firm if all those being promoted at basically timid yes-men who are unable to speak up for themselves.
Click to expand...

I think it’s more a case of wanting people in management who will act in the best interest of the business that they are managing.
If a person is a union activist they will act in the short term interests of the employees rather than the medium to long term interest of the business.

Management need happy and productive employees but they need them to be flexible and motivated and they can’t pay them more than they are worth.
Unions strive to minimise flexibility, de-motivate people by setting standards as low as possible and look for pay rates that are unsustainable. It is utter madness to put a union activist in charge of a business as they will invariably destroy it.
 
Not all Union members are "activists" and Purple there are many managers who are also trade union members and have no difficulty in separating the two - I'm one myself.
 
dereko1969 said:
Not all Union members are "activists" and Purple there are many managers who are also trade union members and have no difficulty in separating the two - I'm one myself.
Click to expand...

I agree, that's why I used the word "activist".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top