One of the reasons there are so many students is because of the lack of jobs, especially entry-level jobs for school leavers. Or do you just think it's a coincedence that student numbers have skyrocketed in recent years, despite the introduction of fees and the abolition of universal grants?
There are many times more people on disability than there were even 20 years ago, despite the work available generally being less strenuous.
You don't think having a massive surplus of labour weakens the bargaining position of working people? Do you think firms like amazon would be so keen to sack their staff if they knew they'd struggle to take on people to replace them? Face it, immigration has been disastrous for normal people, and has only benefitted the fat cat employers.
There's that expression again. What is meant by, "normal working people?" You wouldn't mean, by any chance, normal working British White people, now would you?
Sickness thresholds and monitoring are not about whether the employee is genuinely ill or not.....its about the fitness of the employee to do the job they are employed to do.....any sickness absence is a breach of contract. Obviously the majority of firms take a 'reasonable' stance on this and set monitoring triggers that apply to all staff not use those they want to pick out as being a problem.
Most sickness policies have a welfare element but the bottom line is it is a monitoring tool to reduce sickness and ultimately dismiss the employee if they the sickness doesnt reduce. Twelve days per annum 'allowance' which you are proposing is pretty extreme...particulary if you are suggesting that no action should be taken until the twelve days have been taken.
I work for a local authority and as all will know local authorities always have a sickness problem because the sick pay allowances are quite generous, however the triggers on absence are stringent.....three days in three months will start the process as informal....another day pushes is into a formal process which ends in dismissal.
I am not defending Amazon but I think is it not fair to criticise their sickness policy when most organisations have exactly the same type of system and they are supported in law to do so. We are talking casual seasonal temps are we not.....so 6 separate periods of absence is pretty high.
12 days is our threshold, and I work for a private sector large insurance company.
I have to be honest and say that 3 days in 3 months, is unbelievably draconian, even as a trigger point for informal action, and whilst I accept that there has to be a limit for any organisation acting in a "paternalistic" fashion, such that they would eventually need to get rid of someone who was long term genuinely ill, I also believe that with sick absence, there are numerous shades of grey, and many, many factors to take into account. Applying such a blunt instrument as your local authority does with its people, sounds positively pre Victorian ~ honestly !!! :eek:
I know that local authorities have been successfully sued for compensation in the past, for placing employees under needless stress, and wonder if this might be a possibility again. You also have to bear in mind that employers should consider a duty of care, not only to the sick person, but also other staff, and to the wider public, especially if staff are employed on front facing duties. If staff know that action might be taken against them, they will inevitably struggle back to work whilst not fully recovered, and could easily infect others. I used the norovirus example earlier, and would cite this again,as medical advice is to stay off work for a further 48 hours after symptoms have subsided, or the person could infect others.
Sickness thresholds and monitoring are not about whether the employee is genuinely ill or not.....its about the fitness of the employee to do the job they are employed to do.....any sickness absence is a breach of contract. Obviously the majority of firms take a 'reasonable' stance on this and set monitoring triggers that apply to all staff not use those they want to pick out as being a problem.
Most sickness policies have a welfare element but the bottom line is it is a monitoring tool to reduce sickness and ultimately dismiss the employee if they the sickness doesnt reduce. Twelve days per annum 'allowance' which you are proposing is pretty extreme...particulary if you are suggesting that no action should be taken until the twelve days have been taken.
I work for a local authority and as all will know local authorities always have a sickness problem because the sick pay allowances are quite generous, however the triggers on absence are stringent.....three days in three months will start the process as informal....another day pushes is into a formal process which ends in dismissal.
I am not defending Amazon but I think is it not fair to criticise their sickness policy when most organisations have exactly the same type of system and they are supported in law to do so. We are talking casual seasonal temps are we not.....so 6 separate periods of absence is pretty high.
Although, in the most part, correct, you have not referred to the amount "days " accurately. There are set formulae that includes blocks of continuous sickness. For example, if the employee is off sick for say, four days with the flu and then the following month off with another illness, for another five days, the ten months later eight more days with a sprained ankle, it is unlikely that any action will be taken. However if the employee was taking off one or two days every month, this will be flagged as a concern.
All of this aside, remember that these people are not actually employed by Amazon. They are employed by the agency that supply the labour. It is they who decide the terms of employment.
I had the best customer service from them than any other business.
I returned 3 items, they paid for all my postage, they refunded all the money quickly and accurately.
When my order came one day late, I emailed them, and they refunded me the postal costs and sent a personal email apologizing (none of this computerised stuff)
When I ordered a DVD from an outside seller and it didn't come, I contacted Amazon and they refunded me the full amount.
So I don't have anything bad to say about them, personally I think they have one of the best businesses around, their website is really professional.
OT: If you don't like it, don't work there.
This discussion isn't about customer service for us though is it - but staff service?
Itsjust so easy to say- if you don’t like it- get another job.
A large majority of people there probably find the location the main attraction and maybe don’t drive/getting train to other work places may be too far or expensive. It’s a huge factory offering mass jobs to one area so- so many people will depend on it.
Lack of skills/education to be able to get a better paid/treated job will also come into as is the fact we are all being told to sit tight in the jobs we do have basically, heading to 3 million unemployed with only jobs for half of these people, its just not as easy as you make it out.
With a company like Amazon making millions in profit, treating their hard working staff with basic respect is surely to be expected?
Some of the points from the article make me fume, they literally treat these people as numbers, not real people, re. sick days and breaks, it is as they point out so physical so of course people will need a rest. It makes me realise how lucky I am in taking an hour for lunch if I feel like it.
The main issues I would have with Amazon's reported practises are;
1) The hours. The article refers to an 8 hour shift and a 5 day week, followed by 10 and a half hours compulsory overtime. That's 2 and a half hours over the working time limit by my reckoning. Yes, the UK allows employees to opt out; I don't agree with that, because I don't think employees are often in a position to make a free choice, if job or promotion are dependent on it. If the employees are signing the opt-out, it's legal, but I do think it's bad practise.
2) Refusal to allow sick leave. I don't know the law on this, but it's a reality that sometimes people get sick and can't come to work. A day off apparently gets a penalty point, and six penalty points mean dismissal, so six days sick get you fired. Presumably at some stage a penalty point lapses; it doesn't say. But six days sick isn't necessarily that high. This seems draconian. I don't actually think it's that clever to have sick people coming into work - they may infect others, or be a risk to others due to poor concentration.
It isn't over the working time directive. The 8 hours will include the 35 mins of breaks which don't count as work time. This makes it a working week of 37h 5m. Add on the 10.5 hours and you then have 47h 35m, which is within the 48 hours set out.
To be honest those terms don't sound too awful. I suspect that the extra shift is only in the run up to Christmas and I bet a lot of the staff are pleased of the extra hours.
Having heard what some people who work there have said on the thread I suspect that the reporter is a little bit sensationalist / biased.
Some of the points from the article make me fume, they literally treat these people as numbers, not real people, re. sick days and breaks, it is as they point out so physical so of course people will need a rest. It makes me realise how lucky I am in taking an hour for lunch if I feel like it.
The sad fact is that in unskilled jobs people ARE just numbers.
Although, in the most part, correct, you have not referred to the amount "days " accurately. There are set formulae that includes blocks of continuous sickness. For example, if the employee is off sick for say, four days with the flu and then the following month off with another illness, for another five days, the ten months later eight more days with a sprained ankle, it is unlikely that any action will be taken. However if the employee was taking off one or two days every month, this will be flagged as a concern.
Bradford factor
For many organisations, the cost and disruption of persistent, short spells of absence are greater than for occasional, longer periods of absence. To address this problem, some companies use a method often referred to as the “Bradford factor”.
This Bradford formula highlights those employees with a high level of short-term absence. It is calculated by multiplying:
S x S x D = ‘Bradford’ points score
Where “S” is the number of occasions an employee has been absent in the last 52 weeks and “D” is the total number of days’ absence for that employee in the last 52 weeks.
So for employees with 14 days’ absence in one year, differently distributed, the score can vary enormously:
one absence of 14 days is 14 points (i.e. 1x1x14)
seven absences of two days each is 686 points (i.e. 7x7x14)
14 absences of one day each is 2,744 points (i.e. 14x14x14)
Using this information for all staff, employers can determine an “acceptable” Bradford score and can then focus on those employees whose Bradford score is not acceptable, identifying the reasons for a high level of short-term absence and dealing with the problem appropriately.
These days when I want to buy books, I look them out on Amazon, write down the ISBN number and give my local independent bookshop a ring. Either they've got them in, or they'll have them in two days' time.
The most it's ever worked out extra is £2, and that's offset by the fact that I can pick up the books on my way past the shop rather than pay for postage. I hate the thought that the likes of Amazon could mean that one day I'll walk past that shop and find an empty unit after 90 years in the building. But it's still pretty busy when you go in and the staff read a lot of books themselves instead of just picking and packing them in a big warehouse--you can even ask for recommendations!
Balls to Amazon, Tesco and all the other companies that'd love it if we all just stayed inside behind screens rather than getting out and doing physical shopping, picking up goods before buying them, talking to people about them.
Although, in the most part, correct, you have not referred to the amount "days " accurately. There are set formulae that includes blocks of continuous sickness. For example, if the employee is off sick for say, four days with the flu and then the following month off with another illness, for another five days, the ten months later eight more days with a sprained ankle, it is unlikely that any action will be taken. However if the employee was taking off one or two days every month, this will be flagged as a concern.
All of this aside, remember that these people are not actually employed by Amazon. They are employed by the agency that supply the labour. It is they who decide the terms of employment.
You've lost me.....which days have I not referred to accurately?. I was talking about my organisation basically to demonstrate that most organisations have triggers and systems in place to monitor and deal with sickness absence. Each organisation sets their own criteria and providing it is reasonable and wont be pulled apart at a tribunal that is up to them and part of the employment contract.
My organistion doesnt look at specifics...as in why someone is off sick but at their fitness for work so the reason for the absence is irrelevant unless it is work related.
Interesting what you say about them being agency staff though......seems Amazon are not responsible.
Using agencies is just a way for Amazon to say 'nothing to do with us, guv'. They should employ proper staff on decent salaries.
They are casual staff....thats what a lot of organisations do at Christmas....blimey. How much better would it be to employ them, only to sack them straight after Christmas.....suspect the thread here would make interesting reading if they did that.
They are casual staff....thats what a lot of organisations do at Christmas....blimey. How much better would it be to employ them, only to sack them straight after Christmas.....suspect the thread here would make interesting reading if they did that.
Why can't amazon just employ the casual staff themselves, instead of using an agency to do their dirty work?
You've lost me.....which days have I not referred to accurately?. I was talking about my organisation basically to demonstrate that most organisations have triggers and systems in place to monitor and deal with sickness absence. Each organisation sets their own criteria and providing it is reasonable and wont be pulled apart at a tribunal that is up to them and part of the employment contract.
My organistion doesnt look at specifics...as in why someone is off sick but at their fitness for work so the reason for the absence is irrelevant unless it is work related.
Interesting what you say about them being agency staff though......seems Amazon are not responsible.
I believe LCDMAN summed it up in post no. 83. It is not necessarily the number of days that are important, but combined with how many times absences occur. Someone with a physical injury could be quite capable of carrying out their duties, once an initial period of recovery is taken into account. This may not affect their ability to their job. Therefore, this absence should not accounted for in your example. However, if the cause is occupational, e.g. an industrial injury (of which there are many interpretations), this will affect their ability to do their job, but was actually caused by it. Would this be taken into account as well?
Having worked in a packing place many moons ago women would definitley be the fastest packers , the ones i worked with were lightning and me with my big sausage fingers could never keep up.
I'm sure there's some exageration going on there, becasue a lot of what the article suggests is actually illegal. To dismiss someone for being ill would be construed as Unfair Dismissal, to make someone work a full 5-day week (37 hrs) and then a 10.5 hr shift would be illegal under the European Working Time Directive, and break times are prescribe by employment law as well. Either Amazon are taking a huge financial risk by breaking the law, or there is some selective reporting.
How do you figure that?
Firstly the WTD sets a maximum 48 hour week, so 37 +10.5 (less breaks) doesn't go over that.
Secondly, it's an average worked out over a reference period (usually 13 weeks), so working extra shifts for a few weeks doesn't put you over the 48 hr average.
And lastly, workers can sign an opt-out if they are permanently going to work over 48 hours.
Taking disciplinary action against workers who are off "sick" on repeated occasions isn't illegal either and most employers will do it to some extent.
I worked in a place that would only originally offer a years contract. If you had more than three periods of sickness off in that time it would not be renewed the next year and there really wasn't anything anyone could do about it.
Breaks......I worked for organisation that only gave you a half hour unpaid lunch break for working 8 hours.
Toilet breaks......Do they really have to ask or do they just have to inform someone becaue the two are different!
The walking complaint is ridiculous and the estimates are probably at their highest estimate...there are plenty of jobs that involve a lot of walking about.
The hours...yes they seem a bit too much. But surely people are aware of them at interview!
For many organisations, the cost and disruption of persistent, short spells of absence are greater than for occasional, longer periods of absence. To address this problem, some companies use a method often referred to as the “Bradford factor”.
This Bradford formula highlights those employees with a high level of short-term absence. It is calculated by multiplying:
S x S x D = ‘Bradford’ points score
Where “S” is the number of occasions an employee has been absent in the last 52 weeks and “D” is the total number of days’ absence for that employee in the last 52 weeks.
So for employees with 14 days’ absence in one year, differently distributed, the score can vary enormously:
one absence of 14 days is 14 points (i.e. 1x1x14)
seven absences of two days each is 686 points (i.e. 7x7x14)
14 absences of one day each is 2,744 points (i.e. 14x14x14)
Using this information for all staff, employers can determine an “acceptable” Bradford score and can then focus on those employees whose Bradford score is not acceptable, identifying the reasons for a high level of short-term absence and dealing with the problem appropriately.
My company starts disciplinary procedure, or an investigation at least when the Brad Factor score reaches 64 in any 12 month rolling period - and I am not in a low skilled low paid job.
There is clearly quite a lot of elaboration. The article says that a reporter worked undercover as a temp for 7 days.
It also says that Senior Management confirmed picking targets were unrealistic. - Seriously what are the chances that senior managers are talking about performance management policy with a temp who has worked there 7 days??
As for walking 14 miles a shift, I don't see that as being dreadful, if you take a job like that surely you know what it entails. I run an online grocery department at Sainsbury's and my shoppers are 'shopping' for 8 hour shifts just walking around the supermarket for 8 hours, does that make me a monster??
50 Minutes of breaks for an 8 hour shift seems quite generous, as the article stated 20 min break and 30 min break then that is far far far in excess of the legal minimum which is 15 minutes for every 4 hours worked.
The pay complaint. For casual temporary work, to get anything over minimum wage seems pretty good! £6.30/hr certainly doesn't strike me as unreasonable. It's more than they would be earning in most major retailers (only 3p/hr less than we pay pickers at Sainsbury's - and our rate is higher than Tesco or Asda).
The 10.5 hour overnight shift seems unreasonable if it is 'forced overtime', in reality I think it's probably more likely that it was in the original offer for the temp staff and some people just don't want to do it.
For permanent staff; if they are employed on flexi time and they were given 4 weeks notice of it being included in their schedules and their original contract of employment required them to consent to night work; then it is legal.
To be honest I would think in the current climate most people would appreciate the overtime! I know my staff are all asking for overtime this Christmas!!
Finally to those of you who complain about agencies; they exist for the sole reason of keeping the labour market flexible and helping people find work quickly! At this time of year most retailers will be taking on agency staff to deal with Christmas. As another poster said surely thats better than hiring loads of staff and sacking them in January.
Most HR departments in retail would not have the capacity to manage the scale of recruitment of temporary staff required at Christmas, so an agency is the only choice.
Comments
There's that expression again. What is meant by, "normal working people?" You wouldn't mean, by any chance, normal working British White people, now would you?
12 days is our threshold, and I work for a private sector large insurance company.
I have to be honest and say that 3 days in 3 months, is unbelievably draconian, even as a trigger point for informal action, and whilst I accept that there has to be a limit for any organisation acting in a "paternalistic" fashion, such that they would eventually need to get rid of someone who was long term genuinely ill, I also believe that with sick absence, there are numerous shades of grey, and many, many factors to take into account. Applying such a blunt instrument as your local authority does with its people, sounds positively pre Victorian ~ honestly !!! :eek:
I know that local authorities have been successfully sued for compensation in the past, for placing employees under needless stress, and wonder if this might be a possibility again. You also have to bear in mind that employers should consider a duty of care, not only to the sick person, but also other staff, and to the wider public, especially if staff are employed on front facing duties. If staff know that action might be taken against them, they will inevitably struggle back to work whilst not fully recovered, and could easily infect others. I used the norovirus example earlier, and would cite this again,as medical advice is to stay off work for a further 48 hours after symptoms have subsided, or the person could infect others.
Although, in the most part, correct, you have not referred to the amount "days " accurately. There are set formulae that includes blocks of continuous sickness. For example, if the employee is off sick for say, four days with the flu and then the following month off with another illness, for another five days, the ten months later eight more days with a sprained ankle, it is unlikely that any action will be taken. However if the employee was taking off one or two days every month, this will be flagged as a concern.
All of this aside, remember that these people are not actually employed by Amazon. They are employed by the agency that supply the labour. It is they who decide the terms of employment.
This discussion isn't about customer service for us though is it - but staff service?
Itsjust so easy to say- if you don’t like it- get another job.
A large majority of people there probably find the location the main attraction and maybe don’t drive/getting train to other work places may be too far or expensive. It’s a huge factory offering mass jobs to one area so- so many people will depend on it.
Lack of skills/education to be able to get a better paid/treated job will also come into as is the fact we are all being told to sit tight in the jobs we do have basically, heading to 3 million unemployed with only jobs for half of these people, its just not as easy as you make it out.
With a company like Amazon making millions in profit, treating their hard working staff with basic respect is surely to be expected?
Some of the points from the article make me fume, they literally treat these people as numbers, not real people, re. sick days and breaks, it is as they point out so physical so of course people will need a rest. It makes me realise how lucky I am in taking an hour for lunch if I feel like it.
To be honest those terms don't sound too awful. I suspect that the extra shift is only in the run up to Christmas and I bet a lot of the staff are pleased of the extra hours.
Having heard what some people who work there have said on the thread I suspect that the reporter is a little bit sensationalist / biased.
The sad fact is that in unskilled jobs people ARE just numbers.
Bradford factor
For many organisations, the cost and disruption of persistent, short spells of absence are greater than for occasional, longer periods of absence. To address this problem, some companies use a method often referred to as the “Bradford factor”.
This Bradford formula highlights those employees with a high level of short-term absence. It is calculated by multiplying:
S x S x D = ‘Bradford’ points score
Where “S” is the number of occasions an employee has been absent in the last 52 weeks and “D” is the total number of days’ absence for that employee in the last 52 weeks.
So for employees with 14 days’ absence in one year, differently distributed, the score can vary enormously:
one absence of 14 days is 14 points (i.e. 1x1x14)
seven absences of two days each is 686 points (i.e. 7x7x14)
14 absences of one day each is 2,744 points (i.e. 14x14x14)
Using this information for all staff, employers can determine an “acceptable” Bradford score and can then focus on those employees whose Bradford score is not acceptable, identifying the reasons for a high level of short-term absence and dealing with the problem appropriately.
The most it's ever worked out extra is £2, and that's offset by the fact that I can pick up the books on my way past the shop rather than pay for postage. I hate the thought that the likes of Amazon could mean that one day I'll walk past that shop and find an empty unit after 90 years in the building. But it's still pretty busy when you go in and the staff read a lot of books themselves instead of just picking and packing them in a big warehouse--you can even ask for recommendations!
Balls to Amazon, Tesco and all the other companies that'd love it if we all just stayed inside behind screens rather than getting out and doing physical shopping, picking up goods before buying them, talking to people about them.
You've lost me.....which days have I not referred to accurately?. I was talking about my organisation basically to demonstrate that most organisations have triggers and systems in place to monitor and deal with sickness absence. Each organisation sets their own criteria and providing it is reasonable and wont be pulled apart at a tribunal that is up to them and part of the employment contract.
My organistion doesnt look at specifics...as in why someone is off sick but at their fitness for work so the reason for the absence is irrelevant unless it is work related.
Interesting what you say about them being agency staff though......seems Amazon are not responsible.
They are casual staff....thats what a lot of organisations do at Christmas....blimey. How much better would it be to employ them, only to sack them straight after Christmas.....suspect the thread here would make interesting reading if they did that.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/Mega-Monday-For-Online-Retailers/Video/200812215174525?lpos=Latest+Video_7&lid=VIDEO_1718286_It%27s+Mega+Monday+Today%21&videoCategory=Latest+Video
The agency isnt doing their dirty work.....agencies exist for a very specific reason. Blimey do you want to shut all the agencies down?
look at retail. retail is far worse as you have to deal with customers.
I believe LCDMAN summed it up in post no. 83. It is not necessarily the number of days that are important, but combined with how many times absences occur. Someone with a physical injury could be quite capable of carrying out their duties, once an initial period of recovery is taken into account. This may not affect their ability to their job. Therefore, this absence should not accounted for in your example. However, if the cause is occupational, e.g. an industrial injury (of which there are many interpretations), this will affect their ability to do their job, but was actually caused by it. Would this be taken into account as well?
It's interesting to see how quick the items were being packed. They are doing far more than one hundred and forty an hour.
Firstly the WTD sets a maximum 48 hour week, so 37 +10.5 (less breaks) doesn't go over that.
Secondly, it's an average worked out over a reference period (usually 13 weeks), so working extra shifts for a few weeks doesn't put you over the 48 hr average.
And lastly, workers can sign an opt-out if they are permanently going to work over 48 hours.
Taking disciplinary action against workers who are off "sick" on repeated occasions isn't illegal either and most employers will do it to some extent.
Breaks......I worked for organisation that only gave you a half hour unpaid lunch break for working 8 hours.
Toilet breaks......Do they really have to ask or do they just have to inform someone becaue the two are different!
The walking complaint is ridiculous and the estimates are probably at their highest estimate...there are plenty of jobs that involve a lot of walking about.
The hours...yes they seem a bit too much. But surely people are aware of them at interview!
My company starts disciplinary procedure, or an investigation at least when the Brad Factor score reaches 64 in any 12 month rolling period - and I am not in a low skilled low paid job.
It also says that Senior Management confirmed picking targets were unrealistic. - Seriously what are the chances that senior managers are talking about performance management policy with a temp who has worked there 7 days??
As for walking 14 miles a shift, I don't see that as being dreadful, if you take a job like that surely you know what it entails. I run an online grocery department at Sainsbury's and my shoppers are 'shopping' for 8 hour shifts just walking around the supermarket for 8 hours, does that make me a monster??
50 Minutes of breaks for an 8 hour shift seems quite generous, as the article stated 20 min break and 30 min break then that is far far far in excess of the legal minimum which is 15 minutes for every 4 hours worked.
The pay complaint. For casual temporary work, to get anything over minimum wage seems pretty good! £6.30/hr certainly doesn't strike me as unreasonable. It's more than they would be earning in most major retailers (only 3p/hr less than we pay pickers at Sainsbury's - and our rate is higher than Tesco or Asda).
The 10.5 hour overnight shift seems unreasonable if it is 'forced overtime', in reality I think it's probably more likely that it was in the original offer for the temp staff and some people just don't want to do it.
For permanent staff; if they are employed on flexi time and they were given 4 weeks notice of it being included in their schedules and their original contract of employment required them to consent to night work; then it is legal.
To be honest I would think in the current climate most people would appreciate the overtime! I know my staff are all asking for overtime this Christmas!!
Finally to those of you who complain about agencies; they exist for the sole reason of keeping the labour market flexible and helping people find work quickly! At this time of year most retailers will be taking on agency staff to deal with Christmas. As another poster said surely thats better than hiring loads of staff and sacking them in January.
Most HR departments in retail would not have the capacity to manage the scale of recruitment of temporary staff required at Christmas, so an agency is the only choice.