Now that the fans who found scanning their card too complex a task for them have mastered the art and there isn't pay on the gate there isn't a need for turnstile staff. Obviously if anyone is entitled to a pay off they should receive it and should be given proper notice.
SMC letter dated 26 September to turnstile staff. "It was agreed with your representative for you to continue to work until the end of the rugby season, which comes to an end on Sunday 27th September 2015, at which point manned turnstiles will be superseded by automatic access controls. "After that date you will not be offered any further work as a turnstile operator." So after years of service, in some cases decades, they get one day's notice they're not wanted anymore. Before anyone asks. The representative didn't tell the person who passed on the letter that they'd agreed the turnstile staff would be finishing today. I don't know if the turnstile staff will take the SMC to a tribunal but I think they can prove they are employees rather than workers (the legal point we've being discussing).
The excerpt from that letter suggests, to me, that the 27th had been pencilled in and made known to employees at an earlier stage. To confirm it only the day before, however, is rather ruthless and, I would suggest, unnecessarily brutal. Doesn't surprise me though. Just like they were technically able to annex the Airco, I reckon this is legal too. Just not nice and not necessary.
Sorry but its rubbish to suggest they had no idea it was coming. Its been coming a long time. So the rep didnt let on to the rest of the staff?? I call bollocks.
Really, unless you know the rep you have no idea whether he or she told them. Like I said, I've known some of the turnstile staff for years. If they told me they weren't told by the rep that today was the last day I believe them. Finally why should it be left to the rep to tell them? Shouldn't the employer tell the staff they are no longer required. Why didn't they get the letter a month ago? Or two months ago?
No I dont know the rep but if you do name and shame him then. He deserves it. But again its been coming for ages. I've been made redundant before and its **** you bury your head in the sand, hoping all the time it wont happen, last minute reprieve etc etc. Some blokes took it really badly, taking years to get over if ever. I know some Council staff who were told to clear out their desks and leave the same day after 30 odd years of service a few years back.
It doesnt make it right though Its lucky that they dont fully rely on these jobs to pay the bills in most cases
The problem is we don't know all the facts. All we have are cynically presented bits and bobs which are edited and without context presented as the whole picture. I honestly don't bought better of you Obi. It appears obvious this has impacted on either just blokes you know or whom you're mates with. I get you might feel aggrieved on their behalf. However, as normal and especially on this forum, the truth is never what it seems. I find it hard to believe there was a rep involved in talks about this who never consulted with and kept those he represents up to date with anything he knew. I guess it's always easier to just boo and hiss at the Allams even with the absence of ALL the facts.
Like you say you don't know all the facts. I've reported 75% of what I know. The rest you're not going to get so please don't ask. The only thing I don't know is who the rep was. Either the person I talked to didn't know or wouldn't tell me. I didn't know anybody affected by the seizure of the Airco Arena yet I supported them and attended their protests. To me if people are treated badly it doesn't matter if I know them or not they'll have my support. I asked the person if the rep told them weeks ago today was going to be the last day and they said no nobody had told them they'd be sacked from today. I trust that person and that's enough for me.
"Telling a rep" isn't going to stand up in a tribunal, assuming the staff are classed as employees. The employer is legally obligated to inform each individual in writing within the correct timescale. I'm thinking that this rep story is bollocks, however much you believe it to be fact, Obi. I would imagine the Allam's real stance is that they believe the staff are workers and can be terminated without notice. Time will tell. Whichever way, the Allams have proven previously they don't have a strong regard of generally accepted good employment practice, so who knows. Just saying, like.
When the hospitality staff had an issue they were ask to select a rep to represent them, so I presume that would have happend to the guys on the turnstile. Communication is a 2 way thing surly you pal must have known something was happening or why have a rep, why didn't he ask what was going on ?
As The Jam pointed out, this is the modern world. Indignation may be justified, it may not, but I can see nothing altering. I'm intrigued by this representative, not who he is, but what is his or her's standing? How is he/she representative; is it formal, contractual, or just a social association?
I'll ask if they elected a rep next time I see them. When I asked who the rep was they said they didn't know. The letter didn't say who the rep was. Yesterday's news came out of the blue. As Anal Frank's Fingers said the SMC may view them as workers and didn't have to give them notice. I think that's right, the SMC doesn't see them as employees. Its up to the individuals concerned to take it further. Whether they will or not I don't know. I trust the person who told me that they didn't know, that's enough for me.
Are the staff employed directly by the SMC, or do they work for a company that has a contract with the SMC?
