Staff at a Ladbrokes betting call centre on Merseyside are staging a 24-hour walkout in a row over pay.
The union Usdaw said hundreds of workers at the site in Aintree were set to strike from 0500 BST on Sunday. It said staff were unhappy after being offered what it said was a below-inflation pay rise of 3%.
A spokesman for Ladbrokes, which also has a call centre in London, said, "It is essential that our costs remain competitive. I think we have made a fair offer but we remain open to negotiations from the union."
It is the second time staff have gone on strike over the matter - they also walked out in August.
Usdaw's area organiser Michelle Owens said: "Staff on site are furious the company has not increased its 3% pay offer at a time when inflation is nearer 5%.
"Despite meetings with senior management and Acas the company have refused to improve the offer.
"Our members are struggling to cope with higher fuel and food bills and deserve better from the company."
She added: "While we are keen to resolve this dispute, everything hinges on the company's willingness to make an improved offer."
A spokesman for Ladbrokes, which also has a call centre in London, said, "It is essential that our costs remain competitive. I think we have made a fair offer but we remain open to negotiations from the union."
It is the second time staff have gone on strike over the matter - they also walked out in August.
Usdaw's area organiser Michelle Owens said: "Staff on site are furious the company has not increased its 3% pay offer at a time when inflation is nearer 5%.
"Despite meetings with senior management and Acas the company have refused to improve the offer.
"Our members are struggling to cope with higher fuel and food bills and deserve better from the company."
She added: "While we are keen to resolve this dispute, everything hinges on the company's willingness to make an improved offer."
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Usdaw?
06.10.2008 11:40
lolwob
Get the wording right
06.10.2008 17:11
If you provide the same service this year as last year, then a reasonable, albeit capitalist, expectation would be to raise prices in line with inflation. This is price inflation. This is the 5% described above. The people paying that premium are whoever buys the service.
If you do the same job this year as you did last year then a reasonable expectation is to be paid the same this year as last year. Which means a 5% change before any kind of "increase". So a 3% pay increase would need to translate to an 8.15% increase. That is because the 5% increase in inflation took place before the 3% offer. So the increase should be 3% of 105% of last years agreement.
What this means in practical terms is with inflation at 5%, divide your gross by 100 then multiply by 105. The amount after multiplying by 105 is what you need to keep up with inflation. Now, with a pay rise of 3% divide the amount after multiplying by 105 by 100 and then multiply by 103. This is the amount that you actually need to be given to get an effective pay rise.
Yes it is pedantic to point this out. A good deal of the profit crunch has been created by people being fast and loose with what a percentage is and how to calculate it. Such as when that 0% finance deal turns out to be 26% APR. There should be no toleration of financial deceptions of this kind. If an offer is less than inflation, it is a cut. If it is greater than inflation it is a rise.
A pedant