Unite makes gains on insecure hours in McDonald’s contract

By Mike Treen

(Reprinted from The Daily Blog)

Unite Union is in the process of ratifying a new collective agreement with McDonald’s that is a significant step forward in getting improved security of hours for that company’s 9500 employees. It comes after negotiations broke down at the end of April and four months of action by members and supporters at stores around the country.

Unite delegates training at day at the Unite office

The new fairer rostering clause is the most important change in the agreement and applies to all members. The power to roster someone or not is the most important weapon for controlling and disciplining the workforce.

The new clause affirms the the importance of “rostering employees fairly and reasonably”.

It says that “Where additional hours become available in a restaurant current employees will be offered additional shifts before new employees are employed.” There is an added obligation that “additional shifts will be notified to employees on the crew notice board”.

When hours have to be reduced in store then the reduction “will be uniformly applied” so they can’t cut just some members shifts while other stay the same or even get more.

Where members have problems with their shifts they can raise the matter with their manager, get their own wage and time records, and if they are not satisfied with the response have the issue escalated to the HR department who must “investigate and share relevant information.”

A union representative can be involved at any stage of that process. If the union believes there is a store wide problem it can be taken to the HR department “who will investigate and share relevant information.”

The obligation to “share relevant information” is an important obligation as it has often been difficult in the past to get information from the company regarding rosters and hours in a store.

The company has also committed to stronger education of managers and monitoring and enforcement measures, including the issue in crew questionnaires and posters in store explaining the policy and the escalation process crew can use if they aren’t happy.

Union member only payment

All union members who joined before April 29 (when negotiations broke down) will receive a special payment when this agreement is ratified. Nonunion staff do not receive this payment. In return for this payment the union agrees to allow the company to pass on the terms and conditions to nonunion staff. The amount paid depend on the average hours worked in the previous 8 weeks. Union members who work over 30 hours on average get $200 (gross). Union members who work 21-30 hours on average get $125 (gross). Union members who work 20 hours or less on average get $100 (gross).

Improved breaks clause

An important part of the new agreement is ensuring that the current legal obligations to provide breaks (which is being repealed by the government) is maintained. The company had also wanted to go back to a 10-minute rest break. Unite has been able to get the legal rest break of 10 minutes increased to 15 minutes in all its collective agreements.

The new clause ensures a 15 minute paid break in the 3-hour minimum shift. The 30 minute unpaid meal break is required for working more than 4 hours and a second 15 minute break kicks in for working more than six hours. This is the first time it has actually been in the agreement that the second rest break must happen for working more than six hours.

Workers will be compensated an additional 15 minutes pay is they miss a rest break. We believe workers should also be compensated for missing the meal break but the company and union are in dispute on that issue with differing interpretations of a clause in the old collective agreement and will probably end up in court over the issue. If we are successful workers could be owed several million dollars.

In this agreement we included a clause that the union had the right to seek a penalty and compensation for individual workers if they miss their meal break. The company has also committed to doing a more thorough auditing process of stores to ensure compliance with the breaks clause.

Wage increase modest

The wage increase is modest and constrained by the 25 cent an hour minimum wage movement. This was increased to at least 30 cents an hour for most workers but McDonald’s still remain behind rates paid at KFC – a gap which we had hoped to close more.

There were other small improvements around training being available to everyone within three months of starting and the higher rates that result from completing the training to apply from the date their books are submitted. The agreement also spells out that no one can be forced to work outside their availability – especially overnight shifts.

The new collective agreement will also be made available to all new staff with a membership form attached for those who want to join the union. The collective agreement itself has been radically rewritten to make it make more user friendly and is now half its previous length because a lot of company propaganda has been removed.

The on-line vote on the new collective agreement is currently running at 90% in favour so it seems that the members agree that the agreement offers us an opportunity to push back against the casualisation that has marked the fast food industry since the deunionisation of the industry in the early 1990s.

In 2003 when Unite Union decided to start reorganising some of the sectors of the economy that had largely lost union representation and collective agreements we were horrified at the prevalence of what overseas has been dubbed “zero-hour contracts”. Most of the workers we represent today in fast food, movie theatres, security, call centres, and hotels had individual employment agreements that had no guaranteed hours. Workers also rarely got their proper breaks – especially in fast food.

In the UK the fact that an estimated one million workers are on zero hour contracts has become a national scandal. In the USA there is the beginnings of a widespread revolt against insecure hours and low wages with nationwide strikes planned for yesterday.

Whilst we haven’t eliminated those problems we have introduced clauses in all the main agreements that affirm the right to secure hours and constrain the employers right to hire new staff before offering the hours that are available to existing staff first. Each new collective agreement has tightened up on the clauses to increase the protections. With the most recent Restaurant Brands agreement (covering KFC, Pizza Hut and Starbucks) and now the McDonald’s agreement we have included clauses that demand the sharing of information with members and the union when disputes over staffing and rostering happens. We think this will significantly strengthen our position when we get into arguments over whether the company is actually complying with its obligations under the collective agreements. However Wendy’s is the only company we have an agreement for guaranteed hours for crew after 2 years service.

It is probable that the percentage of workers on zero hour contracts in New Zealand is larger than the UK. The labour movement as a whole should be making the issue a national scandal in this country.

In 2015 Unite will be renegotiating the major fast food contracts with the goal of moving from secure hours to guaranteed hours for most staff.

– See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/08/30/unite-makes-gains-on-necure-hours-in-mcdonalds-contract/#sthash.8IlHttbA.dpuf

(Unite National Director Mike Treen has a blog hosted on the TheDailyBlog website. The site is sponsored by several unions and hosts some of New Zealand’s leading progressive commentators. Mike’s blog will be covering union news and general political comment but the views expressed are his own and not necessarily those of Unite Union.)

I spy cause for serious concern

By Matt McCarten

Herald on Sunday, August 18, 2013

The GCSB bill is due to be passed into law on Tuesday by a single vote.

The conventional wisdom is that opposition to the changes is a beltway issue, which means those in Parliament (and the press gallery) are the only ones who care about it.

After all, most people want the State to have the tools to protect its citizens from harm. That’s what John Key is hoping will carry that day.

But there’s something sinister about how our PM has managed changes he wants for spooks who spy on us. Here’s my unease:

1. Extending State spying powers has always been by political consensus. Labour’s David Shearer and NZ First’s Winston Peters have both said they were prepared to compromise. Their suggested amendments seemed reasonable. But Key is having none of it. Why?

2. The Law Society, the Privacy Commissioner, many respected jurists, and even a former GCSB boss oppose it publicly. When New Zealander of the Year Dame Anne Salmond says anyone who supports the bill has no right to turn up to Anzac events, then the penny must drop for mainstream Kiwis.

3. Key can now only get it through by Peter Dunne casting the determinative vote. The hypocrisy of Dunne supporting spies getting access to citizen’s emails, although he claimed personal privacy when refusing to give up his emails after he was accused of leaking classified documents, is contemptible. John Banks has already sold his party’s libertarian principles and supports the bill. Key now endorses the Act leader for Epsom at the next election. Join the grubby dots. No doubt Dunne will get endorsed for Ohariu once the vote goes through.

4. What happened to Kim Dotcom can happen to anyone. The raid on his house and the incompetence and covering up afterwards should be disturbing to every New Zealander. The bill gives more power. The GCSB spy system is linked into the US and UK spy network so foreign spooks will, in my view, be able to access our citizens’ information, too.

5. It seems a week doesn’t goes by without confidential personal information on individuals being leaked by a government department by incompetence. We have even had Cabinet ministers and ministry bosses happy to expose personal details of clients or employees when it serves their purposes. The temptation to use personal information against individuals will always be there.

6. There’s something scary about a politician deciding who gets spied on. When I was a teenager the then-PM Robert Muldoon released a list of his political opponents he said were being investigated by the Secret Intelligence Service. The smear was deliberate. Will a future leader use such information for political ends? You bet.

When civil society is potentially threatened, citizens need to register their concern. Tomorrow at 7pm opponents are meeting at the Auckland Town Hall. Sometimes it’s important to send a message.

(Matt McCarten is National Secretary of Unite Union. His weekly Herald on Sunday column are a commentary on social and political issues in New Zealand. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Unite Union.)

Unite Union supports anti-GCSB meeting Monday 7pm

It’s you and I who pay the price

By Matt McCarten

Herald on Sunday, August 11, 2013

Quite rightly, the main news over Fonterra’s infected products has been the physical threat to the customer. Or more importantly, the children of its customers.

Once the headlines recede – and hopefully no one dies – the more damaging effect to us collectively is economically.

A mate told me this week that his girlfriend’s small milk product business to Asia was in effect destroyed overnight by Fonterra’s public relations train wreck. She won’t be the only one.

I have no doubt thousands of other people, and not just farmers, are going to be hit financially – now and over time.

We are led to believe that the titans who run our giant conglomerates are infallible gods. In the case of Fonterra, although it’s owned by Kiwi farmers, it seems locals aren’t up to sitting in the executive suite.

The latest chief executive has a strong Dutch accent. He probably doesn’t know what a Swanndri is and I’m sure his suits are made of the finest European cloth. But he must be a genius. After all, why would they pay him $100,000 a week?

If I were a Fonterra shareholder I’d want my money back.

Would you be surprised if in a few weeks we find out that the cause of the infection was some miserly cost-saving measure foisted on the cleaning staff or contractors?

The 100 per cent Pure NZ brand was always opportunist marketing. The smugly branded clean image it projected was never actually true. Now it’s being lampooned in international publications and many of our export businesses will be affected. The economic fallout could run into billions of dollars.

Every New Zealand exporter of foodstuffs will have their foreign competitors whispering to any potential client that our country’s health and safety regulations are a bit shonky and fail to protect people.

What hurts is that it’s true. The Pike River mine explosion is the obvious case where a corporation was allowed by the Government to ignore safety regulations – and 29 miners paid the price with their lives.

The Council of Trade Unions has been unsuccessful in trying to get the Government to intervene in the forestry industry where, in just five years, 23 foresters have been killed and nearly four a week injured, many seriously.

But you’d expect this Government to put workers’ safety behind corporate profits. They don’t seem to care about consumer protection either, though.

Remember the scandal of cheap Japanese imported cars when it first was exposed? After initially pretending it was only isolated rip-offs, the Government was forced to investigate. It found that the Japanese keep detailed records of their cars. It was soon evident that thousands of cars had had their speedometers wound back by tens and tens of thousands of kilometres.

It was a colossal billion-dollar fraud against New Zealanders.

It was all swept under the table because the Government at the time was in one of its cutting-red-tape campaigns and it was embarrassing to have their ideology weakness exposed.

The biggest example of the free market letting our people down, however, is sub-standard timber being permitted when building homes.

If you ever need an example of the free and unregulated market working this was it.

The market corrected itself all right. Builders were broke. People lost their homes and in several cases took their lives.

Government washed its hands of it. Council inspectors washed their hands. Taxpayers, ratepayers and home owners picked up the bill. Lawyers and bankers got rich.

Our shonky management at the top hasn’t hit our reputation overseas until now.

Fonterra’s emperors have been exposed to the rest of the world without clothes. Our political and business elites keep messing things up with impunity. Meanwhile the little people pay the price. Fonterra is just another example.

(Matt McCarten is National Secretary of Unite Union. His weekly Herald on Sunday column are a commentary on social and political issues in New Zealand. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Unite Union.)

Parliament, social change & coalitions

By Mike Treen

(Reprinted from The Daily Blog)

Can a party that wants fundamental changes in society be a minor part of a coalition government?

My conclusion is no after having been a participant in the Alliance Party’s implosion after attempting to do so from 1999-2002 as part of the Labour-led government. But that does not mean that a minor party can’t be an effective player in parliament for reforms while continuing to build a movement outside of parliament as well for real change.

Similar disasters befell radical left or Green parties in many countries. In most cases there existed a moderate centrist Labour or social democratic party that had strong support from working people but was committed to the existing system including the system of worldwide alliances with the US-led western imperial ambitions.

Pressure always comes on the smaller more radical party to oppose the more right wing parties and support the “lesser evil” of social democracy. Many working people who either have illusions that their traditional party will make real change, or simply accept – albeit unenthusiastically – the reality of lesser evilism will also often want their party to ally with parties to their left rather than their right in the hope of more progressive policies emerging. It is always worth remembering that not all Labour governments are a lesser evil. It would be hard to argue that was true for the 1984-90 Labour government.

This was true in 1999 in New Zealand. There was genuine enthusiasm when Helen Clark extended the olive branch to the Alliance Party at its conference that year and what was effectively an alternative coalition in waiting won the election.

Alliance leader Jim Anderton was made deputy prime minister and three others got cabinet posts but the party essentially disappeared from view into Labour’s embraces and it’s policies were seen as essentially the same. The government remained reasonably popular but the Alliance Party’s support collapsed in the polls. Technically the party retained the right to differentiate its own position from that of the larger partner while remaining in cabinet but this was rarely invoked. Then when the decision was made to send troops to Afghanistan it provoked a bitter internal fight with the vast majority of the party rejecting the decision by Anderton and a majority of Alliance MP’s to support the government’s position. The Alliance was eliminated from parliament at the 2002 election and Anderton’s faction has simply been absorbed into the Labour Party.

The problem for a genuinely radical party is that it only has minority support and cannot impose any significant policy change on a party committed to the existing system. So long as that system is based on serving the 1% them only small and relatively minor progressive changes are achievable. That was the case for the Alliance which achieved the establishment of Kiwibank and Paid Parental Leave and some labour law reforms despite significant opposition from elements in the Labour Party at the time. But these changes weren’t enough to significantly change the position of working people in the country. They weren’t enough to give people hope that unemployment could be eliminated, inequality radically reduced, democratic control exerted over the key sectors of the economy.

If the Alliance had remained outside of cabinet it could probably have negotiated for all the changes it actually achieved but remained free to agitate and mobilise people in the streets for the more radical changes that are needed to make a real improvement to the lives of working people.

The Greens will face a similar challenge if they can achieve a majority able to form a government with Labour after the next election. The Greens have already taken the first significant steps to becoming a “partner” in running the existing system rather than challenging it when they signed up to the ETS as a mechanism to combat climate change. They know that the ETS, or any other market-based mechanism, cannot make any real impact in combating a threat to humanity that has arisen as a consequence of the free market system in the first place.

Protecting the environment and protecting the rights and living standards of the vast majority of people in the world requires the system of capitalism to be superseded. That requires a radical social and political movement that aspires to win a majority in the country – not simply assume the role of “junior partner” to a party that remains fundamentally committed to the current system.

The Mana Movement, which is in my view a system challenging movement, may also face a similar problem if the election is close and Labour and the Greens (and NZ First?) require their vote to form a government. They too will be in a position to negotiate some reforms that benefit the people who support it as part of a negotiated agreement to allow a Labour-led government to be formed. By doing so they will respect the fact that for now they are a minority party and the majority of the people they want to represent have voted for Labour or the Greens. That democratic choice can be respected.

At the same time Mana can retain their freedom of criticism and ability to organise at the grass roots for the generally timid reforms to go further or against any reactionary policies that such a government will inevitably end up promoting. So long as these parties in government are trying to make a system “work” they can’t escape ultimately disappointing their their own supporters because for this system to work it will continue to produce economic crisis, unemployment and environmental destruction. Movements like Mana can then provide a progressive alternative for those people rather than have that disappointment captured by the right.

– See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/08/09/coalition-governments-and-real-change/#sthash.iW2o8OQR.dpuf

(Unite National Director Mike Treen has a blog hosted on theTheDailyBlog website. The site is sponsored by several unions and hosts some of New Zealand’s leading progressive commentators. Mike’s blog will be covering union news and general political comment but the views expressed are his own and not necessarily those of Unite Union.)

Stopwork meetings planned against anti-union law changes

McDonald’s Clendon lunchtime strike (8/813)

Mcds Clendon always wanting to be the first out of the gates, leads the first strikes of the day on Thursday for Auckland. The strike was lead by their union strong site delegates who organised there own strike in protest at the lack of movement by McDonald’s on there pay claims. Mcds Clendon had 7 workers who walked off their shift to show support to the Mcstrike Campaign. Of those 7 workers 3 of them had their first taste of a Mcstrike. Well done Clendon community who supported by not buying McDonald’s during the strike.

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Low wage workers who qualify for WINZ help

Hello,

My name is Mikey, I’m one of the workers at Auckland Action Against Poverty. AAAP would like to invite your low-waged members to take part in our Beneficiary Impact on the 10th-12th of September, outside of the Work and Income offices at New Lynn (5/9 Hugh Brown Dr), in order to assist your workers in receiving any possible financial support they are eligible for.

AAAP are running our second Impact event outside the New Lynn Work and Income office. The purpose of this event is to carry out large scale advocacy to ensure low-waged workers and the unemployed are able to receive the full financial support they are eligible for. Last year we assisted around 200 people to receive their full entitlements, and gain extra support to buy necessary items, such as fridges etc.

AAAP “Beneficiary Impact” stall

As many low-waged, under-employed workers are also eligible to receive financial support from Work and Income, we thought that some of the members of your union who are low-waged may benefit from this Impact event. This is also a good public tactic to shame employers, by showing that their workers are so under-paid/underemployed that they are eligible for support from Work and Income.

Below this message is a detailed list of different circumstances in which low-paid workers are eligible for Work and Income assistance.

If your members are keen to use our advocates during this event, please let us know. Ideally, we would be keen to know numbers, and perhaps book a specific time slot for your union in particular. As these events can be slow in building momentum, we would particularly be keen to organise a time early on the first day of this Impact, the 10th of September, to assist low-waged union members.

In solidarity,

Michael Brenndorfer
021 104 8437
Assistance Coordinator
Auckland Action Against Poverty

LOW WAGE WORKERS WHO QUALIFY FOR WINZ HELP

Low wage workers who may qualify for some form of Work and Income entitlement would be those workers who earn less than the following amounts per week:

For a single person aged 16 or 17 years without dependent children – $468.23
For any other single person without dependent children – $538.15
For a person who is married or in a civil union or in a de facto relationship with or without dependent children – $781.62
For a sole parent with 1 dependent child – $653.01
For any other sole parent – $687.98

And low wage workers who may be entitled to a disability allowance would be those who earn less than the following per week:

For a single person aged 16 or 17 years without dependent children – $506.01
For any other single person without dependent children – $585.67
For a person who is married or in a civil union or in a de facto relationship with or without dependent children – $866.91
For a sole parent with 1 dependent child – $705.72
For any other sole parent – $743.53

AUCKLAND UNITE MEMBERS: Please email support@unite if you want to take part in the AAAP Impact on September 10 in New Lynn, Auckland and we will arrange a suitable time for you.

Unemployment up. Wages flat. What recovery?

The Council of Trade Unions says there is no joy for workers in the statistics out today on wages and employment.

Unemployment is up to 6.4 percent and wages are flat.

The Quarterly Employment Survey, Household Labour Force Survey and Labour Cost Index were released in a package today.

Peter Conway, CTU Secretary says “with 153,000 people unemployed, a total of 245,400 jobless and 63,900 workers wanting extra hours of work, it is very tough time to be looking for work”.

Peter Conway, CTU Secretary

He says this is 5 years on from the global financial crisis and is clear evidence that the Government simply has not made jobs a priority.

Māori unemployment is 12.8 percent and Pacific unemployment has increased to 16.3 percent. Unemployment for those aged 20-24 is at 11.1 percent and for those aged 25-29 it has increased to 8.3 percent. And the rise in employment over the last quarter is entirely from an increase in male employment.

Statistics NZ say that wage growth has continued to ease. Peter Conway said “wages are up only by 1.7 percent. And the median increase for those who got a wage increase in the last year was only 2.7 percent, the lowest increase since 2001. In the last year 45 percent of employees did not receive a pay increase. And the gender pay gap at 13.24 percent for the average ordinary time wage remains higher than it was a year ago.”

“We need a renewed focus on decent jobs for workers. It is no point saying that the economy is slowly picking up if the benefits are not flowing through to wages and jobs. Our wages remain 34 percent lower than in Australia yet the Government has introduced legislation that will reduce wages for Kiwi workers even more”.

Peter Conway said that unions stand for fairness at work and that means decent jobs, fair wages and investment in skills.

“Much more could be done to boost employment through government procurement, community employment schemes, and training to ensure that local people are supported to meet the skill requirements of available jobs.”

New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, NZCTU, Te Kauae Kaimahi

The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi brings together over 350,000 New Zealand union members in 40 affiliated unions. We are the united voice for working people and their families in New Zealand.

CONTACT NEW ZEALAND COUNCIL OF TRADE UNIONS

Physical Address – Level 7, West Block, Education House, 178 Willis St, Wellington.

Website – union.org.nz/  Facebook Twitter – @FairnessNZ

Unite decries WINZ wage subsidy to McDonald’s

Unite Union is questioning the $270,000 paid by WINZ as a wage subsidy to McDonald’s between July 2009 and June 2013.

“This subsidy is only for the stores directly owned by the US fast food giant. 80% of stores in New Zealand are franchisee owned so the probable subsidy could be in the millions” said Unite National Director Mike Treen.

“We do not believe McDonald’s needs to be subsidised to employ workers. They are a huge multinational making billions of dollars in profits. Their employment agreements don’t even guarantee any hours for most staff from week to week. Moreover for the period of this subsidy we have discovered that McDonald’s has been a serial law breaker in relation to rest and meal breaks.

“We are in the process of taking McDonald’s to court because they have consistently failed to provide 30-minute meal breaks to workers working shifts over 4 hours as required by law since April 2009. Based on figures from two stores – one owned by the McOpCo parent and one by a franchisee – over a four month period they have breached the law 100 times a month. If this were multiplied by all 161 stores since the April 2009 law change there could be 80,000 legal breaches. McDonald’s has also cheated workers out of an estimated $2.5 million in compensation for these breaks as required in the union’s collective agreement. .

“Unite is also concerned that the company accounts appear to be designed to minimise the payment of tax in this country. McDonald’s NZ pays a far higher franchise fee to its parent than is the case in other countries. They have also taken out a huge ‘loan’ to pay the US giant $150 million and so ‘boost its tax deductable interest expense in coming years‘.

“Our question is why should a wealthy multinational that cheats the taxpayer and its workers deserve a subsidy from the taxpayer. It doesn’t make any sense.”