Equal benifits in working environment

[ADRAM3L3CH]

So my employer has a policy in place that people who started at the company after 2010 will only receive 18 days of leave, everyone before that gets 21+ days depending on years of service. This isnt fair seeing as basically those people indirectly earn a higher salary due to it being paid leave. Should it not be that all employees receive the same benifits condidering they are in the same line of work? Anybody else with similar policies in their workplace?

 

[Beachless]

Nope, you agreed to those terms when you signed the contract and now you are annoyed because someone else gets more that you.
The company can structure new jobs however they want as long as it meets or exceeds regulation.

 

[creeper]

I wrote a log explanation and lost t. So here is the abridged version

No such ting as fair at a company or business. Otherwise everyone would get the same salary and have unisex bathrooms. (which can be unfair in someone else's eyes). You signed a contract for 18 days leave. You should've negotiated for more.

 

[ADRAM3L3CH]

Ok I should have mentioned this policy came about after I started, therefore it wasnt part of my contract. I requested my contract to make sure but HR is taking very long to get back to me. I just home I initialed the pages now

 

[creeper]

Ok I should have mentioned this policy came about after I started, therefore it wasnt part of my contract. I requested my contract to make sure but HR is taking very long to get back to me. I just home I initialed the pages now

If it is written in your contract 21 days, and there is no clause that state they can change it, then you might be able argue against it.

On a side note. People read homeloan contracts, car finance contracts, but never their conditions of appointment. Have a scanned copy handy at all times.

 

[Beachless]

Ok I should have mentioned this policy came about after I started, therefore it wasnt part of my contract. I requested my contract to make sure but HR is taking very long to get back to me. I just home I initialed the pages now

That is totally different get your contract and make sure you had 21 days and that the terms are not such that they can change it at will.

 

[noxibox]

Find out how much everyone gets, so that people getting less can become disgruntled. Then the company can either make it equitable or start losing staff.

 

[noxibox]

In regard to changing it, basically they can't without consultation and your agreement. Makes no difference whatsoever if the contract says they can change it at will.

 

[ADRAM3L3CH]

That is totally different get your contract and make sure you had 21 days and that the terms are not such that they can change it at will.

I'm trying to check this , but they are taking very long to get back to me, I find it strange.

Find out how much everyone gets, so that people getting less can become disgruntled. Then the company can either make it equitable or start losing staff.

It affects about 40% of the staff at least I say , been limited to just 18 days.

 

[Beachless]

I'm trying to check this , but they are taking very long to get back to me, I find it strange.



It affects about 40% of the staff at least I say , been limited to just 18 days.

Just dont sign any new contracts in the meantime.
There is typically a whole consultation process where both parties to the contract agree to the proposed changes.
It is very difficult for a company to just make unilateral changes an that can be seen as breach of contract.
The the best bet is to get your old contract and then phone the dept of labor or ccma and just discuss what your rights are.

 

[Fudzy]

So you're moaning that employees who have shown dedication to the company for a longer period of time are given more perks than those who are relatively new? What industry are you in?

 

[Beachless]

So you're moaning that employees who have shown dedication to the company for a longer period of time are given more perks than those who are relatively new? What industry are you in?

No I also misunderstood hes moaning because they removed contractually stipulated perks without consulting with him.

 

[ADRAM3L3CH]

Just dont sign any new contracts in the meantime.
There is typically a whole consultation process where both parties to the contract agree to the proposed changes.
It is very difficult for a company to just make unilateral changes an that can be seen as breach of contract.
The the best bet is to get your old contract and then phone the dept of labor or ccma and just discuss what your rights are.

Ok thanks for the advice Beachless.

So you're moaning that employees who have shown dedication to the company for a longer period of time are given more perks than those who are relatively new? What industry are you in?

Not entirely correct, I am complaining that even if I stay at this company for 10+ years I wont get the same benifits because I started after 2010 apparantly which I feel is unfair considering I do the same work as them. IT industry.

 

[Fudzy]

Ok thanks for the advice Beachless.

Not entirely correct, I am complaining that even if I stay at this company for 10+ years I wont get the same benifits because I started after 2010 apparantly which I feel is unfair considering I do the same work as them. IT industry.

So it's not related to the number of years you worked there, just the data after which you started. Okay understood.

 

[Chevron]

So my employer has a policy in place that people who started at the company after 2010 will only receive 18 days of leave, everyone before that gets 21+ days depending on years of service. This isnt fair seeing as basically those people indirectly earn a higher salary due to it being paid leave. Should it not be that all employees receive the same benifits condidering they are in the same line of work? Anybody else with similar policies in their workplace?

This pretty normal everywhere. Also helps to reward those that aren't job hoppers. I don't see a problem with it.

 

[noxibox]

It affects about 40% of the staff at least I say , been limited to just 18 days.

Then you might have some fair leverage if they're mostly people who can get another job and will hurt the company if they leave. The company might refuse to budge, then you leave and let them eat the cost of finding, hiring and training replacements. Each lost employee will cost them a fortune. Far more than a few days leave each year.

 

[ADRAM3L3CH]

So it's not related to the number of years you worked there, just the data after which you started. Okay understood.

It does increase with the number of years for only those who started before 2010 , the rest of us are atuck with 18 days no mattr how long with stay.

This pretty normal everywhere. Also helps to reward those that aren't job hoppers. I don't see a problem with it.

Is it normal? It doesnt give much incentive to stay at a company if your leave is forever 18 days. Thats the way I see it.

Then you might have some fair leverage if they're mostly people who can get another job and will hurt the company if they leave. The company might refuse to budge, then you leave and let them eat the cost of finding, hiring and training replacements. Each lost employee will cost them a fortune. Far more than a few days leave each year.

My thoughts exactly, a lot of people arent happy about this .

 

[noxibox]

It does increase with the number of years for only those who started before 2010 , the rest of us are atuck with 18 days no mattr how long with stay.

Then you probably have a case against them. Different pay levels are hard to attack because a variety of excuses can be made to justify them, but giving some people more days for long service and not others is pretty blatant and going to be difficult to justify.

 

[Greg C]

If it is written in your contract 21 days, and there is no clause that state they can change it, then you might be able argue against it.

On a side note. People read homeloan contracts, car finance contracts, but never their conditions of appointment. Have a scanned copy handy at all times.

I have gone through something identical; and what I can tell you in terms of law and the contract your wrote is cast in stone. Unless your contract goes against current known contract law and the Labour act currently the contract is enforceable. Your case and the story given. Currently labour states 15 working days you have been given more.
The contract was signed by you, which is a lesson to know what you are signing even if you want to get it out of the way,never sign a binding contract unless you fully understand it and all the relevent factors such as you got 18 and other relevent individuals 21.If you had read into it and not just "signed" with the greatest respect you would have found this out and disputed given the same prudent and diligent individual now.

Unfortunately you are stuck. You have no legal precedence nor an argument.

 

[noxibox]

The contract was signed by you, which is a lesson to know what you are signing even if you want to get it out of the way,never sign a binding contract unless you fully understand it and all the relevent factors such as you got 18 and other relevent individuals 21.

How would someone know that since businesses are deliberately secretive about these things?

If you had read into it and not just "signed" with the greatest respect you would have found this out and disputed given the same prudent and diligent individual now.

No you wouldn't.