By Shuki Stauber
It’s like a case that came to my attention in which an employee was working for a personnel company at a public organization. She didn’t really know the personnel company except through her pay slip, and when the personnel company wanted to give her a holiday gift, she had to make a special trip to the company offices to make sure there was not the slightest appearance of employer-employee relations with the organization commissioning the work. Of course she didn’t go to pick up the gift, saying it was an insult to her.What alternative does that young woman have? Would her situation improve working for a service contractor? That’s the real question that must be raised, not the managerial question of whether workers should be employed in this framework. We’re dealing with workers’ rights and I’m looking to see which options are available. What alternative does this young woman have under the current situation? Neither way would she get hired by that organization as a regular staff member. Under an unsupervised service contractor the conditions could get even worse.
Even assuming the organization were to hire her onto its staff here employment job terms could worsen because as soon as the amendment no longer applies to her she’s no longer a personnel company employee. In practice this is what happened recently: some personnel company workers were hired by organizations under reduced terms, such as second-generation agreements and similar apparatuses.
They might have been hired with terms inferior to those of the organization’s permanent staff because another large expense cannot be foisted all at once on the employer; but this is still an improvement over their conditions as personnel company workers.Not always. There are some people whose pay decreased after they were hired by the organization. In the public sector their employment terms got even worse. Take, for example, the court reporters, whose terms worsened. It used to be hard to recruit them so they were paid relatively high wages based on market forces. When they became state employees their pay went down almost to minimum wage.
Generally in such situations other employment terms are improved, e.g. tenure, so all in all the worker is not harmed.
I’m not so sure this does harm. For many of these employees current income is what matters to them, and not starting to amass rights.
Even in the private sector, although some employers were hired, the question is how? Under what terms? No employees were hired to the core of the organization, but through special arrangements such as second-generation agreements, as temporary workers, etc. As a rule I don’t think the employment security of those employees who were hired at the end of September improved. In most cases they were signed on agreements that don’t guarantee employment security.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar