Sick Parcelforce couriers charged up to £250 if they can't find cover

[onewheeldave]

did you read the first line of his post where he totally agreed with you? Oo

Yes, of course, I quoted it in my reply.

 

But, it's often the way of apologists that they commence by agreeing, before inserting the 'however...' followed by whatever justification of the immoral companies policy they're churning out.

 

 

I know what you are saying, but we can't have a world where every legal document signed is not enforceable.

 

 

Now it's strawman time

 

A world of enforcable signed legal documents is entirely compatible with companies not charging their staff £250 (or any amount) for being ill and having to take a day off sick.

[tinfoilhat]

The whole murky area of "are they really self-employed or not"

 

To be honest, that's been the case for courier drivers for as long as I can remember. It's the whole franchise thing, sub post masters used to be the same - maybe it still is.

 

However, talking to delivery drivers (self employed ones) they said the worst bit was when an employed temp filled in. They got paid by the hour rather than by the parcel so there was minimum effort made in delivering harder to find deliveries. The employed drivers might have a different take on it.

 

I've always found it hard to work out why couriers must be self employed. The carrot dangled is that you can expand your client base and up your earnings. The reality is that you're in a van all day and any new accounts are dealt with by a sales person at the depot or in some cases head office.

[steelad]

Worked for FedEx in Devon as a supervisor in the office. It is the drivers route and all monies from that route they were entitled too. If they took a day sick they would still earn whatever that route made that day minus the cost of covering it.

 

I suppose a little bit like being a shop owner. If you were sick and employed someone to run the shop that day you would still take whatever profit on sales minus the cost to have someone work the shop for you.

 

Same thing will apply if they have holiday - they would need to organise route cover. That would come at a cost to the route owner so no different with taking a sick day.

[Obelix]

Yes, of course, I quoted it in my reply.

 

But, it's often the way of apologists that they commence by agreeing, before inserting the 'however...' followed by whatever justification of the immoral companies policy they're churning out.

 

 

 

 

Now it's strawman time

 

A world of enforcable signed legal documents is entirely compatible with companies not charging their staff £250 (or any amount) for being ill and having to take a day off sick.

 

But they are not staff... thats the point. They've decided to be self employed and provide a service to Parcelforce who enforce a penalty if that service is not provided. That's entirely fair and reasonable.

 

Presumably they have good reason for wanting to be self employed - the tax arrangements are probably better, they are probably paid more if they provide their own van etc. That's a decision they take and along taht comes the rough with the smooth.

[steelad]

I'd like to go back to the original statement here ... when they say they are charged £250 a day .. does that mean they get no earnings from the route and lose £250 in charges. Because i bet they actually get charged £250 minus what they would have earnt on the route that day.

 

Some routes can earn over that a day .. some less. At the end of the day id be surprised if they end £250 out of pocket.

 

Ive just read the article .. that is slightly unfair actually not getting the earnings from the route .. missed the link earlier

Edited March 11, 2017 by steelad

[tinfoilhat]

I'd like to go back to the original statement here ... when they say they are charged £250 a day .. does that mean they get no earnings from the route and lose £250 in charges. Because i bet they actually get charged £250 minus what they would have earnt on the route that day.

 

Some routes can earn over that a day .. some less. At the end of the day id be surprised if they end £250 out of pocket.

 

Ive just read the article .. that is slightly unfair actually not getting the earnings from the route .. missed the link earlier

 

That makes sense why the driver we use is always annoyed when he gets back from holiday/sick as the employed driver gets paid regardless and he isn't getting paid because the employed driver isn't delivering parcels which will in effect pay for sick leave of the self employed driver.

 

I think.

 

I'm surprised the guardian have left out facts - like the rest of our national newspapers, they're always so accurate [/sARCASM]

[onewheeldave]

But they are not staff... thats the point. They've decided to be self employed and provide a service to Parcelforce who enforce a penalty if that service is not provided. That's entirely fair and reasonable.

These days low paid workers do not get to choose- they have to take what they can get out of a generally shoddy range of options of zero-hour-contracts, self employment, agency work etc, etc.

 

The days of decent jobs where workers are treated with decency and covered for the inevitable sicks days are in very short supply.

 

 

Presumably they have good reason for wanting to be self employed - the tax arrangements are probably better, they are probably paid more if they provide their own van etc. That's a decision they take and along taht comes the rough with the smooth.

In many cases it's because they've no choice- there's insufficient actual 'proper' jobs so it's self-employment, or a life of abuse and fear on benefits.

[Bob Arctor]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/06/sick-parcelforce-couriers-royal-mail-mands-john-lewis-hamleys-dpd

 

Just signed an online petition on this.

 

Parcel force charge their workers £250 for each day they have off sick, to cover the cost of a replacement driver.

 

This is wrong- drivers are self employed and already lose a days earnings if they are too ill to work- £250 is more than the days earnings already lost.

 

There is probably more chance of change if the drivers organise a short notice boycott of Parcel Force jobs for a few days. It worked for Deliveroo drivers.

[steelad]

Quote

 

I'm surprised the guardian have left out facts - like the rest of our national newspapers, they're always so accurate [/sARCASM]

 

It wouldnt surprise me if they have left out facts. Don't believe all you read.

 

Some companies may be different. I'm only commenting from my own experience but i know for a fact where i worked previously i've had drivers before pull sickies and make money

 

PS i have no idea how to do quotes!

[Obelix]

These days low paid workers do not get to choose- they have to take what they can get out of a generally shoddy range of options of zero-hour-contracts, self employment, agency work etc, etc.

 

The days of decent jobs where workers are treated with decency and covered for the inevitable sicks days are in very short supply.

 

In many cases it's because they've no choice- there's insufficient actual 'proper' jobs so it's self-employment, or a life of abuse and fear on benefits.

 

Considering most of Parcelforces drivers are in fact employees it's abundantly clear they can choose what they would like to do. My point still stands - you are considering these people as employees when they are not and it's disingenious to say otherwise.