Sunday, March 17, 2013

House of Lords catering staff face pay cut so peers can enjoy subsidised food

House of Lords catering staff may face pay cuts so that peers can continue dining at the same subsidised price.

There are concerns that the House of Lords is becoming too crowded
There are concerns that the House of Lords is becoming too crowded Photo: PA
 
 
Waiters, cooks and check-out workers serving the Upper House have been told they could lose 50% of their overtime payments in a proposed shake-up.
Staff reportedly earn an average of around £8.55 an hour, with the Lords’ staff handbook guaranteeing them extra money for overtime.
Members of the Lords are meanwhile being subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of £83.90 a week, and House of Lords authorities say the subsidy can only be cut by lowering staff pay.
A consultation document outlining the changes for staff and seen by the Daily Mirror says: “We hope that by taking steps such as this to work together, we will be able to… achieve the required reduction in the public subsidy.”
Catering staff are understood to be contemplating a walk-out in response.
A House of Lords spokesperson said: "The House of Lords is looking at all options to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of the catering service.
“A number of price rises have been implemented in recent years but the great majority of catering costs are staff costs.
“Our aim is to modernise any existing inflexible contracts which set out working hours that are out of line with opening hours, leading to excessive overtime payments. “This is a genuine consultation and we are listening to the concerns of staff."
Under the proposals staff would be paid for 50% of overtime worked at time and a half.
They would then receive a day and a half time in lieu for each day of overtime.
Anna Meyer, a GMB union organiser representing staff, said: “The subsidy is for the benefit of the peers but the new package hits the staff hardest.
“Those who can pay should pay and those who can least afford to lose any workplace benefits must be protected from the losses resulting from this proposal.”
 

No comments:

Post a Comment