This newsletter focuses on the negotiations for a new collective labor agreement for ING Bank. ING Bank's current two-year collective labor agreement expires on December 31, 2020. As long as there is no new collective labor agreement, the current collective labor agreement will continue to run. Only without the things that are tied to 2019 and 2020.
Where are we standing right now?
On December 17 and 18 we had negotiation rounds 7 and 8. The original intention was that these would be the last negotiation days. We have also come to an end on the themes of well-being and craftsmanship with the help of the collective labor agreement theme groups. We will work that out together. This is also the case with the theme work code (flex), provided it does not cost too much. These negotiations depend on reward & appreciation and time. ING wants to collectively and individually set the baseline for three years, have the remuneration determined by external benchmarks and give management a team budget to give discretionary extra wages. In short, this is their view on rewarding. In the [previous member letter] I went into this in detail. The part about valuation is still missing at ING.
We as trade unions have given our vision on valuation and a substantive response to the bank's remuneration proposal. About valuation in various forms (including development, time, material things) and with concrete instruments (including shares, Collective Social Benefit, leave). Our response to ING's proposal is that we believe that ING is and should remain a leading party. In ING's proposal, it becomes a follower of the outcome of an external remuneration benchmark that we cannot validate. The ING proposal also decouples the operating result from the remuneration. If ING is doing well, then something more can be done and vice versa. In the past, we worked with a discretionary budget for the manager and after a lot of hassle, we consciously said goodbye to this. For the time being, we do not see any good arguments for reintroducing this successfully. And given the responses received from members and employees to ING's entire proposal, I also have no support for it.
The detailed proposal of the trade unions to introduce a 34-hour working week in phases was dismissed without arguments by ING. Unspeakable. And this while the theme of time has been given a prominent place in the negotiations. Not least because of the discussions about it with, among others, Annet van der Hoek, Hidde Coebergh and Roel Popping and other managers and employees in production environments such as mortgages, call, but also in staff positions. One conclusion was that time plays an important role in the daily routine.
If I answer the question where we are now, then I have a hard head that we will quickly reach a deal. ING wants a major system change, a multi-year zero line and no 34-hour working week. Although I can see the effect of a long-term declining interest rate on business operations, it is not my job to convince employees of this. And certainly not if the story to the market and shareholders is that ING is in a good position, the intended return-on-equity ratio before corona is being achieved and a substantial dividend payment is ready as soon as the ECB is allowed again.
It is good to have a short break now and pick up the thread again on 20 January 2021 with round 9. After that, the discussions will continue up to and including round 14 on 17 March. In January we also have to talk about the rating increase in 2021. But more about that later.
I would like to receive your response to developments at the negotiating table. Whether or not you agree with it and especially why. Tips and advice are also welcome. After all, we are your representative at the table. Do you have questions about this member letter or do you want to say something? Please contact me via firstname.lastname@example.org or call me on 06-52522074.
It remains for me to wish you happy days and a very good New Year!