This report contains the report of the second round of the collective labor agreement negotiations.
Specific wage demand
De Unie has specified its wage demand in this second round – as promised. A well-substantiated wage demand has been submitted, namely 12,5%, in which we entered into a discussion about the adjustment amounts. De Unie stated that 12,5% is only possible if the adjustment amounts disappear, because otherwise the percentage would have to be increased in order to maintain purchasing power at all. In addition, we believe that there is no longer any justification for the system of adjustment amounts. Moreover, you have not had any, even small, purchasing power improvement in recent years. On the contrary. Looking at the inflation or purchasing power retention factors, it is logical that there will now be a substantial wage increase.
Adjustment amount only the reference group is important
It is incomprehensible that Aedes on the one hand says that it sees that the employees have deteriorated, but on the other hand thinks that it has fully compensated you and your colleagues with its new wage offer of 7%. In Aedes' reasoning, you don't have to be compensated based on inflation or loss of purchasing power. Aedes only wants to look at the reference group of the research from many years ago. Despite being heavily behind them now, Aedes wants to maintain the adjustment amounts?! To my question why, the answer was given that it is not fair to exempt the group that is still subject to the adjustment amount, while another group has already submitted. In addition, it only lasts two years. After that, there are no more adjustment amounts and it would again disrupt the proportions in the wage constructions within the reference group if the adjustment amounts were stopped now. In other words, Aedes does not look at your loss of purchasing power at all, but only whether they do not pay “too much” in relation to the reference group.
Aedes clearly lives in a different world than we do. She therefore finds our wage demand unrealistic...... It is true that the wage demand is high, but so are the bills that you have to pay. The predictions for 2024 are also not rosy, prices will continue to rise. Who isn't realistic here? Actually, the message from Aedes is: “Yes, we can see that you are struggling financially, but we think that you already earn too much compared to the peer group, so you have to accept the reduction in income.”
Appreciation for the employees, high workload. shortage of staff, binding staff
Is it realistic for us to assume that Aedes will not solve the problems mentioned in the above heading with this approach?
We have asked Aedes to get more mandate. This request seems to have fallen on deaf ears. We think it is important that a high wage increase is given, after all, that is a necessity in today's world and that is the reality. No valid arguments have been put forward by Aedes to moderate wage demand.
We'll talk further next September 6th. However, we fear that it will be a short conversation!
You can contact us by sending an email to: firstname.lastname@example.org† If you have an individual question or need advice, please contact our Service Center via email@example.com or by phone on 0345-851 963. We are happy to advise you!