top of page

The ACLVB / CGSLB informs you



On Thursday 21/01, the works council was interrupted on a joint union front.

The fact that management reacted quickly with additional information and provided the opportunity to ask additional questions confirms and justifies this action.

Our focus is on individual welfare, purchasing power and respect for the preservation of the salary package (and its evolution).



1. Individual well-being:


Telework - Internet allowance


It is a good thing that telework is further developed. However, it should not be subject to the whims of the employer. It is important that the employees who want to make use of it can do so in an equal way and independently, without interference from their manager or those above.

The intention to promote teleworking on the one hand and to reduce the reimbursement of expenses for working from home on the other are, in our view, contradicts each other on this point we do not understand. We ask that the tax ceiling be pursued. Also with regard to the Internet intervention.

In our opinion, a downward revision of the HQ parking fee is should also be necessary.


Mobility


We think it is a good point that a more flexible mobility offer is being considered.

On the other hand, we do not like the intention to abolish the commuting flat-rate, and indeed we find this unacceptable. We also ask that the tax ceiling be pursued, especially for those people who use their own means of transport for commuting.

Training and stability of the workplace:

The old plans have not yet been finalised but a new wave is already sweeping through the Retail workforce. A reorientation is needed. For many people, this is another period of uncertainty in just a few years. The training courses are not following as they should and are putting extra work pressure on people.

The call for stability in the working environment and support for the services through more training and technical facilities that work is getting louder by the day.



2. Purchasing power:


For us, the profit share is an essential part of the salary package. The current proposal as it is on the table today is unacceptable and not transparent. Moreover, it is a direct attack on purchasing power.

We do not think it sends a good signal to the staff, certainly not after all the efforts made in recent years. Moreover, the current proposal is not watertight with regard to both objectives and results. The result is great uncertainty for the future.


Telework allowance, commuting, profit sharing, etc. will be revised downwards.

In recent years, the staff has already had to give up enough of its benefits. Just think of the personnel conditions, jubilee premiums and the like. We reiterate that a decent remuneration must be provided that aims for the tax ceiling rather than the baseline.


Target Bonus (PI):


The employer wants to split this up and grant 45% in the flex budget. The reason given by management is that there is a discord between older employees who do not have much flex budget and the younger employees who do.

This movement seems a good thing a priori but in our opinion it does not eliminate the gap mentioned above but makes it even bigger. In addition, there is discrimination on the part of the employees in the old pension system ( approximately 800 employees). In our view the equal treatment of all staff members should be standard practice

Furthermore, we question whether the rest of the PI is still large enough to influence the commercial strength.


Remuneration conditions:


The management foresees a change in remuneration when someone is promoted by one grade from 125€ to 150€. For those who rise two grades at once, the amount remains at 225€.

In its argumentation, the Management Board mentions that internal mobility is a problem within the bank today. We believe that such decisions encourage it. Achieving 2 degrees in 1 step or 2 steps should make no difference in the final renumeration!






Comentarios


bottom of page