Made to come in 40 minutes early to cover unpaid break

[tramssirhc]

Simple thing to do is look for a new job, if the argument is there's none around paying anything better then that justifies RM are paying new starters the correct salary?

Perhaps it also means legacy workers are now over paid but reducing an employees salary is virtually impossible without making them redundant.

I personally think that RM are waiting for the number of "Legacy" staff to drop below a certain number then all "Legacy" will be forced onto the newer contracts. RM will know roughly how much each employment tribunal will cost and they'll likely have a figure in mind of what their willing to pay for lost tribunals.

Why do you bother with such scaremongering, even without a union a UK company would struggle to impose a new, inferior, contract on tens of thousands of employees, Witham union they'll have no chance.

What they could well do is offer to buy out the Delivery Supplement etc and so standisise the contracts. We're still losing legacy staff on virtual a weekly basis so it won't be long before they are in the minority, although once they are they'll be nothing for new contracts to be "angry" about it as they will be in the majority!!

They wouldn't struggle to impose new contracts. Anyone who didn't agree to them would leave and go to an employment tribunal. Even if someone wins their tribunal, they won't get their job back. It's just down to how much money overall RM are willing to pay out for employment tribunals that they lose.

Precedence demonstrates that what happens is workers are offered a standardised contract with a incentive to accept it. Where workers choose not to accept that offer they continue to be engaged on their existing terms and conditions. There is no attempt to force workers out or mass tribunal claims. It becomes a process of natural attrition. Workers on the existing t's and c's reduce over time to a point where the cost of that contract is insignificant to the employer.

[postslippete]

It's noticeable that RM are recruiting more staff on the new 37 hour contracts that don't have paid breaks and work Sundays thus increasing the proportion of staff on the new contracts. I think it's unlikely RM will resort to fire and rehire. Didn't Tesco's lose trying to do this? There are risks with IA as well as reputational damage and the last thing any company wants is uncertainty when they are competing with other parcel couriers for business.

It's more plausible that VR, retirements and natural attrition will continue. If RM wanted to standardise contracts then the more likely route would be voluntary buy-outs or for changes to be negotiated though our infamous CWU.

[TopperGas]

It's noticeable that RM are recruiting more staff on the new 37 hour contracts that don't have paid breaks and work Sundays thus increasing the proportion of staff on the new contracts. I think it's unlikely RM will resort to fire and rehire. Didn't Tesco's lose trying to do this? There are risks with IA as well as reputational damage and the last thing any company wants is uncertainty when they are competing with other parcel couriers for business.

It's more plausible that VR, retirements and natural attrition will continue. If RM wanted to standardise contracts then the more likely route would be voluntary buy-outs or for changes to be negotiated though our infamous CWU.

I believe "fire and rehire" was banned recently for UK based companies.

[postslippete]

I believe "fire and rehire" was banned recently for UK based companies.

Not until next year I think. The Employment Rights Act 2025 will make fire and rehire automatically unfair from Jan 2027. However, there is a limited exception where employers who are in severe financial difficulty have no reasonable alternative. So that won't apply to us.

Natural attrition, VR and negotiated changes will be the order of the day

[tramssirhc]

I believe "fire and rehire" was banned recently for UK based companies.

Not until next year I think. The Employment Rights Act 2025 will make fire and rehire automatically unfair from Jan 2027. However, there is a limited exception where employers who are in severe financial difficulty have no reasonable alternative. So that won't apply to us.

Natural attrition, VR and negotiated changes will be the order of the day

Or maybe it will. Martin Walsh says theres severe financial difficulty.

[tramssirhc]

It's noticeable that RM are recruiting more staff on the new 37 hour contracts that don't have paid breaks and work Sundays thus increasing the proportion of staff on the new contracts. I think it's unlikely RM will resort to fire and rehire. Didn't Tesco's lose trying to do this? There are risks with IA as well as reputational damage and the last thing any company wants is uncertainty when they are competing with other parcel couriers for business.

It's more plausible that VR, retirements and natural attrition will continue. If RM wanted to standardise contracts then the more likely route would be voluntary buy-outs or for changes to be negotiated though our infamous CWU.

I believe "fire and rehire" was banned recently for UK based companies.

There's no ban. The law allows employees to claim redress if the process of their dismissal is unfair. Proving that, getting to tribunal and winning is not easy. Workers will have to find alternative employment and then anything they earn between being dismissed and winning will be deducted from their award. That's not a ban and it ain't justice.