CWU No.2 recommends NO vote..

[TopperGas]

I’ve heard about proposals to freeze OT and do all the other things you mention for as long as I’ve been in this job and it never happens. It’s always strikes. Might have happened at a local level but not nationally. I agree though it should definitely be an option.

Zero chance of enforcing an OT ban when probably half the work force are part timers who rely upon OT just to survive.

[Barnacle]

I’ve heard about proposals to freeze OT and do all the other things you mention for as long as I’ve been in this job and it never happens. It’s always strikes. Might have happened at a local level but not nationally. I agree though it should definitely be an option.

Zero chance of enforcing an OT ban when probably half the work force are part timers who rely upon OT just to survive.

The main issue with overtime bans is that they disproportionately impact women as they are less likely to be on a FT 37hr contract and therefore more likely to be topping up their hours with overtime.

[SW17]

1. I feel I must vote no because 4.2% is not good enough after years of wages not keeping up with inflation.
2. Why are the upcoming uso savings not being added to the no strings 4.2%? This would be new money and self funded, why is this not being factored into any deal?
3. How much of this no strings 4.2% offer will be self funded from these new uso changes if we don't see any more improvement on this offer?
4. Why should we have to commit to a 3 year deal? If RM make massive savings with uso changes we wouldn't have a leg to stand on to renegotiate if we accept this offer, the ship would have sailed.
There should be a reopen clause added to years 2 and 3 based on RM profit.
5. Future vote on uso changes.... Do we honestly believe after these last few years that we will get much if any of a say on the uso changes? What's to stop RM just implementing these changes with ex.action?
And of the possible 7 options that were available to vote on previously our unit was told none will fit due to last letter and acceptance times, not good enough.
So come the biggest changes in my 30 years with RM we were going to get a choice of absolutely nothing.
6.All contracts should be leveld up.

Hats off to Scotland for seeing what's going on, this needs to be put out there so people can make a more informative decision this whole thing stinks, it's a No from me.

[Barnacle]

1. I feel I must vote no because 4.2% is not good enough after years of wages not keep up with inflation.
2. Why are the upcoming uso savings not being added to the no strings 4.2%? This would be new money and self funded, why is this not being factored into any deal?
3. How much of this no strings 4.2% offer will be self funded from these new uso changes if we don't see any more improvement on this offer?
4. Why should we have to commit to a 3 year deal? If RM make massive savings with uso changes we wouldn't have a leg to stand on to renegotiate if we accept this offer, the ship would have sailed.
There should be a reopen clause added to years 2 and 3 based on RM profit.
5. Future vote on uso changes.... Do we honestly believe after these last few years that we will get much if any of a say on the uso changes? What's to stop RM just implementing these changes with ex.action?
And of the possible 7 options that were available to vote on previously our unit was told none will fit due to last letter and acceptance times, not good enough.
So come the biggest changes in my 30 years with RM we were going to get a choice of absolutely nothing.
6.All contracts should be leveld up.

Hats off to Scotland for seeing what's going on, this needs to be put out there so people can make a more informative decision this whole thing stinks, it's a No from me.

The USO changes won’t make massive savings. They over egged the pudding on that one.

[SW17]

[sindba]

An inflation-only pay rise is no pay rise at all. At the end of 3 years your wages will be worth exactly the same as now.

The CWU have given RM all the co-operation they wanted with USO reform, and in return they accept a zero pay rise for 3 years?

Pathetic from the CWU. Vote No.

[SW17]

1. I feel I must vote no because 4.2% is not good enough after years of wages not keep up with inflation.
2. Why are the upcoming uso savings not being added to the no strings 4.2%? This would be new money and self funded, why is this not being factored into any deal?
3. How much of this no strings 4.2% offer will be self funded from these new uso changes if we don't see any more improvement on this offer?
4. Why should we have to commit to a 3 year deal? If RM make massive savings with uso changes we wouldn't have a leg to stand on to renegotiate if we accept this offer, the ship would have sailed.
There should be a reopen clause added to years 2 and 3 based on RM profit.
5. Future vote on uso changes.... Do we honestly believe after these last few years that we will get much if any of a say on the uso changes? What's to stop RM just implementing these changes with ex.action?
And of the possible 7 options that were available to vote on previously our unit was told none will fit due to last letter and acceptance times, not good enough.
So come the biggest changes in my 30 years with RM we were going to get a choice of absolutely nothing.
6.All contracts should be leveld up.

Hats off to Scotland for seeing what's going on, this needs to be put out there so people can make a more informative decision this whole thing stinks, it's a No from me.

The USO changes won’t make massive savings. They over egged the pudding on that one.

How do we know what the savings will be? We've been told most units will be loosing 1 in 4 on delivery that could amount to massive savings and is why it should be factored in to next year's pay offer at least.
Also it will be interesting to see the latest RM profits, letters although down supposedly made a profit due to price increases in Q1.
Pay offer was also put to us before uso changes were given the ok.

[SW17]

An inflation-only pay rise is no pay rise at all. At the end of 3 years your wages will be worth exactly the same as now.

The CWU have given RM all the co-operation they wanted with USO reform, and in return they accept a zero pay rise for 3 years?

Pathetic from the CWU. Vote No.

Maybe even less.

[postslippete]

1. I feel I must vote no because 4.2% is not good enough after years of wages not keeping up with inflation.
2. Why are the upcoming uso savings not being added to the no strings 4.2%? This would be new money and self funded, why is this not being factored into any deal?
3. How much of this no strings 4.2% offer will be self funded from these new uso changes if we don't see any more improvement on this offer?
4. Why should we have to commit to a 3 year deal? If RM make massive savings with uso changes we wouldn't have a leg to stand on to renegotiate if we accept this offer, the ship would have sailed.
There should be a reopen clause added to years 2 and 3 based on RM profit.
5. Future vote on uso changes.... Do we honestly believe after these last few years that we will get much if any of a say on the uso changes? What's to stop RM just implementing these changes with ex.action?
And of the possible 7 options that were available to vote on previously our unit was told none will fit due to last letter and acceptance times, not good enough.
So come the biggest changes in my 30 years with RM we were going to get a choice of absolutely nothing.
6.All contracts should be leveld up.

Hats off to Scotland for seeing what's going on, this needs to be put out there so people can make a more informative decision this whole thing stinks, it's a No from me.

Yeah, it isn't a “vote no” out of frustration. What you have said is a carefully reasoned rejection of a deal that falls short on fairness, transparency, and foresight.

The 4.2% "no-strings" pay rise still puts us below real-terms pay due to inflation.

why aren’t the massive future savings from USO reforms already being factored into this offer?

Thats a great question as the company stands to save hundreds of millions from cutting duties and reshaping delivery models so we should seeing our fair share now. And you are right about the three-year lock-in. Once it has been signed it will be near-impossible to renegotiate even if Royal Mail starts raking in profits. The absence of a re-opener clause based on profits is a major red flag especially when the company has a track record of manipulating financials to suppress reported earnings.. The CWU are refusing to even acknowledge it. Are they are on our side - or RM's??

And can we really trust RM or the CWU to honour a future vote on USO changes after the way past decisions were handled? The fact that local units were given zero realistic options during the pilot says everything. And there still doesn't seem to be anything meaningful on equalising contracts. The Union shouldn't be looking at trying to fix it in stages based on profitability, they should be demanding that this gets sorted first otherwise they are just kicking the can a bit further down the road.

[Ren Hoëk]

I’ve heard about proposals to freeze OT and do all the other things you mention for as long as I’ve been in this job and it never happens. It’s always strikes. Might have happened at a local level but not nationally. I agree though it should definitely be an option.

Zero chance of enforcing an OT ban when probably half the work force are part timers who rely upon OT just to survive.

The main issue with overtime bans is that they disproportionately impact women as they are less likely to be on a FT 37hr contract and therefore more likely to be topping up their hours with overtime.

As apposed to an all out strike where everyone loses out on everything. No, your contract is your contract regardless of gender. Plenty of opportunities, especially lately to have your contract made up to full time. Unless people enjoy the flexibility. Then we are in a cake and eat it territory. If we need IA then an OT ban/work to rule ballot would be impactful and least harmful to us.

People shouldn't ever make financial decisions based on overtime income.

[Barnacle]

I’ve heard about proposals to freeze OT and do all the other things you mention for as long as I’ve been in this job and it never happens. It’s always strikes. Might have happened at a local level but not nationally. I agree though it should definitely be an option.

Zero chance of enforcing an OT ban when probably half the work force are part timers who rely upon OT just to survive.

The main issue with overtime bans is that they disproportionately impact women as they are less likely to be on a FT 37hr contract and therefore more likely to be topping up their hours with overtime.

As apposed to an all out strike where everyone loses out on everything. No, your contract is your contract regardless of gender. Plenty of opportunities, especially lately to have your contract made up to full time. Unless people enjoy the flexibility. Then we are in a cake and eat it territory. If we need IA then an OT ban/work to rule ballot would be impactful and least harmful to us.

People shouldn't ever make financial decisions based on overtime income.

No you are wrong about ‘plenty of opportunities to be made up to full time’. Women are often overlooked, not even asked, when the opportunities arise. An assumption is made that they don’t want to be made up. Or men are just made up on the hush hush, jumping the seniority queue.

[Smoothbackground]

No you are wrong about ‘plenty of opportunities to be made up to full time’. Women are often overlooked, not even asked, when the opportunities arise. An assumption is made that they don’t want to be made up. Or men are just made up on the hush hush, jumping the seniority queue.

Having seen this happen to colleagues over the past few weeks/months, I agree with you entirely on this.

[Chelseablue]

The forecast inflation could be 6% at end of year !!!

[Ren Hoëk]

I’ve heard about proposals to freeze OT and do all the other things you mention for as long as I’ve been in this job and it never happens. It’s always strikes. Might have happened at a local level but not nationally. I agree though it should definitely be an option.

Zero chance of enforcing an OT ban when probably half the work force are part timers who rely upon OT just to survive.

The main issue with overtime bans is that they disproportionately impact women as they are less likely to be on a FT 37hr contract and therefore more likely to be topping up their hours with overtime.

As apposed to an all out strike where everyone loses out on everything. No, your contract is your contract regardless of gender. Plenty of opportunities, especially lately to have your contract made up to full time. Unless people enjoy the flexibility. Then we are in a cake and eat it territory. If we need IA then an OT ban/work to rule ballot would be impactful and least harmful to us.

People shouldn't ever make financial decisions based on overtime income.

No you are wrong about ‘plenty of opportunities to be made up to full time’. Women are often overlooked, not even asked, when the opportunities arise. An assumption is made that they don’t want to be made up. Or men are just made up on the hush hush, jumping the seniority queue.

In my nearly 20 years service I have never witnessed this. Seniority has always been the deciding factor.

[hewittinspain]

It will be a massive yes vote , the majority want a pay rise now the uso nonsense can take care of itself.

Not from my feedback it will be a massive yes. I work in a big office and I'd say a good 80% will definitely be voting no on the deal.