Securing our future leaflet - legacy payments

LouBarlow · Post by **LouBarlow** » 06 May 2017, 17:47

TrueBlueTerrier wrote:
LouBarlow wrote:I've only just gotten round to reading this but seriously even the most hardened union man has to think asking for a shorter working week AND a pay rise is utterly ridiculous and makes them look naive beyond belief? Do they know what they are doing?
Yes in my opinion they do, no point in negotiating from a weakness. Especially with the current round have you seen what RM have put on the table, the Union have to counter that and giving up on a pay rise without a concession from the other side is a recipe for a rollover.

Basically, the pay rise has to be looked at as a part of the whole, not just a single issue all by itself. For once the CWU are playing hardball, good on them I say.

Working a shorter week for the same pay is in effect a pay-rise. Asking for both is madness, and will do us no favour when it comes to public support. Campaign against all the other rot RM want to crowbar in, but that point alone makes them look deluded IMO

Post by **wacko74** » 06 May 2017, 18:10

Moya, the board and all senior management have proven beyond doubt now that they are utterly incompetent and not up to the job, all they attempt to do is slash our pay, pensions and T&C's and clearly have no ability what so ever to actually improve our business model and attract new customers and fresh income streams.

Post by **SpacePhoenix** » 06 May 2017, 19:12

LouBarlow wrote:Working a shorter week for the same pay is in effect a pay-rise. Asking for both is madness, and will do us no favour when it comes to public support. Campaign against all the other rot RM want to crowbar in, but that point alone makes them look deluded IMO

Not necessairily, it depends on how it gets brought in, if it gets brought in by making meal reliefs unpaid then it'd wouldn't be a pay rise

AceMark · Post by **AceMark** » 06 May 2017, 19:18

LouBarlow wrote:Working a shorter week for the same pay is in effect a pay-rise. Asking for both is madness, and will do us no favour when it comes to public support. Campaign against all the other rot RM want to crowbar in, but that point alone makes them look deluded IMO

The cost of living still goes up every year though. RM are making working a shorter week non optional for full timers, regardless if they budget everything on what they earn just now, so in effect every year that hours are reduced they would be taking a wage cut. Or are RM going to freeze the price of living as well?

LouBarlow · Post by **LouBarlow** » 06 May 2017, 20:03

AceMark wrote:
LouBarlow wrote:Working a shorter week for the same pay is in effect a pay-rise. Asking for both is madness, and will do us no favour when it comes to public support. Campaign against all the other rot RM want to crowbar in, but that point alone makes them look deluded IMO
The cost of living still goes up every year though. RM are making working a shorter week non optional for full timers, regardless if they budget everything on what they earn just now, so in effect every year that hours are reduced they would be taking a wage cut. Or are RM going to freeze the price of living as well?

So ask for a pay-rise then. To ask for both is a pipe-dream. Sure, we would all love to work less for more money but is it even a realistic demand? When they settle for a pay-freeze on an hour a week reduction in working time, they will present that as a big win.

datasaint · Post by **datasaint** » 06 May 2017, 20:19

I think the CWU are playing RM at their own game, make a load of outlandish proposals then come negotiation time drop the most hard to achieve ones and settle for what's left.

Postie45 · Post by **Postie45** » 06 May 2017, 20:26

norm wrote:I think the CWU are playing RM at their own game, make a load of outlandish proposals then come negotiation time drop the most hard to achieve ones and settle for what's left.

exactly, RM are asking for the moon, so the CWU are doing likewise. It seems like a negotiating tactic, so when CWU conceed asking for shorter working week, then RM have to give up some of their extreme ideas.

LouBarlow · Post by **LouBarlow** » 06 May 2017, 20:56

norm wrote:I think the CWU are playing RM at their own game, make a load of outlandish proposals then come negotiation time drop the most hard to achieve ones and settle for what's left.

I hope so, but even if that is the case, it seems RM have far more experience with this 'game' as evidenced by the way they outplayed the CWU after the last conflict gave us the 'Deal of the Century' which basically equated to a giant f**k you to staff, for a lump sum, which will probably happen again.

Do people who remember the last time the union negotiators capitulated think that somehow they will get their tactics right this time round?

maisymoo04 · Post by **maisymoo04** » 06 May 2017, 20:58

robsbelly wrote:Wot the hell is giving back ownership of walk back to the postmen and women mean, Is there a possibility of it being franchised . Who knows with this lot.

be like having a milk round and look whats happening to them I go the aldi for my milk

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 06 May 2017, 22:35

A shorter working week is not just about us working less hours, it's also about keeping outdoor workload manageable. Without it royal mail faces huge problems of its own, replanning outdoor deliveries and increasing the outdoor element of full-time duties with a possible increase in work related illness/injury, realigning part-time hours to match longer deliveries and/or increasing the very inefficient, difficult to manage and very unpopular (with staff and management) use of lapsing.

A shorter working week helps royal mail manage the reduction in indoor workload. Although they'll never admit it they want it too.

Asking staff to reduce their working week over a period of possibly 3-5 years with no increase in take home pay while the cost of living continues to rise would be ridiculous. I can't pay my mortgage by telling the bank I'm working 1 hour less a week than last year.

Post by **IloveMYredTROLLEY!** » 07 May 2017, 06:59

I'd like to see a reduction in full-time contract hours in combination with a significant increase in the overtime rate, to at least 125% of standard rate hourly pay. RM need to put money where their mouth is, they keep on churning out these farcical duty tweaks, that leave many OPGs no chance of completing the total indoor and outdoor workload within the day's allocated contract hours if they work as they are supposed to (standing still to get mail for next address from the working bundle, not using a pouch on shoulder unless delivering to a block of flats, trying multiple neighbours if nobody answers for most attendance parcels etc.).

I'd hazzard a guess that if the overtime rate increased, it would encourage a lot of OPGs to work how RM guidelines expect us to and how duties are supposed to be planned and be achievable, but due to their farcical expectations the overtime would boost the wages of FT back towards (or even exceed) 39-hour gross pay.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 07 May 2017, 09:28

LouBarlow wrote:Working a shorter week for the same pay is in effect a pay-rise. Asking for both is madness, and will do us no favour when it comes to public support. Campaign against all the other rot RM want to crowbar in, but that point alone makes them look deluded IMO

But a significant number of colleagues won't be getting a pay rise, in fact with the loss of ALL legacy payments and bonuses, changes to sick pay, election payments etc, they'll be getting a reduction in pay if they reduce the working week with no increase in pay.

AceMark · Post by **AceMark** » 07 May 2017, 10:06

LouBarlow wrote:
AceMark wrote:
LouBarlow wrote:Working a shorter week for the same pay is in effect a pay-rise. Asking for both is madness, and will do us no favour when it comes to public support. Campaign against all the other rot RM want to crowbar in, but that point alone makes them look deluded IMO
The cost of living still goes up every year though. RM are making working a shorter week non optional for full timers, regardless if they budget everything on what they earn just now, so in effect every year that hours are reduced they would be taking a wage cut. Or are RM going to freeze the price of living as well?
So ask for a pay-rise then. To ask for both is a pipe-dream. Sure, we would all love to work less for more money but is it even a realistic demand? When they settle for a pay-freeze on an hour a week reduction in working time, they will present that as a big win.

This is purely hypothetical, assuming a pay rise of 2.5% per year. And based on RM cutting full time hours to 35 over a 3 year period. This includes delivery supplement.

RM Proposal - No loss in pay
Now - 11.18 x 39 = 436.02
Y1 - 11.47 x 38 = 436.02
Y2 - 11.95 x 36.5 = 436.02
Y3 - 12.46 x 35 = 436.02

No loss in pay & Annual pay rise (2.5%)
Now 11.46 x 39 = 446.94 (+10.92 p/w)
Y1 - 11.75 x 39 = 458.25 (+22.23 p/w)
Y2 - 12.04 x 39 = 469.56 (+33.54 p/w)
Y3 - 12.34 x 39 = 481.26 (+45.24 p/w)

Annual Pay rise only (2.5%)
Now - 11.46 x 39 = 446.94 (-10.92 p/w)
Y1 - 11.75 x 38 = 446.50 (-10.48 p/w)
Y2 - 12.04 x 36.5 = 439.46 (-3.44 p/w)
Y3 - 12.34 x 35 = 431.9 (+4.12 p/w)

This is why no-one in their right mind would ask for one or the other. A pay rise see's full timers only catching up with today's wage in year 3 of the cuts. RM's proposal of no loss in pay means by year 3 full timers will be losing £45.24 per week on what they would have been earning before cutting hours. I don't see us getting both, however RM are also proposing cutting election payments and everything else. So in effect, no matter the outcome there will be a cut in wages. So to not fight would see us losing more.