Pay Rise ?

[smok3y666]

Ballot for strike action? Who the f***s going go on strike after the last f**k up?

An end to 2 tier working? You mean the 2 tier working agreement the union agreed to? WTF is Walsh on about.

[stevejm]

What percentage of new entrants are union members? Has to be a lower percentage than that of legacy staff.
Legacy staff have paid more into CWU coffers than new entrants since the last pay negotiations in 2022. MUCH MORE!
And yet the whole thrust of negotiations is to secure a massive upgrade in t&c for new entrants. Why? Could it be that long term the CWUs viability at RM depends on gaining new entrant members?
As for improving VR terms and conditions, that sounds good on paper, but the realty is that the more expensive it is for RM to offer VR then the less they'll be inclined to use it to reduce numbers.
Personally, I'd be happy to receive a slightly above inflation pay rise. A bad move to reject that. Let new entrants gain equal terms over a 3/4 year period.

Don't be so selfish, new entrants are already on 5k per year less than you for a full time contract for doing the exact same job!! Your suggestion is to equal your pay with the new entrants over 4 years?? So you're happy with the new entrants being on less than you for 4 years just so you get a pay rise. Don't be silly

Ideally everybody would get a pay-rise equivalent to inflation and new entrants would get parity, but that doesn't seem attainable.
It is quite normal in many different jobs for more experienced workers to get paid better.
In fact, when I joined 8 years ago, it took 12 months to gain parity which is far sooner than in other jobs.
The fact is you knew the T&C when you joined and you accepted them.
It possibly came as a shock to find you were doing the same work for less than legacy staff. But as I explained above, this is quite normal.
What isn't normal is than until now there is no path to parity. And that is what the Union is fighting for.
But what doesn't sit well with me is that I should have worse T&C, which is what will happen if I receive a below inflation pay-rise, or no pay-rise at all.
What in effect you are saying is that you want parity with legacy workers conditions [imo nothing wrong with that] and you could care less if legacy workers have to forego an inflation matching pay-rise in order for you to achieve that immediately; compromise for you is unacceptable (such as waiting 4 years or maybe a shorter period) - you want it all now - despite accepting and knowing your T&C when joining!
Legacy workers are not responsible for your inferior T&C - the company is. You should direct whatever ire you have towards them and also the Union for accepting those terms when they had the ballot for a strike to reject the proposals of RM in 2022.
Are you a Union member? I hope so. But if not, why not?

[qwerty2]

Ballot for strike action? Who the f***s going go on strike after the last f**k up?

An end to 2 tier working? You mean the 2 tier working agreement the union agreed to? WTF is Walsh on about.

He’s a moron - wants to get rid of non drivers - people who’ve worked for RM for 15 20 30 40+ years

[wandle]

If a two-tier workforce continues for many years, what do you think will happen when RM decide to equalise pay rates by cutting the pay of legacy workers?
Is it likely people who’ve been on inferior terms for years would back a strike to maintain the disparity?
That’s why the CWU should have never got into this position!!

[Woody84]

Waiting 3-4 years to equalise pay would be ridiculous.

12-18 months seems fair but 3-4 years and many would still leave as they are now.

[gypu1999]

What percentage of new entrants are union members? Has to be a lower percentage than that of legacy staff.
Legacy staff have paid more into CWU coffers than new entrants since the last pay negotiations in 2022. MUCH MORE!
And yet the whole thrust of negotiations is to secure a massive upgrade in t&c for new entrants. Why? Could it be that long term the CWUs viability at RM depends on gaining new entrant members?
As for improving VR terms and conditions, that sounds good on paper, but the realty is that the more expensive it is for RM to offer VR then the less they'll be inclined to use it to reduce numbers.
Personally, I'd be happy to receive a slightly above inflation pay rise. A bad move to reject that. Let new entrants gain equal terms over a 3/4 year period.

Don't be so selfish, new entrants are already on 5k per year less than you for a full time contract for doing the exact same job!! Your suggestion is to equal your pay with the new entrants over 4 years?? So you're happy with the new entrants being on less than you for 4 years just so you get a pay rise. Don't be silly

Ideally everybody would get a pay-rise equivalent to inflation and new entrants would get parity, but that doesn't seem attainable.
It is quite normal in many different jobs for more experienced workers to get paid better.
In fact, when I joined 8 years ago, it took 12 months to gain parity which is far sooner than in other jobs.
The fact is you knew the T&C when you joined and you accepted them.
It possibly came as a shock to find you were doing the same work for less than legacy staff. But as I explained above, this is quite normal.
What isn't normal is than until now there is no path to parity. And that is what the Union is fighting for.
But what doesn't sit well with me is that I should have worse T&C, which is what will happen if I receive a below inflation pay-rise, or no pay-rise at all.
What in effect you are saying is that you want parity with legacy workers conditions [imo nothing wrong with that] and you could care less if legacy workers have to forego an inflation matching pay-rise in order for you to achieve that immediately; compromise for you is unacceptable (such as waiting 4 years or maybe a shorter period) - you want it all now - despite accepting and knowing your T&C when joining!
Legacy workers are not responsible for your inferior T&C - the company is. You should direct whatever ire you have towards them and also the Union for accepting those terms when they had the ballot for a strike to reject the proposals of RM in 2022.
Are you a Union member? I hope so. But if not, why not?

I didnt blame legacy workers for our inferior T&C did I? I just think its silly that you think that they should shaft the new entrants just to get a good pay rise for yourself and its selfish. Your point about us being on lower pay because we are less experienced is quite stupid to be honest considering this is an unskilled job so experience shouldnt make a difference, I dont see any other unskilled jobs paying based from experience?
Were you happy when you joined 8 years ago and getting less pay than your colleagues? Be honest

[Hyrrokkin]

What percentage of new entrants are union members? Has to be a lower percentage than that of legacy staff.
Legacy staff have paid more into CWU coffers than new entrants since the last pay negotiations in 2022. MUCH MORE!
And yet the whole thrust of negotiations is to secure a massive upgrade in t&c for new entrants. Why? Could it be that long term the CWUs viability at RM depends on gaining new entrant members?
As for improving VR terms and conditions, that sounds good on paper, but the realty is that the more expensive it is for RM to offer VR then the less they'll be inclined to use it to reduce numbers.
Personally, I'd be happy to receive a slightly above inflation pay rise. A bad move to reject that. Let new entrants gain equal terms over a 3/4 year period.

Don't be so selfish, new entrants are already on 5k per year less than you for a full time contract for doing the exact same job!! Your suggestion is to equal your pay with the new entrants over 4 years?? So you're happy with the new entrants being on less than you for 4 years just so you get a pay rise. Don't be silly

Ideally everybody would get a pay-rise equivalent to inflation and new entrants would get parity, but that doesn't seem attainable.
It is quite normal in many different jobs for more experienced workers to get paid better.
In fact, when I joined 8 years ago, it took 12 months to gain parity which is far sooner than in other jobs.
The fact is you knew the T&C when you joined and you accepted them.
It possibly came as a shock to find you were doing the same work for less than legacy staff. But as I explained above, this is quite normal.
What isn't normal is than until now there is no path to parity. And that is what the Union is fighting for.
But what doesn't sit well with me is that I should have worse T&C, which is what will happen if I receive a below inflation pay-rise, or no pay-rise at all.
What in effect you are saying is that you want parity with legacy workers conditions [imo nothing wrong with that] and you could care less if legacy workers have to forego an inflation matching pay-rise in order for you to achieve that immediately; compromise for you is unacceptable (such as waiting 4 years or maybe a shorter period) - you want it all now - despite accepting and knowing your T&C when joining!
Legacy workers are not responsible for your inferior T&C - the company is. You should direct whatever ire you have towards them and also the Union for accepting those terms when they had the ballot for a strike to reject the proposals of RM in 2022.
Are you a Union member? I hope so. But if not, why not?

[TopperGas]

What percentage of new entrants are union members? Has to be a lower percentage than that of legacy staff.
Legacy staff have paid more into CWU coffers than new entrants since the last pay negotiations in 2022. MUCH MORE!
And yet the whole thrust of negotiations is to secure a massive upgrade in t&c for new entrants. Why? Could it be that long term the CWUs viability at RM depends on gaining new entrant members?
As for improving VR terms and conditions, that sounds good on paper, but the realty is that the more expensive it is for RM to offer VR then the less they'll be inclined to use it to reduce numbers.
Personally, I'd be happy to receive a slightly above inflation pay rise. A bad move to reject that. Let new entrants gain equal terms over a 3/4 year period.

Don't be so selfish, new entrants are already on 5k per year less than you for a full time contract for doing the exact same job!! Your suggestion is to equal your pay with the new entrants over 4 years?? So you're happy with the new entrants being on less than you for 4 years just so you get a pay rise. Don't be silly

Ideally everybody would get a pay-rise equivalent to inflation and new entrants would get parity, but that doesn't seem attainable.
It is quite normal in many different jobs for more experienced workers to get paid better.
In fact, when I joined 8 years ago, it took 12 months to gain parity which is far sooner than in other jobs.
The fact is you knew the T&C when you joined and you accepted them.
It possibly came as a shock to find you were doing the same work for less than legacy staff. But as I explained above, this is quite normal.
What isn't normal is than until now there is no path to parity. And that is what the Union is fighting for.
But what doesn't sit well with me is that I should have worse T&C, which is what will happen if I receive a below inflation pay-rise, or no pay-rise at all.
What in effect you are saying is that you want parity with legacy workers conditions [imo nothing wrong with that] and you could care less if legacy workers have to forego an inflation matching pay-rise in order for you to achieve that immediately; compromise for you is unacceptable (such as waiting 4 years or maybe a shorter period) - you want it all now - despite accepting and knowing your T&C when joining!
Legacy workers are not responsible for your inferior T&C - the company is. You should direct whatever ire you have towards them and also the Union for accepting those terms when they had the ballot for a strike to reject the proposals of RM in 2022.
Are you a Union member? I hope so. But if not, why not?

I didnt blame legacy workers for our inferior T&C did I? I just think its silly that you think that they should shaft the new entrants just to get a good pay rise for yourself and its selfish. Your point about us being on lower pay because we are less experienced is quite stupid to be honest considering this is an unskilled job so experience shouldnt make a difference, I dont see any other unskilled jobs paying based from experience?
Were you happy when you joined 8 years ago and getting less pay than your colleagues? Be honest

I had no issues as I was a new starter with zero experience. I don't get the argument that experienced staff must forego a reasonable pay rise so new starters can have a decent one, as if RM keep on reducing OPG's wages in real terms they'll be no experienced staff left in a few years.

I see you ignored the CWU question, should we take that to mean your not a member?

[gypu1999]

What percentage of new entrants are union members? Has to be a lower percentage than that of legacy staff.
Legacy staff have paid more into CWU coffers than new entrants since the last pay negotiations in 2022. MUCH MORE!
And yet the whole thrust of negotiations is to secure a massive upgrade in t&c for new entrants. Why? Could it be that long term the CWUs viability at RM depends on gaining new entrant members?
As for improving VR terms and conditions, that sounds good on paper, but the realty is that the more expensive it is for RM to offer VR then the less they'll be inclined to use it to reduce numbers.
Personally, I'd be happy to receive a slightly above inflation pay rise. A bad move to reject that. Let new entrants gain equal terms over a 3/4 year period.

Don't be so selfish, new entrants are already on 5k per year less than you for a full time contract for doing the exact same job!! Your suggestion is to equal your pay with the new entrants over 4 years?? So you're happy with the new entrants being on less than you for 4 years just so you get a pay rise. Don't be silly

Ideally everybody would get a pay-rise equivalent to inflation and new entrants would get parity, but that doesn't seem attainable.
It is quite normal in many different jobs for more experienced workers to get paid better.
In fact, when I joined 8 years ago, it took 12 months to gain parity which is far sooner than in other jobs.
The fact is you knew the T&C when you joined and you accepted them.
It possibly came as a shock to find you were doing the same work for less than legacy staff. But as I explained above, this is quite normal.
What isn't normal is than until now there is no path to parity. And that is what the Union is fighting for.
But what doesn't sit well with me is that I should have worse T&C, which is what will happen if I receive a below inflation pay-rise, or no pay-rise at all.
What in effect you are saying is that you want parity with legacy workers conditions [imo nothing wrong with that] and you could care less if legacy workers have to forego an inflation matching pay-rise in order for you to achieve that immediately; compromise for you is unacceptable (such as waiting 4 years or maybe a shorter period) - you want it all now - despite accepting and knowing your T&C when joining!
Legacy workers are not responsible for your inferior T&C - the company is. You should direct whatever ire you have towards them and also the Union for accepting those terms when they had the ballot for a strike to reject the proposals of RM in 2022.
Are you a Union member? I hope so. But if not, why not?

I didnt blame legacy workers for our inferior T&C did I? I just think its silly that you think that they should shaft the new entrants just to get a good pay rise for yourself and its selfish. Your point about us being on lower pay because we are less experienced is quite stupid to be honest considering this is an unskilled job so experience shouldnt make a difference, I dont see any other unskilled jobs paying based from experience?
Were you happy when you joined 8 years ago and getting less pay than your colleagues? Be honest

I had no issues as I was a new starter with zero experience. I don't get the argument that experienced staff must forego a reasonable pay rise so new starters can have a decent one, as if RM keep on reducing OPG's wages in real terms they'll be no experienced staff left in a few years.

I see you ignored the CWU question, should we take that to mean your not a member?

Like I said, It's an unskilled job so more experience shouldnt mean more pay, It's simple really.

And yes I am a member but why does it matter?

[Clappedoutpostie]

Your point about us being on lower pay because we are less experienced is quite stupid to be honest considering this is an unskilled job so experience shouldnt make a difference, I dont see any other unskilled jobs paying based from experience?
Were you happy when you joined 8 years ago and getting less pay than your colleagues? Be honest

Unskilled job don’t make me laugh, if it was that unskilled how come so many people can’t do it? Don’t put yourself down with comments like that.

[gypu1999]

Your point about us being on lower pay because we are less experienced is quite stupid to be honest considering this is an unskilled job so experience shouldnt make a difference, I dont see any other unskilled jobs paying based from experience?
Were you happy when you joined 8 years ago and getting less pay than your colleagues? Be honest

Unskilled job don’t make me laugh, if it was that unskilled how come so many people can’t do it? Don’t put yourself down with comments like that.

It is an unskilled job whether you like it or not. Care to explain what makes being a postman a skilled job?

[hero22]

What percentage of new entrants are union members? Has to be a lower percentage than that of legacy staff.
Legacy staff have paid more into CWU coffers than new entrants since the last pay negotiations in 2022. MUCH MORE!
And yet the whole thrust of negotiations is to secure a massive upgrade in t&c for new entrants. Why? Could it be that long term the CWUs viability at RM depends on gaining new entrant members?
As for improving VR terms and conditions, that sounds good on paper, but the realty is that the more expensive it is for RM to offer VR then the less they'll be inclined to use it to reduce numbers.
Personally, I'd be happy to receive a slightly above inflation pay rise. A bad move to reject that. Let new entrants gain equal terms over a 3/4 year period.

Don't be so selfish, new entrants are already on 5k per year less than you for a full time contract for doing the exact same job!! Your suggestion is to equal your pay with the new entrants over 4 years?? So you're happy with the new entrants being on less than you for 4 years just so you get a pay rise. Don't be silly

Ideally everybody would get a pay-rise equivalent to inflation and new entrants would get parity, but that doesn't seem attainable.
It is quite normal in many different jobs for more experienced workers to get paid better.
In fact, when I joined 8 years ago, it took 12 months to gain parity which is far sooner than in other jobs.
The fact is you knew the T&C when you joined and you accepted them.
It possibly came as a shock to find you were doing the same work for less than legacy staff. But as I explained above, this is quite normal.
What isn't normal is than until now there is no path to parity. And that is what the Union is fighting for.
But what doesn't sit well with me is that I should have worse T&C, which is what will happen if I receive a below inflation pay-rise, or no pay-rise at all.
What in effect you are saying is that you want parity with legacy workers conditions [imo nothing wrong with that] and you could care less if legacy workers have to forego an inflation matching pay-rise in order for you to achieve that immediately; compromise for you is unacceptable (such as waiting 4 years or maybe a shorter period) - you want it all now - despite accepting and knowing your T&C when joining!
Legacy workers are not responsible for your inferior T&C - the company is. You should direct whatever ire you have towards them and also the Union for accepting those terms when they had the ballot for a strike to reject the proposals of RM in 2022.
Are you a Union member? I hope so. But if not, why not?

I didnt blame legacy workers for our inferior T&C did I? I just think its silly that you think that they should shaft the new entrants just to get a good pay rise for yourself and its selfish. Your point about us being on lower pay because we are less experienced is quite stupid to be honest considering this is an unskilled job so experience shouldnt make a difference, I dont see any other unskilled jobs paying based from experience?
Were you happy when you joined 8 years ago and getting less pay than your colleagues? Be honest

Took most of us 12 months to gain pay parity, not to mention many of us started on 24 hour contracts and it took years to
Work our way up to full time. Thats what i signed up for when i started , so not sure why any of the new starts took the job if they think its unfair. Lot of the new ones seem to think they instantly deserves pay parity, whatever holidays they want and a duty of their choice.

[hero22]

What percentage of new entrants are union members? Has to be a lower percentage than that of legacy staff.
Legacy staff have paid more into CWU coffers than new entrants since the last pay negotiations in 2022. MUCH MORE!
And yet the whole thrust of negotiations is to secure a massive upgrade in t&c for new entrants. Why? Could it be that long term the CWUs viability at RM depends on gaining new entrant members?
As for improving VR terms and conditions, that sounds good on paper, but the realty is that the more expensive it is for RM to offer VR then the less they'll be inclined to use it to reduce numbers.
Personally, I'd be happy to receive a slightly above inflation pay rise. A bad move to reject that. Let new entrants gain equal terms over a 3/4 year period.

Don't be so selfish, new entrants are already on 5k per year less than you for a full time contract for doing the exact same job!! Your suggestion is to equal your pay with the new entrants over 4 years?? So you're happy with the new entrants being on less than you for 4 years just so you get a pay rise. Don't be silly

Ideally everybody would get a pay-rise equivalent to inflation and new entrants would get parity, but that doesn't seem attainable.
It is quite normal in many different jobs for more experienced workers to get paid better.
In fact, when I joined 8 years ago, it took 12 months to gain parity which is far sooner than in other jobs.
The fact is you knew the T&C when you joined and you accepted them.
It possibly came as a shock to find you were doing the same work for less than legacy staff. But as I explained above, this is quite normal.
What isn't normal is than until now there is no path to parity. And that is what the Union is fighting for.
But what doesn't sit well with me is that I should have worse T&C, which is what will happen if I receive a below inflation pay-rise, or no pay-rise at all.
What in effect you are saying is that you want parity with legacy workers conditions [imo nothing wrong with that] and you could care less if legacy workers have to forego an inflation matching pay-rise in order for you to achieve that immediately; compromise for you is unacceptable (such as waiting 4 years or maybe a shorter period) - you want it all now - despite accepting and knowing your T&C when joining!
Legacy workers are not responsible for your inferior T&C - the company is. You should direct whatever ire you have towards them and also the Union for accepting those terms when they had the ballot for a strike to reject the proposals of RM in 2022.
Are you a Union member? I hope so. But if not, why not?

This is spot on

[gypu1999]

What percentage of new entrants are union members? Has to be a lower percentage than that of legacy staff.
Legacy staff have paid more into CWU coffers than new entrants since the last pay negotiations in 2022. MUCH MORE!
And yet the whole thrust of negotiations is to secure a massive upgrade in t&c for new entrants. Why? Could it be that long term the CWUs viability at RM depends on gaining new entrant members?
As for improving VR terms and conditions, that sounds good on paper, but the realty is that the more expensive it is for RM to offer VR then the less they'll be inclined to use it to reduce numbers.
Personally, I'd be happy to receive a slightly above inflation pay rise. A bad move to reject that. Let new entrants gain equal terms over a 3/4 year period.

Don't be so selfish, new entrants are already on 5k per year less than you for a full time contract for doing the exact same job!! Your suggestion is to equal your pay with the new entrants over 4 years?? So you're happy with the new entrants being on less than you for 4 years just so you get a pay rise. Don't be silly

Ideally everybody would get a pay-rise equivalent to inflation and new entrants would get parity, but that doesn't seem attainable.
It is quite normal in many different jobs for more experienced workers to get paid better.
In fact, when I joined 8 years ago, it took 12 months to gain parity which is far sooner than in other jobs.
The fact is you knew the T&C when you joined and you accepted them.
It possibly came as a shock to find you were doing the same work for less than legacy staff. But as I explained above, this is quite normal.
What isn't normal is than until now there is no path to parity. And that is what the Union is fighting for.
But what doesn't sit well with me is that I should have worse T&C, which is what will happen if I receive a below inflation pay-rise, or no pay-rise at all.
What in effect you are saying is that you want parity with legacy workers conditions [imo nothing wrong with that] and you could care less if legacy workers have to forego an inflation matching pay-rise in order for you to achieve that immediately; compromise for you is unacceptable (such as waiting 4 years or maybe a shorter period) - you want it all now - despite accepting and knowing your T&C when joining!
Legacy workers are not responsible for your inferior T&C - the company is. You should direct whatever ire you have towards them and also the Union for accepting those terms when they had the ballot for a strike to reject the proposals of RM in 2022.
Are you a Union member? I hope so. But if not, why not?

I didnt blame legacy workers for our inferior T&C did I? I just think its silly that you think that they should shaft the new entrants just to get a good pay rise for yourself and its selfish. Your point about us being on lower pay because we are less experienced is quite stupid to be honest considering this is an unskilled job so experience shouldnt make a difference, I dont see any other unskilled jobs paying based from experience?
Were you happy when you joined 8 years ago and getting less pay than your colleagues? Be honest

Took most of us 12 months to gain pay parity, not to mention many of us started on 24 hour contracts and it took years to
Work our way up to full time. Thats what i signed up for when i started , so not sure why any of the new starts took the job if they think its unfair. Lot of the new ones seem to think they instantly deserves pay parity, whatever holidays they want and a duty of their choice.

Can you explain what the difference in pay was for you back then? I'm sure its not as big of a difference as it is now
12 months is very different to the 4 years you are suggesting and its already been 3.
So you believe you should be earning more money than somebody doing the exact same job just because you have been a postman for longer? Very strange

[Smoothbackground]

I agree, it’s unfair on every front, i wouldn’t mind if the “experience”, “skill” and long service the other posters keep going on about meant that the output/productivity from legacy staff was twice ours. There would then be an argument for saying that until we’re up to speed, say for the first six months, us new starters should be on a trainee rate. But that’s not the case. In our region, every new-starter who lasts beyond a month is expected to undertake considerably more work than their legacy counterpart, often double, sometimes even more. Unescapable fact.