Rebuilding Royal Mail Part 2

[borders]

Jonathan Alsatia , this is simply not at all.

There are circa 20 thousand new entrants in Royal Mail and the overwhelming majority are working less than full time ie less that 40 hours. Of which only 146 have currently done more than 2 years service.

The cost to equalise new entrants in one go is 183 million pounds.

The reason being

You need to reduce the hours from 40 to 37 hours which increases the hourly rate for all new entrants is £27 million pounds.

Paid meal reliefs as Royal Mail have to reduce working hours for all new entrants is £28 million.

The supplements is £42 million.

Inner and outer London Weighting is worth 40 million.

Recruitment and retention payments cost 30 million.

When you negotiate a pay rise the more which is done in year 1 has compounded effect in years 2 and 3.

So the first step will apply to all new entrants in September and from a union position we are saying that no one should have to do more than 3 years to when they get equalisation. Importantly we want those 146 who have done two years to start having full equalisation from three years.

However whether you like it or not this company is making a double digit profit and they are not going to just chuck 183 million on the table and say everyone has full equalisation from now.

There will be incremental steps , with the first in September.

Remember this company imposed the new entrants contracts and it is the CWU who are now changing them for the better !

Which begs the question why did the Union accept / agree to this Two Tier Workforce in the first place ?

[Jefferson Starfish]

Remember this company imposed the new entrants contracts and it is the CWU who are now changing them for the better !

Which begs the question why did the Union accept / agree to this Two Tier Workforce in the first place ?

Which part of the word 'imposed' do you not understand?

[Acca Dacca]

Remember this company imposed the new entrants contracts and it is the CWU who are now changing them for the better !

Which begs the question why did the Union accept / agree to this Two Tier Workforce in the first place ?

Which part of the word 'imposed' do you not understand?

The union and the membership still agreed to stand down the strikes and endorse an agreement that never removed the two tier workforce with different pay and terms for new entrants so in a sense the Union did accept it.

[Ren Hoëk]

Remember this company imposed the new entrants contracts and it is the CWU who are now changing them for the better !

Which begs the question why did the Union accept / agree to this Two Tier Workforce in the first place ?

Which part of the word 'imposed' do you not understand?

The union and the membership still agreed to stand down the strikes and endorse an agreement that never removed the two tier workforce with different pay and terms for new entrants so in a sense the Union did accept it.

Glad you said it.

[borders]

Remember this company imposed the new entrants contracts and it is the CWU who are now changing them for the better !

Which begs the question why did the Union accept / agree to this Two Tier Workforce in the first place ?

Which part of the word 'imposed' do you not understand?

Jefferson, I get the point you’re making, but simply repeating “imposed” doesn’t address the wider frustration. Yes, Royal Mail forced the new contract terms onto new entrants. But after that, the union negotiated and agreed a framework that left that two-tier setup in place—then asked members to endorse it. That was a choice, even if it was made under difficult circumstances.

So the question still stands: could the CWU have drawn a harder line? And if not, then let’s at least acknowledge the compromise for what it was, rather than airbrushing it under the banner of “we’re fixing things now.” Members aren’t just asking how we got here—they’re wondering why we didn’t turn back sooner.

[borders]

Remember this company imposed the new entrants contracts and it is the CWU who are now changing them for the better !

Which begs the question why did the Union accept / agree to this Two Tier Workforce in the first place ?

Which part of the word 'imposed' do you not understand?

The union and the membership still agreed to stand down the strikes and endorse an agreement that never removed the two tier workforce with different pay and terms for new entrants so in a sense the Union did accept it.

that's how i saw it ...

[Jefferson Starfish]

So the company introduced different pay for new starters back in December 2022 and then refused to negotiate with the union over it. That's despite agreeing to a joint working party to do just that.

What exactly do you expect the CWU to have done?

[Acca Dacca]

So the company introduced different pay for new starters back in December 2022 and then refused to negotiate with the union over it. That's despite agreeing to a joint working party to do just that.

What exactly do you expect the CWU to have done?

They could have made it a line in the sand issue for getting an agreement to stop the strikes.

''We will not come to any agreement which doesnt rollback the executive action on changing the terms for new entrants''

This didnt happen.

It wasnt deemed a line in the sand issue and so the strike action which the membership voted for didnt go ahead

The union and RM got an agreement which included the two tier workforce, the union endorsed the agreement and told the membership to vote YES.

YES won. The dispute ended.

The new terms and conditions for new entrants remained in place.

How can this be anything other than the union accepting it?

It was easy to sell it as an issue of least importance to the membership because, quite bluntly, the change to terms and pay didnt directly affect us

The residual damage from it has now though.

Even if it was the right decision at the time to end the dispute and get an agreement, we still had to accept that new entrants going forward would continue to be on lesser terms and it was not an issue worth continuing industrial action for. The membership agreed so there should really be no complaints but lets not pretend that the union and membership didnt accept it.

[postslippete]

It’s Martin’s job to talk up this pay deal and equalisation for new entrants, but let’s look at the bigger picture. For a multi-billion-pound business the latest £15 million adjusted profit is paper-thin, especially considering the huge cost cutting measures:

1. Imposed revisions and persistent QoS failures
2. More new entrants stuck on inferior contracts
3. Seasonal variations cutting overtime
4. Fewer indoor staff
5. Reduced sick pay - which by RM's admission was costing £250 million a year

With that in place and parcel volumes rising, how is the company only looking at £15 million in profit?

But then, let’s not forget the alleged £1 billion loss in 2022–23. Strip away the accounting smoke and mirrors and the 'adjusted' operating loss was only double-digits i.e. £71 million! We all know the real profit potential lies in USO reform and parcels. We have seen this model work during the pandemic with reduced letter deliveries and huge parcel growth which helped generate £768 million profit for the group in 2021–22 and much of those profits came from Royal Mail rather than GLS.

In principle, inflation-linked pay rises in years 2 and 3 are exactly what we need. But unless strict safeguards are built into the agreement, this company will continue to manipulate its accounts to downplay profits and avoid paying staff fairly or address the two-tier workforce that is currently in place. They’ve done it before and they will do it again. It's not just about signing a deal but making sure the company can't quietly move the goalposts afterwards.

But somehow I don't think the CWU will. The last decade since privatisation has been the worst period for real terms pay for posties. And the reason pay hasn't consistently kept pace with inflation since 2010 is simple - every deal the CWU has ever signed has been tied to productivity or change. This company does not hand out "no strings" pay rises. And despite the current pay offer being presented as separate, it is still a deal with strings in instalments because it is ultimately tied to USO reform.

[kazardaimenu]

Hopefully terms can be equalised for the new starters especially the ones who have stuck it out. Justice for the 146.

[Mr Rush]

20k new entrants & only 148 have done more than 2 years.
That is one hell of a turnover of staff.
Simply, if RM do not drastically improve retention of said staff they are screwed!

The new contracts were implemented at the tail end of the strikes on December 1st 2022, meaning the period in question is basically the first half of 2023. But recruitment didn't pick up until the second half of that year.

This is necessary more so than ever, as RMG have informed us they have embarked upon a significant recruitment drive and have already employed 1200 new starters in the past two weeks.

Let's say 'significant' was a tenfold increase (by April 2024 there were reportedly 15,000 sticking around on a 16% departure rate): 60 new entrants a week is ~1500 total in H1 2023. That would be roughly 10% retention for that period. That's either an atrocious estimate or truly atrocious.

What I find more interesting is that new entrants currently stand at 20,000, because it was 19,000 last November. I know recruitment froze due to the takeover, is it still frozen in expectation of the ODM going national soon?

[Smoothbackground]

I know recruitment froze due to the takeover, is it still frozen in expectation of the ODM going national soon?

No. There is mass recruitment underway in my region - [edited — multiple] new starters at my office in the last maybe six or so weeks, all on 40-hr contracts, with apparently 5 or so more in the pipeline over the next few weeks. I didn’t realise we were that understaffed tbh.

(*edited to remove precise number of new starters at my DO because of my stalker fans on here*)

[TopperGas]

It’s Martin’s job to talk up this pay deal and equalisation for new entrants, but let’s look at the bigger picture. For a multi-billion-pound business the latest £15 million adjusted profit is paper-thin, especially considering the huge cost cutting measures:

1. Imposed revisions and persistent QoS failures
2. More new entrants stuck on inferior contracts
3. Seasonal variations cutting overtime
4. Fewer indoor staff
5. Reduced sick pay - which by RM's admission was costing £250 million a year

With that in place and parcel volumes rising, how is the company only looking at £15 million in profit?

But then, let’s not forget the alleged £1 billion loss in 2022–23. Strip away the accounting smoke and mirrors and the 'adjusted' operating loss was only double-digits i.e. £71 million! We all know the real profit potential lies in USO reform and parcels. We have seen this model work during the pandemic with reduced letter deliveries and huge parcel growth which helped generate £768 million profit for the group in 2021–22 and much of those profits came from Royal Mail rather than GLS.

In principle, inflation-linked pay rises in years 2 and 3 are exactly what we need. But unless strict safeguards are built into the agreement, this company will continue to manipulate its accounts to downplay profits and avoid paying staff fairly or address the two-tier workforce that is currently in place. They’ve done it before and they will do it again. It's not just about signing a deal but making sure the company can't quietly move the goalposts afterwards.

But somehow I don't think the CWU will. The last decade since privatisation has been the worst period for real terms pay for posties. And the reason pay hasn't consistently kept pace with inflation since 2010 is simple - every deal the CWU has ever signed has been tied to productivity or change. This company does not hand out "no strings" pay rises. And despite the current pay offer being presented as separate, it is still a deal with strings in instalments because it is ultimately tied to USO reform.

How much of the £768m were linked to delivering and collecting COVID test kits, we all complained made £B's from COVID they won't make in a normal year?

It would be interesting to know what, if anything, RM are making annually from the reduced sick pay given MW likes to quote figures at us and why that saving isn't being reflected in the annual results?

[borders]

Reminds me of that £100 bonus we got paid after putting ourselves in the Firing Line , nice of the Government to make us pay Tax on it too !!

[Pidleypoo]

20k new entrants & only 148 have done more than 2 years.
That is one hell of a turnover of staff.
Simply, if RM do not drastically improve retention of said staff they are screwed!

And it’s the real reason royal mail are willing to equalise terms.