Mike Newby 8 page letter to Terry Pullinger

worktotime · Post by **worktotime** » 12 May 2017, 19:52

gary1975 wrote:A business that runs on overtime would not work on monthly pay,if they want to make us all up to full time monthly is no problem for me.

to true due to size of deliverys , work a flat week no probs with monthly pay . but could you image the s**t from oct onwards , ermm no thanks Mr newby give it a try .

Post by **nataddick** » 12 May 2017, 20:46

Have RM conveniently de-linked the current pensions issue in this response ? I wonder why ?

mr hil. · Post by **mr hil.** » 13 May 2017, 00:56

Redacted some content ........I don't want to upset anybody

On a plus note the driving allowance could be spared......after all the letter clearly states that legacy payments for tasks and duties that are no longer performed should be axed. Unless they want us all to walk everywhere the payment should be kept.....

I also agree that the wording suggests that the legacy payments would cease next year without a lump sum because you would have already received 12 months worth of payments when the deal is backdated to April 2017, effectively you will be served notice that the payments would cease from the date the deal or some form of it is accepted.

UnhappyGremlin · Post by **UnhappyGremlin** » 13 May 2017, 19:07

Changing conditions for new starters is a back door method to screwing us all.

Current staff will be pressured more, and be under intense scrutiny, and be gotten rid of by any means.

Then, as soon as the new tier of employees outnumber the old tier, we're all f****d.

Chitchat · Post by **Chitchat** » 13 May 2017, 20:33

The union cannot allow RM to create a two tier work force.

datasaint · Post by **datasaint** » 13 May 2017, 20:38

Terry's reply?

gary1975 · Post by **gary1975** » 13 May 2017, 22:16

Chitchat wrote:The union cannot allow RM to create a two tier work force.

There already is one. The last time a fulltime job was advertised in my office was over 7 years ago

Chitchat · Post by **Chitchat** » 13 May 2017, 22:44

gary1975 wrote:
Chitchat wrote:The union cannot allow RM to create a two tier work force.
There already is one. The last time a fulltime job was advertised in my office was over 7 years ago

I agree, but this agreement would see a group of staff paid significantly less per hour than everyone else.

lightningpostman · Post by **lightningpostman** » 14 May 2017, 09:46

Chitchat wrote:
gary1975 wrote:
Chitchat wrote:The union cannot allow RM to create a two tier work force.
There already is one. The last time a fulltime job was advertised in my office was over 7 years ago
I agree, but this agreement would see a group of staff paid significantly less per hour than everyone else.

well that was normally the case, currently a new starter is paid less after 6 months they get a increase and after another 6 months (1 full year) there on the same rate as everyone else.

now they simply want to stretch that process over a longer period of time.

the retention rates of holding onto new staff in RM is abysmal around 5% hence why the dont even issue the full uniform until the new starter earns there strips and is seen as a "stayer" rather then "go'er"

mr hil. · Post by **mr hil.** » 14 May 2017, 10:08

Redacted some previous content.......

All workers should be on the same terms and conditions after an agreed induction period, this is a back door way to reduce our terms and conditions. In a few years RM may decide to call our current agreements "legacy agreements" and we know where that will lead.......

Post by **Lincox** » 14 May 2017, 20:45

I think you will find that the reduction in sick pay to 8 weeks full/8 weeks half pay is for all of you workers, not just new start.

Chitchat · Post by **Chitchat** » 14 May 2017, 20:53

There is no justification for new starters to be on less pay for four years. When i join it was 3months and six months pay rises which i could understand as i was learning the job and learning the sorting. But it doesnt take four years to become a fully contributing memeber of staff. The union have to say no to this!

Post by **Lincox** » 14 May 2017, 21:17

I would imagine that this must come under discrimination regulations. I don,t know how they can get away with this but then we do have a Tory Party in power.

Post by **Godric** » 15 May 2017, 11:41

Lincox wrote:I would imagine that this must come under discrimination regulations. I don,t know how they can get away with this but then we do have a Tory Party in power.

the main reason for Brexit is to get out of the ECHR ... the European Court of Human Rights protects workers rights and protects their right to a company and state pension by pulling out of the EU the UK can pull out of the ECHRs thus reducing over heads for businesses ... this is only the start of the attacks on your rights