Wonder if he'll put this up on his rubbish site ??

[Carnoustie]

Out of curiosity, I browsed the H*llmail site to see what slant they are putting on the so-called pay deal that's caused so much anger here, and nationally.

The reporting of the proposals for pensions, flexibility etc is put over reasonably accurately, but when it comes to the actual pay element of the proposals, the site owner was reporting the sh!te initial offer. Anyhow, I sent him this email ...

Dear Sir

I would like you to be aware that whilst most of your article about RM's modernisation plans for the business is correct, the bit about pay is woefully inaccurate and reflects the position of many months ago, which postal workers rejected via a ballot for industrial action. If the credibility of your site as a source for news is important to you, then I suggest you should immediately edit the article to reflect the current position !

The latest proposals for pay offered the CWU three choices:

1 YEAR DEAL
3% increase, backdated to 2 April 2007. However, 0.5% of this rise is funded from the distribution of ESOS monies, and will no longer be paid after 1 April 2008.
(So it's a 3% rise that actually goes DOWN to 2.5% after 12 months)
Dividend of £800, dependant on "on target" financial performance for 2007/2008
50-50 share of savings for better-than-budget performance
Conditional on ALL of the proposed changes - including those on the most contentious issues such as pensions, flexible working etc - being implemented

2 YEAR DEAL
First year:
3% increase, backdated to 2 April 2007. However, 0.5% of this rise is funded from the distribution of ESOS monies, and will no longer be paid after 1 April 2008.
(So it's a 3% rise that actually goes DOWN to 2.5% after 12 months)
Dividend of £800, dependant on "on target" financial performance for 2007/2008
50-50 share of savings for better-than-budget performance
Second year:
2.7% increase from 7 April 2008
Dividend of £400, dependant on "on target" financial performance for 2008/2009
50-50 share of savings for better-than-budget performance
Further 1.5% increase only when ALL of the proposed changes including those on the most contentious issues such as pensions, flexible working etc are implemented
Next pay review date to be 1 April 2010 (in effect, a pay-freeze for twelve months, as no annual pay review on 1 April 2009)

18-MONTH DEAL
Dividend of £800, dependant on "on target" financial performance for 2007/2008
Dividend of £400, dependant on "on target" financial performance for 2008/2009
50-50 share of savings for better-than-budget performance, and
pay increases only when ALL of the proposed changes including those on the most contentious issues such as pensions, flexible working etc are implemented, paid via one of the following methods...

£350 lump sum + 3% increase from October 2007, then a 3.7% increase in April 2008
or
£300 lump sum + 3.5% increase from October 2007, then a 3.2% increase in April 2008
or
£250 lump sum + 4% increase from October 2007, then a 2.7% increase in April 2008
or
£195 lump sum + 4.5% increase from October 2007, then a 2.2% increase in April 2008
or
£150 lump sum + 5% increase from October 2007, then a 1.7% increase in April 2008



Were this dispute solely about pay, WHICH IT NEVER HAS BEEN, several things must be borne in mind when assesing whether these represent an attractive deal or not.
The lump sums that are dependant on 'on-target' financial performance seem to me extremely unlikely to be paid out. Royal Mail accounts will undoubtedly show us making a huge loss for the current financial year, and the postal staff will be blamed by RM's spin-doctors for it. The 50-50 share of better-than-budget savings is also a red-herring, as office budgets can very easily be set artificially high so that no savings are realistically achievable. Especially if there is no discussion with the CWU on a fair method of determining those budgets. Furthermore, I would make the following criticisms of the three proposals

1 YEAR DEAL - even ignoring the fact that 0.5% of this increase will not be paid beyond April next year, a 3% rise is below the inflation rate and thus a pay cut in real terms

2 YEAR DEAL - classic Royal Mail trickery. Reading the detail, and even allowing for compounding of increases, the maximum increase with this deal is 7.37%, over three years, which averages out at just under 2.46% each year

18 MONTH DEAL - our pay review date was 2 April 2007. This 'deal' in effect means we receive no pay increase or backpay for the period April 2007 - Sep 2007

But all of these proposals pale into insignificance when set against the proposals for flexible working, which if brought in, would eradicate the need for Royal Mail to offer overtime in busy periods. Busy periods would see postmen 'paying back' the hours they did not work during the quieter months, at basic pay rates. For many postmen, the loss of all overtime would drastically reduce their take-home pay, to such an extent that these proposals, taken in their entirety, amount to being offered the equivalent of a £1 coin by someone who is simultaneously taking a £20 note out of your back pocket.

Very unlikely to go in the editorial drivel on their site, I know, but I just wanted to set the record straight, in the interests of fairness to our side of the argument

[ianpostie]

i wouldnt have even bothered emailing them mate--h*llmail has always been pro-royal mail.interesting that they closed there postie forums when the strike breakers and managers got out numbered on there by posties telling the truth.also interesting to see that the bloke who runs the site has now appeared on postmanscab,couldnt handle the forums on his own site so goes on there talking sh*te.how many people on here are members on postmanscab?theres a hell of alot of yes men on there!

[smokerjim]

Thanks for putting into simple layman's terms what the structure of the pay offer is - but the main point is about the lack of docket in future. I'm PT - even though I wanted FT & I work on a FT walk - and I only accepted the job on the basis that I would be getting docket without doing anything extra & as it is, I probably earn less than some of my colleagues, even though I spend as long or longer at work, than they do! :lfo :cfo

[genesis]

ITS so obviously a site set up as part of a plan to break the union.

consumer site my arse.

[DirtyHarry]

consumer site my arse.

[/b]Funny you should say that, but it was an ARSE that set it up.