strangler wrote:TrueBlueTerrier wrote:
"Our clear aim in consulting on pensions is to protect our existing people's pensions as far as possible and not increase their contributions - while what the union wants is to keep the scheme open to new recruits, even though they know it will disadvantage our postmen and postwomen who already work for the company."
© Independent Television News Limited 2007. All rights reserved.
Can anyone clarify this? Jafferpants perhaps? Why have we not heard unions position regarding this?
That aside, 6.75% may sound ok but no sooner are they giving this to you and it would seem they are snatching it back in extra contributions, then kicking you up the arse with the extra 5 years you`ll have to work not to mention the money you`ll lose in that time and that`s without the flexibility crap!
The thing that should scare the hell out of anyone is the proposal for annualised hours !!!
People at my RDC (part of the network function) have been used to high levels of Scheduled Attendance and overtime, which make up for the shite basic pay. As I understand the concept of anal-ised hours, when volumes are down, we could be sent home early, but 'owe' the company that time. So, when autumn pressure kicks in, you'd turn up at your usual start time and they'd
tell you 'we want you to pay back 2, 3 or 4 ? hours of that time you owe us, so today you can't go home until such-and-such time.
The cost savings from this would be enormous, because they would be getting the work done at busy periods
at basic pay rate i.e. without needing to pay overtime rates, casuals, agency staff. In fact, overtime and SA's would be a thing of the past, and Royal Mail would have a degree of control over your work / life balance that would as far as I'm concerned be the equivalent of the re-introduction of slavery
And the other thing that must surely be tied-in with this proposal must be to move everyone on to monthly pay, because they must be wanting to cut payroll and admin jobs too, so it's highly unlikely they'd want the nightmare of having to adjust everyone's individual wage each week to reflect the
actual number of hours worked. They'd want us on monthly salary because, as I said, that's dead simple to calculate and pay out when nobody is getting overtime anymore
It's obvious what the effect of annualised hours would be, were it brought in. People would simply not be able to stay in the job. Even if they could survive on just the basic wage, think of the catastrophic effect of trying to plan a family life or social life when you don't know from one day to the next what time you're going to be required to work to.
Maybe that's the whole idea. People just chuck the job in and they achieve the 40,000 job losses without ever needing to pay redundancy payments
TOTALLY AND UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE. WE MUST FIGHT THIS OR THE JOB WON'T BE ONE WORTH HAVING
:lfo :cfo
