FS Role What a waste of Money

[billyhayes]

Will be interesting to see what the turnout is on the ballot.

Well there we are...

Apparently it was just over 50% turnout, with just over 50% of that voting NO.

Therefore the old scheme will carry on.

Don't know anything else as yet.

Apathy amongst the FS ranks almost diddled themselves. The non-voters should be thankful to those that did bother.

[The BFO]

Will be interesting to see what the turnout is on the ballot.

Well there we are...

Apparently it was just over 50% turnout, with just over 50% of that voting NO.

Therefore the old scheme will carry on.

Don't know anything else as yet.

Apathy amongst the FS ranks almost diddled themselves. The non-voters should be thankful to those that did bother.

Thanks - very interesting. Presumably a lot of Management time and expense went it to developing this idea, including yet another conference, so I wonder if this will be allowed to fall? Apathy applies in both directions - managers must surely be concerned about the return gained from the Financial Specialist role. And I mean in general, not specifically our colleague who refers to himself as 'FinancialSpecialist' on this forum.

[FinancialSpecialist]

I believe the reason for the apathy, which definitely exists within FS regarding the commission structure is due to the fact that the majority of us have never seen commission and while the new structure made it look like the most of us would receive less through only receiving half of the branch bonus, it didn't make a huge difference. It certainly wasn't going to incentivise anyone to work harder, if anything it was going to cause further apathy.

I can't understand how it took them so long to come up with it and why the CWU thought it was so great, it was a definite attempt to cut bonus payments. There was also far too little information given about it, we should have at least had some examples of what different FS could potentially earn, instead of just stating that it was uncapped.

[The BFO]

I can't understand how it took them so long to come up with it and why the CWU thought it was so great

The Post Office (now Royal Mail Group) in a nutshell.

[fishtank]

LTB 597/11 - POL: FINANCIAL SPECIALIST COMMISSION SCHEME – NEXT STEPS

No: 597
Ref: 101a
Date: 06 July 2011
TO: ALL BRANCHES WITH POSTAL MEMBERS
Dear Colleague,
POL: FINANCIAL SPECIALIST COMMISSION SCHEME - NEXT STEPS
Further to LTB 586, dated 1st July, I am writing to update you on the situation with regard to the rejection of the Financial Specialist commission scheme.
A Joint Statement between POL and CWU was published on 1st July which stated the following:
"Next Steps following no vote for FS scheme

The result of the ballot was 62% against and 38% for the proposed scheme. Also, only 46% of eligible members voted. It is disappointing that many colleagues chose not to register their view on the scheme.

Following this, it is now important that Post Office and the CWU understand colleagues' reasons for voting no, so a way forward can be agreed.

We will be letting you know how we'll gather your feedback in the next week. In the meantime the current scheme will remain in place whilst we seek feedback.

Roger Gale Andy Furey
General Manager, Crown Network CWU Assistant Secretary"

Clearly, the Joint Statement above is very positive in respect of seeking to understand the reasons why members voted to reject the proposed commission scheme. In this regard, I have now received a response (see attached) to my original correspondence to Roger Gale, General Manager of the Crown Network, which was published in LTB 586, dated 1st July. Crucially, he agrees with the Union's position in his response, as he confirms "that the current scheme will remain in place until a mutually acceptable way forward is found." He also stresses that "one key decision we have made is our desire to continue to work with you and your team to implement a scheme that meets the aims… of increasing sales and rewarding FSs for delivering additional revenue."
Bulletin to FS home addresses

As indicated in the earlier LTB, a direct mailing has been sent to FS members' home addresses. The purpose of this mailing is to seek feedback from members of the rejected scheme asking them to consider the following points:
How do you believe the rejected scheme can be improved?
What do you like about it?
What is unclear?
Your overall views of the rejected scheme?
Members have been given a deadline of 19th July to return their responses.
Going forward, it is our priority to conclude a revised agreement, which members can support in a further ballot. I, therefore, look forward to receiving comments from FSs before recommencing talks on the FS Commission Scheme with POL.
Further developments will be reported in due course.
Yours sincerely
Andy Furey
Assistant Secretary

[FinancialSpecialist]

It is sounding reasonably positive that they are asking for individual responses from FS, this makes it look somewhat like they are trying to create a reasonable scheme that people will be interested in.

I would have been much more likely to vote yes if we had simply been given more information and possibly more time. An example of what the typical FS would earn would have been a great help, or even a few examples.

The principles of the new system are sound, i.e. income in line with branch income, uncapped, tracks and reports cancellations and complaints, etc. The reasoning and presentation of these points was great, but they didn't translate it into £££ which is what motivates most of us, so it wasn't possible to put it into context.

[Another Spartacus]

Tell you what............give us the same bonus scheme as the BM's. How does that sound?

[FinancialSpecialist]

I don't know much about the BM's bonus tbh, I have heard them complaining about it. How does it work?