Are Angard workers more cost effective?

04 Jul 2017, 17:11

"Angard is an in-house recruitment agency owned by Royal Mail
Group. In common with other large companies, Royal Mail recruits temporary workers
though an in-house agency together with other providers. This is standard practice in UK
industry and enables us to keep a tight grip on our costs"

Agency workers have always been used long term at our RDC.
In November 2016 71 new staff were recruited on a 6 month contracts (Now I month rolling) on various hours over different shifts, Also P.T. Permanent were given the option to go Full Time. This action was attributed to the 2016 survey "We Listened"

This resulted in the early shift gaining 500+ hours while still requiring Agency (Angard) & an availability of overtime.

However since then 200+ hours on the early shift have been LOST due to Transfers e.t.c. .
When I pointed out to my line manager the number of LOST hours he replied "SAVED HOURS". So it appears the hours will be filled by O.T. & engaging Angard workers.

As most Angard workers used are on AWR higher rate I am asking How are Angard workers more cost effective.

The agenda for growth’ states “
“Agency staff are only intended to cover short term, no more than 12 weeks….”
The national joint statement - Growth, efficiency & incentives- affirms the objective of local review;
 To reduce agency & casual staff
 ….To increase part time contractual hours to reflect the hours actually worked & planned

Are Angard workers more cost effective?

09 Jul 2017, 23:16

Have you been in the Angard forum lately?

Are Angard workers more cost effective?

10 Jul 2017, 09:24

Sorry Postman can you specify the point as it's gone over my head !.
I was transferred from Angard 4 years ago & the forum shows no change in how unfairly some are treated.

Are Angard workers more cost effective?

10 Jul 2017, 18:02

No I think he was making a suggestion.

Unfortunately, can't link them all as there is so many but common complaints on Angard forum at the moment is loss of AWR and lack of hours.

So to answer, yes using Angard is more cost effective because even if they do have AWR their hours are more flexible and the resource pool of workers is larger, there is no requirement for sick pay and leave is generally used to keep their AWR current, not to have a rest.

Sadly employing an Angard casual for an hour is probably cheaper than employing a Royal Mail contracted worker for an hours overtime, even when they are AWR qualified. There are less hidden costs for a casual employee than for a contracted one.

Are Angard workers more cost effective?

11 Jul 2017, 16:08

The majority of the 71 recruited in November 2016 were Angard workers. As i have stated our RDC still requires Agency weekly, despite having covered an estimated 1,400 hours p/w with the new intake.

In the survey 2015 & 2016 I commented that the agreements were not being honoured by the fact we had "lost" 400+ hours on the early shift alone & P.T. were not being offered F.T. hours. Management printed a notice after the survey 2016 stating "You said, We did, & took on new recruits & Made P.T.Up to F.T.

Since then hours have been "lost" but the management do not want to give those hours to make P.T. to F.T.", as per agreements, but will use Angard to cover those hours instead.

So the cycle begins again.

Previous page Next page

Page 1 of 1