Any Journalists Trawling this site?/Angard Staffing?

[Aron_Dawson]

I am happier to mailsort than dodge zombies in a supermarket

[Dorset Plodder]

Welcome Scapula... I'd never deny anyone the chance to earn a wage! I'd treat this "Job" as a stepping stone to something better. Hope you find something soon, this company is going down the tube rapidly...and you'll not really learn anything that could be transferable to another trade.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I am happier to mailsort than dodge zombies in a supermarket

wish I had dodged it http://vodpod.com/watch/3774756-dawn-ga ... upermarket" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[fishtank]

I am happier to mailsort than dodge zombies in a supermarket

[Davisb]

""""Royal mail has recently undertaken a comprehensive review of their approach to the use of temporary staff and other flexible resource. As a result of this exercise they have appointed Angard Staffing as their future provider of flexible recourse. Angard will attract and recruit employees, and subsequently manage a pool of employees to fulfil short-term assignments with Royal mail in future.""""

This is a direct quote sent out to all Reeds employees. All mistakes grammatical and otherwise belong to Reeds and Angard. All temporary staff will work for Angard as of the 16/09/11. Angard are not going to pay more than minimum wage nor offer conditions that will exceed their statuary obligations. It is a cost cutting exercise whereby the middle man, Reeds, in this case will be removed from the equation...however a large layer of bureaucracy will have to be added to Angard/Royal Mail and it remains to be seen if they can cope with the thousands of temps currently working throughout Royal Mail.

A very wide back door leading to the complete casualisation of Royal Mail staff has just been opened.

[mailmonkey]

Still no CWU reponse on this...FFS

I rejoined the CWU on transferring to a new office, wanted to be involved in the revision. The revision has slipped in unopposed, no CWU fight at all, no pressure on RM to address overly long walks, members being forced/pressurised into paid/unpaid OT.

I'm leaving the CWU, again, gonna join the Socialist Party instead.

This is unbelievably bad, even for RM.

[Davisb]

It all becomes clear once once a little research is done. My mistake.

As of the 1st Oct the new Agency Worker Directive and Regulations 2010 will come into force. Google it if you want to read the whole thing but the main provision that effects the Royal Mail is the Equal Pay for Equal Work part. This means that they can no longer pay temp workers less than perm workers...However there is a little snag...you have to have been in the job for 12 weeks before benefiting from this clause.

The 12 weeks clause is the reason that new Temp staff are only being offered 12 week contracts by Angard. There is always a way to screw the working man/woman and there is always a boss willing to walk that way.

[Dorset Plodder]

I was going to say UN-believable.... but in this company it certainly isn't! Will these 12 week Temps be on their Temp contract forever more then? It will never be sorted by either the Union or the Posties because there are too many people who can't see further than their own noses and only become interested when something effects THEM!

[kawoxux]

I've always said,better to get a PT job in a supermarket than with RM,the hourly rate is lower but you aint killing yourself for an extra £ or 2 an hr,especially if it's only worth 20 or 30 quid extra a week with the size of the contracts given out nowadays.

I dont know, I'm significantly better off than working at co-operative like I was before.. though I am on a 30 hour contract and regularly work 36 to 38 hours a week, so its full time in all but name really...

[Rizloid]

It all becomes clear once once a little research is done. My mistake.

As of the 1st Oct the new Agency Worker Directive and Regulations 2010 will come into force. Google it if you want to read the whole thing but the main provision that effects the Royal Mail is the Equal Pay for Equal Work part. This means that they can no longer pay temp workers less than perm workers...However there is a little snag...you have to have been in the job for 12 weeks before benefiting from this clause.

The 12 weeks clause is the reason that new Temp staff are only being offered 12 week contracts by Angard. There is always a way to screw the working man/woman and there is always a boss willing to walk that way.

Sorry David, the contracts will continue exactly the same as they have done with Reed ie remain as ongoing contracts. I know this because I have been told by an Angard representative who held a question and answer session at the MDEC involving temp staff.

If 12 week contracts are going to be offered then you need to back this up by directing us to where it says so, otherwise you have just made a supposition.

This doesnt mean that people wont be sacked after 12 weeks however, but nobody has to be on a 12 week contract for this to happen, the ongoing contract means we can be sacked at any time.

[kietr]

Are workers who are supplied by an in-house staff bank covered by the Agency Workers Regulations 2010?

Where workers are contracted directly to work for the business that is responsible for supervising them, they will not be covered by the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/93). It is an essential element of the Regulations that the agency worker is supplied by one entity to provide services to another entity.
Where workers are placed internally by a staff bank, those workers are direct recruits and are not covered by the Regulations. However, if the staff bank hires workers out to other legal entities, the Regulations are likely to apply. This could include another division of the same business, if that division has a separate legal identity (eg it is a different limited company within the same group).

interesting.......

[POSTMAN]

Getting a lot of attention this thread?

[Rizloid]

Are workers who are supplied by an in-house staff bank covered by the Agency Workers Regulations 2010?

Where workers are contracted directly to work for the business that is responsible for supervising them, they will not be covered by the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/93). It is an essential element of the Regulations that the agency worker is supplied by one entity to provide services to another entity.
Where workers are placed internally by a staff bank, those workers are direct recruits and are not covered by the Regulations. However, if the staff bank hires workers out to other legal entities, the Regulations are likely to apply. This could include another division of the same business, if that division has a separate legal identity (eg it is a different limited company within the same group).

interesting.......

Workers supplied in house wont be covered precisely because they are in house staff, they are not agency.

The above snippet you supplied states that workers who are contracted directly to work for the business supervising them will not be covered. Agency workers by definition are not directly contracted because they are agency. In the case of MDEC temps they are supplied via agency to Royal Mail and therefore they will be covered under the regulations.

If in-house staff are hired out to other entities, the regulations are likely to apply, as stated.

The rules and regulations can be found in the link Im providing, it covers everything from what constitutes an agency worker to what provisions are in place to prevent agencies and employers abusing the system.

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/em ... idance.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Davisb]

Well now we have the answer as to why Royal Mail should revive a defunct company. To screw the Agency workers. There are many many Agency workers who are labouring under the belief that the New European Agency workers legistlation will apply to them and that once they complete their initial 12 week period after 01/10/11 they will be entitled to the same pay as Royal Mail workers ie. Equal work = Euqual pay....ha ha ha. The 12 weeks will never begin and what little protection they had under the Agency worker law has been removed. A trawl through the regulations governing in House recruitment law is in order.
Casualistain of the work force just got a a lot closer and I wonder how this step by Angard/Royal Mail stacks up with Union protection of the work force from exploitation via casualisation?

[Arnie2011]

When I heard about the transfer I was quite happy as I tohught that Reed had lost the contract, however I was less happy and more suspicious when I found out a little more detail.

I understand that Plymouth Angard workers will be managed by the same Reed managers that are currently there!

I personally have not seen any new "contract" and we are all being shoved across in an opt out fashion.

The correspondence we have had consists of the same letter three times (minor changes to dates, names and email adresses) and a frequently asked question sheet (none of those questions came up in the meeting).

The original meeting, where we were supposed to be informed about the change, was cancelled and then replaced two days later by someone who knew nothing about the switch (other than what they had been told to say). All questions were answered with evasive responses including "i've been busy" to plain ignorance and the definitive "like it or lump it"

This all smells terribly underhand and we got told in no uncertain terms that "if you dont like it, you know where the door is", infact this point was re-iterated many times during the meeting and after, and again during our "we respect our collueges" meeting.

Can we be transferred with such little information? We certainly have not been given enough to make an informed decision.

Is anyone fighting this? and do they know why?